Thank you.
okay mr chair we have 22 attendees in the room right now you may begin thank you good morning
everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment
i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair ms carol tenere
board secretary confessor plaza and board member mr james snell board administrator mr jason hand
and our board attorney, Melissa Freeman, are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
And I would like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments, concerns, or issues, please bring them to the attention of our Board Administrator, Mr. Jason Hand.
Okay, with that, we'll begin with the 930 add-on list.
number one mi 2021 dash zero zero one one one one one one one nine one seven denny d-e-n-n-i street
uh request for reconsideration my vote is yes uh for uh rehearing a reconsideration must be heard
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes to all of them.
Confessor Plaza, yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
James Snell, yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Number two on our list, MI 2021-001763, 3617 Helen Street, my vote is no to reconsideration
and rehearing.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no to rehearing and reconsideration.
Confessor Plaza, no to reconsideration and rehearing.
James Snell, no to reconsideration and rehearing.
For three on our list, this is a vote only.
MI 2021-001313, 25 Herman Street.
There was a letter of non-opposition from Councilwoman Bass.
There is a proviso.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Trash stored in rear yard.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Confessor Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
on our list, MI 2021-001-169, 723-27, South 17th Street. There is a letter that was sent in by
SOSNA, South of South Neighbors Association, that I will ask Ms. Freeman to read into the record.
Bear with us. It's a lengthy letter. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Chair. This letter is from SOSNA. It's
dated August 19, 2021.
Dear Zoning Board members, the above-referenced application
appeared before the community at the August 18, 2021 meeting
of the SASNA Zoning Committee.
The application is for the complete demolition
The application is for the complete demolition of an attached structure facing Chadwick Street with an existing attached structure with use as three single-family dwellings facing 17th Street to remain.
of an attached.
The erection of an attached structure with three roof access structures and roof decks above third floor level accessed by pilot houses facing Chadwick Street.
The applicant for the project presented to the Saza Zoning Committee and community.
The proposal is to demolish three attached buildings to build three new construction single-family homes on Chadwick with mansard roofs.
The units are part of an existing condo association for buildings on 17th and Chadwick Streets that share a common outdoor courtyard.
The three-story single-family condominium homes will duplicate the existing home footprints to maintain the existing common area.
And because the back half of the lot on Chadwick Street is zoned RSA 5, they do not need to put in duplexes to keep it consistent with existing conditions.
Proposed features in the design are a window transom above doors, two double-hung windows,
a pronounced cornice line between second and third floors, a mansard roof with shed-style
dormer windows, setback of the roof deck with open metal railing, and pilot houses toward the
center of the property. The applicant stated that there are primarily two-story homes on the block
but a few homes receiving third-story additions with roof decks. The existing homes had a keyway
alley that the applicant cannot technically close off so it will exist in the proposed project
to create a legal egress for occupants.
The Sazna Zoning Committee asked questions and made comments.
One member was glad that the Cornus Line and Mansard have been added.
He also asked where the steps to the Keyway Alley will be.
Steps will be completely within the alleyway, used to come out on the sidewalk.
Another member stated their support for replacing these with single-family homes and believed it's
a good use of the site. One zoning committee member requested that signs be placed at the
end of Chadwick during construction to alert drivers that they cannot turn down the road.
A member requested any external lighting be downward facing, that the builder provide water hose spigots to maintain planter boxes, provide street trees where available, and possible trees or shrubbery in the shared space in the back.
The North of Washington Avenue Coalition Zoning Committee asked questions and made comments.
They appreciate that the applicant lined up windows on either side of the building.
A NOAC member asked, what does the condo association share?
Rear yard?
She also asked, what is in the basement?
Open area with a half bath, no living quarters.
And where are the egress windows?
They're in the rear because the sidewalk is too small in the front.
They then proceed to ask how high the egress window is off the floor.
Maximum is 44 inches, window is 5 feet tall.
The floor was then opened up for community questions.
An attorney representing near neighbors asked some clarifying questions about the project.
Should the 8-foot setback apply to third story?
720 South Chadwick had a permit for a third-story rear addition, so they are allowed to go up without the setback.
716 and 718 South Chadwick also has third-story without a setback.
Third story without a setback.
What is the hardship?
What is the hardship to build multiple buildings on one lot?
Existing condo association that originally had eight units there.
This is in parentheses.
Existing condo association that originally had eight units there,
semicolon, undoing condo association that would not be feasible, semicolon.
if subdivision there would still be a variance for the lot sizes because they don't meet
the 1,440 square foot lot size. One neighbor believed that the rendering
shows that the sticks out to the character of the block. Let's see, one neighbor believed
that the rendering shows that the design sticks out to the character of the block. However,
there are some existing three-story homes under construction with mansard and dormers as evidence
in street photos. Another neighbor asked about the location of OPA records. They are in Philly's
Atlas but may be listed under another address. One neighbor asked if the applicant owns all six
properties. Applicant owns some of the 17th and Chadwick. Is the applicant getting zoning approvals
for multiple owners? Yes. How many owners on Chadwick? Two units, one owner, applicant.
A near neighbor asked what the condo association's responsibility.
Okay, excuse me. A near neighbor asked what is the condo association's responsibility and how
did it get to this point of disrepair? Eric represents owner of CA in charge of maintaining
meaning everything outside of the unit, sidewalks, common space, no removal, et cetera.
Wanted to do new construction because homes on Chadwick are old and have had renters.
Believe the neighborhood would benefit from owners.
The same neighbor asked if there would be a clause to prevent them from turning this into rentals
and therefore falling into disrepair.
Can speak to their lawyer.
It was then asked to clarify what assurances the impacted neighbors would have that the property would not fall in disrepair again.
Condo Association is only responsible for the outside of the properties, and it will be new construction.
A neighbor asked about the hardship to demolish them rather than renovating them.
Structures are older and want new construction on the block.
There was concern from near neighbors about whether or not this property owner has paid taxes on this property in the past and whether this condo association will be able to maintain the new properties so they do not fall into disrepair again.
It was agreed that the applicant will take out insurance to protect next-door neighbors from demolition in accordance with City Council Bill 210389.
After the discussion, SOSNA took a vote on the proposal yielding the following results.
SOSNA Zoning Committee in support, 5.
In Opposition, zero. In Abstention, zero. NOAC. In Support, zero. In Opposition, one. In Abstention, zero.
Community at Large. In Support, five. In Opposition, five. In Abstention, one.
near neighbors being a subset of community at large and support zero in opposition five
in abstention zero therefore sasna respectfully takes a position of in bold letters deferral
to reflect a lack of consensus of neighborhood voices on this project thank you for your time
and attention to this matter very truly yours murray spencer chair of sasna zoning board
thank you thank you very much melissa appreciate that all right uh having said that uh mi 2021-001169
723-27 south 17th street my vote is yes with proviso revised plan two papers approved today
my vote is yes with proviso. Professor Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Snell yes for proviso. Number five on our add-on list will be moved to 3 30 and we're doing
James Snell, yes with proviso. Number five on our add on list will be
that because Mr. Holloman is not present this morning but he will be present this afternoon.
Having said that I will now go to the regular list. Case number 11 MI 2021-002 381 3861 Fairmount
Avenue is requested to be continued by Attorney Alan Notkinson as is number 12 on our list MI 2021
that's 002 382 3930 Brown Street continuance request by the attorney Mr. Notkinson.
If anyone disagrees with the request for those two continuances please raise your hand at this time.
Only if you disagree with those two requests for continuances.
Hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you, Jason.
Excuse me, no hands at this time, sir.
Okay, thank you.
I will now ask, would anyone like to request a continuance or withdrawal on the 930 list?
To raise your hand now.
If you would like to request a continuance or withdrawal for the 930 list, please raise your hand at this time.
The Chair, Mr. Alan Nockamson, has his hand raised. I will allow him to speak right now.
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Nockamson. Please identify yourselves by your name and I'll swear you in.
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123, South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yeah, Mr. Chair.
Do you agree to wait the reading?
No, no, no, Carol, Carol.
He's responding to the request for continuance.
oh okay my mistake no problem no problem proceed mr mr mr chair i would uh as a moving party um i
would ask uh that we uh remove from the hearing list uh 3125 north 35th street
we're trying to work with the community on a resolution of this matter
North 35th Street
what number is that on our list
number 10
you're asking for continuance
or attorney moving party
attorney moving party
without any objection
MI 2021-002
north 35th street attorney moving party thank you anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal
on the 930 list please raise your hand
no further hands at this time mr chair thank you okay we'll now go to number one on our regular
Our list, MI 2021-001-434, 1132 South, 56th Street, this appears to be a pro se, Janet
Sharp, and or Sonia Walls.
miss walls has been allowed to speak sir good morning miss walls please spell your full name
and i'll swear you in i'm sorry um chair this is the tanya the administrator mr hand can we
promote her she's presenting i apologize i didn't know you were with us i failed to mention that
earlier no worries here thank you jason hello join coming in as a panelist
miss walls please unmute yourself please
okay can you hear me yes please spell your full name uh sonia s-o-n-i-a walls w-a-l-l-s
you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir are you a property owner yes sir partial okay uh please proceed with your testimony
Okay. Please proceed with your testimony. And if you have any exhibits, please share them with us.
and if you have any exhibits please
Hold on. I'm sorry. I got ahead of myself. I apologize.
Yes, you did.
I apologize.
hi miss waltz have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof
of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes okay you may proceed
okay uh the property belongs to my great-grandmother um my mother received it and
i just recently my mother is um sick so i recently put my name on her deed so that i can help fix the
property up um it's it's been in disrepair for a while now um so i requested um zoning in order to
get the property um to fix it up in order to enhance the neighborhood uh miss walls pardon
the interruption do you have any exhibits to show us what it is you're proposing to do with the
property yes all that was sent to you guys you don't have any of it we we need for you to help
us out by sharing that on your screen okay um i'm on my cell phone i'm not familiar on how i can
share it on my cell phone um my computer network is down right now so i wasn't able to get on the
network because it's down so i had to use my cell phone um ambrose are you on here ambrose is my
engineer are you allowed to allow him to speak he can probably share it with you well he can
share the exhibits but you can speak to them okay um can you give him access so that he can share
What is his name again?
Ambrose.
Can you just ask him to raise his hand?
Ambrose, can you raise your hand?
Probably even promoted to panelists.
Sir, please identify yourself.
I'll swear you in just in case we need to hear from you.
Ambrose, please raise your virtual hand
so that you may be sworn in.
Thank you.
evidently he's not available at the moment chair could we push this one back
let's move miss uh miss walls we'll get back to you uh miss sunkett or one of the other staff
members will work along with you so with that let's let's go to a way that i can just show you
the photos on my phone or no i'm not sure if that's feasible um sir i can look that up i
haven't tried that. He's coming in now as a panelist. Okay. Thank you for your patience.
Ambrose, please spell your first and last name. My first name is Ambrose, A-M-B-R-O-S-E.
and my last name is spelled C-H-U-K-W-U-N-E-N-Y-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you able to share any of the documents, any of the exhibits with us?
Not quite.
I'm on my cell phone, and I'm going to have to see if I can transfer it to my cell phone.
All right. Well, what we're going to do is we're going to move your case back a little bit and you'll work with staff on the technicalities to get you up and running.
Excuse me, Chair. Do you mind me asking if I could learn what kind of cell phone they're using?
Please.
You've got an Android.
An Android? Okay.
I'm on an iPhone.
Okay. Thanks.
Can we wait, Pauline?
or um you can no chair no chair we can continue i agree yes
continue with new cases correct yes yes thank you all right item number two three
four and five mi 2021-002458 1806 east lehigh avenue mi 2021-0024
457-1804 East Lehigh Avenue. MI 2021-002-459-1808 East Lehigh Avenue and MI 2021-002-460.
and MI 2021-002-460-1810 East Lehigh Avenue.
These cases are combined,
either Mr. Nockimson or Kalmenta Amazon,
who will be representing.
Each of these cases have received a letter of support
from Councilman Squilla,
who refers to letters that were sent of support from East Kensington.
Mr. Nockamson, will you be presenting this case?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Just identify yourself. You're still under oath?
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N,
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Mr. Nockamson, do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packets with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCOs? And do you have letters?
Yes, we do.
Thank you. You may proceed.
May I share my screen?
in front of you is our presentation materials for 1804 1806 1808 and 1810 east lehigh avenue
this these properties are located in the east kensington area of philadelphia and as previously
indicated we have a letter of support from ecna as well as well as a letter of non-opposition from
Council Member Mark Squilla, and we additionally have additional letters of support from nearby
neighbors. So in our presentation materials, you'll see the deeds of the property showing
that my client owns them, certificates of tax clearances showing that we're in good standing,
notices of refusal. All of these are RSA 5 properties. We're requesting to have them as
duplexes, each one of them. Just a point of notation, when my client purchased these properties,
the zoning was RM1 as you will see also there's a history of multi-family multi-unit use for
some of these properties that's exhibit four exhibit five are our applications for appeal
exhibit six you'll see our maps of the area we're half a block off of a commercial corridor
on Kensington Avenue where there's public transportation as well with the L additionally
you'll see across the street, you'll see that it's industrial in nature, and you'll then see
photographs of the property in the surrounding area. In those photographs, we'll show you that
it's not out of character to have multifamily use. There's other duplexes and multifamily structures
that are RSA 5 on that block. Then we'll go through the plans and drawings. And then finally,
you'll see, again, confirmation of the letter of support from ECNA, as well as a letter of
non-opposition from the council member as well as letter of support from nearby neighbors.
Again, Metropoli LLC owns these properties.
Could you enlarge those exhibits a little bit, please?
Sure, Mr. Chair. Is that better?
Yes, thank you. And if you're hearing background noise, I apologize for digging up the street
across from where I live. Yeah. So instead of going through all these exhibits, you know,
just you know I'm sure you have a long list I'm just going to show you quickly you know tax
clearance you'll see that for these properties and then the notice or refusal again they're all
the same there's no dimensional variances here we're not trying to overuse the property
we're simply here because these the zoning changed on us from RM1 to RSA5 for each of these properties
Again, you'll see, I'm just going to scroll down, but you'll see that some of these properties
have a history of multifamily use. Here, this is actually a three-family dwelling at one point,
as well as here as well, multifamily structure. And then our applications for appeal.
I'm going to show you maps of the area. Again, these are the properties. We're on East Lehigh,
We're, you know, half a step away, essentially, from a commercial corridor on Kensington Avenue, where the L is.
The properties across the street here are all industrial in nature.
And then photographs of the property.
And these are our properties.
And then you see East Lehigh to the right of the properties.
East Lehigh, and you can see to the left of the properties, you can see the L.
East Lehigh and you can see to the left their properties you can see the L, you can see the
you can see
more industrial use over there. And then you can see 1814 East Lehigh is a nearby RSA5 property
but it's a duplex. 1818 East Lehigh again a nearby RSA5 property that's a duplex. So it's not out of
character to have multi-family use on this block even though it's RSA5. And then just
Again, I'm just going to make it a little bit less, but these are three-story duplexes, keeping traditional brick facades.
Let me just show you, I was going to show you, let me make this a little smaller so I can navigate a little easier with the drawings.
Looking for the floor plans.
Again, for each of the units, the first floor, you go into a vestibule area to the left is
unit one, which has a first floor and then a lower level, and then you go up a flight
of steps for unit number two.
and unit number two is also a bi-level which is you know what's it called common air of you know
living room dining room and kitchen and then it has two bedrooms and two baths
and then here's our letter of support as you can see it's a well-attended meeting
there were 17 people who attended the meeting 15 people either supported or were non-opposition
of the project in particular 13 people supported this project we have a letter of non-opposition
from the councilman and then we have many many many letters of support from nearby neighbors
so with that being said I'm going to stop sharing my screen I'm going to have the owner's
representative Steve virtually raised his hand to adopt my
testimony. Steve, can you virtually raise your hand?
I have Vyacheslav Shlowski with his hand raised. I have allowed
him to speak.
please spell your full name and i'll swear you in yes uh full legal name is vetslav
it's v-y-a-c-h-e-s-l-a-v last name shklovsky s-h-k-l-o-v-s-k-y and i go by steve
thank you i do swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr notkinson yeah steve you heard everything i stated today
i did and is it true and correct it is and do you adopt it as your own testimony i do
and we also have the architect as well if there's any technical questions regarding the floor plans
thank you any questions from the board
and any anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
danny castillo has raised her hand i will allow them to speak at this time sir
hi yeah i just wanted to say um excuse me ma'am please spell your full name um it's danny d-a-n-i
castillo c-a-s-t-i-l-l-o you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes thank you please proceed um i'm i'm a neighbor um i live at 1816 east oakdale
um i think that these projects would really improve the area um that corner is really rough
right now um i've gotten to know steve he also owns some property next to my house he's planning
develop um i really think these multi-family properties um would be great at that corner
get some new people into the neighborhood they're doing a big development down at frankfurt and
lehigh that's going to have all retail commercial space on the first floor i think people will
really enjoy that so i totally support this project thank you thank you anyone else to
testify in this case. Please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, sir.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
good morning chair peter bernard for the planning commission
Good morning, Chair. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
peter please spell your last name please bernard he is in boy is an apple or
this is nancy is an apple or is roger he is a dog you swear to affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do chair please proceed these properties are indicated
for single family residential in the comprehensive plan while the plan recommends no change we feel
that the proposal advances the goal of increasing density within walking distance of transit
stations. Accordingly, we support the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2021-002-458-1806
East Lehigh, MI 2021-002457, 1804 East Lehigh Avenue, MI 2021-002459, 1808 East Lehigh Avenue,
and MI 2021-002460, 1810 East Lehigh Avenue. My vote is yes to all four applications.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes to all four applications.
Confessor Plaza, yes to all.
James Snell, yes to all applications.
Thank you.
Before we go on, have we been able to get number two, Ms. Walls?
Sir, I just got her back in.
She was out for a little bit, so now I can send her the information.
So I would, if Tani is okay, recommend going to a different case.
We'll go to another case. We'll go to number six. MI 2021-0023771920 Alter Street.
Attorney of record is Mr. Michael Yanoff. There is a letter of support from the Point Breeze CDC.
Mr. Yanoff, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand so you may be promoted.
Mr. Yanoff has been promoted.
Mr. Yanoff, please spell your name and I'll square you in.
yes i'm here thank you i'm sorry uh michael's m-i-c-h-a-e-l yanoff y-a-n-o-f-f
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do just uh identify yourself your attorney representing and your address
My attorney, I'm attorney representing the applicant at the 1920 Alter Street calendar number MI 2021-02377. My office address is 610 Old York Road, Suite 340, Jenkintown, PA 19046.
Thank you. Ms. Tenere has some questions for you.
Good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
Have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, as to all that.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you.
I represent the applicant in this matter.
this matter really arises from the fact that my client purchased the property when it was already
in violation of the maximum developable area he was unaware of that but apparently the prior owner
of this property did not obtain the necessary permits from the city of philadelphia as a result
my client was obliged to file the zoning application to increase the or to recognize
the existing condition of a maximum occupied area percentage of lot the allowed in this zoning
district which is rsa 5 is 75 or 562.5 square feet the proposed is 78.75 or 590.625 square feet
which represents an increase of only 3.75 percent or approximately one foot ten and a half inches
above the maximum permitted occupied area.
Mr. Yannis, pardon the interruption. Do you have any exhibits you can share with us?
Sharing, of course, is a major issue for me.
don't you're not alone so don't don't feel bad okay i i do have i have the documents
You're not alone, so don't feel bad.
Okay, I do have...
um somewhere on my screen but i'm not really sure where they would be um
and i apologize for that again because i don't necessarily see them in my documents
uh i probably could use some assistance in that unless
Do you have the document open on your screen now?
Let me do that right now if I can.
I'm not sure that I can.
Do you have it open on your screen, sir?
Well, I know the problem is that I'm working off of two computers and one has this screen
on it and one does not have the documents on it.
Can you email it to yourself and open it on the other screen?
I'm sorry, this is Tanya. Mr. Yanoff?
Yes, ma'am. Do you have an architect? Would it be Rustin?
Ryan Solomeo is supposed to be on this call. I don't know that he is.
Okay, because I see Rustin's hand up. I thought he was assisting you maybe.
Well, he might be. He might be able to help us on this. He may be from Ryan's office.
Jason, can you unmute Mr. Oler so we can see if he's a part of this project to assist?
Hi there. Yes, I am on and able to share my screen of the presentation.
thank you thank you tanya rustin please spell your full name i'll swear you in
i'm sorry chair give me one minute let us promote him sure thank you
he has been promoted
All right, Rustin Ohler, R-U-S-T-I-N, last name O-H-L-E-R.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Yanov, Mr. Ohler will share his exhibits and you can talk us through it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, this document is an overall view of the area in question, which was prepared.
you see view number five is the actual property itself the remaining pictures are the surrounding
area of the property all of which are similar in use as as to the proposed use of this particular
property russ can you help us with this this is this is a this is a view of the property uh
indicating the rear the rear yard depth where the issue is with respect to this the gray area is
the property in question 1920 altar street which is as as the remaining properties are a single
family dwelling um so these are just the floor plans of the property showing what's happening
uh inside as michael had mentioned our client had purchased it uh half constructed in this condition
and our office was the one that noticed the discrepancy
that the property by the prior owner was built slightly larger.
But as you can see from this, it's in line with the adjacent properties.
The rear yard is basically the issue here?
Correct.
We meet the rear yard depth requirement.
The rear yard depth requirement is nine feet,
but the building is slightly over by, I think, under a foot.
the allowable block coverage it's roughly if i may it's roughly one foot over the allowable
occupied area okay all right that makes it easy for us all right um okay any questions from the
board no no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i'll answer this time mr chair thank you planning commission good morning chair
this property peter peter yep just uh when you every time you come on unfortunately just have
every time you come on unfortunately just have to give us your name you don't have to spell it
to give us your name you don't have to spell it just say who you are
just say who you are yeah peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
we feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship and that the request is de minimis
accordingly we support the granting of the variance thank you mi 2021-002
32-377-1920 Alters Street. My vote is yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Professor Plaza,
my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Tanya and or Pauline, where are we with Miss Walls?
Is it okay if we ask her? I sent information but I'm not sure if she was able to access it.
Okay, we'll move on. We'll keep moving on. You'll let us know. Thank you.
Case number 7, MI 2021-001471, 22 North St. Bernard Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney of record.
44th Democratic Ward RCO supports this application.
has been promoted to panelists sir thank you good morning mr jinn please identify yourself
i'll swear you in yes good morning zen jen z-h-e-n-j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite
1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the applicant please swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed mr ms tuneri has questions for
you good morning do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or
referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing including
did i say photos and or plans and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
Yes, to all questions.
Thank you, and you may proceed.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this matter.
This is an application for a new construction at this location.
We have submitted previously copies of the refusal, RCO letter in support, photos, plans, tax clearance, and related documentation.
I want to point out that the refusal is for a single item, and that is for the use itself.
My client is proposing a duplex at this location as part of a new construction.
To better understand why he's going to propose this, we have to understand that while the block itself is zone RSA 5,
this particular block has a lot of multifamily already in existence, and this lot has been vacant quite a long time.
And it's actually sandwiched between what seems to be a daycare use and a multifamily.
Because of this situation, because the 50th Street side are mostly duplexes as well, the community really didn't have any objection to the proposed use.
You can even see in the photograph the two mailboxes of one of the properties right next to the lot in question.
So the one thing the community asked for is that because the block has mostly front porches, that we would incorporate a front porch into the design in a brick facade, both of which my client agrees to.
However, neither change would require stem plants, I would think, because they do not trigger any additional refusals.
We are within all dimensional requirements of the property in our design.
So in that, in vain of that, when we redid the facade drawings, we have now incorporated a
drawing of the porch, which my client will definitely incorporate into the final application
designs. But again, there are no dimensional refusals here. The addition of a porch also
does not trigger any refusals. It is still purely the use that is the refusal in question here.
In the property design itself, I'm going to zoom in a little further so it's easier to see.
I'm sorry, that might be too much.
So we are putting the living space and kitchen into the lower area of the property, the basement,
and the bedrooms on the first floor.
And that unit also has access directly to the rear yard.
The upper unit will be the second and third floor, and that is a combination of three total bedrooms, and there's a roof deck access for the second unit, both for outside space.
and there's a roof deck access for the second unit, both for outside space as well as for
outside trash storage prior to pickup. So the design itself is pretty simplistic. It's simply
a duplex use, and it will be a new construction. I do also want to point out these are really large
lots. We are leaving a 30-some foot rear yard in order to be consistent with the neighbors. We
So, leaving a large rear yard, so there's plenty of space, open space, with regard to this particular property.
Again, the community supports it.
Their only request is that, one, we make sure to incorporate the front porch, and that we would use some kind of brick facade that would be consistent with what the neighbors have.
My client is here, and I believe he can verify my testimony.
As well, I can redirect to any exhibit the board would like to see again or answer any questions.
So, Mr. Jen, just for clarification, there is no revised plan because the porch will be part of the original plan, right?
The exhibit.
Right.
So the porch itself, adding the porch, not adding the porch does not change any aspect of the refusal.
So it's not something that requires stamp plans.
Thank you.
And your client?
Mr. Sean Thomas should be here with us.
Sean, can you raise your hand?
Then I'm allowed to talk.
Mr. Thomas, please spell your first and last name.
Sean, S-H-A-W-N, Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Jin.
Thank you.
Sean, were you present during my presentation to the Zoning Board?
Have you seen the exhibits I submitted to the Board and also heard my testimony?
Can you verify that it is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you. Questions from the Board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
I haven't missed her with her hand raised. I will allow her to speak at this time.
Ms. Trun, may you please unmute if you would.
Jason, she's from Xin Jin's office.
okay thank you anyone else like to testify please raise your hand
no further hands sir thank you planning commission
good morning chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning
at this location. The applicant's hardship claim is not supported with evidence or unique
physical circumstances or conditions of the property. Having a large property is not a hardship.
City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-001471, 22 North St. Bernard Street, my vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number eight on our list MI 2021-00241726 North 3rd Street.
Mr. Patterson is the attorney of record. A letter of non-opposition was sent in by
Councilman Mark Squilla, and a letter of support was sent in by the Old City District RCO.
Okay, sir. Mr. Patterson has been promoted to panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Patterson. Please spell your full name and I'll square you in.
uh good morning uh ronald patterson p-a-t-t-e-r-s-o-n
claire harrison law firm 1835 market street philadelphia pa 19103 on behalf of the honor
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
uh yes i do thank you mr neri has questions for you good morning do you read away the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy uh yes i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with the
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
required documents.
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, I have. Yes, I did.
Okay, thanks. You may proceed.
Thank you.
So this application regards 26 North 3rd Street, and you see in my photographs it's slightly north of Market Street.
It's this building here, Worcester Building.
It's currently vacant and it was last used as a restaurant.
And I'm showing you here to the right of the property.
There's a little alley here, Worcester Alley.
That's kind of a secret alley.
You drive through and you wind up seeing this.
Anyway, you can see on this little photo here.
So when you drive back to the Verita building, this is what the case is regarding.
It's a small enclosure that was being installed so there could be access to the restaurant that's
there. Otherwise, access to the restaurant would have to go through other uses there.
And there's a better view. So to get to the building, you go down north on 3rd Street,
turn down this alley and come to the rear. You see there's really nothing there that would affect
anyone. The building is secluded in the rear through this alley and the building is on 4th
Street. So I'm trying to find the site plan here. So 3rd Street, this is the little addition where
it's being proposed. So we're here for a refusal on occupied area. The requirement is 75 percent.
existing is 85.7 percent we're proposing that little brick addition enclosure which is about
49 square feet which is an increase of 2.21 occupied area bringing this to 87.9 from
85.7 and that's why we're here we did meet with the old city district to add no objection
if i could uh promote mr joseph de mesquita who's uh the owner and i'll have him testify
so while he's going on here is how you would access to the rear and keep driving
and then you'll finally see this rear addition which where you would it would create a basement
access into the restaurant so it could service the restaurant with supplies and the like rather
than going through the restaurant with supplies and trash. Joe, are you there?
Please raise your hand, Mr. Demiskita, so you may be sworn in.
Yeah, click on the raise your hand button.
uh mr patterson it seems like we're having technical difficulties you being an officer
to court will stipulate your client would have adopted your testimony
i see what about what i would have asked him is there anyone else yep i'm sorry he is available
Oh, perfect.
Sir, please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Yes, my name is Joseph DeMesquita.
That's J-O-S-E-P-H.
Last name, D-E-M-E-S-Q-U-I-T-A.
Sir, do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Thank you.
Hi, Joe.
You've heard my presentation, my testimony. Do you agree that it's true and accurate and you
would adopt it as your own? I do. And you see the the photograph on the screen here? I do.
And could, I know we talked, I talked about it, but could you basically describe again
what it is and why it's needed?
what it is and why it's needed yes um the the only uh egress to the basement is through the restaurant
The only...
um in the basement all the utilities are there um and the basement serves as storage
for the residential units above the restaurant. And it has been problematic for years
to access while the restaurant is operating to get in and out. And so COVID occurred and
And the restaurant has closed.
And while I'm in this closed period of time, I thought best was to create a access for the basement so that the residential units above can store their personal belongings.
and that access to utilities can occur without going through the restaurant during, you know,
when the restaurant comes back in operation during its hours of operation.
Joe, in the back there, it's a no outlet kind of driveway access, correct?
And it faces, I guess, a rear-over building that's buffered by landscaping that fronts on 4th Street.
So there's really no adverse impact, we would say, by creating this little enclosure so you could access your building.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay, thanks.
And Mr. Chair, as you mentioned, yes, we did meet with the old city district.
And there is a letter to that effect in my package.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
I see no further hands at this time, sir. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
While the proposal increases an existing non-conformity, we feel that it is de minimis and increases safety in the event of an emergency.
Accordingly, we support the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002417.
26 North 3rd Street, my vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Number nine on our list.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002-319, 2729 Federal Street.
Daniel Rowley is the attorney of record.
There was an RCO meeting.
I'm going to need some clarification.
My notes say the applicant requested second meeting to present the revised plans.
So when Mr. Rowley gets on, you'll be able to explain what is going on here.
he's been promoted to panelists sir thank you mr rowley please spell your full name and i'll
swear you win sure my name is daniel d-a-n-i-e-l rally r-o-w-l-e-y the rally do you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you ms canary has some
questions for you good morning do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax
compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? I have emailed
the exhibits that you listed. We did meet with the RCO. We about at 1032, so a little less than 10
minutes ago. I just received an email with the RCO letter, but it is not in our packet as we
just received it less than 10 minutes ago. Okay, thank you. You may proceed. Okay, so good morning.
My name is Dan Raleigh. As I said, I'm the attorney representing the applicant and the owner of the
property located at 2729 Federal Street in Philadelphia. We are seeking relief to four
items of relief. One is to build a single-family home in the I-2 district. And as I list these,
uh i2 district and as i list these i'm going to start sharing my screen as well
I'm going to start sharing my screen.
the second item of relief is to allow a balcony in the i2 district three is to allow a roof deck
deck setback of 1.5 feet where five feet is required and uh four is to permit a roof deck
access structure with a setback of zero feet where five feet is required we previously had
requested a variance to allow the balcony to be located less than 10 feet above the ground but
we've eliminated that item of relief as I'll discuss in my presentation. So moving through
the exhibits, Exhibit A1 is a copy of our deed showing standing to bring the application. Number
2, Exhibit A2, I should say, is an agreement with the City of Philadelphia for the payment
of our real estate taxes, showing that we're currently in compliance. It's dated September
22nd. Moving to Exhibit A3, these are some aerial photos of the property. The property
is currently a vacant lot along Federal Street located near the intersection of Federal and
Gray's Ferry. You can note it by the pin here. As you can see in this aerial, there's a lot of
unused land in the area immediately surrounding the property. So it's a little difficult
to show in this aerial, but we'll get to it. But the property is actually quite small and
it's triangular and shaped right here. As far as we know, the property has been vacant since
the late 1930s, 1940s. We're not exactly sure, but that's what the records seem to indicate.
You can see in this slide here that despite the I-2 zoning, many of the properties in the area
are residential uses. The northern side of Federal Street here, the 2700 block of Federal Street,
where the property is located, consists solely of residential buildings. And although at the
corner here that you can see, there's a billboard here, that billboard's been torn down, and there's
an approved building permit issued for the construction of a four-story building with
commercial office space on the first floor and six residential units on the remaining three floors.
so there will be some you know commercial office space there uh the southern side of the block is
is a mix of uh some warehouse uses residential buildings as well as at least one commercial
building so the the proposed single family dwelling is not out of character for the
surrounding area there's also some street view photos so exhibit a4 is the zoning map of the
property. And this really gives you kind of the properties outlined in blue here. And this gives
you the best idea of the size and shape of the property. It's really a small triangular piece
right here. And you can see the property is zoned I-2 or industrial 2. You'll also notice that the
property is included in a three-block area that's zoned I-2, but that the majority of the surrounding
neighborhood is zoned RM1 with pockets of CMX2. Single-family dwellings are not permitted in the
I-2 district, and we're seeking relief from that provision. Additionally, because single-family
dwellings are not permitted in the I-2 district, balconies are not permitted. So we're seeking
relief to construct a balcony for the proposed home. Moving to A5, this is a refusal, the refusal
for the application i noted the relief we're seeking and as i said the second item here for
balcony height we have um eliminated with some revised plans that we submitted and we'll discuss
um so this is exhibit a6 this is our application as well as the original plans for the property
um these plans include a site plan as well as elevations that was submitted with our application
we're proposing a single family home um this site plan on the bottom right here you can see the
constraints for the property uh and for development there's really limited area to
build on the property which is really the basis for you know really all of our requested relief
and industrial use does not work here and really it can only be used for a single family home.
The proposed floor plans here for the home again this illustrates how confined we are by the lot.
You can see that because of the size and the orientation of the lot there's simply
not a lot of places to place the stairwell here and the pilot house and it really has to
to place the stairwell here and the pilot house and it really has to be cited you know where
we're showing it. Also I'll note that if you look at the floor plan for the roof deck
right here we are showing a five foot setback from the front of the building however there is
some overhang over the sidewalk so the setback from the building line is smaller it's five
feet at its largest, but it goes down to 1.5 feet right about here. Excuse me. I'll also point out
that our original plans we submitted, we were proposing a garage on the first floor and a
building height of 40 feet. So as we was noted, we did not have an RCO letter. We recently received
These are the PIF and the zoning posting notices, as well as the notices of the meeting.
We contacted, a little history on the background here, we contacted the RCO after the filing of the application.
And the RCO requested that we meet with their board members for what they called an RCO pre-meeting, which we did on June 9th.
At the pre-meeting, we heard from the board members that it was their opinion that some of the neighbors and public may object to the proposed height, as well as the garage on the first floor.
The RCO board didn't take a vote or have a stance one way or the other, but they just wanted to, you know, give us some warning on some potential issues.
So we scheduled our RCO meeting for August 4th.
At the RCO meeting on the 4th, we presented our plans.
Some members of the public objected to the height.
There was a mixed reaction to the inclusion of the garage.
Some of the public spoke forcefully in favor of the garage.
Some were opposed.
They asked us to wait in the Zoom waiting room while we discussed the application.
When they let us back in, they told us that they had voted to oppose the application.
but when we asked for follow-up reasons for the opposition, they did not give us any stated
reasons. So we went back to the drawing board. I'll skip Exhibit A10 for the moment and go to
Exhibit A11. And we decided to revise our plans to address what we think the community's issues
were or would be excuse me i'm getting over a cold um we eliminated the garage uh we lowered
the height to 38 feet and we eliminated that that variance for the balcony height uh the 38 foot
height is within the characteristics of the block 2721 federal street is a triplex with a height of
38 feet and as i mentioned the neighboring lot is uh it was recently approved for a four-story
building with first floor commercial six dwelling units and i spoke to the attorney for that
property and that building height will be uh 44 feet so it will be um significantly taller than
ours uh it's also should be noted we're not asking relief for the height here or or the garage did
not require any relief, although by eliminating it, we did manage to move the height of the
balcony up. So I'll go back to Exhibit A-10 now. And when we made the revisions and shortly after
the August 4th RCO meeting, we attempted on multiple occasions to schedule an RCO meeting,
a follow-up to present our revised plans. We received no response to our efforts.
So we're here today requesting a decision on the ZBA application. Again, we're open to working with
our neighbors and the RCO, but we can't seem to get any response from them. I mean, we did get a
response I guess 10 minutes ago with the letter of opposition but to the extent we the the issues
they raised we believe we've addressed them so we'd ask for a decision because we're facing
uncertainty and can't seem to get a response from them. Let me ask you this that the letter you
received from the RCO recently in the last few minutes, they're basing their decision
not knowing what the revisions are. Is that correct? That is correct because we haven't
been able to get a response from them one way or the other. What's the name of the RCO?
It is Residents Organized for Advocacy and Direction. And this is the letter we just
received it you know a few moments ago you enlarge that a little bit please yeah sure it's
can you enlarge that a little bit please yeah sure it's uh again it doesn't
necessarily state a reason um they just you know okay so they're not aware of any of the revisions
all right um well we did reach out and tell them that you know well i mean but you hadn't had an
official meeting with them okay that is correct um all right do you have a client to to adopt
Yes, Arthur Morton, if you can raise your hand.
Excuse me, I have a Mika Outlaw with their hand raised?
Mika is from the RCO.
I don't know.
Right.
Also, Mr. Rowley.
Or someone else with a hand raised, but they got a Mr. Rowley on there.
I don't know.
I want this person to speak.
Okay, that other person put your hands, put your hand down.
Do I not miss out more to speak?
You don't see an Arthur Morton?
Mr. Raleigh, if your client is here, they would have to raise their hand.
Otherwise, the chair would have to give you another option for your client.
I would represent that Arthur.
Yeah, I was just going to say, if you don't mind,
you being an officer of court will stipulate your client would have adopted your testimony
okay thank you with that i will ask does the board have any questions mr chair no mr chairman
now jason i missed that what was it i think mr author is our president are you yes i'm here
okay please spell your full name sir arthur a-r-t-h-u-r morton m-o-r-t-o-n
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Raleigh, please proceed.
Arthur, did you hear my testimony to the board?
Was it true to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt that testimony as your own?
Thank you. That's all I have.
Thank you. No questions from the board.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
We have Mika Outlaw.
Jason, can you allow her to speak?
Ms. Outlaw, please raise your hand again.
But I'm going to have to speak, ma'am.
Oh, hi.
ma'am please spell your spell your full name and i'll swear you in okay m-e-e-k-a-o-u-t-l-a-w
mika outlaw i swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed okay so i am the president of the rco that um met with mr raleigh
and his client um and the original presentation the community did vote a letter of no support
I do apologize that the letter just got there this morning, but I've had a lot of personal things going on.
As far as them reaching out to us again with revised plans, I never received the email, nor did I receive a phone call.
Now, unless that email went into my junk mail, which originally happened with the first lawyer, Ms. Arbuckle, when she had reached out, I found that the emails was going to my junk mail.
But, as far as I know, I never received an email, nor did I receive a phone call, and they had my phone number, so that if they had sent something out to me again, and I didn't respond, nobody ever called me about having another community meeting.
now well you heard the mr rowley's testimony uh the original objections and correct me from wrong
had to do basically with the garage uh the height of the balcony and i believe there was a third
issue um mr rowley maybe you can so it was the the garage uh the height of the building and then
we eliminated the the balcony height variance when we all of those issues that apparently were
leading to the objection from your community have been taken off the table if you will
Is there still opposition?
is there still opposition there the opposition came from
The opposition came from that, but the opposition also came from the fact that some of the neighbors feel like that these developers, they buy properties, they know the size of the properties that they buy, and then they want variances because of the size of the property that they buy when they buy it.
On top of that, the community members, they're just tired of being inundated with development that the average person in the neighborhood can't afford.
The question was asked, was the owner going to live there, or were they going to sell it, or were they going to rent it?
And the owner couldn't answer that question.
that's that's really not an issue for the board um so again they the height limit is 38 feet which
they can do by right they've eliminated the garage and they removed the balcony again which seemed to
be aside from the other issues you just raised uh the main issues for the opposition those have been
removed all right um all right anyone else to testify in this case
Mr. Frantz-Pierre, please identify yourself, you know the drill, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow board members.
Frantz-Pierre, Council Member Johnson's office.
That's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
i certainly do thank you please proceed yes and before i do i must say you are looking very
spiffy today mr truden i love the glasses um they're right they're al rooker glasses
very very nice i gotta get myself prepared um at this time uh because the rco and the community
i guess they didn't have an opportunity to review these revised plans
at this time the council member does join uh the RCO in their opposition to the appeal
and you know we respect the council council person's office but it seems to me based on
the testimony that the issues that were of concern to the community have been eliminated
or removed from the plan so we'll make a decision shortly on that vote anyone else to testify in
this case. No more here, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Morning, Chair. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for industrial residential mixed use
in the comprehensive plan and has not yet been remapped. We
recognize a hardship for intended use based on the unusual size and shape of the property.
Accordingly, we support the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2021, that's 002319.
2729 Federal Street. My vote is yes. Two pages, Mr. Rowley? Revised plans, correct. My vote is yes
with revised excuse me proviso revised plans two pages approved today. Carol Tenere my vote is yes
with proviso. Confessor Plaza yes with proviso. James Snell yes with proviso. Thank you um where
are we with Ms. Walzer's case? Sir whenever Ms. Sunkit believes it's best for them to retry we can
have them retry. Yes, we can try to promote them, Jason, and see if she can present.
If she's unable to present chair by recommendation would be a short continuance.
Ms. Walls are you out there? Are you able to share your exhibits?
hello hello miss walsh are you able to share your exhibits with us um ambrose the engineer
he's online he's on the phone he has the exhibit exhibits to share with you he can do it now okay
okay let's give it a try everybody's been sworn in okay so it's two devices that we have for ambrose
let's give it a try everybody's been sworn in okay so it's
we're going to be able to do this tanya or i don't know i'm hesitant um let me try promoting both
i'm sorry about this the last meeting we had we didn't have to share exhibits they had everything
so i didn't know we had to do this and i wasn't on my computer i met on my cell phone understood no
worries. Jason, can Mr. Ambrose, could you raise your hand? And Jason, could you try promoting him?
Yes, ma'am. He's declining to be promoted, so I'm not sure what's going on. All right, why don't we
do this? Ms. Walz, we're having some technical difficulties, as you well know. We're going to
go, you can go offline and speak with Ms. Sunkett, or you want me to put that on the record, Tanya,
about continuing this. Could you just hold it for one more after your next case and then we can I'll
talk to him real fast. All right give it a try we'll go to the next case and we'll come back to
one more time. Thank you. Number 13 I believe we're up to on our list. Yes. MI 2021 that's 002
4317 Ludlow Street
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney
of record
Spruce Hill RCO send a letter of opposition
as did Councilwoman
Gautier
and she's coming in now
as a panelist
thank you Keith
good morning
good morning please identify yourself spell your name and i'll swear you won't
rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa
you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
yes thank you ms tenere has some questions for you
Okay. You agreed to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes. Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you. Sure. I'm going to share my screen.
So, the board may remember they've actually already heard this matter once before.
This is a resubmission.
This is the second time we've been in front of the board for the same project.
4317 Ludlow.
The only refusal we have for this project relates to the parking.
Sorry, just very slow to load.
um so this is an application this property zone cmx3 is for the erection of an attached structure
for multi-family household living seven dwelling units with two stacked parking spaces including
one accessory parking space um including with one accessory parking space it's actually two spaces
And the only refusal we have is for the stacked parking spaces. Although I will say if you look at 14800, there's nothing in the code related to stacked parking.
So we weren't exactly sure where this refusal came from. The first time we went around, we proposed a project that was also CMX3 on the same site with eight units and no parking and had a refusal for parking, not providing parking.
At that hearing, as you may remember, the community was still in opposition to the project,
stated they wanted to have parking. The Planning Commission, Mr. Fecto, had said that although
typically Planning Commission doesn't support accessory parking access by a front street,
that at this location they were, you know, supporting the request for parking, and so the
board subsequently denied the variance. We decided we would take it back through, add
parking, and now we're running into the same issue where the community is still in opposition
of the project, even though if you review their letter, I can get to it. It mostly is
I can get to it. It mostly is related to the not using the existing structure that's there.
related to the
The existing structure, whether we keep it or demo it, has nothing to do with this application
or any of the refusals. This existing structure is not in good shape internally, and regardless,
we don't have a refusal for the demolition of this structure. As the board can see from the
photos, the reason we didn't want to provide parking at first is because there's no, on this
side of the block, there's no accessory off-street parking access by a front street. There's no rear
street or real alleyway here in which to use. And there was a tree in the center of the sidewalk in
which we wanted to keep. However, when we went through the first time and we got opposition
and pushback about parking, we decided we had to add parking. We also subsequently reduced it by
one unit um so uh we trying to keep in mind of some of the community's concerns around density
um we met with the rco twice those letters are here um and here's the rco decision letter
it basically says spruce hill met once again with the applicant on 8 19 21 to consider a
revised solution to the parking issue that this is the only question before you the stack parking
solution is not central to our primary objection as stated in my letter 12521 of the zba we are
opposed to the demolition of an intact and habitable property on a row of modest and
attached townhouses um frankly we're mystified by the presence of the applicant in face of united
community opposition and they want you to vote in uh rejection however i just want to most
importantly highlight that uh the the stack parking is not central to their object the primary
objection. And all we're here for is for parking. So we were in a little bit of a conundrum going
in front of the board and getting denied to not have parking and then now we're providing parking
and otherwise we can't do much with this site. It's a CMX3 site that requires parking but doesn't
allow for this type of parking. And I think we were also just trying to account for the testimony
provided by the planning commission which was that they supported front-loaded parking at this
location. Again, I'll just reiterate that I don't see anywhere in section 14 in chapter 800
that mentions anything about stacked parking. So I'm not exactly even sure where that refusal
came for. Nonetheless, we're asking for the board to grant the variance so that we can
utilize this property. And again, the issue of whether we demo an existing structure or not
has nothing to do with this application. I have the architect on as well, Rich Villa,
who can go through the plans. Again, it's probably just worth noting the review of the plans for
stacked parking. If Rich can be promoted, just to look at the design. And then again,
we did reduce the original proposal from eight units to seven units, just in an effort to
work with the community in some of the concerns they had around density, although this is a CMX
three site that permits more than seven units. However, again, trying to be considerate there.
And then we have the owner, Travis Seale, who I'd like to bring on just to testify
about my testimony that I gave today.
So if Rich could raise his hand.
yeah it's been a lot to speak the fellow please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
richard r-i-c-h-a-r-d villa v-i-l-l-a we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed ms pritzker uh rich are you able to share your
screen and just go through the plans um for the board uh yes but my oh here is
I think he's coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
all right can everyone hear me yes and see me or not see me see my drawings
your drawings yes uh the building is a four-story building the front loaded access
to the parking and a front door. There are seven one-bedroom units, all of them in the same vein
as what you see in the rear of the first floor. They are stacked front and back. We are on an
So we are on an alley, not an alley, sorry, an easement on the left-hand side, on the west side, an easement on the rear side.
alley, not an alley, sorry, an easement on the left-hand side on the west side.
Pretty much, it's not much more interesting than that.
It's seven one-bedroom units, and they all pretty much stack on top of each other.
And then we have the parking access from the street.
and rich can you confirm the original proposal that we had um that it was no parking and eight
units so yes the original proposal showed uh all one bedroom units four in the front four in the
back with the stair in the center uh with no parking um and we revised it to show the parking
as uh rachel discussed thank you how do you handle trash for this number of units
As far as where would it be located in the building?
Rich, do you have the floor plans up? We have an area inside the front door that
the ADA landing space is adjacent to an area where we would put
a couple of bins for trash. So it would be inside the building.
and there is no garage door on this so trash can come in and grab whatever they need and then get
out questions from the board no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Okay, Mr. Chair, we have the Spruce Hill Community Association with their hand raised.
I will allow them to speak at this time.
Thank you.
Hello.
Hi, please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Justin Kaplan, J-U-S-T-I-N-K-A-P-L-A-N, from the Spruce Hill Community Association.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Please proceed.
I'm just reiterating the letter that we are in opposition to this project.
Parking is somewhat relevant, but more relevant is as stated that they're taking down an intact and essentially habitable structure.
You know, they're not utilizing CMX3 is a high density zoning district, certainly.
But, you know, the lot itself is not built as a high density lot.
We have a number of bi-right projects going on with multiple hundreds of units around,
so it's hard to understand that this is a hardship.
What else to testify in this case?
We have an Aung San with a hand raised. I will welcome you to speak at this time.
Hi. Can you hear me?
Yes, please spell your full name.
Sure. This is Aung San. I'm the president of West Philly United Neighbors. We are an RCO.
Please spell your name.
Oh, yeah. Yes. A-N-G-S-U-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes. I'm the president of an RCO, West Philly United Neighbors.
this project property is within our boundaries. I'm also a near neighbor,
resides on the same block of this project property and as Rachel has mentioned that this
their second time tried to get the same zoning variance on parking. So
So these same developers seeking this parking variance after their first appeal was denied by the zoning board.
The first time all four RCO, including my RCO, Spruce Hill Community Association, which is a coordinating RCO and another two RCO,
We all sent a letter to oppose this development, to oppose this zoning variance.
And also, Andrew Goodman on behalf of Councilwoman Gautier opposed that at the zoning meeting.
And David from City Planning Commission opposed that.
I'm going to object to that statement because it's on the record that the planning commission
objected to the first variance, which was not providing parking, stating that they would
support parking at this location.
So I just point a clarification.
The only variance on the table prior was that we were trying to have no parking.
The only variance on the table prior was that we were trying to have no parking.
So that was all that was on the table for that.
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Sun.
All right. So before the first CBA meeting, Spruce Hill held a community meeting, RCO meeting.
More than 20 members from my RCO attended the meeting and including 16 near neighbors.
We all oppose that development, this zoning variance.
And this time, Spruce Hill held another RCO meeting, and three RCOs were there.
We all oppose that.
Besides Spruce Hill, my RCO also sent a letter against this zoning variance.
So that should be in the file.
also my RCO held another RCO meeting just two days ago I want to just mention for the record
that we were not notified of that meeting or included in that meeting so I don't know anything
that happened at that meeting okay so noted thank you all right so our RCO had our monthly meeting
so uh you are not a member so we didn't invite you okay uh so it's just for our members um so
for like so what what would be the relevance i'm just going to object on relevance because
we're talking about yeah yeah i'm talking about the relevance because uh most of the members
attend the meeting are near neighbors and uh and all those near neighbors oppose this
environments and they are in the audience they have they raise their hands i i hope uh the chair
we'll wait we'll hear from them mr sun if you can summarize and uh so basically is that i
don't think i don't think there is a hardship for this like providing this uh two parking space
Okay, not the stacked ones. Okay, so after the first CBA meeting, we, in the second RCO meeting, we actually, we proposed to the developer that either we can help him to find tennis if he would keep, keep this like a structurally sound property over there, don't demolish it.
we can help him to find tenants. Or if he wants to demolish it and erect a high-rise four-story
with seven units there, he needs to provide two accessory parking, not a second one.
And there could be a solution that he reduce the unit number to three or four that
But then he only needed to provide only one off-street parking.
But he denied all those kind of solutions.
And we have those like the next door neighbor also is in the audience.
And he is Bangladesh.
We'll hear from the next door neighbor.
We'll hear from him.
Okay, right.
So I don't think there is hardship for providing this two accessory parking spaces.
Okay. Second point is that- Chairman, for a point of clarification, we are providing two
accessory parking spaces. But that's the second one. And the second one means it's just like
one real parking space. That's not accurate. Mr. Eng, are you an architect or a traffic engineer?
I'm not. Okay. So I'm going to object to any of your testimony as you're not an expert on
parking or architecture. Objection is sustained. Mr. Sung, please summarize.
Sure. Okay. So there is no hardship for providing this to accessory parking.
And also... I'm going to object to that again as you're not an expert.
You're repeating, Mr. Sun, please. Okay. And all those properties on our block
are two-story single-family townhome. Okay. I'm also going to... This is not... He's provided no
evidence for that. The first DA meeting is a narrow street and the city council person's office
is trying to remapping this block. And this was wrongly mapped as CMX 3. It's single family
townhome, two-story townhomes. Chairman, I'm going to object to that. In addition, I want to mention
for the record that CMX 3 does not allow for single family use without a variance.
Previously, all those, I mean, currently on this block, all the homes are single-family.
homes are single family i'm gonna i'm gonna also get to that mr sun mr sun mr sun we're talking
I'm going to also get to that.
over each other miss pritzker raised an objection she's allowed to raise an objection we need to
hear what her objection objection is so thank you i'm gonna be objecting to the characterization
that the properties on the block are all single family as mr sung provides no evidence city
records of that and makes a generalization. I also want to point out this is on Ludlow Street
as well and any remapping that is potentially going to happen or has happened has nothing to
do with this case at hand. Mr. Sun, please summarize. We have other witnesses who would like to speak.
Please unmute yourself, sir.
all right so uh in summary our rco is in strongly a position of this zoning variance and hopes the
chair and zoning members will consider the the city of the the community of the senior neighbors
thank you anyone else to testify please raise your hand chairman am i able to bring the owner
of the property on i was not at the most recent rco meeting my colleague brandon savern who's on
was there and so was the client in addition to the fact that uh you'll hear testimony from my
client that he actually tried to convene a meeting with the adjacent near neighbors to which only one
person showed up um so i just want to allow him to be able to speak to some of the comments that
mr ang made about these meetings that we we weren't privy to uh please um is there a travis seal
can you raise his hand
to seal it's been about to talk thank you please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
travis seal t-r-a-v-i-s-s-e-a-l you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you ms pritzker uh thanks travis so i just want you to share briefly with the board
um just sort of the efforts that went into both the first project and more importantly the revisions
that were made in the second meeting um you heard from mr ang and i had mentioned to the board i was
not at the rco meeting but uh you were and so was uh my colleague brandon saverance if you could just
address some of those comments uh specifically around what the concerns were and and keep it to
obviously the issue at hand which is this which is the stack parking yes yeah we uh our initial
proposal was for the eight units without providing any parking um neighbors expressed concerns about
density demolished on the existing structure and also parking
considerations relating to that density upon our refusal in February and also
the recommendation of the Planning Commission that front-loaded parking is
well suited to this site we went back to the drawing board and reduced density
from eight units down to seven so a little over 12% reduction in density we
provided the two parking spaces required in cmx3 for the corresponding unit count and
revised our design accordingly we reached out a number of times to various neighbors both on the
block directly by hand in person i walked the block and also by the conventional outreach
methods that are required by the code in order to have a productive discussion about what we could
possibly do here and some other ideas um we did not receive any productive suggestions back really
just uh no opposition and so just opposition period and uh that that seemed to be the the
position of um of the various rcos we spoke with um regarding the spruce hill meeting that we had
i believe last month that i attended with brandon saverin and rich villa um i don't recall hearing
any specific opposition from the people in attendance aside from the demolition of the
existing structure issue and i would also note that that's as rachel mentioned that's not an
issue here since we were previously issued a permit for the demolition and that's a done deal
as it were um so our revised plan here in summary is to reduce density to try to accommodate the
neighbors to provide parking to try to accommodate the code and just put forth our best foot forward
with this project. Rachel do you have anything else before I go to the next witness? No. Thank
you. Anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand. Is Mr. Goodman out there by any
chance? Yes, Mr. Chair, I will allow him to speak at this time. Good morning. Mr. Goodman,
mr goodman please identify yourself and i'll swear you win andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n
please identify yourself and I'll swear you win. Andrew Goodman.
here representing the office of third district council member jamie gaudier room 586 city hall
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please
thank you mr chair members of the board council member gaudier stands with the community in
opposition of the requested variants um as we were with the previous application at this at this
address last year um we were i was in attendance at the most recent um rco meeting convened by
spruce health community association um and you know i think a lot of the a lot of the concerns
have already been expressed and we would express them as well um this is a structurally sound house
on an intact row in a neighborhood that is generating very handsome economic returns.
So we see no further justification for the granting of this variance, and we would ask
that the board deny.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just would like an opportunity to respond to that.
I know that the applicants are not allowed to speak about financial considerations, so
I would ask that any testimony from any non-experts related to economic considerations be
stricken from the record. In addition, I would also just add that, just reiterate that the
opposition to the project has nothing to do with the parking variance. And also there's been
comments made about whether the building is structurally or not structurally sound. None
of the individuals who have given testimony as to their perceived structural integrity of this
building are experts or structural engineers. So I think a lot of that's just hearsay as I'm not
aware of them conducting any investigation or look into the property as far as just their eyes
on it so i just don't want the board to take that without noting that that's not expert testimony
there's also the lack of lni you know lack of lni um you know uh violations or notices related to
any structural uh deficiencies in the building so i appreciate that but as i'm sure you know we have
over half a million individual properties land in the city of philadelphia alone and lni does not
always have an opportunity to review every single one unless something falls or someone calls and
things like that. So while I appreciate that, I just don't think that the absence of it necessarily
means that the building does not have any structural issues. Thank you. Anyone else
to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand and please provide us with something new and
different. I have a Ms. Armeen Smith here with her hand to speak at this time, sir.
Good morning, Ms. Smith. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
did you hear me i can hear you now oh okay i'm sorry arlene smith a-r-l-e-n-e s-m-i-t-h
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes uh but you did just ask that we don't um
reiterate what had already been said and i'm a committee member of the west philly united
neighbors rco and i was basically um along the same lines as uh mr ang to talk about your
structure so you asked that we not do that but i am and i was in opposition or am in opposition to
we do appreciate that okay anyone else
yes chair we have a mr uh md lytton with the hand raised i will allow them to speak at this time
hello hi please spell your full name uh yes sir my full name is my first name is m d
last name is l-i-t-o-n i'm is the property owner of 43 15 larry street
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir before you proceed just one minute did the court reporter get that spelling
uh my father's name and no no no i'm asking the court reporter if he was able to get you
the spelling of your name yes chair and as well he is appearing on my screen with that spelling
thank you very good thank you okay sir mr mr linton please please uh yes sir i have the uh
Yes, sir. I have the objection about this project. I mean, the next door, I don't know anything how they're doing at this structure.
objection about this project.
So my first objection is I don't allow to do that as a structure because I don't I have a problem about the safety reason.
I don't know what kind of safety demolition they are using.
I just want to object to that concern as we're just dealing with zoning here, sir.
This is a matter regarding zoning as to whether or not this use would be permitted.
If the board were to support this or not.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have, but I think they just lowered their hand, sir.
There was another person, but they lowered their hand.
I'm sorry.
oh wait i'm sorry they put it back up uh mr sheikershan with the hand raised
good morning sir good morning please spell your full name my name is sheikershan s-h-e-i-k-h
last name is kershan k-h-u-r-s-h-n i'm the editor of bangla news in philadelphia
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
And you identified yourself as what?
I missed that.
I am the editor in one of the newspapers called Bangla News.
Okay, I'm going to object to standing.
I don't know what's relevant.
Are you a neighbor?
Can you put your address on the record, please?
4302 Market Street.
Okay, so you're not on this block.
Yes, behind the building is my building.
Behind their building.
you said 40 what 03? I see 4302 Market Street what and what where's your prop is that your
residence that's my yeah and where is that relationship to 4317 Ludlow we are looking
same block there for this is that you're back to back okay yes sir so please proceed
a good good morning everybody my question is that you know this area is the like
if you build up new house or something we appreciate that the problem is for parking
so my request to keep the parking first floor if you keep the first floor for parking
then i think it will be a little bit helpful for the community so we excuse me this is something
a hard pardon me this is the court reporter yeah that broke up you're breaking up you're having a
hard time hearing you sir okay my request is to keep the parking so if they keep the first floor
for the parking it will be good for the community if they don't keep the parking like we cannot
still we have a problem to parking around surrounding the area okay thank you anyone else
just for clarification sir we we are providing parking uh maybe you have not been able to see
the plans but we are proposing two parking spaces anyone else
no further answer this time mr chair thank you planning commission
good morning chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for a lower density commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan
We feel this proposal represents an overuse of the property and is not in keeping with either the district plan or the comprehensive plan.
We recognize that the applicant has brought the proposal more in keeping with the existing zoning than the previous proposal.
With respect to this property, the Planning Commission opposes the granting of the variance.
Can I just, I guess, rebut Planning Commission?
The last time you testified, you had asked for accessory off-street parking access by a front street.
We have now added that, and the property is on CMX 3, and we don't have any refusals for density.
So I'm just confused how you can oppose parking now that we've provided it, which was a direct request on the record,
and then previously have asked for it, and we've now provided it.
I'm just a little confused there at that testimony.
I guess it's more of a statement than a question.
Thank you. All right. MI 2021, that's 002-379-4317 Ludlow. My vote is no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no. Professor Plaza, my vote is no. James Snell, my vote is no.
Thank you. Miss Walls, are we able to go back to Miss
Thank you. Ms. Walls, are we able to go back to Ms. Walls?
We are ready to give it a try, sir.
Let's give it a try.
I'll go ahead and promote Ms. Walls to panelists now, if that is okay, sir.
Thank you.
Ms. Walz. Yes, so Ambrose. Yes, Ambrose is on. He's going to present the papers, the documents.
And you'll talk us through it, okay? Yes, sir.
Mr. Ambrose, please raise your virtual hand again so you may be sworn in.
He himself has now been promoted to panelists.
sir you can unmute yourself there you go okay miss waltz proceed
okay i don't see any documents
sir when presenting can do you see this share screen button along the bottom in green share
do i do i push the share screen it would be whoever's presenting once their document is
open they need to um hover along the bottom and they'll see the green share screen button
ambrose this if you click the bottom you just see the green button for share tap the bottom
well i'm going to do this miss walls we're going to come back to you we have one more case on the
930 list uh hopefully we'll be able to have this uh resolved so let's go to case number 14
mi 2021-002-389-5734-38 old 2nd street uh my notes indicate that councilwoman cherelle parker
acted as the coordinating RCO.
There is a petition in support.
I'm certain Ms. Emerson will clarify that for us
when we get to her.
Mr. Knockinson and or Ms. Colomenta-Amazon
is representing the applicant.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Colomenta-Amazon has been promoted to panelists.
Morning, Ms. Amazon.
Please spell your full name for the record
and we'll swear you in.
Good morning, Chairman. Clemente Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A. Last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Ms. Kamiri has some questions for you.
Hi, good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes, we actually met with the councilman's office as the RCO, and we have a letter of support.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you.
can everyone see my screen yes perfect so again today i'll be presenting 5734 old second street
Our proposal is for a small event space.
The property is currently zoned as CA1.
During my presentation, I'll be going through the lease, the certificate of tax clearance,
notice of refusal, application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the interior
application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the interior of the property,
of the property, as well as...
as well as our proposed plans and drawings. We did do significant community outreach,
so we did receive a letter of support from the nearby neighbors, a block captain,
and we did have a meeting with councilwoman Cheryl Parker's office, and they did state the
community supported the project and the councilwoman will be taking a position of non-opposition.
So we are actually requesting a temporary variance for the duration of the lease,
which will be terminating on April 1st, 2024.
And we have that lease here.
The Certificate of Tax Clearance, our refusal, again, as I mentioned prior,
we are looking to have a small event space.
The property is owned as CA1.
We did receive support from the community because they are looking forward
to having the gap built in this area because there are no current locations
for small meetings.
We have the application for a repeal.
Again, the notice of refusal and project information form.
The map of the area, so we are within a shopping complex and we are actually located right
If you can see my cursor along Old Second.
Here's a view of the front of the property.
The entrance is right here.
View to the right of the property, view to the left of the property.
We do have a designated trash area as well, although we do not anticipate there would
be large amounts of trash generated.
there is no cooking on the premises food will be brought to the property itself we have photos of
the interior of the property as well as the proposed plans and drawings so it is an open
space as you can see from the photos we are proposing to have hours of operation from sunday
through thursday closing at 10 p.m and then closing at midnight on friday and saturday
at the request of the community um as i mentioned we need to meet with council montreal parker's
office. The community took a position of support with the provisals of the hours of operation,
again, Sunday through Thursday at 10 p.m. and then Friday and Saturday at midnight.
And the councilwoman took a position of non-opposition, and this is going to be a
temporary variance for the duration of the lease, which will expire on April 1st, 2024.
Again, we did receive significant community support, as you can see. Ivy Lee, who is the
Black Captains to support this project as well. This is a notice we sent out for that September
2nd community meeting at 6 30 and all of the properties that were notified of that particular
meeting. So with that if I could have my client Shante McCoy raise her hand so she can adopt my
testimony. Mrs. McCoy has been allowed to speak. Hi my name is Shante McCoy
shante spelled s-h-a-n-t-e last name m-c-k-o-y or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes thank you shante did you hear my presentation today yes i did
and is it accurate yes it is and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes and do you agree to
have the hours operation from sunday to thursday at 10 p.m closing at 10 p.m and friday and saturday
closing at midnight yes can you also agree that this will be a temporary variance for the duration
of the lease yes thank you you're welcome what were the terms of the temporary variance
so we're just requesting that it expires by april 1st 2024 so it expires at the end of the lease
april 1st 2024 okay yes okay thank you any questions from the board
no sir no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
hillary emerson has her hand raised i will allow her to speak at this time sir
thank you good morning hillary please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
good morning mr chair members of the board hillary emerson e-m-e-r-s-o-n on behalf of
Councilwoman Sherelle Parker. You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Yes. As you noted, as Ms. Amazon noted,
the council office served as the coordinating RCO in this case, because unfortunately we don't have
any RCOs in this area at the moment. We held a community meeting via Zoom, and the community was
supportive with the provisos that Ms. Amazon stated.
We did also reach out to the 35th Police District
because there have been a lot of safety concerns
in this area and they did have some concerns,
But we are trying to balance their concerns, the community's concerns, but ultimate support, as well as the applicant's willingness to adapt for hours and length of the variance to address these concerns.
but we are trying to balance their concerns.
So weighing all of this together, the councilwoman took a position of non-opposition with the provisos that have been discussed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, sir.
You already asked that, I'm sorry.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
No further answer this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Good morning Chair, Peter Bernard
for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the auto-oriented commercial zoning for this property. This is an existing shopping center. We
believe the applicant has shown that the proposed event space and nightclub will have no more impact
than a restaurant or nightclub would be expected to have. We recommend that the board approve the
requested special exception. Thank you. MI 2021-002380 5734-38 Old 2nd Street. My vote is yes
with the following provisos temporary variants to expire april 1st 2024 closing hours will be
sunday through thursday 10 p.m friday and saturday closing will be at midnight
carol tenary my vote is yes with provisos
professor plaza yes for provisos james snell yes for proviso
thank you thank you we'll try miss walls thank you
miss walls we're going to give you one more try okay okay ambrose could you
include him. He said
he has it up now.
He just needs to unmute himself.
And he has two devices.
Unmute yourself, Ambrose.
No, he doesn't need to unmute. He just needs to present
the plans, the presentation. That's it. He doesn't speak.
And you'll walk us through them. As you speak, he'll move
the exhibits around. Okay.
Ambrose, tap on the bottom and click share.
Okay, so this is my great grandmother's home. She was one of the first African Americans to move in
this neighborhood when a majority Caucasian. It was inherited down to my family. My mother
recently got really sick, so I took over the home, but the house is in really bad condition right now.
And I would like to, and my mother doesn't want to live in a neighborhood, it's still not a good neighborhood, but it's up and coming.
But what I would like to do is to revamp the house and turn it into three apartments for mostly the community, preferable, you know, like a lower income or elderly.
I'm turning it into three apartments, one on the top floor and two apartments, two one-bedroom
apartments on the bottom level. You can go to the next slide. Ambrose. Ambrose.
okay i think he's having some difficulties in moving his slides
yeah i think it's important that we see the configuration yes he has the floor designs i
want to go over the floor designs that's important for us the this this corner house is one of the
biggest houses in that neighborhood on that street. All the corner houses are really huge.
So the top floor apartment, the front door would take you into the top floor where the
two-bedroom apartment would be. And then on the side of the house, there's a door right there on
the side. There would be an apartment. The bottom level would be split in half the two one-bedroom
apartments, one on the left side, one on the right side. The entrance for the apartment on the rear
The entrance for the apartment on the rear will come out of the door.
will come out of the door.
There will be another door placed on that side.
And then the other door will be for the second one-bearing room apartment, which would make it easy for senior accessibility because I would like for those two lower-level one-bearing room apartments to be for seniors.
So I'm just waiting for it.
I'm just telling you about it as we bring up the design.
So here are the designs.
um as you can see this is the the levels of the apartment so you'll have the top floor uh which
would be the two-bedroom apartment it'll go up the steps onto the top floor and then
the the bottom level will be split into the two separate apartments side by side one-bedroom
apartment it'll have the living area down at the bottom and then you'll go up a few steps to the
bedroom and the bathrooms the basement and not to interrupt it the basement and the first floor
would be bi-level two bi-level units correct yes it would be split into a bi-level where um you'll
go up the steps to the bedroom and the bathroom which would be up on the second level um and the
The basement level will have the living area with the kitchen area in that area there.
And they're split in half, so you'll have two apartments, which will be easiest access for anyone that can't do too many steps to get into the apartment.
I would prefer to have them for seniors and then a top level for, you know, a family, a small family.
But I want to keep it in the community because this has been a community home for years.
and it's been in my family for generations so I would like to keep it in my family since my
grandmother purchased it. I'm in the military so I wanted to help my mother out with this
and I also wanted to help generate some income for my mother so I figure if I
renovate the place and change the zoning it used to be rented out into a two
two zoned into two apartments prior but for some reason the zoning had changed and the
neighborhood within the last few years because my mother used to rent the apartment, her house out
for a few years back. But recently they had changed the zoning. So we're in compliance.
I've taken over the taxes and I've paid all the back utility bills on the property. So I'm just
trying to revamp the place and to, you know, make the neighborhood look a little better. You know,
that neighborhood is changing somewhat. There are more people coming into the neighborhood
and starting to fix things up. So I would like to contribute by helping. We did get permission from
the neighbors. We sent out the invites for zoning for a neighborhood meeting and we got
the permission from the neighborhood watch and everybody was in charge of the neighborhood.
um they approved it so as long as um they knew as long as we was keeping it in the family and
we weren't trying to like commercialize the property so but my goal is to just make sure
it stays into the neighborhood and it contributed to help with the neighborhood and also as a
financial income for my mother um as she gets older and and lives into a senior facility
I don't want the place to go into this
Mr. Ambrose, could you scroll down so we can see
two, three, okay, thank you
thank you
any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
I want to take this time, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan.
the zoning map was amended in 2019 from multi-family to single-family at this location
in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan and with support of the
community the applicant's hardship plan claim is not supported with the evidence of unique
physical circumstances or conditions on the property the city planning commission recommends
that the board deny the variance thank you any uh we don't have any correspondence from
Councilwoman, I believe it's Gautier's office, or it might be Kenyatta Johnson, but I think it's Councilwoman Gautier.
Is there any letters from the Councilwoman?
is there any uh any uh letters from the councilwoman's office
chair we have mr uh goodman with his hand raised thank you mr goodman please identify yourself
you're still under oath yes apologies andrew goodman representing third district council
member jamie gaudier's office members of the board we'd ask that the board um grant the variance as
as outlined this morning, given that it enables kind of multi-generational wealth transfer and
the ability to remain in the community. So thank you. Thank you. MI 2021-001-434-1132 South 56th
My vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
I believe that concludes the 930 list.
Is there anyone who feels that they have not yet been recognized for any of the cases that were heard on the 930 list?
If so, please raise your hand.
no answer this time sir thank you is any unfinished business
seeing none uh we'll all be back here at two o'clock thank you okay great all right see you
See you then.
Bye, everybody.
Jason, we're ready.
We need a few minutes.
Just a second.
Take your time.
okay sir we are ready to go now good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our vice chair ms carol ternary board secretary confessor plaza and board members mr thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snow. Board Administrator Mr. Jason Han and our attorney Ms. Melissa Freeman
are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual
hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this
proceeding is being recorded, and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded, and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or
otherwise. Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine, and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. I will
repeat that. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. And I'd like to remind everyone, please do not
attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments, concerns, or whatever should be directed
to Mr. Han, our board administrator for today. With that, I will begin our two o'clock list
with the following requests for continuance number 14 number 14 on our list MI 2021-002200
4801 Fairmont Avenue and I believe as of right now that is the only request for continuance
on the two o'clock list.
Anyone object to that continuance?
Please raise your hand.
I'll answer this time, sir.
Thank you.
I will now ask if anyone would like to request
a continuance or withdrawal
on the two o'clock list to raise your hand.
Only if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand.
Only if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal,
please raise your hand.
Once again, no hands, sir.
It's the two o'clock list.
Okay, thank you.
So with that, we'll begin by hearing case number one, MI 2021-002283, 1021 St. Bernard Street.
Sean Whelan is the attorney of record.
Councilwoman Gauthier sent a letter of non-opposition.
And I understand there may be revision, two-page revision to this application.
Mr. Whalen will be joining back as a panelist, sir.
Whalen, please do identify yourselves by your name, and I'll swear you in.
Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N, Vintage Law, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Thank you. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Ms. Tenere has some questions for you.
Good afternoon, Sean. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
yes yes and yes okay you may proceed thank you very much uh i have hopefully a nice easy one
for the board this morning or this afternoon uh to be first on the list it is 1021 south
saint bernard street let me give you a quick um overview down here by king sessing
recreation center 49th and springfield is the neighborhood
The train tracks go right there. This is a corner property. The issue is simply that this looks like a rear property of the existing house fronting on South 49th Street. However, it is an existing lot. There's no subdivision or anything at play here.
this is a single-family neighborhood. We are intending on putting a single-family house
into this lot. And what you'll see is, again, here's a good indication of what the lot looks
like. It's almost triangular. If you put a, here's our refusal. There are no use refusals.
The refusals that we received are all dimensional because of the odd shape of the lot.
Essentially, as we worked out with the RCO, who I believe is on here to represent their
own considerations, is that if you followed on this lot, all of the setbacks required
for an RSA 3 compliant single family house, you would have a tiny little triangle of 238
square feet to build upon.
um so we actually met uh back in june or july for the first time with the cedar park neighbors
they raised a couple of uh very valid concerns and things that they wanted to see so we actually
i believe the board has this but i'm not sure um our second meeting actually ended up being last
night so uh i know like i said cedar park neighbors i believe is on the call to represent
this themselves but they did send in this letter um which i did forward and they have a position
of non-opposition so we have no opposition from the cedar park neighbors and we have no opposition
from the councilwoman either so with that i'll just show you here's that's south 49th street
the property would be right here on the left uh here's the property again this is i'm a terrible
photographer, but this is just a big bend in the road right there down the street, across the
street. So we're not impacting anybody. That's the train tracks right there. So again, and maybe
I'll zoom in on this. This is really the issue. You see this bend right here. The property
is kind of this almost triangular trapezoidal shape. Again, we pulled back in line with the
primary concern was our side yard setback here with the RCO, although we addressed a number of
other issues and have no opposition from anyone for just a single family house on this.
and have no opposition from anyone for just a single family house on this very awkwardly shaped
lot. So with that, happy to answer any questions the board may have. Before we get into that,
do you have a client to adopt your testimony? Yes, thank you. Board may find David Whipple, please.
Mr. Whipple, if you are in the virtual audience, please raise your hand so you may be sworn
He is the project architect for this matter.
Whipple is on.
Mr. Whipple, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
David Whipple, D-A-V-I-D-W-H-I-P-P-L-E.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Whipple.
All right.
And Mr. Whipple, you are the project architect for this home, correct?
All right.
And did you hear all of the testimony that I presented already?
and is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief uh yes and would you adopt
it as your own i would thank you um question what i offer i'm sorry oh go ahead that's what i was
just offering to do question from the board no mr chair no mr chair no anyone else uh would like
to testify in this case please raise your hand. Miss Kathy Dowdell has her hand raised so I will
allow her to speak at this time sir. Ms. Dowdell please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Sure it's Katherine K-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E last name Dowdell D-O-W-D-E-L-L. You swear if I'm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you ma'am please proceed um i'm here
representing cedar park neighbors we were the coordinating rco for this project um it was a
little bit of a tough one it is a very awkwardly shaped lot and there was no way to make this a
buildable lot without variances we very much appreciated the fact that when the applicant
presented the project in the summer we had some concerns they responded to those concerns um
They didn't have to come back, and they did, which, again, we appreciated.
I think with all due respect to the development team, the only reason we're saying no objection instead of supporting is that, you know, this is a neighborhood of big Victorian houses with front lawns and front porches, and there was just no way to do that on this lot, which we understand.
And nevertheless, we sort of felt there were maybe some misdesign opportunities, but that's not a zoning issue.
From a zoning standpoint, there was no opposition to this project.
And again, we thank the developer for listening to us and coming back with some important changes.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
I see no other hands, Mr. Chair.
thank you planning commission thank you mr chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission that's i-a-n-h-e-g-a-r-t-y you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes sir i do all right thank you members of the board comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the existing residential single family zoning at this location however this is
shallow trapezoidal lot and the proposed dimensional variances offer reasonable relief
from physical hardship city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variances
mr whalen is there a revised plan two pages uh yes chair two pages
mi 2021 that's zero zero two two eight three one oh two one south saint bernard street my vote is
yes with the proviso revised plans two pages approved today carol canary my vote is yes with
proviso professor plaza yes with proviso james snell yes with proviso thomas halliman yes with
Supervisor. Number two on our list. Thank you. MI 2021-002281. 1226 South 50th Street. Rachel Pritzker is the attorney of record. I believe there's some notation about one second meeting was denied.
submitted exhibits refer to revised plans but none submitted yet although we just received
we just received revised plans within the last hour. Ms. Pritzker, please identify yourself for
revised plans within the last hour. Ms. Pritzker.
the record. You are under oath from earlier today. Are you out there? There you go.
good afternoon
r-a-c-h-a-e-l pr-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103
as i reminded you you're still under oath ms tenere has some questions for you
hi do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this meeting?
And have you met with an RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, we met with the RCO.
As the chairman read aloud, I don't know if we have a letter.
We had asked for some revisions, if we could meet with them again to go over our revisions.
and I included an email in the packet where the RCO stated that they spoke with the community
and they would not meet with us again. Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. I'm just going to share
my screen. This is 1226 South 50th Street. This is the refusal. This is a RSA 5 property. It's
long-standing vacant lot and between 50th and concessing and we are proposing new construction,
three dwelling units. The only refusal we have is for multi-family in RSA 5. This is the application.
It's just worth noting that although the block is zoned RSA 5, it's directly adjacent to RM1
which I have up here on the screen, the zoning map. So not only are there properties in the
immediate vicinity that are RSA 5 that are non-conforming uses, mostly on the 5000 block
of King Sessing, which is right here, but also directly adjacent as well. Most of this, all of
this block is RM1. So what we're providing is not out of character. Additionally, it's worth noting
that this is identified by the city's 2035 comprehensive plan as basically the Woodland
And in the University Southwest District plan, in the Woodland Avenue focus area, where the
plan states that 49th Street, which is directly adjacent to this, has the ability to link
neighborhood parks, recreation centers, commercial corridors, trails, and Schuylkill River in
a direct and meaningful way.
This street is one of the few that bridge across the railroad tracks and has public
transit um specifically related uh to the woodland avenue focus area which is two blocks away from
this property um and which is really centered around woodland avenue 49th and grays ferry it's
recommended for higher density the woodland uh avenue area focus area is recommended for higher
density mixed use development that's on page 36 and 40 of the plan which i have included in our
appeal. Again, our property is on 50th and King Sessing and is a longstanding vacant lot
that has some other, like I mentioned, other adjacent multifamily nearby. So we do believe
that what we're providing kind of helps support the plan, helps support the revitalization of
50th Street and in addition to King Sessing and Woodland Avenue. We had met with the
The other thing that was worth mentioning that we had originally proposed these to be three condo units for homeownership opportunities, but we are open to doing rentals as well.
We just were not given an opportunity to meet with RCO again.
Here's the zoning posters for the property, which is all contained in the packet.
The lot is obviously this vacant one in between these two existing structures.
We met with the King Sessing Area Civic Association on the 12th of August, and mostly was people from the block who basically just didn't want to see anything but a single family home.
We tried to talk through the cost considerations as low-income and moderate-income housing.
talk through the cost considerations as low income and moderate income
housing opportunities were mentioned on the call. However, you know, we're trying to explain we were
trying to provide three, you know, homeownership opportunities that would be less than putting up a
several hundred thousand dollar single family home. We also, this is my email to the RCO basically
asking shortly after the meeting on the 12th if we could meet with them again prior to our hearing
on 9-29, saying that we were making some revisions to the plans and we would like to meet with our
group. There was no response to the original emails that were sent. And then finally,
my paralegal reached out and essentially Diane wrote in her email today that, you know, she will
give the information to the community. We sent her the plans and then basically saying we're
willing to change the plans based on the community would be in favor of we gave two options keep the
three units but do rentals instead of condos and set back the third story five feet from the front
with a mansard roof or reduce the building to two units and have them be home ownership units
um so she this is some clarification on her end to what we were asking for um and then she
essentially wrote um they have voted to not have a second meeting so we were not given the
opportunity to meet with uh the community again to actually propose the revisions um i i assume
that uh miss settles who i believe is on the call as well um we'll probably reiterate that but we
did we are trying to work through revisions and just we're not given um the opportunity um
so at this point we've provided both options to the board um we i'll have our architect jeff
and go through them. I know we have a letter of opposition from an affected RCO. But again,
we didn't really have the opportunity at large to speak with the community to be able to make
any kind of revisions or talk through potential revisions. And I will say when we left the first
meeting, we did say, you know, would you guys be willing to speak again? And they had said yes,
which is sort of why we went into the exercise of providing revisions. So it was a little
surprised when we weren't able to to meet again um i guess at this point um would like for jeff
owen to come on just to go through the plans for the record um and then if um board has any
questions we're basically open to either option we'd obviously love an opportunity to meet with
the community but given they said no we're kind of between a rock and a hard place at this point
hey mr owen please spell your full name i'll swear you in yes uh jeffrey owen j-e-f-f-r-e-y
owen o-w-e-n where or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed i'm sorry um jason could you promote mr owens please
Joanne will be rejoining as a panelist.
Joanne, you need to unmute yourself.
Good afternoon.
Okay, you've been sworn in.
Ms. Pritzker?
um jeff are you able to pull up the plans and go through them for the board yes absolutely
thank you rachel should i start with the three three unit option yeah i would just go yeah i
would just go through what we originally proposed and then the revisions okay very good
okay you should be able to see the uh the renderings now
um as rachel mentioned um so we we proposed two different options um the first option is to keep
the three units uh three unit building um the building is three stories high with a uh with a
uh a basement um the first this first option was to set the third floor back five feet from the
second floor. As you can see, most of the houses or all the houses in this particular street view
have an enclosed front porch and are two stories high. Our proposed structure is three stories high
enclosed front porch, one story high front porch, and then also with this third floor setback.
I will also go quickly through the plan as well.
Just to mention really quickly, the setback on the third floor is not because of a refusal at all. It just was a consideration that we added in order to keep up with the concerns.
was a consideration that we added um in order to keep up with the concerns of the community
that is that is correct even though the uh this block primarily is two-story highs uh the adjacent
lots uh is vacant um allowing us um the opportunity for a three-story high building
um meeting the uh height requirements that is not that does not have a 34 setback
Here are some renderings, views of the front elevation, rear elevation with a small walkout
porch and then also a third floor roof deck with a pilot house structure, enclosed stair
pilot house structure to access the third floor, the main roof deck.
Let me quickly go to the actual floor plans.
There we go.
I do apologize for this being a little bit small.
The plan on the left is the basement plan.
So the basement plan, first floor plan, second floor plan, third floor, and roof deck.
As I mentioned before, a three-unit building, primary entry for all three units is off of
the main street front facade where you come to a foyer for access to the first floor units.
You would continue up the stairs to access the second unit which is on the second floor
and also the third unit which is on the third floor. The first floor unit also has living
a dwelling space in the basement. This particular unit is a two-bedroom, one-and-a-half bathrooms.
The second floor unit is a one-bedroom, one-bath unit, and the third floor unit is a one-bedroom,
one bath unit as well. On the third floor, you would proceed again up the stair to the pilot
house structure to access a roof deck on the main roof level of the building. As Rachel mentioned
before, the difference between this proposal and our original zoning proposal was a five-foot
setback on the third floor, which basically just reduced this bedroom on the third floor.
And just indulge me for a second, I will go to our two-unit option.
Again, I'll start with the rendering here. Again, building is essentially the same
three stories with a finished basement. Instead of a five-foot setback on the third floor,
we have a slight mansard setback with a protruding window, bay window on the third floor.
with, you know, with our intent to help soften this third floor elevation to keep more of
a Cornish line along on the second floor, second floor roof line of the of the streets.
And let me quickly go to the, to the floor plans for this particular option.
again the basement floor plan is on the left and then continue the first second third and
roof plan essentially this particular option as we mentioned before now reduces the unit
count from three dwelling units down to two dwelling units um we would uh maintain or
continue to look at these as homeownership dwelling units you walk the main entrance to the building
again is off of the main front elevation you walk into a small foyer where you have entry door to
the lower dwelling units to the right here and or a door that leads you to the main stairs the
building that leads you up to to the upper units the lower dwelling unit again is first floor and
the basement unit. This unit size again is two bedrooms, one and a half bathrooms,
and then we have combined the second floor unit and the third floor together to create one
drawing unit, which is two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and we would maintain access through the roof
stair to a roof deck on the main roof.
thanks Jeff you're welcome um chairman happy to take anything mr owen in your first rendition
Thanks, Jeff.
You're welcome.
of with the three units how many bedrooms were on the second floor
it was one bedroom and it's one bedroom on the third floor correct yes in your second rendition
where you combine the second and third floor and i asked you because the print is very small how
many bedrooms are in that uh it's two bedrooms um and two bathrooms so we so we go from the
original rendition has three units has a two-bedroom unit and two one-bedroom units
and we would go to an option where we have two dwelling units both with two bedrooms
And in the first, again, in the first and second rendition, you're showing bedrooms in the basement, correct?
Correct, yes.
Ms. Pritzker, do you have your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes, Gertie Tepta is on the line.
and chairman uh as you pointed out uh we would be happy to uh not have bedrooms in the basement if
we were uh if that was more favorable to the board we just weren't able to kind of work through those
plans with the community um you see a gertie mr chairman yeah tom let's get the her client on and
we'll come back to you all right thank you thank you to speak mr teffa please
ma'am please spell your first and last name
already you have to unmute yourself
there you go dirty teffa g-e-r-t-i-t-e-f-a you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing about the truth i do thank you miss pritzker uh gertie have you heard my testimony
today in front of the board yes i did um do you believe it to be accurate to the best of your
knowledge and do you adopt it as your own yes i do thank you yeah tom i'm sorry i had to go that
way i'll go back to mr holloman thank you mr chairman is there any way to redesign
to put the uh bedrooms on the first floor and the living room diamond kitchen in the basement
um i'm sure there is uh are you able to speak to that yes i am okay yeah i think that would be
the answer is yes uh mr holliman thank you welcome any other questions from the board
no no who else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Mr. Chair we have a Diane Settles with her hand raised I will allow her to speak at this time
Good afternoon Ms. Settles please spell your full name and I'll swear you in
My name is Diane D-I-A-N-E last name is Settles S as in Sam E-T-T-L-E-S
You swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes I do
Thank you please proceed
First, I would like to say they had, I believe Rachel said that we had received the packet
that she had given to the ZBA.
No, Ms. Diane, I had said that I had sent the revisions for the revised plans to you all.
Oh, okay.
I thought you said you had sent the packet as well when he was saying about the letters
that were required.
Okay, so that's what he was, that's what you said that you sent?
I thought that the chairman had ran off a list of things that you agreed to.
No, yeah, Ms. Diane, the vice chair asked me in the beginning of the meeting if there was a number of documents that I did submit, which I did.
But I said it admitted to the board.
I didn't say that I submitted to you all.
So I apologize for that confusion.
Ms. Settle, so you understand the vice chair, that's a normal procedure.
we ask every applicant to provide us with information regarding their outreach to the RCO.
Okay. All right. I do understand that, but I thought, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
No worries.
First, I would like to say, in one of Rachel's renderings of the poster, first of all,
that poster was copy paper it was like 20 inches on a post it is not still out
it was like 20 inches on a post. It is not still out there. It had rained as our understanding
that they're supposed to maintain that for the 21 days and that has not been maintained whatsoever.
Second, I would like to say that the group did not say at the end of the RCO meeting,
which was on the 21st, that they wanted to meet again. I had reiterated that to Allison who was
there I guess she's their paralegal on the 20 on the um 21st telling her um letting her know that
at her request I will reach out to the affected um community that attended the meeting on the 12th
but I reminded her that at the end of the meeting their vote was not to have another meeting so
when Rachel did when Allison continued to reach out to me I did reach out to the community
and let them know of what the developer was proposing.
They offered several dates,
but none of those dates were acceptable
and they were not interested in meeting at all.
No one has, I just wanted everyone to know regarding,
you have our letter of opposition
and just to reiterate,
if anyone knows or does not know
that there is street cleaning in that area.
There are street cleanings in that area four days out of the week.
And we already are having a problem with parking as it is.
On Mondays, that very same block for the 1,200 and the 1,300 block, they have cleaning from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Then on Tuesday, on the surrounding block, on the 1300 or 1400 block of South 51st Street, there is cleaning from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Then there's cleaning on Thursday on King Sesson Avenue from 49th to 63rd in King Sesson from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
On Friday, there's street cleaning from 54th and Woodland to 49th and Woodland from 7 a.m. to 8.30 a.m.
There's permanent parking on the very street that Rachel showed you beside where this development will be, which is Upland Street.
They have a two-hour parking.
There is also a school in the same area encompassing where this development is proposing to be, B.B. Comergy's Elementary School, which has boundaries on 50th and Upland that has the two-hour parking, 50th and Greenway to 51st and Greenway.
Then it's from the 1300 block, I'm sorry, then from 50th and Greenway to 51st and Greenway, and then from 51st and Greenway to Upland Street, where there is no parking daily from 7 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
So all of this street cleaning, no parking, already presents a problem with the existing neighbors that are on this block and all the surrounding areas.
So every area that I have given to you surrounds this development.
So to put in three condos, which is potentially maybe six cars, is causing a hardship in this tight-knit block.
There are only two lots on this block. One of them is a community garden. So for the neighbors to ask for their tight knit family block not to be disrupted by a three story condo building is we feel is only right.
You have, we have a letter of support from one of the other RCOs. The community has also sent in petitions that are date stamped to let you know how horrendous this would be for them.
I don't believe that I'm the only person on here that is speaking on this property 1226, but as the RCO, I'm relaying to you what we have seen to be a true fact and a hardship, which will be on this block and the surrounding community, because this is a tight community where the blocks, we have multiple blocks where everyone already has a car.
And as she said, okay, this is leading directly from Recreation Center.
This block flows right into a Recreation Center, a heavily used Recreation Center, which, as a matter of fact, is under the rebuild, where it's being revitalized in so many ways.
Also, the library, that is right on the corner of 51st and King Cessna Avenue.
So as representing the RCO, representing the community, that is some of the reasons.
representing the RCO, representing the community, that is some of the reasons why we are opposing
this development. Thank you ma'am. I just want to point out it's Ms. Pritzker referenced there
might be a possibility of revising the plan down to two units as opposed to three. Is that something
you think your community group would want to have a conversation about um at our last
we're between myself and allison they're paralegal i asked them to confirm what do they mean by two
units is because it does the two units mean two floors it doesn't mean three floors and they
confirmed that it was three floors so i made sure i made sure that the community knew that it was
three floors and they were against that they do not want condos you do understand ma'am that
by right he can build the 38 foot height yes sir i do i do what they are totally against
is the three condos that is why he has been refused is that not correct i'm asking the
question is there an opportunity to have further conversation if the developer is willing to reduce
the number of units from three to two are the units condos or apartments well that's a discussion
that you would have with the uh miss pritzker and her client yeah i think miss diane we would be
open to having the conversation which is just what we were looking to do otherwise we're kind
of operating in a vacuum a bit. By right, he can build a three-story. Yes, ma'am. Right. But by right,
he can't have a condo. He can have a condo. He just, the code doesn't distinguish between
rentals or condos, but he couldn't have multifamily, which I think is what you're
trying to say. Yeah, well, multifamily would be either a condo or an apartment. Correct.
so unless is it something that you think you you and your board would
be willing to have a further conversation about
if not you can tell me no i'm just asking well no well they're contacting me now and i must tell
you what they said they said they only want a one unit single family okay a single family okay
Okay. Fair enough. All right. Anyone else who'd like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand. And if you could limit your comments to something new and different,
that would be helpful. Mr. Chair, I have Enoch Amen Rael with their hand raised. I will allow
I don't need to speak at this time.
Greetings, members of Zone Board.
Greetings.
Please spell your full name,
and I'll swear you in.
Yes, my name is Minister Enoch,
T-D-M-O-R-E-L.
That's E-N-O-C-H.
Next word, Tehuti,
T-E-H-U-T-I-O-R-E-L-A-M-E-N-R-A hyphen E-L.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I affirm. Thank you. Please proceed. Yeah, I'm in the capacity here as the Chairman of
Farm Keepers with Southwest Community Zoning Committee, as well as a registered community
RCO with the City of Philadelphia. Whereas on August the 12th of 21, there was an RCO community
meeting held with regards to the case to bar in which the community as well as those affected
our shows had addressed and proposed of uh projects um whereas the community and those affected our
shows as body politic uh proposed the project and agreed to restrict the enormous change in the zoning
code in that historic community that would create a hardship in the future density and will result
in an unrepairable effect in that community further developer did have an opportunity to revamp their
plans to accommodate the community's concern which was at Norvell. Also heard testimony stating that
according to the city plan that the woodland area area is considered a high density.
This particular block is not near the woodland avenue and it's not is it to my understanding it
would it would not be visable to have that type of density in that small block. That area
King Cesson where this block is adjacent to it's a major artery off of King Cesson it is deemed
historic it would definitely change the fabric of that block as just recently uh as testimony
which is mentioned the density around that area is is very high you you really can park because
of the street cleaning and whereas we we oppose developers proposed project and stand uh with the
And whereas we oppose the proposed project and stand with the decision of Ellen and I
and pray to this honorable members of the Zoning Board of Justice Office to be the same.
With that, I yield my mind.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Just for a point of clarification, I had mentioned that the Woodland Avenue area is two blocks from the property.
I just want to make that clear.
Anyone else?
sir i have a pastor brendan van gorder with a hand raised i will allow them to speak at this time
hello can you hear me yes pastor please spell your full name
uh brendan van gorder b-r-e-n-d-a-n-v-a-n space g-o-r-d-e-r pastor at norwood
and i live across the block you swear for them to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes sir thank you please proceed so um i recently moved on to the block um next to
families who have been here for 50 or 60 years um i have a little daughter that's nine months old
we bought the house as you know a single family house looking for a block that would also be
single-family homes. We wanted to be part of a block that, you know, felt like there were
families in each home, and so I'm personally, and my wife, and are both really opposed to it because
this is starting, or this proposal is two units or three units, so it's not, you know, it's not
what this is zoned for. They have to, as my understanding, Mr. Chair Frank, you know better
than I do. But as my understanding, I think they have to provide evidence that they have some type
of economic hardship, like they couldn't, like they couldn't sell it as a two story one family
house. I don't think they can do that, because I know what I paid for my house. And, you know,
I think they could make a profit by just building a two story one family house, like, like the
zoning is for. So I don't think that they've provided any evidence that that they need this
variance, and I'm against it because, like I said, you know, two units or three units, that's going
to draw a different crowd than a family. I know there's a lot of houses for sale around that are
one family, one unit, and so, you know, the two units, the three units, even if it's just two
units, that's going to draw, you know, maybe students or people who are kind of more transitory,
and so I did want to mention also that we've been really active as a block we've gotten
right now I'm actually in front of the lot and there's about 12 of us here we've been meeting
as a block and then we had a great meeting with Miss Rachel and Mr. Gertie and really discussed
you know we heard from their side of what they wanted to do and we we made it really clear to
them that hey we really want our block to stay one family one unit houses uh and so when they
asked us to meet it and they asked us if we'd be open to meeting again and we told them um only if
you would consider you know one family one unit and if not then no um because we're making it
really clear and so when they kind of reached out again we told them you know no we don't we don't
want to meet again because we want this to be a one family one unit um so i think that's basically
all i have to say i think that in terms of what could be done from here is they could sell it
back to us so that we could make it a community garden um you know we would be happy to pay around
the market price of five thousand dollars um or if they don't want to sell it to make it a community
garden again um because i think it should be noted that it's been a community garden for 15 or 20
years so it was never a vacant lot as they were saying um so you know they could sell it back to
so we could make it a garden again or they could build a two-story single-family house like it's
zoned for like uh you know i expected when i uh came to this block uh and like you know following
the zoning court of uh rsa5 thank you uh mr chair the only correction i would make
chairman you're on mute you're on thank you uh the only correction i would make pastor is that
they can build up to a three-story, 38-foot height by right. Not that that is anything
as significant as it relates to your opposition, but they can do three-story by right. Anyone else
to testify? And please, if you can give us something new and different, that would be helpful.
Mr. Chair, I just want to make a statement. Because it would be two family residents or three,
doesn't necessarily mean that they would be transient.
It would be people who otherwise couldn't afford to buy a single-family home.
Especially if there were condos, yeah.
Right.
Chair, we have Andrew Goodman.
Chair, we have Andrew Goodman.
Mr. Goodman, please identify your...
Mr. Goodman, please identify yourself for the record.
I'll remind you you're still under oath.
Yes, good afternoon.
Andrew Goodman here representing the Office of Third District Council Member Jamie Gaudier,
Room 586 City Hall.
Members of the Board, our office stands with the near neighbors on this matter.
I won't duplicate testimony, so I'll just note that I was in attendance at the RCO meeting
and heard the neighbors concerns about the use variants, as well as the lack of building
conformity within the rest of the block. Our office has also since received similar comments
from six additional neighbors who provided individual feedback through our office directly.
And I would just note that I've not seen any of that information. I would just hope in the future
that I could be provided with some of that so that I'm aware of it. And just a point of correction
to the pastor's comment um the property was had a vacant lot um had had a vacant lot violation on
it since 2008 it's now been complied with but it there's no use permit for a community garden so
i'm just was not aware of that use thank you anyone else thank you mr goodman anyone else
we have samantha samantha unmute yourself
please spell your full name and i would ask if you can limit your testimony to
something new and different yes uh hopefully you can hear me my name is samantha rise roberson
s-a-m-a-n-t-h-a-r-i-s-e roberson r-o-b-e-r-s-o-n
hold on please uh we're getting some feedback okay miss rise please spell that the last part
of your name the third part yes uh the my last name is rise roberson so r-i-s-e r-o-b-e-r-s-o-n
you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed
uh thanks so much i submitted a written testimony um so just plan to uh to read that out loud
that I'm a recent resident of the block, but have come together with the community members
on the block who've lived here for upwards of 40 and 50 years.
We knew member of this community with interest in like making a,
making myself a permanent resident of Southwest Philadelphia. So have a shared vested interest
in the community as my long-term neighbors do. So while I'm a relatively new neighbor on the block,
have been the grateful beneficiary of long-term residents' sense of community,
there's sincere interest in supporting new residents moving to the block such as myself.
Many of the neighbors I've been able to develop relationships with have lived here before the
lot at 1226 became vacant in a horrific fire where many lives were lost. Neighbors have worked
through the space to heal that wound and create meaningful connections to overcome the hardship
since then using the space as a garden since 1990 whether or not there's been a permit or zoning for
that the reality is that the space has offered a playground to young people has offered farming
and gardening space to neighbors both young and old and has continued to support as a as a central
gathering place on the 1200 block of 50th street for decades the only reason a lot appears vacant
now is because we stopped utilizing it in that way when it when we were made aware that it had
been sold um i personally when i first moved to the block the summer of 2020 during global pandemic
actually developed a relationship with robert field and and another neighbor of ours aaron by
working on the lot together um so um it's my my feeling that the the project being suggested for
the lot is predatory in the sense that neighbors have expressed over and over um their their
aspirations for what the space could look like to be consonant with the needs um and the future
vision that folks have on the block. And while the developer can do anything by right, the variances
that they're looking at don't meet the unnecessary hardship standard. And a building that could sit
in this lot could more than happily accommodate their needs to make a profit without happening
at the expense of the community. I know you've heard about how the variance alters the consistency
and the character of the neighborhood, and I would let long-term residents speak to that reality.
but it also impairs appropriate use of the adjacent property, and it does truly impose
many negative consequences on the welfare of the community. Also, there are no unique physical
conditions to this space to suggest that you would have to request any variance of any kind.
There's more that we could talk about in terms of profit and loss models, if that's something
that's necessary but i think the reality of of the neighbors being unwilling to meet or
the neighbors being unwilling to meet or not willing to have conversation is um
not willing to have conversation is um
is sort of sort of far flung it's it's been our we've been clear we've been communicative we as
a community have been meeting for months in preparation for this conversation and a long
form conversation and the reality is that the developer and and miss pritzker haven't been able
to um to come to this table with any real significant adjustments to their plan um as
someone who's interested in buying a home on this block as someone who's interested in investing in
long form in southwest philadelphia um nothing that's being offered um in the proposal for the
lot of 1226 is something that i could afford is something that i would be interested in
um i want to raise my kids and send them to comedies and i'm uh really disturbed with all
due respect if you can summarize that would be helpful oh that's all i wanted to say thank you
very much thank you anyone else something new and different please
new and different
we have Tony
Tony you can unmute yourself
am I unmuted now
yes please spell your full name
anyway
I don't want to be long
my name is Tony
wait one second
I live at 1210
Tony, Tony, Tony, please spell your full name so I can swear you in.
Hello?
I think it was removed.
Can you hear me, sir?
I had to unmute myself again.
Yeah, but you didn't listen to me.
Oh, okay, hold on a second.
Yeah, can you hear me?
You need to spell your full name.
Unmute yourself, please.
Okay. Here we go. I'm back. Spell your full name.
Everything, everything is turned up. There should be something. Oh, here, here, here.
Yeah, I'm here. I'm back.
Now that you're back again, would you please spell your full name?
Okay. Tony, T-O-N-Y. Middle name, fax as in D as in dog, P as in pot, H as in Harry,
a as in alpha x as in x-ray last name king as in martin luther king you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed yes i'm excited to be
here um i want to be short as possible because i know you guys got to go but uh listen i i live at
1210 my address is 1210 south 50th street and i save homes in this area because i was born and
raised in this area i'm all southwest philly comedy's all the schools in southwest philly
freshman center so i'm not someone who recently moved into the community and one of the things
that i know when i that i know when i was growing up is that there's always been a single family
um uh uh neighborhood but i want to quickly uh mention a point that that any any three-story
structure here would definitely definitely change the character of this block if not the whole
neighborhood and all of these houses are have been single family for as long as i can remember
and they all have the original let's talk about architecture they all have the architecture does
does not play into this i know sir let me yeah go ahead i must have said it a half a dozen times if
not more anybody who person purchases that property if they want to build a single family
home they they can build up to 38 feet so they could put a three-story structure
by way on that lot okay okay um well tell us something we haven't already heard
okay well uh i'm going to show you something that you haven't seen
hello hello we're gonna move on uh i know somebody in council accused me of cutting people off but
that's okay next witness please you have a robert with his hand raised i have a excuse me chair this
is tanya just for fyi we have seven individuals with their hands up so we can proceed as you
wish but just a note thank you something new and different dude he's a prick we're gonna try it
you're echoing do you have two devices on
hello yes sir please spell your full name
hello yes sir please spell your full name uh full name robert fields r-o-b-e-r-t last name
fields f-i-e-l-d-s do you swear a firm do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes the whole truth please proceed i've been on this block for over 52 years
left here came back uh when i came back we had a guard the garden like you said this this garden
was this this lot was never vacant it was a garden for the community for the young and the old
but it's not a city owned parcel it's privately owned and i understand the garden but you have
no right no one has a right to claim that as their own unless you own it so the garden i understand
It's a part of the community. The community should have made a decision at some point, and I mean this respectfully, to purchase it and maintain it as a garden or work with the district council person to get the city to take the property and allow people to use it as a garden.
as you spoke as you spoke of that we try to uh purchase the property but it was denied by the
next door neighbor miss uh iris um she she she tried to purchase it and the city said no
let's let's move on tell us what it is that we already haven't heard at least
a half a dozen times as to why you're opposed to this application
something because it will uh ruin the flow of the ruin the fabric of the neighborhood
basically it would all right understood all right uh with the rentals and stuff like that we have
homes on this block that been rented that been in and out in and out in and out and this this
would be no different. With all due respect, Chairman, I'm going to object. That sounds
like speculation. It is total speculation. Sorry for speaking over here. It is total
speculation your objection is sustained uh the the asking price
hello robert you have to unmute yourself there's another one please next witness
thomas ball you can unmute yourself
i'm not able to allow him to speak because he's using an older version of zoom yeah i see that
how about elizabeth denise
unmute yourself miss denise hello yes hi this is elizabeth delise
please spell your full name ma'am yes e-l-i-z as in zebra a-b-e-t-h elizabeth my last name is
DeLise, D as in dog, E-L-I-S as in Sam E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, ma'am.
Absolutely.
So I wanted to share that over the course of the last month or so, we've been soliciting
and obtaining signatures from near neighbors, people living within 250 feet.
We've gathered 92 signatures.
We have also gathered 231 signatures in the broader area that are against changing this zoning.
I also wanted to share that one of our main concerns is, people have mentioned this, I want to elaborate, is affordability of these units.
at the initial meeting we were told that they would be estimated at 200 to 250k each for each
unit i wanted to share i'm sorry here this is on this block i'm sorry again if i could reiterate
that we're only sure entertaining zoning testimony thank you chair okay okay absolutely
Absolutely. Thank you so much for reminding me. So, what we are saying is that the applicant
is not offering evidence that a single family dwelling would be economically viable.
Thank you. Anyone else?
i'm con i'm sorry i'm confused was the statement that were
i'm i'm sorry i'm confused was the statement that we're not offering evidence that a single
family is economically viable i think she meant to say the other opposite okay okay i just didn't
know if i yeah i i heard it the same way but okay the chair and settles with her hand raised
i have a lot or mr thomas ball rather he's been allowed to speak mr ball please
please proceed spell your full name thank you my name is thomas ball t-h-o-m-a-s last name ball
b as in boy a l-l you swear i can tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed hopefully it's something new and different i mean that respectfully
I truly understand. I just think it was great to note that it was brought up about the zoning
on Upland and 50th. That zoning is different because it is only considered for schooling.
Everything else on that block and around that block is zoned the same as an RA5. That was all.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Ms. Settles, you can unmute.
That was already testified, didn't she?
Yes, she did.
I think she did.
Testified early on.
Anyone else who has not yet testified?
Okay, we have Louis.
Hello, can you hear me?
Mr. Baum, please spell your full name.
L-E-W-I-S
B-A-U-M
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
I would like to talk briefly about the unnecessary hardship aspect of this case.
A use permit,
But the code that describes what the zoning board needs to look at for a use permit talks about physical hardship only.
So the person that raised the idea of economic hardship was not speaking exactly about the code.
But as a side interest, let's talk about economic hardship for a moment.
i'm just gonna object chairman if we could speak to zoning speak to zoning sir i mean
if you've been listening a couple of other people have attempted to do the same thing
okay well let me speak to the zoning okay let me say that um if if it's not possible to build a
single family house on this plot on this lot why is the city have rsa six which allows an even
smaller lot for single family is there's nobody ever going to be able to build an rsa six lot
i think that's a question for it's a rhetorical question of our city
you should you should speak to your district council person
and i would just add mr baum that we were more than happy to talk about the financial
considerations of the project but we were not asked to do that in the meeting and we
could have done that in a second meeting and would have been happy to provide pro formas and any
additional issues that was not requested of us um to be fair okay if i may i would like to just
talk about two more items um actually three uh just as a point which i'm sure you agree with
that the zoning for this this lot does not allow a multi-family dwelling of any height
that the variance is seeking they're seeking a variance for multi-family yeah the board's aware
of that mr bong that's the purpose of this year my second point is that the uh the concept of the
least difference the solution is supposed to have the uh the least difference from the current
zoning. So if the solution you're going to present is supposed to be least different,
then why do you have three floors? It could be two. And why do you have a roof deck,
a roof which causes all kinds of problems in neighborhoods? Finally, I would like to mention
And the concept of self-imposed hardship, as was mentioned, the property is probably
The, as was mentioned, the property is probably worth around $5,000 now.
worth around $5,000 now.
I'm going to object to the assessment of the property.
I don't think that's just something somebody else said.
I will, the city's records say it's the value at the time it was purchased was about $3,400.
They paid $20,500.
I'm sorry, Chair.
Where are we going?
This cannot continue.
all right we're gonna we're gonna in in just finish up sir and then we're gonna move on please
sir you can unmute yourself and speak to the zoning only okay thank you
so in summary there is no unnecessary hardship according to the code thank you
good thank you okay at the risk of getting myself I'm not talking about the rest of the board
criticized for cutting off the testimony in this case I'm going to move on and ask the
planning commission for its recommendation
thank you Mr. Chair Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission
I wanted to not belabor anything here I just wanted to offer a counterpoint to
the council's position that this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan it's not
the plan adopted by the commission was very purposeful and intentional about recommending
that this block remain rsa5 because of the low height small lot size and predominant single
family use of the block and the surrounding blocks there's no change recommended to the zoning
in the comprehensive plan and the applicant has not demonstrated any evidence of unique physical
conditions of the lot to support a claim of hardship adjacent buildings at 1222 1228 and
1230 south 50th they're all two-story single family structures and so there's not a lot of
evidence of adjacent non-conformities either the city planning commission is going to recommend
that the board deny this variance thank you very much mi 2021-002 281 1226 south 50th street my
vote is no. Harold Tenere, my vote is no. Confessor Plaza, my vote is no. James Snell,
my vote is no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no. Thank you. We'll now go to case number
three, MI 2021. That's 002-209. 1423 South Phillip Street. Mr. Mockimson is the attorney
for the applicant I believe Mr. Paul Toner is the applicant is the attorney for the protestant
protestant is Jacqueline Heffron there's a letter of opposition from Councilman Squilla
and I believe we were awaiting a letter from Pennsport Civic which we may have
received a letter in opposition from Pennsport Civic I was told by Ms. Saleta about a half hour
or so ago there's been a revised plan so Mr. Nockamson you're still under oath please identify
yourself and proceed. Yes good afternoon Mr. Chair members of the board Alan Nockamson A-L-A-N
last name Nockamson N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N 123 South Broad Street Suite 1600 Philadelphia Pennsylvania
1 9 1 0 9.
Alan, Ms. Tenere has questions for you.
Mr. Nogamson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, we do.
And the letter is actually in our packet.
mr chair members of the board great you may proceed all right thank you may i share my uh
screen please yes you may we like screens uh i apologize we have another contentious
potential contentious matter but um my name is alan occamson i represent v2 properties
and i'm presenting 1423-25 south phillip street excuse me chair pardon the interruption this is
court reporter i apologize but i just noticed that if this is going to be of some length i'd
like to take a minute to change the batteries in my backup if that's okay yes please just
one moment let us know when you're not pardon the interruption no worries
Thank you.
Thank you.
thank you chair thank you mr notkinson please proceed yes again we represent v2 properties
in this proposed erection of a single-family home in the pensport area of philadelphia we're here
solely because of our request to put a front-loading garage here everything else is as of right this
a single-family home on an RSA 5 property. There are no dimensional refusals. The only refusal that
you're going to see is for the front-loading garage. Most importantly, we're not taking a car
off of the public street. We're actually helping a situation in terms of taking a car off of a
public street by way of the front-loading garage. You'll see in our packing materials the deeds of
property, certificate of tax clearance showing that B2 properties in good standing with the
city with respect to this property. The notice of refusal showing the one refusal, as well as
the street review approval. The streets department reviewed this. They have standards with regards
to front-loading garages, which pertain to standard vehicles. They found that there was
no issue in terms of the tourney radius, and they put no conditions on our request for a
loading garage conceptually it's up to the board obviously to grant this variance under the
Philadelphia zoning code you'll see our application for appeal maps of the area photographs of the
property in the surrounding area a particular note across the street it's another off street
parking spot so it's not out of character to have off street parking on this street
then you'll see our plans and drawings which we'll go through we do have revised plans
In order to accommodate and to alleviate any issues in terms of the turning radius, which there aren't, but in order to do it even more, we've increased the width of the opening of the garage from 9 feet to 12 feet to match the actual curb cut of 12 feet.
We believe that goes above and beyond.
We took 3 feet of interior space to alleviate any potential concerns that there would be.
And then finally, we do have correspondence from the Penn Sports Civic Association.
there are two nearby neighbors that spoke to this the first ironically is the person who has off
street parking who was against the project do as I say not as I do sometimes what we see in
community meetings and second second was the person who was to the left of us who Mr. Toner
represents who's against this project but again from what we heard they were against this project
because she doesn't want any single family or construction onto the right of her.
She would prefer it to remain a vacant lot and mainly dealt with construction issues,
which are non-zoning related and which we were willing to address.
Deeds of property showing the V2O is the owner of the property.
Certificate of tax clearance showing that we're in good standing with respect to our obligations to the city.
Our notice of refusal, we actually are combining two lots, 1423 and 1425 South Phillips Street
as part of this application, putting a single family structure, trying to put a front loading
garage, and the one refusal that we do have is because obviously that's not allowed as a fright
and we're asking for a variance. The streets review of our zoning plan, which shows most
Most importantly, no conditions, again, I have the architect for this project who will
testify if necessary regarding the returning radius or application for appeal.
Where we are from a zoning perspective, you know, we're between Reed and Dickinson and
and second pneumonia menzing where we are from a google map perspective and photographs of the
second emoyementing where we are from a google
property uh as you can see this is the property is current stead uh this is a vacant lot uh at the at
the dead end oh oh might pass all those pictures sorry i'm just having technical issues here
That's a picture, here we go. I don't know why my computer is slow. This is a picture
across the street 1420-22 South Phillip Street of nearby off street parking, which is literally
across the street from us. And then this is if the board should grant our variance request
by way of proviso, we would ask that we increase the size or the width of the garage opening
to 12 feet. We provided these plans both to Mr. Toner as the attorney for the individual in
opposition to this project, as well as to Ms. Saletta, who stated that there were no issues in
terms of the proviso plan form. Mr. Notkinson, could you go back to the photograph that shows
the property across the street? Yeah, sure.
I'm sorry. Is that a carport?
That's a carport to the left of it. I wish I would have had a better picture to the left and right of it.
But that's a carport.
And yes, that's a carport.
Thank you.
And I may want to go on Google Earth just to show you a fair and accurate description of the property.
Mr. Chair, I know that you know this part of Philadelphia very well.
It's one of those smaller streets, South Villa.
So I don't want to misstate that this is a normal-sized street.
But as you can see, one individual who lives on the street parks his car on that street by accessing Phillips Street as well.
But I want to make sure that the board has a fair and accurate description of what that street looks like, because I don't want to, like, you know, misstate anything.
Okay, then show us the picture.
Yeah, yeah.
All right.
Let me, yeah, let me, let me do that.
Hold on a second.
Let's see.
Hold on.
South.
computer slouch
I apologize for some reason
my computer is rather slow um all right so i'm going to share my screen again
if you can see and i'm having just problems with my computer a little bit
but this is the street uh to the right of us is we only see a blank screen there you
came up now all right yeah so i apologize i'm having problems maneuvering this on google
but i i got at least to the point where i'm at is you to the right of us is the um is that parking
head and to right here to left of us is the our our our uh lot but you can see this is not the
widest of streets admittedly but again someone else uses this for parking as well and my
understanding if memory serves me right from the community meeting is the individual who parks at
1420-22 it may even be an SUV that they parked there just for the width I'm not saying you know
the width of the street so to show that an SUV can go down there so I'm just going to hit stop
share, I'm going to continue with my presentation materials.
Okay. Can you see my screen?
yes all right all right so you can see here this is where the attorney radius is
no we can't see we can only see i'm sorry you're you're okay i see it now all right i'm sorry
I'm sorry you're okay I see it now all right I'm sorry I'm looking at the frontal view but
i'm looking at
I was gonna make this rather large so it's easier that would be helpful
oops and again technical issues here
But as you can see, and these are plants that are actually stamped by the streets department.
But this is our, you know, showing the proper turning radius to get into our garage. So again,
this is the only variance request, I would be more than happy to go through the floor
plans and everything else but this is just a traditional single-family home um but you know
in in you know in terms of time i know that where we'll be proceed with the parking issue yeah so
um in terms of the letter that's the only thing that's left
is this is the letter from pensport um i thought that you had it but you know
yeah and we could just and we could just you know quickly read it so
um so the board knows exactly where things are um but i said the i'm just reading the bottom part
of it uh you know the applicant met with the penn sport civic association and penn sport community
on june 7th to present this design for this parcel in addition to our board the meeting was
attended by emilia jason neighbor and the neighbor across the street phillips street from the subject
lot our understanding from the presentation materials provided is that the only variant
sought is for a curb cut for interior parking space.
Our board and the attending neighbors ask numerous questions mostly focus on accessibility
in general construction the neighbors and the tenants express opposition to the proposal
So based on a concern that because Phillips Street is very narrow, vehicles traveling down Phillips to access the proposed interior parking would inevitably damage their property.
They believe that vehicles would need to drive on their curbs to access the interior parking and that vehicles would strike their steps or homes while pulling into and out of the interior parking space.
although one of the what you happen to know pardon the interruption again would you happen to know
the width of the street curb the curb i i do um you know what i would just ask it may be helpful
because i'm having technical issues is for uh the architect uh chris can you virtually raise your
hand it may be easier for him because he probably has the drawings in front of him rather than me
going back and forth because my internet is rather slow today for some reason chris can you virtually
Mr. Hockamson, do you know the width just off the top of your head?
I don't.
That's why I don't want to.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, so.
Just to be promoted.
It's really narrow.
Hi, this is Chris Karakoff.
Chris, hi, Chris.
Please spell your full name.
I'll swear you in.
Chris, C-H-R-I-S, Karakoff, C-A-R-I-C-K-H-O-F-F.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Chris.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Yeah, I was just going to speak quickly.
The street width, six foot nine is the actual cartway area.
Curb to curb, right?
Curb to curb, correct.
Thank you.
And Chris, you prepared the site plan, is that correct?
That's correct.
And you received that street letter approval, is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
And it's your understanding that that site plan meant all requirements from the streets department to have an interior front loading garage, right?
Correct.
Yes, they approved. They require a turning radius be shown on the plan in compliance with the AASHTO standards for a passenger vehicle, which is what we show on our plan, and they approved it.
Okay, and then you also prepared revised plans today to increase the width of the garage opening by three feet. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay, and that will even help further the turning radius matters with respect to that garage.
Hi. Mr. Chair, the other thing that I do have, we did take video. I had my client. This is a vacant lot. There's no curb cut there. I have video of them taking one of their smart cars as well as a sedan to show that they could go into their lot.
All right.
Now, Mr. Chair, the other thing that I do have,
try to keep the width as the width of the nine feet, not the 12 feet.
And again, it's hard to, you know, turn left onto, you know, a property where there's no curb cut.
And there was, you know, it was elevated and not flat, and it wasn't too great.
And even then, you know, they had obviously challenges because of the elevated sidewalk.
But they were still able to show that they were able to maneuver their cart in and out of the spot.
Now, I can show the video.
I know that Mr. Toner has a similar video.
So I would ask the board if they want to see the video now or they want to wait until Mr. Toner makes his case.
Let's get Mr. Toner on with his case and then we'll figure that out.
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Toner, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Thank you very much.
Paul Turner with Orphanese and Turner.
We're counsel for a adjacent property owner, Jacqueline Heffron, who's the owner of 1421 South Phillip Street.
Spelling of your last name is T as in Tom, O-N-E-R, correct?
That is correct.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Chair, could we please pause for one second? This is Tanya.
and could we please promote
Mr. Toner as he will be
presenting
he's going to promote
it ma'am
Paul you have to unmute yourself
thank you Mr. Chairman
since Mr.
knocklinson left off with reference to the video i think it'll probably be helpful we just show the
video um may i share my screen please do
we can make that screen wider i can't this is the best quality we have i actually have this
the whole video mr chair that go down phillip street into the parking uh into onto the property
and then to get out of it that may be a better and fair that might be better this is a little
bit difficult so i would ask that the um board promote uh clementa amazon to a panelist just
so she can share her screen and to show the video i mean i cannot um comprehend this and there's a
fire plug. Yeah so this is actually the most important part of this video and I'm done playing
the video right now but the fire plug is right within the rear backing out turn from the garage.
The other really important aspect of this video was when the property was initially starting to
back out of what would be the parking space. You'll notice that it actually hit the wood column
that marks the edge of the property line.
So this video I can represent to you
is of the actual applicants directing a car to move out.
And even with three people directing
this relatively small hatchback,
he still hits the side fence wall
and he's essentially backing right up
into the fire hydrant at the end of the block.
And ultimately ends up on my client's sidewalk at 1421.
yeah mr chair what i would state as to that that's my client's house right there that he's
up driving on yeah well mr chair as i would state as to that we are backing out of a property which
has an elevated sidewalk uh out of a dirt lot um and you know if we would have a curb cut
And, you know, if we would have a curb cut, you know, we would be able to do that.
you know we would be able to do that
Additionally, we have videos of two types of cars that would back out.
One is a smart car, which would probably be the one that would actually back out.
Because, you know, given the size of that street, what would be reasonable and appropriate for someone who's buying that house would be a car of a smaller quality, like a smart car.
We have no way of memorializing that.
But, I mean, they can buy any kind of car they want.
Oh, no, I agree.
You make a valid point if they have a small car, but that's a big if.
Yeah, I'm not saying that, obviously, there's restrictions on this.
But, you know, reasonably, someone who's going to buy this house is going to have a smaller vehicle.
But I think it would be fair to show, you know, the entire – I don't think that angle gave it justice.
Like, again, we have the same type of video that goes from beginning to end, which shows both the smaller car as well as the bigger car.
Again, most importantly, the streets department, under their own guidelines, approved this garage conceptually with no conditions.
If I could just move on with some additional points.
I'm going to try to keep my presentation.
Mr. Turner, please.
So this on the screen right now is the applicant's Z1 plan, their zoning plan.
you can see the zoning radius it comes out of the proposed curb cut goes from south to north
what's not shown here are two important things one is not shown how the property backs up as
we just saw in that video there is no indication of the radius to back out of the proposed parking
spot and also significance there's no reference to the fire hydrant that we saw in the video that
the hatchback was essentially hitting and so uh even their own zoning plan has a couple complications
in it, namely that it has no depiction on how a car will ever exit the garage, and it
doesn't include one of the most important physical elements of this block, which is
the fire hydrant, which is going to block any car moving out.
In terms of the type of car that's being proposed, Mr. Knucklesom fairly stated that any car
could really be parked here.
What they chose to include in their floor plans was not a hatchback or a smart car, but an SUV.
And I note that the dimensions for this parking space, this interior parking space, is 10 by 19, which is a very large space, certainly much more than you would ever need for a smart car or a compact car.
And if I could move on to a couple of documents that I presented to the Board in advance.
The record reflect I've now put on the Zoom Neighbor Exhibit A, which is a series of pictures.
A-001 is a picture of the subject property, the two parcels that are proposed for development
on the right hand side where my cursor is. On the left hand side is my client's property.
This is from the open air parking spot across the street that was referenced in Mr.
Knockamson's presentation looking at the proposed development.
This is a picture of Phillips Street looking down from Reed Street. The dimensions for the
width of Phillips Street from the architect's plans. It's actually a variable width street.
It goes from six feet seven and a half inches to nine feet or six feet nine inches. So it's not
just six feet nine inches the entire way. It's a variable street. And this is a picture of the
property looking from south to north, north being Reed Street. And you can see the car that's coming
off of the perpendicular street which is Garrett Street any car that makes any kind of turn here
is driving up onto the sidewalk area and of note this sidewalk here is the property of the city
of Philadelphia's parking lot not any single family home. A close-up at A5 of the very narrow
of Phillip Street. A6 is the end of Phillip Street showing the fire hydrant, the adjacent
property owners with their flowers. And then A9 is the double lot open air spot that exists
at 1422 through 24. Of note this is over 22 feet in width so anyone who's making a turn coming in
and out of this double wide spot is going to have a much wider radius to make that turn safely
and appropriately as opposed to someone leaving the proposed development with the
and appropriately as opposed to someone leaving the proposed development with the 11 or 12 foot
curve cut and the garage opening of what was 9 feet in which they're proposing to increase to 12.
As I mentioned earlier at the at the northern end of Phillip Street there's a large city parking lot
where neighbors are able to adequately park their cars.
this is the perpendicular garage street at 812 as you'll see there's not a single
parking space here or all street parking space
and for the record this is exhibit neighbor exhibit b which is the google aerial and right
where my cursor is right now, it's Phillip Street as it comes off of Reed, Geyer Street
which we just saw in the pictures is where my cursor is right now and at the very end
is where the proposed development is. I do note that Penn Support is opposed to this
project rightfully so. This is creating a turning radius that's not acceptable for
kind of single-family home on such a small block in the city of Philadelphia. So our understanding
that Councilman Squilla is also opposed to this project and my client continues to be opposed to
the type of parking setup that's being proposed. Mr. Nockam said at the beginning of this presentation
referenced that my clients are opposed to any development. That is certainly not true. My
clients live next to single-family homes at 14, 23 through 25. As she was growing up, she's a
lifelong resident, has been there since the 1950s. She herself has owned and improved this property
throughout the entirety of her life. As the neighbors in here know this family very well,
the famous band of brothers, Babe Hefford is her uncle. This is a family that's been here,
knows the community knows what's safe everyone who is a part of this community from councilman
squilla to penn sports opposed this project for a good reason and with that i have no further
questions and if the board has had my client adopt my testimony you said your client on then we'll
get back to mr notkinson miss heffern yes did you hear my statements to the board today yes i did
do you agree with my statements and their factual accuracy did i misstate anything no do you adopt
those statements as your own absolutely i do thank you i'm sorry i have to swear her in
just give us your full name spell your full name and i'll swear you in jacqueline j-a-c-q-u-e-l-i-n-e
heffron h-e-f-f-r-o-n do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do sir you've already given your testimony uh that you adopt mr toner's
testimony, so we won't need to do that again. Mr. Notkinson.
Yes, a couple items. Again, this is not unheard of that someone's driving down South Phillip
Street. Mr. Toner, during his testimony, indicated that it would be difficult to turn on to
South Phillip Street. My understanding is that the individuals who own the property with the
off-street parking have an SUV. In terms of the illustration, I don't know if that illustration
indicates it's an SUV that you know that's in the garage so I don't know what where he gets that from
thirdly I would like to show the if Mr. Toner can unshare a screen the video that's a fair and
accurate description rather than just that little section of it to show exactly what you know what
what can be done on that street.
So I would ask that the board elevate,
oh, I see, Ms. Amazon is on.
And again, just to point out,
we're dealing with an elevated sidewalk,
so it's not easy.
Plus, we're dealing with a dirt vacant lot,
which you know again adds its challenges but as you can see um and and by the way the other thing
is to for time purposes this is at one and a half speed that was saved so I just want to you know
make sure that the board actually knows that that's the speed that you know the video showing
is actually one and a half speed of that so I don't know why anybody would want to be jumping
curves like that but no i don't know they would have a curb cut if yeah we're just trying yeah
no i'm just trying to show because i was trying to show the board because it's the easiest way
no i'm just trying to show because i was trying to show the board because it's the easiest way
yeah which is hard so this is this was a hard scenario but i wanted to show
we also have a smart card which it was much easier to do obviously so it can be done
but you're dealing with a you know an elevated curb here which makes it really difficult to back
out so even with even with those challenges we were able to do that and the people who live at
420-22
I guess it's 424-26
you know
are parking in and out every single day
well I just have to interrupt
again but I understand
the curb cut would make it easier but now
looking at it coming out of the garage
what do you do with where the
rear tires are jumping the curb it's not
your client's property
no I hear
you and that's
that's a dead end
and he just
went on the property
of 1421
to execute that
all right okay
and the fire officer
all right Mr. Nakerson do you want to get
your client to adopt your testimony
sure Mr. Archer can you virtually
raise your hand
don't have to speak
Mr. Archer, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Bill, B-I-L-L, last name Archer, A-R-C-H-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Notkinson.
Yeah, Mr. Archer, you heard everything I stated today.
Is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Chair.
No. Anyone else to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Okay, we have a caller with the number ending in 2-1-9-8. I can allow them to speak if you wish.
The caller with the phone number ending in 2-1-9-8, please identify him or herself.
hi hi it's megan andrews m-e-g-a-n-a-n-d-r-e-w-s you swear affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed i just wanted to give you
the measurements of the street and um the other person gave that to you that was my only that was
my only hand raised you want to give us the measurement you said no when i raised my hand
before they were asking the measure of phillip street i apologize but you have it so everything's
fine thank you thank you anyone else to testify in this case
caller we have a patrick uh fitz maurice i can allow him to speak at this time sir
mr fitz maurice please spell your full name i'll swear you in
Patrick Fitzmaurice, P-A-T-R-I-C-K, F-I-T-Z-M-A-U-R-I-C-E.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Good afternoon, board.
My name is Pat Fitzmaurice.
I'm the president of the Pennsport Civic Association.
Just a point of clarification, we did submit our letter to ZBA, the applicant and councilman
school's office, on August 31st.
I'm actually a little upset that Alan took my thunder when he read most of our letter in,
so I'll try to keep it brief. As noted by the applicant, we met with the applicant and we
opposed the application. In addition to basing our opposition on the strong opposition from the
immediate neighbor and neighbor across the street, we independently arrived at our opposition based
on our belief that a driver attempting to access the garage could not be expected to access safely,
consistently, without damaging the curb, steps, or properties of the adjacent neighbors.
If the applicant wants to show a video of the car pulling in and argue it shows a safe pull-in,
then it must also address that for every pull-in, there's a pull-out. And the video of the pull-out
speaks for itself. The driver almost strikes the opponent's parcel. He almost strikes the rear
curb and plugs. He almost goes on the curb across the street. And the angle shown by the applicant
doesn't show this, but perhaps the opponent wants to show the full video. When pulling out, the
driver rides on the opponent's curb. And this is all with someone directing the driver while he
drives extremely slowly in daylight. I failed to see how someone could be expected to safely
navigate this street during the life of the garage. Alan said it would probably be a smart
car utilizing this, but Mr. Chairman, you hit the nail on the head with your comment that it could
not be expected that the owner would only use a small vehicle. Despite changing the size of the
Despite changing the size of the curb cut, the applicant did not change the dimensions of the garage to suit only smart cars, and the reason is obvious, because the garage can and will be used by vehicles of all sizes, including large vehicles.
curb cut, the applicant did not change the dimensions of the garage to suit only smart car.
Alan stopped reading our letter when we began to discuss the neighbor with the carport, but I think we need to talk about it.
If that needed a variance, that predates my tenure with the Civic Association, and I don't know what went on there.
Our board raised that carport at our community meeting.
The owner said he can't access his carport without riding on his curb.
While the applicant may characterize it as do as I say and not as I do,
I like to think of this as it's my property and I'll break it if I want to.
The opponent doesn't have the cardboard and the video clearly shows her property will be affected.
In conclusion, our board had our monthly meeting last night and agreed that we should voice our opposition live
to convey our serious concerns about this application.
We fail to see any hardship requiring a variance and we hope the board denies this request.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Anyone else?
I'm no further ahead at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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.
Vehicular access to the property is indeed constrained by the narrow street and by the lots location at a dead end.
however the street width does not provide enough room to turn a vehicle around without encroaching
on the sidewalk which appears to pose a threat to the fire hydrant as many of the testifiers have
pointed out. This applicant is not entitled to an off-street parking spot either. The City Planning
Commission would recommend that the board deny the variance. Thank you. MI 2021-002209
1423 South Phillip Street my vote is no. Carol Tenere my vote is no. Professor Plaza my vote is
no. James Snell my vote is no. Thomas Howellman my vote is no. We will now move to case number four
MI 2021 that's 00211 1501 Master Street. Meredith Ferlinger is the attorney of record
I understand that Councilman Clark's office acted as the coordinating RCO and I'm also
been told that Mary Jones will be representing the council president in this matter.
Mr. Chair when you called out the calendar number it's MI-2021-002311.
wrong i apologize no apologies necessary okay all right uh meredith or mr bovay who was
oh you've got meredith today i got meredith okay i think you've got him later i'm sorry
yeah well my it's a bad day all the way around for me all right uh please proceed with your
testimony. Meredith Ferliger, F as in Frank, E-R-L-E-G-E-R of Dilworth Paxson, 1500 Market
Street, Suite 3500E. Can you confirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Okay, Ms. Denary has questions for you. Hi, do you also agree to waive the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I waive the reading. I don't stipulate to its
accuracy i will address that okay great have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all of the above i i believe
the letter was just sent this morning i'm hoping you have it from um mary jones from the council
president's office i haven't seen it yet but okay i i can bring it up it was a letter of non-opposition
subject to some provisos which we will be helpful that will be she'll be here uh yeah here i still
think i'm in the building okay you may proceed thank you uh good afternoon mr chairman members
of the board uh just to address real quickly the issue of the accuracy of the referral um this is
something that we continue to bring up. It says that the request here is for single-room residence,
which as I've addressed in the past, would basically be a rooming house where you are
renting rooms. That is not what this is. This request should be for group living.
And the last time that we had something similar, you did issue a proviso in that case that the
approved use was group living and not a single-room residence rooming house. That is actually
one of the provisos that the council president's office issued in their non-opposition letter.
So, as you know, we are here today with a request for a special exception for a property
So as you know, we are here today with a request for a special exception for
located at 1501 Master Street.
The owner of the property is TPA Partners, LLC, and here today I have Ohad Feigenbaum.
They purchased the property in 2018 after it was constructed by a former owner.
I also have with me today Craig Deutsch of Harman Deutsch Architecture that can answer
any specific questions you might have related to the buildings. Now this request is in some ways
familiar to many others the board has seen, but there are some critical differences and caveats.
To give you some background, the structures that I'm about to show you were finished being built
in 2017. So as you can see, let me change the view of this. As you can see in Exhibit 5,
which is up on the screen, the property that's outlined here is zoned RM1 and sits on Master
Street between North 15th Street and North Sydenham Street. It's roughly two blocks off
of Broad, which you can see here is the CMX3 zoning. Now as this was constructed,
there are nine attached structures. Each one of these structures has three apartments,
So you can see the labels here, 1501 through 1513, and 1405A, 1405B.
So these are nine attached structures.
They're separated.
They each have three units.
Now, despite the fact that they have separate addresses for mailing purposes, they sit on
one lot with one OPA account number.
So because of that, the property itself is considered to have 27 units.
This is also reflected in the permits that I've included here from when the property was first approved. It was approved through two separate permits. One of them reflected the six units, one of them reflected the 21 units, and then it was then later consolidated, so it now reflects 27 units.
Now, I want to drill down just a bit more detail into each of the structures so that you fully understand today's request, because it is a little bit odd and somewhat difficult to explain.
So as I mentioned, each one of these attached structures has three apartments in it.
Each one of these nine structures is set up nearly identically.
identically. If you take a look here at the schematic floor plans that I have up on the
screen, in each one of these structures, two of the apartments are two-bedroom units.
In one of the apartments, four-bedroom unit. So each one of these structures has two two-bedroom
units and one four-bedroom unit. As I'm sure you can already predict, it is the four-bedroom
apartment that brings us before you today because of the one extra person in the four-bedroom unit
that exceeds the code restriction of no more than three unrelated people.
Of the nine structures here, eight of them have a four-bedroom unit. 1513 is not at issue. That
one only has two bedroom units in it. So we're talking about a total of eight people that are
at issue before the board today. Now, in many of the cases the board has seen in the past like this,
the applicant is often requesting a higher number of occupants for the property
than the underlying code might allow. In the case before you today, that is not the case.
out of these 27 total units only eight of them have a four-bedroom apartment with the four
occupants 19 of these units have only two bedrooms with two occupants now keep in mind that all of
these two-bedroom apartments could be converted to three bedrooms or even worse they could just
put two people in one of the extra bedrooms and still comply with the code. That's certainly not
ideal. Then you have people sharing bedrooms. So if you look at this from an overall occupant
standpoint, if all of the 27 units had three occupants each as they are allowed, the total
number of occupants permitted for the property is 81. Because most of these units are two bedrooms,
this property only has 70 occupants. So it's well below what this property could legally have.
So it's well below what this property could legally have.
And this number, this 70, represents one person per bedroom in all of the two-bedroom units
and one person per bedroom in all of the four-bedroom units.
Before moving on, I'll just point out that the two-bedroom units are around 670 square feet,
while the four-bedroom units are around 1,500 square feet.
As you can see in photos that I have up on the screen here, this is new construction having just been built a couple years ago before my client built it.
So these units are very large, very well-appointed units.
Now, with respect to the application, we did receive one referral for the proposed group living use.
You can see in the actual referral that was issued that this was specifically limited to just eight of these units.
As I mentioned previously, we do dispute the designation here as a single room residence.
This is wrong, and we would ask if the board does grant this special exception today that you issue a proviso to confirm that the approved use is group living, not a single room residence.
As is required by Section 3037E.1 through .3 of the code, we do submit that the proposed
group living use in eight of these units meets the definition of a use permitted by special
exception in the RM1 zoning district.
The use will not cause any detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond that which might
normally be expected.
We submit this will not cause any congestion or cause any overcrowded. As I mentioned previously,
the property itself is well under the legal occupancy count. Without the application,
the owner could move that fourth person out of the four-bedroom unit and put them in one of the
two-bedroom units instead. This would only result in an empty bedroom in the four-bedroom unit and
likely people sharing a bedroom in the two-bedroom unit. It's also important to note that my
client did purchase the property in its current state and has not made any changes to the property.
The property itself also sits in a very high density area. I've included multiple permits
at tab nine that shows the density of surrounding structures here, which have densities such as 29
units at 1431 North 15, 72 units at 1417 North 15, 30 units at 1407 North 15, and 39
units at 1500 Jefferson. As far as I can tell from the photos and maps, there are no single
family homes anywhere in the vicinity of the property. Accordingly, the density is not only
well within the character of the neighborhood, but the number of occupants existing and proposed
is less than would be allowed. We submit this will not impair light and air to adjacent properties
given no physical changes are proposed. The use will not burden any public facilities
and the existing infrastructure is more than capable of handling the existing building.
We do submit this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan given the area is zoned R-1
and specifically contemplates multifamily residential use. And we submit the uses in
keeping with impacts normally expected from the proposed use. Now, just briefly on one of the
other provisos that was issued, and this is concerning trash and sanitation. So, I do want
to just call up my client real quickly. Ohad, if you can raise your hand so we can get you sworn in.
about to speak oh how are you there name and address for the record please and please spell
your last name oh had feigenbaum f-e-i-g-e-n-b-a-u-m first name is spelled o-h-a-d yes you swear
firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you so regarding the trash
and sanitation we do have a slight difference in opinion with the community but we are happy to
leave the requested proviso up to the discretion of the board now up until last week ohad had you
ever received any complaint regarding trash no okay we have not now can you just explain to the
board how your your trash management system works um regarding the crews that you send out
can you just give them sense of that yes absolutely i mean we should go back a little
Yes, absolutely. I mean, we should go back a little bit for this property to better explain it. When we bought it in 2018, it was literally our second or third property in Philly. The first time I was personally there, all I could see is trash. There was literally trash everywhere, similar to many other properties in Philly.
bit for this property to better explain
there was no trash service in place when we bought this property. We looked at the situation
and we actually added a trash service. The thing is with this type of properties, it's extremely
difficult to find a private trash vendor because unlike a place when you have a dumpster or one
room for trash here, it's located next to each entrance. They got to spend a lot of time outside
of their truck standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic and take the trash moreover
these are tenants you know they throw the trash not exactly inside the trash can you can clearly
see every sunday night you know there are some issues uh with trash being around the trash cans
and a private trash vendor and we met with a few basically told us you know it's it's it's difficult
Like it's not even a question of cost.
It's just very difficult for a private trash vendor to deal with this type of properties.
And we see this problem across Philadelphia.
This is the main issue.
So what does your crew do?
So what we did, we took our crew and I have a guy coming there every Sunday night to organize
all the trash and bring it to the curb and coming back there every Monday morning after
the city picks it up and bring it back to where it belongs every week we organize it we bring it
to the curb and bring it back every week so and and so the board understands this property is
eligible for city pickup because it is nine separate structures so last week as they usually
do they put the trash out sunday night for monday pickup what happened on monday last week ohad
there is construction on the other side of the street of another property they blocked the street
the city just couldn't access the city vendors could not access the street
and the trust was just left on the curb and that's where that photo you got was taken
so the photo that he's referring to i had spoken with the council president's office and she sent
me a photo that she was concerned about understandably because there was a lot of
trash on the curb, but on the side where the city picks it up. And we explained the fact that,
you know, that's where the trash has to be for the city to pick it up. And so we discussed the
issue and, you know, she fully understood the fact that there was an extenuating circumstance here
related to the street being shut down. And so, of course, a few days later, the street opened
and the trash was picked up. But because of this unique circumstance, the community is requesting
a proviso that they hire a commercial hauler, which OHAD is happy to do and TPA Partners is
happy to do. But OHAD, is it correct that your experience would suggest that hiring a commercial
hauler for this type of property is likely to result in more trash versus leaving it under your
control it will absolutely fail they will not pick up the trash they will just take the can
and everything surrounding around the can is just going to stay on the ground and this is why we
moved to in-house and the ironic the irony here is it's more costly to do it in-house than hiring
a private trash pickup i have no problem go out there and hire a private trash pickup for this
situation it just it's literally gonna hurt our tenants and it's just gonna hurt the community
which i i honestly believe they just don't really understand that we're actually taking care of our
trash and they just give us the same answer they give anyone else that just don't have any service
in place we have service in place if they want us to move to private trash pickup we'll move
trash pickup it's just not going to look as good as it is now so again i mean you know they're
they're willing to entertain it but i just wanted the board to at least hear from ohad based on his
experience uh you know what ultimately led to this request and the fact that you know he does
really have a true concern that the private pickup for this type of property could ultimately create
bigger issue and as you can see here based on the photo i mean these the property is kept immaculate
um and that's that's much to ohad and his team's credit uh so again we assert we've
So, again, we assert we have met all the requirements of Section 3037E.1 through 3 of the Code, a full memo of law, as always, is included with my exhibits, and we therefore ask you to grant the application.
met all the requirements of section 3037 e.
Now, OHAD, you've heard all of my testimony here today, correct?
And do you agree that testimony is true and accurate, and would you adopt that as if it were your own?
Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
any questions from the board no Mr. Chair no Mr. Chair no no I have a question for you
Meredith and I'll probably ask you Mary Jones as well a few years ago a special services district
was established in that community I believe Master Street may have been within those boundaries
is there not any trash schedule uh that is incorporated with that uh special services
district would you happen to know i don't happen to know that um and and really you know it's never
been an issue for this property because up to up to last week where there was you know a unique
circumstance they've never gotten a complaint here so i did a tour of that neighborhood a few
years ago when i was doing some work for temple and i can understand the frustration of the
neighbors not about your client's properties but the general area the condition of the general
area is horrendous okay i'll ask mary that when she gets on um mr chair this is tanya mary jones
is available to unmute and speak as you wish yes please bring her on now thank you
uh good afternoon this is mary jones great please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
uh mary jones representing council president daryl clark uh city hall room 494
you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you uh please proceed then i'll ask you a question after thank you of course of course
um the the main thing that I wanted to speak about the fifth council district did uh facilitate
this uh meeting and um I communicated with uh neighbors to get their input and the picture
which I do have um which shows the trash you know all over up a lot of trash on the block
is why we ask that there be commercial pickup.
The city, just as a resident of Philadelphia,
coming from city, center city to outside of center city,
the trash is often delayed.
And from this office's perspective,
as well as the neighbors,
having a commercial pickup would be more consistent.
This is 27 units of trash.
That's a lot of trash.
And we would also ask that the property management company look into getting bigger trash cans to accommodate more trash bags from all these units.
So it won't look like a landfill on trash day.
And then, you know, if it's a few days late, that's multiple days of landfill that you have to see coming down the street.
so those are our that's what is our main concerns and why we requested the commercial pickup change
the commercial pickup thank you I don't know if you heard my question to Meredith are you aware
you're aware of that special services district I believe that I am it's I believe it's administered
by um the north broad renaissance if i'm not mistaken yeah you might be right it's been a
few years for me uh i i just was curious if there's any trash uh uh program that they implemented
i was involved in establishing help establish that special services district again it's been
a few years i just was curious if they ever established that yeah i'm i'm not sure at this
time all right so it's uh your office is uh basically saying no opposition except for a
proviso that they maintain uh retain a commercial trash pickup retain commercial trash pickup and
if we if possible can we ask for bigger trash cans oh if we have any control over that yeah
i think the problem might be depending on the size of the trash can uh where are they going
to keep them you know that that's the other problem and they may have there may be a challenge
to keep a larger trash can inside those units i don't yeah mr chairman i mean that that really
i don't yeah mr mr chairman i mean that that really is one of the reasons why like i said
is one of the reasons
they are perfectly happy to hire a commercial hauler it's cheaper for them but you know they
because they have so much control over it they can you know anything that's not in bags they
can put it in bags they can you know get it to the curb where it needs to go you know with a
commercial hauler that's going to be picking up out of a can it becomes a little bit more
challenging but again we're they're more than happy to accept that okay everybody has good
intentions it's a question of what works best okay yeah thank you anything else miss jones
uh that's it that was well two provisos total the the um no what is it called no no rooming house
no rooming house and then the commercial yeah which we absolutely wholeheartedly agree with
Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case?
I see no other hands, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chairman DiTico. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing multifamily use at this location.
we agree that the proposed special exception will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood
beyond what might normally be expected for this use and so the city planning commission recommends
that the board grant the special exception thank you and meredith before i begin the proviso as
it relates to the group living will that just be a proviso establishing non no group living
no it's the it's actually the opposite the last time you were able to issue the same proviso it
was proviso approved use group living no single room residence okay approved use group living okay
exactly all right thank you uh mi 2021-00231 let's go let me start again mi 2021-002311
1501 Master Street. My vote is yes with the following provisos. Commercial trash pickup
and approved. Group living. Group living. Group living. Thank you.
Carol Tenere. My vote is yes with proviso. Confessor Plaza. Yes with proviso.
James Snell. Yes with proviso. Thomas Howerman. Yes with proviso.
thank you so we're now going to item number five which will be a bundled with item five seven eight
and nine on the two o'clock list first case mi 2021 dash zero zero two two seven six one six
30 Cecil B Avenue, MI 2021-002277, 1632 Cecil B Avenue, MI 2021-002280, 1735 Cecil B Avenue,
and MI 2021-0022781725 Cecil B. Avenue.
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney of record on all four cases.
I believe there have been letters of non-opposition
and two letters of non-opposition and two opposed.
I'm sure Mr. Nockamson will clear that off.
Mr. Chair, this is Tanya Sunkit, the administrator. I just wanted to clarify that all addresses listed are Cecil B. Moore Avenue, just for the record.
Mr. Nockmson, please identify yourself. You're still under oath.
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Alan Ockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Ockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street,
Suite 1600, excuse me, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Before Ms. Tenere asked me questions, I do believe that there's also 1727 Cecil B. Moore
should be.
I don't believe I heard that one as one of the matters.
Well, I have that down as, what address are you saying?
So I have 1630, 1632, 1725, 1727, and 1735 Cecil B. Moore.
So I don't believe I heard 1727 Cecil B. Moore when you introduced me.
We don't have that.
We don't have it on our list.
But I think we're appropriate, correct me if I'm wrong, Melissa and or Tanya.
Could we include that?
Maybe a typo?
um no chair let me research it and i'll get back to you is it 1727 sees will be more mr
No, Chair.
Let me research it and I'll get back to you.
Is it 1727?
knockamson oh yes miss hunkett okay let me check and i'll get right back with you all okay
mr knockamson carol read that off and then by the time we'll get back to time okay do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed an exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and replants of the
property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
for all of these cases that were pulled out i i do okay you may proceed may i share my screen
mr knockamson while we're waiting for tanya the the letters that miss tenary just mentioned to
you do you have a letter for 1727 cecil b that's that's a good question let me see mr chair
um yeah it's it's it's one letter that's inclusive of all of them okay
do you have a calendar number oh yes i do hold on one second uh hold on
mr i was looking for that that letter uh there was a question about whether i i timed out a
little bit so there was a question about whether 1727 these will be more uh is included even
though it wasn't on the list for today, I do have a summary for 1727. These will be more. So it seems
like that should have been on the list. Okay. Do you have an MI number? Yes. Oh, I have a MI number
is, well, actually, I have the ZP number. The MI. Yes, 2021-002279. That's correct. Thank you.
noted for the record. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Knockinson, please proceed.
Hi, so I'm going to share my screen just one second.
Can everyone see my screen?
Not yet. Now we can.
Today is a bad day. It's connectivity issue day for me. I apologize.
So anyway, we're here for five matters.
They're all interrelated, very similar to what you just heard and approved.
We're dealing with a situation where we have more bedrooms than are allowed by the code
because we, similar to the Master Street property, rent out.
to here at the Temple section of Philadelphia,
so the Temple Law students,
where we rent out one student per bedroom.
In some cases, we have more than,
well, in these cases,
we have more than three bedrooms per unit in here.
So the structures themselves are legal.
It's the fact that we have more bedrooms
than are allowed because of the amount of occupants we have.
So you'll see our table of contents. You'll see these are property. These properties are owned by Temple Villas. You'll see the certificates of tax clearance showing that Temple Villas, the holding company, is in good standing with the state of Philadelphia with respect to these properties.
A little bit of information about Temple Villas. They're well known in the Temple area, obviously given their name, and they have a really good reputation.
I don't know if anyone from the community or Beach Community Services Incorporated are on the line, but everyone I think would agree that they keep their properties clean, they keep their tenants under control, and they make sure that when garbage is picked up, that if there's any issues, they're dealt with.
If there's no removal, it's dealt with. So they're very responsible landlord and well known for keeping their properties in good repair. After that, you'll see the notices of refusal. Again, these are all legal properties. It's just that we're trying to legalize it because even though they're multi unit in nature, you know, given that they have more than three unrelated individuals living in there, we would have to have this as housing units, individual within those units themselves.
I also have a zoning permit of property on the 1600 block of Cecil B. Moore, showing that under similar circumstances, this board has granted such approvals in the past.
So it's not out of character to allow for such usage.
Exhibit 4, you'll see the certificates of occupancy for each of these units, showing that these are legal structures.
Exhibit 5 are the applications for appeal.
Exhibit 6 are maps of the area.
7 are photographs of the outside of the property.
8 are floor plans to kind of walk you through here and Exhibit 9 is correspondence by Beach
eight are floor plans to kind of walk you through here.
And exhibit nine is corresponding
Community Services Incorporated. So I'm just going to go straight to the Notices of Refusal.
And they're a little bit confusing in nature that's why if the board does agree to grant us
these matters, I would say by proviso. So for 1630 and 1632, CECL B Moore, we have
three units that have five bedrooms each. I would note that in terms of proviso. So we have a total
of, we have a unit A, which we'll go over, is three bedrooms. Unit B is five bedrooms. Unit C
is five bedrooms and unit D is five bedrooms so in essence we're just increasing the occupancy
levels here for by by six individuals because they're one bedroom uh each bedroom has one
occupant in there so I don't know how the board would you know grant a proviso in this respect
but units B C and D have the five bedrooms those are the for the the actual housing units uh and
that's for 1630 and 1632. For 1725 and 1727, CECL B more. Units C, D, and E each have four bedrooms
each, and we would request that those are housing units. And for 1735, CECL B more. Only unit C
is a housing unit which has four bedrooms. But you'll see from each of these, these are all CMX
two and a half properties legally used as the way they are you'll see by the certificates of
occupancy well first you'll see that you'll see here that this board granted a variance request
for 1612 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, and you'll see by way of the zoning permit, but the calendar
number as well, where they granted a proviso with maximum nine residents and a single room
occupancy use. We would request the same type of proviso. You'll see from the Certificates of
occupancy, that 1630, Cecil B. Moore, is a vacant commercial space with four dwelling units.
1632 is a commercial unit with four dwelling units.
1725 is a commercial with four dwelling units.
1727 should also be a commercial with four dwelling units, just as multifamily household
living.
And 1735 is a commercial with four dwelling units.
Show you maps of the area.
Again, we're between RM1 and CMX 2.5, so it's not out of character to have multifamily living here.
It's just form over substance in terms of how we want this designated under the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
we're in the heart of the Temple University campus and again we have a great reputation you can see
our our units are clean from the exterior 1630 and 1632 front of the properties 1725 and 1727
ceas will be more avenue to find the properties and then 1735 ceas will be more the front of
the property you'll see the 1600 block of ceas will be more to the left and to the right of the
property. 1700 block of C's will be more to the left and to the right of the property.
And then our plans. So this is just a breakdown. You should have received these in your materials,
but just a breakdown. Again, 1630 and 32 has one commercial for residential units.
We're only looking for housing units in unit B, C, and D because there's five bedrooms each.
1727 and 1725 have a commercial unit and then they have three housing well we're requesting
three housing units unit c d and e each have four bedrooms and then 1735 c's will be more avenue
again commercial unit for residential unit c is the only one where we would ask for a housing unit
of four uh because there's four bedrooms in there
And then I'm just going to increase the size of this.
But again, what we're talking about in 1630 and 1632, Cecil B. Moore, this is unit B,
which is five bedrooms, and then units C and D are bi-levels, each having five bedrooms
And then units C and D are bi-levels, each having five bedrooms as well.
as well.
And then 1725 and 1727, it's units C, which is also the same composition, essentially one floor, four bedrooms.
And then units D and E are both bi-levels, each having four bedrooms.
And then for 1735, it's just unit C that has four bedrooms.
And then we met with Beach Interplex.
Well, Beach Interplex coordinated the meeting.
We met with the community.
It was essentially a split vote of two in non-opposition and two not in favor of the project.
But there were eight attendees there, so I don't know where the other four people, how
they voted.
But the members in the community who did vote, or at least, you know, voiced their opinion
during the meeting, were very complimentary of Temple Villas.
They were in support of this project, and we hope that the Board would find the same
as well.
With that being said, I have Halal Mahdi, who is one of the principals of Tempo Volus, who I would like to adopt in my testimony.
Halal, just virtually raise your hand.
Unmute yourself.
Please unmute yourself, Mr. Mahdi.
Mr. Mahdi.
Hello.
Yes, please spell your full name first and last name.
It's Halal, H-A-L-A-L, and Mahdi, M-A-H-D-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Notkinson?
Yes, Mr. Mahdi, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
miss mary jones has her hand raised again do i yes please miss jones please just identify
yourself you're still under oath yes good afternoon mary jones from council president
Daryl Clark's office for this matter we did receive you know the same correspondence from
the coordinating RCO that essentially they had a split vote but we do stand with them in our
in our position about these kind of requests where too many units were built in the first
place and then coming back to try to legalize them and adding more density
and as a principal we uh the council president does oppose that we didn't oppose in the previous
cases because of special circumstances but we do just ask for a proviso that these are not
used as rooming houses if the board decides to allow this thank you um so are you suggesting
what we did in the last case approve group living uh if yes we're i get yes well essentially since
the the community was split we do we're in principle in principle opposed but if you do
grant it please just for group living not us not a single room occupancy not rooming house yes yes
that's what i'm trying to say okay no no worries um anyone else to testify in this case
no further answer this time thank you planning commission
thank you chair chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing
commercial mixed-use zoning uh any of the locations under your consideration the proposed
special exceptions will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood
beyond what might normally be expected for this use and so the City Planning
what might normally be expected for this use and so the city planning commission recommends that
Commission recommends that the board
the board grant the special exceptions in all cases mr not consent so i don't uh mess things up
uh we're going to do a proviso correct me if i'm wrong uh to uh satisfy uh the council president's
concerns would the proviso be one of the provisos be approved group living or so
A non-rooming house or something like that.
So I would defer to the ZBA's council in that respect.
I mean, you understand what we're trying to do.
We're trying to make sure that we legally use these properties because we have more than three unrelated people.
So we have a common, each of these units have a common, each of the apartment units as a whole have a common kitchen, bathroom, and things like that.
And then you have students that are in each of the individual bedrooms.
So I would defer to the board in that respect.
We just don't want to get tied up in terms of like, you know, having, you know, issues with L&I.
So I would defer.
Melissa, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Chair, if you want to hold off on the vote for just a minute and I can get back to that.
We can, you know, we can move on.
Mr. Notkinson has the next case anyway.
We can move on to the next case.
and then at the conclusion of that case
if you're ready
we'll take up the matter then
I have until the last case
at the 3.30 list so I'm willing to wait
okay well you got the next
case before we go any further though
does the court reporter need a break
we have five more cases on the 2.30 list
Chair I would appreciate a brief break
if you don't mind
it is at 4.35 we'll be back
and we vote
four thirty four forty two
thank you too right did we skip number six
oh yeah i saw masters okay because i didn't know when we come back we'll go to that one i
thank you sure i jumped over that one yeah i saw cecil be more and it's my eyes played a trick on me
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay it is now 4 42. is mr kelly uh returned
yes chair thank you uh carol's here tom confessor jim and melissa everybody's here okay um
melissa have we resolved that yet or if we need more time no we we resolved it uh the proviso
cannot be added to to approve it for group living because the property wasn't advertised
as group living so there's a request to hold it to hold the case if you can do that
and we're going to hold it for a resumption hearing just to get the clarification
yes chair this is time we're going to hold it for one week and we can discuss at the executive
section the record will not be closed we're just holding it right yes the record is closed just
for clarification from um sharon's letter to see what proviso should be listed okay
um Sharon's letter to see what provisos should be listed okay all right so let me read off all the
cases yes MI 2021-002276 1630 Cecil B. Moore Avenue MI 2021-002277
1632 Cecil B. Moore Avenue. MI 2021-002-280-1735 Cecil B. Moore Avenue. MI 2021-002278
1725 Cecil B. Moore Avenue and MI 2021-002279 1727 Cecil B. Moore Avenue. The record is closed.
The board will discuss this case and make a decision at next Wednesday's executive session.
Hi, Chair. This is Tanya again, just for clarification, and the decision will be read
onto the record at the public meeting at 9.30.
Virifying that.
So now we'll go to case number six.
MI 2021-002852.
1621-27, Cecil B. Moore Avenue.
Steve Masters is the attorney of record.
Exhibit lists RCO letter of support,
but no letter has yet been included at least we don't know that and mothers in charge and
alliance for progress charter school sent letters of support but that's back in may of 2019
mr masters if you're available please identify yourself spell your name and i'll swear you in
good afternoon mr chair members of the board steve masters from the law firm of just laws and i'm
happy you didn't skip over our case i thank you so much um vice chair of tennari for catching
so many seas will be more avenues i just kind of flew by it yes and it's very close to the
other ones for sure you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you miss tennari has some questions for you hi do you agree to wave the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof
of ownership tax compliance copy a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes to all of those um the letter was submitted um yesterday we we the rco finally um issued their
letter and uh we submitted it to attorney saleta and to the to the board um and i believe that
it is in your possession. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the
board, this is the third time that the TLO event complex, actually I'm going to share my screen
here. Okay. This is the third time that we are here for the same zoning permit. We were granted
the zoning permit twice before but they were both for temporary three-year periods and our
application this time is uh we originally were hoping for a permanent one but we have been in
conversations with the community and with the council president's office and we are going to
be asking for a proviso for a 10-year period and we'll talk about uh the five-year period that the
community wants and it's going to be up to you to to pick that um so we're we're here basically to
renew an existing zoning permit um and the zoning permit is um the use is exactly the same it's a
bank banquet hall catering hall on the corner of cecil b moore and um uh 16 1621 area the only
change is that up until now there's been a space on the second floor that we have not used for
this. It's just been vacant and we're going to expand and have events also take place up in the
second floor area. So that's the only change in terms of now we have the entire structure and
the last two times that the board issued its permit it was for the first floor but not for
the second floor. We have support as you noted from the RCO with suggesting a couple provisos
which we are basically all in agreement on and as you noted we have some letters of support from
letters of support from the mothers in charge and the charter school. As you probably could surmise,
the mothers in charge and the charter school.
this type of a business was hit very hard during COVID and was not able to operate very much at
all in much of 2020 and only a portion of 2021. So the letters of support, we'll go through the
exhibit folder, but we still have those relationships with the Charter School, with
Mothers in Charge, excuse me, with the 22nd Police District, but we weren't able to update the dates
of those letters. So we have our Exhibit 1 is our tax clearance to show that we are in compliance
with the city's taxes. In terms of the refusal, there was a correction to the refusal that was
issued specifically around that we are now asking for the use in the entire structure,
as you see here, and not just on the first floor. And that refusal was issued,
uh here it is huh all right I guess the reason was was was um was in June of this year um the
the lease uh is expiring um it had been expiring uh on uh the 30th uh tomorrow uh but it was
renewed recently by the landlord through May 30th of 2026. But we now also have an addendum to the
lease that was actually entered into today that provides that the tenant, our client, has the
right to renew the lease for an additional five years beyond the end of the initial term, which
takes it to May 30, 2031. So that's where we come up with the request for a 10-year proviso which
would and we'll show you in a moment the the wording of it but it takes you to the full
lease term, this lease and then the the renewed lease for the for the next five years.
and our exhibit three is um there it is there's the refusal um which is uh for the entire structure
uh there's two aspects of the refusal uh the the use of um now it's called nightclub a private
club but we are only applying for a banquet hall catering hall we are not trying to operate any
kind of a public entertainment place or a private club at all.
That is one of the refusals.
The second refusal is on parking, that because of the capacity of our venue, 10 parking spaces
accessory off-street are required.
But in this case, we have a physical hardship because the building itself occupies the entire
parcel.
So there is no open space whatsoever and no possibility of having any parking.
Fortunately, though, the Leocora Center parking lot of 3,500 cars is located a short walking
distance away.
And so the patrons of the Panquent Hall and Catering Hall tend to park at the Leocora
Center and therefore that solves the parking issue.
All right. This is our application for appeal. Exhibit 4 is the RCO letter of support from
BEACH. BEACH had their RCO meeting last week. They support the Banquet Hall Catering Hall
to include live entertainment, music, dancing, and preparation and service of food for more
than 50 people on the first and the second floors.
They are asking for a proviso that will be approved use, banquet hall, catering hall
only, not a nightclub, private club, which we are going to ask you to approve.
And they say that they want a temporary variance because the tenant isn't the owner and they
want to attach it to the lease term, but we now have two lease terms and so we are hoping
you will agree to attach it to both of these terms at the meeting three folks attended and
all voted in support of the of the project actually five but the the other two were myself
and my clients so I guess we we obviously don't vote on that the the business the TLO event
the tlo event complex is a um it's a very beautiful um event space you'll see a few photos in
complex is a it's a very beautiful
in a in a short moment it has um multiple different areas where where folks can rent
um the space for uh parties for repass for celebrations for a whole number of different
uh different things uh and normal hours daytime for like uh is one to seven to take a look at the
space events monday through thursday go till midnight events friday and saturday go no later
than 2 a.m uh same sunday it goes till midnight we have a whole comprehensive trash plan that we
worked out with the community over the years as we as we applied and received these zoning permits
And we had a good conversation about trash at the RCO meeting last week in which we were able to explain what steps we're taking to deal with trash.
That was mostly the issue was on Monday morning when after the events were on Sunday.
and the trash conversations seem to go well and there was nothing that you saw in the RCO letter
that wants us to change anything about our trash management. We also have security plans,
we have security guards inside and outside for large events that happen and strong ties with many
organizations in the community. These are some of the photos just so you can see the inside
of the event space.
Photos of our zoning postings, going to make this a little smaller.
This is the permit that we're currently operating under that expires on Friday and this is the one
that's for the same exact use except that it's not for the second floor and we're expanding to
the second floor. We did have the two provisos that you issued previously which is a temporary
permit to expire on friday and commercial trash pickup the alliance for progress charter school
is um wrote a very strong letter of support as a character reference for mr obilo who will be
introduced to you momentarily he allows the school to host events like the kitty prom honors banquets
and the eighth grade prom for a fraction of the cost to support the school children and families
and they are very appreciative and think he's a great guy. Mothers in Charge,
which is one of the premier anti-violence organizations in the city, wrote a letter
of recommendation. The TLO event complex partners with Mothers in Charge. Mr. Obilo has been on the
board of directors of the organization, and he allows them to have free events at the space.
And we had offered the same provisos to the RCO that we had entered into last time around,
around trash and security, patron conduct, compliance with the Philly Code, and advance
notice for the police of any public events. But there aren't public events, we just are restricted
to the banquet hall and the and the catering hall um we have our rco letter and our proof of mailing
and that uh is the conclusion of oh i will get to some of this over here
finally the revised proviso this um was not submitted uh because we just actually worked
it out today during the wait before our case was called between ourselves and the Council
President Clark's office.
And with the help, with a shout out to Meredith Ferligar for helping on some of the language
So we are asking you for two provisos today.
One would be approved use banquet hall catering hall.
One would be approved to use banquet hall catering hall. Second would be zoning permit
Second would be zoning permit to expire at the
to expire at the expiration of renewal term of lease on May 30th, 2031.
Mr. Obila, would you raise your hand so you could get acknowledged and then sworn in?
Good afternoon, Mr. Obilo. Please spell your first and last name.
Good afternoon. First name is O-D-I-N-A-K-A-C-H-U-K-W-U. Last name Obilo, O-B-I-L-O.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Masters?
Mr. Avila, were you present and did you hear my testimony today to the Zoning Board?
And do you adopt it as your own and agree that it was true and correct?
Is there anything that you would like to add to the Zoning Board today?
I believe as though you covered
most of the bases
the main thing as you alluded to
which is an overall concern
with this temple area is trash
and the facilitation of trash
and that's something that we've discussed
at every other zoning hearing and we've enacted
I have multiple commercial trash dumpsters, I have big dumpsters, and we even take trash off site to help alleviate with our trash, as well as trash that comes from some of the off campus housing, where their residents will dump stuff, you know, around my facility because I have dumpsters.
outside of that i've been at this location for nine years and i hope to continue to move forward
and provide a community space for people to utilize thank you any questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chair no one else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your
hand. Chair, we have a channel, Barbara Carroll. Barbara Carroll, please spell your full name
and i'll swear you in i apologize i was not trying to raise my hand i do apologize no worries ma'am
no worries anyone else to testify in this case yes here we have mary jones
ms jones uh please identify yourself you're still under oath
hello hi mary just identify yourself you're still under oath yes mary jones uh council
president daryl clark's office um yes just kind of keep everything straight so for this one
And we do agree with the first, the council president, you know, is in receipt of the correspondence from the RCO.
And I've been in communications with the RCO as well.
And we are in agreement about the first proviso.
No private club, no nightclub use.
And the community is requesting that the, just requesting that the variants renew with the lease. So that would be in five years, the time when it's, you know, 2026, I believe, when the tenant, when the, excuse me, the applicant would be renewing his lease with the event space.
This is just so the community trusts the current applicant, and they do not want the variance
to apply to anyone else who might take up the space, and that's why they're asking that
it just run, be renewed with the lease itself.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Understood.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify? No more hands, Chair. Planning Commission.
Anyone else to testify?
Bye-bye.
Good afternoon, Chair. Nicole Ozdemir from City Planning Commission staff.
n-i-c-o-l-e-o-z-d-e-m-i-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about
the truth i do thank you please proceed thank you the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning at this location due to this being an existing use
in the commercial corridor and mandating parking is seemingly a hardship here the planning commission
recommends the board approve this variance thank you MI 2021-002852 1621-27 Cecil B. Moore Avenue
my vote is yes with the following provisos temporary variance to expire May 30th
2026 and uses be limited to banquet and catering facilities no private club use
carol tenary my vote is yes with provisos confessor plaza yes with proviso james snell
yes with proviso thomas halliman yes with proviso thank you
um let's see we go to Mifflin Street now am I number 10 on our list MI 2021-002280
1937 Mifflin Street Mr. Notkinson is the attorney of record
point brie cdc sent a letter of support and a petition signed by near neighbors in support
mr knockamson just identify yourself you're still under oath and miss tenary will ask you some
questions i'll actually be handling this one um i'm sorry i didn't look up i was looking at my
notes sorry miss amazon you're still under oath also just identify yourself and miss tenary will
have some questions for you. Thank you. Clementa, Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Hi, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal,
referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, and we have a letter of support.
Okay, great. You may proceed. Thank you.
Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Perfect. So today I'll be presenting 1937 Mifflin Street,
which is a single family home. We are here because we are requesting the erection of a
there's story addition. During my presentation, I'll go through the deed, certificate of tax
clearance, notice of refusal, application for appeal, maps of the area of photographs,
our proposed plans and drawings. And as was mentioned earlier, we do have a letter of
support from Point Breeze CDC as well as letters of support from nearby neighbors.
Here we have the deed of the property, our certificate of tax clearance showing the
recent payment. And again, the refusal of the property is zoned as RM1. We are simply looking
to have a third-story addition to an existing two-story structure. Application for appeal.
Our project information form. Map of the area. So here we have a view at the front of the property.
views to the left and the right of Mifflin Street. Our elevations again we're only looking to have
that third story addition in here because we are not doing the setback because we're attached on
either side by two story structures. So here we just have the rendering of the front of the property
as well as the rear of the property. As you can see here we are simply looking to have a single
family use although it is owned as RM1. So living room dining on the first floor, two bedrooms on
second floor and then the third floor would be the master suite. We do have a letter of support from
Point Breeze CDC. The community meeting was very well attended. We have nine in support, three in
opposition, and we do have letters of support from nearby neighbors. Especially we have 1939 Mifflin
Especially, we have 1939 Mifflin Street, Siegel, which is to the rear of the property, and several properties along Siegel and Mifflin signed the petition as well.
Street, Segal, which is to the rear of the property.
Here's the notice that we sent out to the community regarding our July 26th community meeting with all the current information.
And that notice was sent to all of these properties and our proof of mailing.
So with that, if I can have my client, Kalief Thompson, raise his hand and accept my testimony.
Your client's name again?
Khalif Thompson.
If he's unavailable, I can stipulate as an officer of the court.
It's been a long day.
In the interest of time, you being an officer of the court would stipulate your client would
have adopted your testimony.
any questions from the board no mr chairman what else like to testify in this case please raise
your hand we have a call and user chair calling user you can unmute yourself yes hi tiffany green
concerning citizens of Wainwright.
I guess I'll be...
Ma'am, excuse me.
Excuse me, one second.
Please spell your full name.
Tiffany Green.
Spell your name, please.
T-I-F-F-A-N-Y-T-R-E-E-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, ma'am.
Please proceed.
Chairperson, Chairman,
Chico, I'm calling
because this public vote, as far as we're concerned, is not valid.
The public vote was not taken at the public meeting.
We have no way of verifying if the nearby neighbors actually voted in this case.
And we feel as though the developer should come back to the meeting and complete the meeting.
In the process of the meeting, our RCO was the meeting host cut the zoning feed at that particular point.
The refusal was never read to the residents regarding this project.
And when just right when we were about to explain to the residents their rights under the zoning,
because a couple of the residents wanted to know what about the refusal.
Our fee was cut by the meeting host, and we were never let back on the meeting, okay?
And that is a violation of the virtual public meeting law since the pandemic.
And so we feel that the meeting was not completed.
All RCOs should have the right to participate in the meeting and provide their comment to the meeting, okay?
Chairman, if I might.
let me uh just let her one minute miss amazon let the screen come finish the other issue is
is that um okay let her can you let her speak and then i have a question you keep referring to
when you refer miss green you keep referring to we uh who is the we we're referring to
the services of point breeze our rco okay now this is the second that's that's that's let me
finish please that is different than the correct me from wrong than the point three cdc is that
not accurate yes yes we are having this who is the coordinating or who was the coordinating rco
point three cdc did you attend that meeting yes i initially attend that meeting and you're saying
you were not permitted to speak yes our zoom link was cut off by the meeting coordinator
intentionally we can provide you with that link zoom link copy and when we were about to explain
to the residents about their right regarding a setback and what a setback is and so
So, and that's an issue that we're having down here.
And this has got to stop, okay?
And the public vote is not taken publicly at the meeting, okay?
The public vote is supposed to be taken at the public meeting, not being held over and concealed.
So that public vote should be available to all RCOs to access to see what affected neighbors attended and what affected neighbors voted.
And this is ongoing.
All right, Ms. Mamazon, you want to say something?
Yes, of course. So we did have a full presentation of this project. We went through the entire materials, including the refusal and the setback and the implications of not having that setback.
Yes, of course. So we did have a full presentation of this project.
We went through the entire materials.
It is my understanding that point three CDC and concerned communities has had issues as it relates to the functions of the RCO and what is and is not supposed to happen.
So we would say that is a work internal issue. We did have a full meeting of what was held at the end of that meeting.
entirety of the meeting. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else to testify in this case?
No more hands, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good afternoon. Nicole Ozdemir for City Planning Commission staff.
please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends rsa 5 zoning at this location
the dimensional requirements of the zoning code do not impose a financial burden on the applicant
and the proposed dimensions conflict with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood
the city planning commission therefore must recommend that the board deny the variance
chairman i would just like to point out that we are looking for single families here although
it's known as RM1. That's what I was going to say. This is not multi, it's single family, Nicole.
So is it, would it be correct that the position of the planning commission would not be opposed
to single family? That is correct. Yes, I apologize. I thought I missed something too.
okay no problem no i apologize um the planning commission is not opposed to
the single family nature um we are opposed to the lack of the third story setback
oh okay thank you all right um
MI 2021-002280, 1937 Mifflin Street, my vote is yes.
Harold Tenneri, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Howland, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you. We can now go to case number 11. MI 2021-002-315. 3018 North Broad Street. Rachel Pritzker is the attorney of record. My notes say we're still awaiting a letter, but you may be able to clear that up. Ms. Pritzker, please identify yourself with the record. You are still on the roof.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Let me just clarify one other thing before Carol speaks.
My notes also indicate that if it is a yes vote, that the proviso be maximum of five units.
So having said that, Ms. Tenere.
okay do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have
you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the
rco and do you have a letter uh yes i believe we got the letter late last night so it was sent in
uh today um okay you may proceed have it um okay
so this is 3018 north broad street
sorry this is very slow
here's a copy of the refusal i'm going to give it a second to load
As the board can see on my screen, it is zoned RM4, so it permits multifamily by right.
The only refusals that we have for our proposed project, which is this construction of a attached
building with seller for use as multi-family household for six
pulling units relate to two-dimensional considerations and parking.
The refusals are for maximum occupied area. RM4 district is 75% where we're proposing 98%.
um rm4 district is 75 where we're proposing 98 um the architect can show you based on the plans
what we're providing is actually in context with what's actually on the block this is a
in the development site in the middle of broad street additionally rm4 requires
two parking spaces based on the number of units whereas we're providing zero again this is on
Broad Street, and you'll see it would be out of character to add parking spaces for this project.
As the chairman mentioned, we spoke with the community, and we are willing to go down to
five units. It was a result of them wanting to have a larger unit in the building for families,
so we were happy to accommodate that. We did provide revised plans, but Ms. Saleta thought
it would just be easier to do it as a proviso. As you can see on my screen, obviously, again,
this is zoned RM4, so it's not out of character to have anywhere between three, five, and six
dwelling units on the site, given the multifamily classification, in addition to the fact that it's
on North Broad Street. I will just scroll down to the RCO meeting. We do have some excerpts from
comprehensive plan, but I think everyone's well aware of the, I guess, the need or support for
density on Broad Street. It's probably the largest artery in the city and has many multi-family and
commercial mixed-use buildings on Broad Street. This is the deed. Again, just to show that zoning
classification is RM4. It's an aerial. So as you can see, this is the only vacant lot on the block,
everything else. And as you can see, most of these buildings take up almost 100% lot coverage.
They have a pretty unique architecture, which we're going to be trying to mimic as best as
possible. And it will be a nice sort of filling in of the only sort of empty piano piece that is
undeveloped on this block.
It's just zoning history.
The coordinating RCO was the Upper North Neighbors Association.
We met with them and here is their meeting summary.
The meeting was July 8th.
There were 20 people in attendance and there were seven votes of support from the board
slash committee, 10 from all meeting attendees, and just three in opposition. So they issued us
a letter of support. And in their letter, they specifically added a little bit more detail. As
I mentioned, we didn't get that letter until 928. So that was yesterday. It is in the updated packet
that we sent to the board. So you will have this for the record. But essentially, they wanted to
support the project given it eliminates blight in the neighborhood,
provides housing options, maintain, we provided a maintenance and trash
plan. We stated the willingness to hire people from the neighborhood for property
management and also our intention to kind of continue to work with
the Tioga community as a partner as well. This is a
certificate of mailing. I'll have
our architect, I believe Scott Woodruff is here from Design Blends, who can just
go through the plans and uh sort of again uh point out the dimensional considerations and you'll see
from the plans and the existing conditions on the block um it would be really out of character to
to fulfill the parking requirement which is the two spaces
scott woodruff still on the line
please identify yourself by your name and i'll square you away
Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F, 4001 Main Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Ms. Pritchard.
I'm sorry, Chair, if we could pause a moment, and could he please be promoted so he can present?
I better promote it, man.
Thank you.
Scott, if you're presenting, we can't hear you.
sorry about that always when i get promoted um i was saying uh the lot 16 feet wide um
sorry about that
along broad street as you said rachel uh there's a 20 foot sidewalk uh that's against this being
on broad street um so for those uh reasons getting any sort of curb cutter parking onto this this
parcel uh the streets department simply would not ever approve um with curb cuts on broad and
obviously the width of the lot regarding the uh coverage and open area rachel as you said we're
kind of filling in some existing architecture uh there's kind of these large porches that are along
the front of the property and like canopies which we wanted to uh kind of mimic to fit in with the
architecture um uh and again we're going back a little bit slightly back in the back here uh but
again really just to get the units to work properly um and this is uh the proposed rendering you can
kind of see this is a very specific kind of brick architecture that was done along broad street
so we're basically going to be fitting in um to this with cast details to kind of hit this band
of windows across and then matching the roofline of this this canopy porch and kind of the raised
entryways which is really the reason for where our coverage comes from because of these
these large porches that kind of match the block um just going quickly over the plans
we originally had six units in coordination with the neighborhood we made one of the units a larger
two-bedroom this would be kind of a raised first floor going back to a unit that would be a fairly
large two-bedroom two-bathroom kind of living level and then sleeping below and above that as
well with full bathrooms. There's a first floor efficiency provided for an affordable unit. And
then going up, there are three one-bedroom studios, one on the second floor and then two on the third
floor with a central staircase. Rachel, is there anything else you wanted me to touch on as well?
thank you any questions from the board no mr chair no
i'm sorry what was that rachel um can i just bring on my client oh yeah i'm sorry i'm sorry
um nadal hassan if you could raise your hand and be promoted just so i can have him that's where
mr hassen mr hassen please spell your full name uh yeah nadal hassen and i d a l last name hassen
h-a-s-s-e-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you miss pritzker uh nadal have you heard my testimony today in front of the board
yes do you believe it to be true and correct the best of your knowledge and do you adopt it
as your own yes thank you and just uh so uh it doesn't the point does not get lost uh we do have
revised plans but if it's easier for the board uh we would be happy with the proviso for five units
anyone uh anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Chair, we have Mr. Charles Richardson with his hand raised. I have allowed him to speak.
Mr. Richardson, please spell your name and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Richardson, please unmute yourself.
There we go. Can you hear me now?
We can. Thank you.
Okay. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Order for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. We also received the letter late last night. I forwarded it on to the board today as well.
Councilwoman will have no opposition to granting this variance.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
We have a call-in user with a hand raised. I have allowed them to speak at this time, sir.
Thank you. Would the call-in user please identify him or herself?
Yes, Adrienne Fernandez, A-D-R-I-E-N-N-E, F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is the reporter. Could you please spell your last name again?
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is the reporter.
Yes. F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
You're breaking up. Speak a little closer.
Is this better?
Yes, it is.
Swamp it on neighborhood prices association, RCO.
Swamp Poodle RCO
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth, nothing but the truth
Please proceed
We have the same
Proviso for number of units
As our coordinating RCO
We're asking for the limit
Of the same number of units
And the second proviso we're asking for
Is that all trash be stored indoors
And we have a request
of the applicant party, that they send the revised drawings to all affected RCOs.
Rachel, I think you did say you have a trash plan.
You have to unmute.
Sorry.
I would just, we do, I just would defer to Scott as to the location of the trash on the plans, but...
It's in the plan, it's all, right?
it's only shows it okay yes and it would be it would be uh five units so city trash pick up
okay thank you anyone else to testify
no further hands at this time sir rachel if you could send uh miss uh swamp poodle the uh
copy of whatever it was she requested sure all right planning commission
uh ron bednar city planning
ron please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r
you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed it's property indicated for um special
for residential use in the city plan.
We have no objection to granting adherence.
Thank you. MI 2021-002315.
3018 North Broad Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Maximum five units and trash to be adhered to
as per the agreement with the community.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Professor Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes, for proviso.
Thomas Holloman, yes, for proviso.
Number 12 on our list, MI 2021-002-314.
310-30, Gerrard Avenue.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney of record.
I believe there are a number of pages that will be submitted as revised plans.
and Northern Liberty Neighborhood Association sent a letter of support
with requested RC provisos that Mr. DeMarco will explain. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Please spell
your name and I'll swear you in. DeMarco, Richard DeMarco, D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
Square or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Tenere, we have some questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos, and replants of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Thank you. You may proceed.
All right. So, Mr. Chairman, what I'll do is, it's my understanding, there is no opposition to this proposal as revised.
We've had four meetings with Northern Liberty's Neighborhood Association.
I'll move to a more truncated, I'll cover the salient points in light of your late hour.
The case is after me as well.
Richard, you're breaking up.
Okay. I don't know why that happens. I'm going to switch to a microphone. Can you hear me okay?
I got to sit really close.
Okay, so you got to see my ugly face.
Sorry.
What I was saying, Mr. Chairman,
is my understanding is there is no opposition,
although there's just an issue with the provisor
that's very minor.
So I'll move to a more truncated presentation
in light of the late hour of the board.
If there is opposition, though, Mr. Chairman,
If there is opposition, though, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the opportunity to put some more detailed testimony on.
I'd like the opportunity to put some more detailed testimony on.
Thank you. Please proceed.
All right. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll share my screen and I'll go through the salient points.
This project was revised to meet some comments from the neighborhood group, also from the residents of the cigar factory.
We reached agreement with the residents of the cigar factory.
The building was changed significantly from the original proposal.
I'll show them in more detail in a moment.
I do want to mention, though, as some housekeeping, our request for revised plans will involve six pages.
We caught an issue with the five pages that were sent last week.
and I did re-forward about an hour ago the correct six pages that we would ask you to stamp
if you agreed to grant our relief. Let me show my screen.
I do want to mention this board granted us very similar variances to another proposal in the past
for this particular property. The property is a vacant site. So our variances today are height,
floor area ratio, and use. This is a mixed-use project.
Commercial space is on the first floor and it's going to be 166 units above.
This is our site plan. What we did change was
We set back the building along Oriana to comply with issues with the Cigar Factory residents.
We switched the driveway exits. The garage will exit onto Oriana and will come in off of third.
I'm going to show you actually a list which will help you see the number of revisions that we went through
in order to agree with comments from the neighborhood group
and the Cigar Factory residents.
This is a list of them.
You should be able to see them on your screen.
Northern Liberty's letter is now on your screen,
and I'll go back to the site plan in a minute.
So there's only a minor issue with the proviso.
As you can see, it says we support the project
as long as no element of the facade extends beyond the property line,
except on Girard where overhangs should comply with streets department requirements and be
limited to balconies which should drain internally. So the only discrepancy is we have window bays
that do project three feet in addition to the balconies but they comply with streets
and they all drain internally. They have patch edge drains so we have also bays in addition to
balconies on Girard and 3rd. And on Oriana, there is no issue. We actually set the building back
three feet to create more sidewalk space. I'll show that, go back to that.
So there's actually 10 feet of sidewalk. This is it right here. There's actually 10 feet of sidewalk
now, as opposed to what was there apparently, which is seven feet. I'll show you the rendering.
I have, by the way, I have Anthony Sorontanakis on the call, who is our architect, and I have Dan McShane, who is a representative of the developer.
So this shows the Oriana setback.
We actually took the building back significantly at their request.
This is our renderings.
You can see these are the bays.
Here are the window bays that make us not 100% agree with the proviso.
but the window bays also comply and drain internally.
That's our floor plan.
Let me go back to that site plan.
I'll show you the garden.
The garden's a nice amenity.
There is a garden.
There is an opening here to the sky in the middle.
And what my testimony would have been through the developer
would have been that the extra density of the 166 units is necessary and the extra height is
necessary in order to develop this site, Mr. Chairman. There's been no interest in the
industrial component of the zoning. It's ICMX property. There's been no interest in an
industrial user. The prior industrial user was a lumberyard, which is gone. Let me show you some
photos. I didn't show you the photos, I'll show you the outlooks now.
Anyway, the testimony from Mr. McShane would have been
that there was, it's not simply not feasible. This is the site right here.
that there was, it's not simply not feasible.
This is the site right here.
It's an open vacant lot.
You can see the cigar factory here is very high.
There are other buildings that, contextually,
that are actually as high as our building.
It's not unusual.
This is the lot right here.
Anyway, Dan McShane would testify that
there is no interest in industrial users at this location.
Therefore, it would need to be a mixed-use development, commercial on the first floor.
Let me go back to renting.
I'll show you what the commercial would be.
What we feel would be a very nice, this hopefully will be a restaurant.
And there's actually two spaces, an opportunity for two restaurants, hopefully on the first floor.
And we have curved curvatures here.
So there's actually more sidewalk.
We have a landscaping plan that was vetted through CDR.
and of course
the Middle Garden
if there's anything else
that would be it
completed CDR
we had preliminary approvals
from streets and from water
let me just bring on Dan McShane
to accept my testimony
he should still be on the call
we can promote him
You see Dan McShane should be on.
Stop, we'll just have an officer of the court.
Dan, he's still with us.
Raise your hand virtually.
Mr. DeMarco, you being an officer of the court,
we'll stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony.
That's fine, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
no mr chair no mr chair no would anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
there wasn't a hand up but it's since gone down so there's
wait a minute uh mr chair we've got a mr daniel mcshane with his hand raised i won't
the speed at this time no we already adopted he already adopted you can keep going chair
yeah he's good tell him dan you're fine thank you uh planning commission
this is uh ron bednar from city planning operative plan recommends no change
um to the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location with regard to the
lot coverage the proposed variance is consistent with the adjacent non-conforming buildings
In regard to the off-street parking, the site location near the public transportation has access to broad street rendering parking provisions unnecessarily difficult.
City Planning Commission recommends the board grant of variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002-314-310-30, Girard Avenue.
my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan six pages approved today
harold tenere my vote is yes with proviso professor plaza yes with proviso james snell
yes with proviso thomas halliman yes proviso thank you uh we now go to number 13 on the
two o'clock list. MI 2021-0023163934 West Girard Avenue. Mr. Notkinson, I believe, is the attorney
of record. There is a letter of support from the Centennial Parkside RCO.
Mr. Nockamson has been promoted to panelists. Thank you, Mr. Nockamson. Just identify yourself,
you're still under oath. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Nockamson,
A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street,
Suite 1600 Philadelphia PA 19109. Ms. Tenere has some questions for you. Sure.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you
emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of today's hearing and have you met with
the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, we do. Okay, you may proceed.
I'm going to share my screen.
And as the chair says, Centennial Parkside has a letter of support.
That's right. And I'm going to keep it brief. I know it's a late hour. And I would ask for a proviso maximum two units. Originally, we asked for three units at the request of the community. We agreed to two units.
That's right.
And I'm going to keep it brief.
I know it's a late hour.
It is.
And I would add.
we have a deed to the property
showing that Millennium Development
the owner with me is Brian Wise
who's going to adopt my testimony
we have a certificate of tax clearance
showing that we're in good standing with the city of Philadelphia
notice of refusal
again this is an RSA
excuse me a CMX2
property and
we're looking to eliminate
essentially eliminate the commercial component
you'll see from pictures from the
in my presentation materials
it's out of character to have commercial in this part of uh philadelphia we're across the street
from fairmont park uh and uh we have a permit that shows that this property has been previously
used as multi-family here are three units uh and uh we have the letter of support so let's go uh
first uh to the notice of refusal um we actually have uh three refusals uh again we're trying to
eliminate the commercial component. So that's a refusal. This is a CMX2 property. We did have
issues with the open area where we're proposing 15% and 25% is required and rear yard depth.
We're proposing eight feet of rear yard depth where nine is required. The issue is that we want
to put a front porch on our property to mimic what's in the rest of the neighborhood, even
though we're not required to because we have, you know, we wouldn't have to have a front porch
because we're in the middle of open lots.
But we want to mimic that.
By doing that, the occupied area for the front porch
is causing issues with the open area.
Secondarily, the rear yard theft,
because we're moving the property back
to accommodate that front porch,
that's why we have an issue with the rear yard theft.
So we're just trying to conform to the neighborhood as a whole,
and that's why we're having these refusals.
Architectural plans and drawings, let me just, again at the request of the neighborhood,
we are decreasing the proposed unit count from three residential units to two, but I
just want to show you the rendering, get to it, my computer is slow today.
I apologize for the tardiness, but as you can see here, we are trying to mimic what's
in the rest of the neighborhood with this front porch, and if my computer was going to
cooperate, I would show you pictures showing other properties on the next block over which
have front porches so we're just mimicking those and uh again most importantly um our letter of
support uh and i can give you know if you know if the board wants me to go through the floor
plans i can go through the floor plans i'm just trying to be brief because we appreciate that
yeah but again most importantly they are in support of a two-family dwelling so we would
ask for a proviso maximum two units with that being said um mr wise can you virtually raise
Raise your hand.
The wise has been allowed to speak.
Hello.
Hi, please spell your full name, sir, and I'll swear you in.
Yes, Brian, B-R-I-A-N, Wise, W-I-S-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Mackinson?
Mr. Wise, you heard everything I stated today.
Yes, I did.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
All right, thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
miss barbara carroll has her hand raised i have allowed her to speak sir
you good afternoon chairman good afternoon ma'am please i'm sorry ma'am please spell your full
it is b-a-r-b-a-r-a last name carol c-a-r-r-o-l-l you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
truth nothing but the truth yes
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
I know you've been waiting long, so please proceed.
Okay, so we have an interest at 3940 West Girard, which is just one property over.
3936 belongs to the church, as well as 3938 through 40.
3932 we're in um belongs to someone else this particular property being built in the middle
of two vacant structures and we're not sure because we have not seen the plan
how much of it going back is going to be extended onto the property of 3936 which we owned
so and we have not had any more communication since the first meeting that we had
stating that we were in opposition to this there has been no notices sent out to the community
there was one zoning notice posted on the board in front of the property and unless you were
looking for it you would not see it the the current block captain of the 3900 block of
west gerard was not in receipt of any notice and her address is only 3926 which is right across
the street that's one issue the second issue if you go east of the 3934 those have porch houses
if you go to the west all of those do not have porch fronts so that becomes an issue
but the total the biggest issue is how much of his property when he extends it back is going to cut
into ours on 39 36 and mind you that that is a church a very lively church thank you
So, Mr. Notkinson, could you briefly address the issue of the depth of your property versus the property next door?
So, Mr. Chair and Mrs. Carroll, we cannot build on someone else's land.
So we're not going to our building structures cannot extend to someone else's land.
And Mrs. Carroll, we did have a certified RCO meeting.
um if and i believe i said stated at the meeting to anyone who attended um i'm more than happy to
talk about construction related issues you can email me at the spelling my name alan a-l-a-n
dot knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n at knockamson.com so first name dot last name at last name.com and
I'll put you in touch with the owner of the property because we want to and we're required
to work with any adjacent neighbors and property owners as part of the building permit process.
I think the question probably was how far beyond 39, 36 would your project extend, but
I could be wrong.
Anyway, thank you for reaching out and letting the lady know you'll reach out to her.
Anyone else to testify?
Ms. Lorraine Logan, with her hand raised, I have allowed her to speak, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Hi, please spell your full name, ma'am.
L-O-R-R-A-I-N-E, Logan is the last name, L-O-G-A-N as in Nancy.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Please proceed.
Yes. My name is Lorraine Logan. I am the pastor of the Revival Center Church located at 3938-40
West Gerrard Avenue. We also own the property at 3936 West Gerrard Avenue. And I want to go
back to the first mention of the RCO certified meeting that was planned. We are still
having issues with not getting notification of the initial meeting. The neighborhood was not
informed properly. I actually got a call at my home to say that there's some people in the yard
and I think you need to get here. And that's how myself as well as some other neighbors that were
just grabbed at the last minute to find out what was going on with that particular property.
and we we still have not gotten answers to why the neighborhood wasn't uh notified as well as
I got a text today from the block captain after I asked her was she going to get on the zoom today
After I asked her was she going to get on the Zoom today, she said no one knows of the Zoom
she said no one knows
meeting on today. So I was able to forward her the information and she was able to get as many
people at the last minute to get on this Zoom today. So we have concerns about things not
properly being done. I believe that the information is supposed to go out to the residents in a
certain circumference of area and they have not in my opinion have done things truthfully uh i know
he said a certified rco meeting i was at that meeting um the second issue was that um i i
believe that they have done their due diligence to notice that there are there are four lots
can i interrupt you for i need to interrupt you you just said you what you did attend the meeting
I was at the meeting because at while the meeting was going on, someone from my church congregation saw that a meeting was going on in the lot and they had concerns as to what was going on there.
So I left my home to come see. And that's when I actually found out about the meeting when it was actually going on.
but there were other neighbors from the community that that did not know about the meeting until the
actual meeting like they didn't receive the notification the letter so this is the second
time this has happened concerning this property um there are four lots that we are sharing where
one address is 3936, 3934, 3932, and 1144 Union Street. So the lots are different in size. 1172
is my lot. 1172 square feet is 3944. 1360 is square feet, and then 711 is square feet of the
the side parcel so we do have concerns about making sure that if something is built there
that they have done their homework to find out what is really their dimensions of the four
properties that are owned by that um with that lot that's there that corner we're only talking
about one property 39 34 right okay so there are four properties on four four uh ownerships of that
land so we're saying that we're only we're only your questions and concerns have should be related
to 39 34 west okay all right so we want to make sure that they whatever's built there if something
is built that they do stay within their property guidelines is that is that's the best way to say
it. The other thing is there are no porches on our particular block. All the buildings are
commercial, but the exception of two, and those are enclosed porches. They may be on the other
side of the street. That's a separation where Union Street is. So they're not conforming with
what's on the block. I know at the meeting that we had two months ago, it was a discussion that
the community would have wanted to still have commercial residency or commercial building
there versus housing because we are overwhelmed with housing in the unit which leads to parking
issues um vandalism which we've had our church let me interrupt again the meeting just you just
referenced the meeting of a couple of months ago was that a meeting as it related in regards to
this application yes when when we weren't aware of it you've been a couple of meetings no no just
one meeting sir the same the same meeting one meeting that none of us knew about until the
meeting was actually going on I apologize when you said a couple of months ago I thought you
were referring to a different meeting no okay the same meeting all right Mr. Mockinson do you have
a list of the mailings yeah actually i put that on my screen uh so on july 12 2021 we mailed out
notice for a meeting that was july 22 2021 as you can see on your screen and then we're given 91
addresses by the city planning commission and here's a copy of these addresses um i
so I don't know where it's and then here's our certificate of mailing as well
showing that we mailed that um in terms so that's the first thing so we did send
the proper notice as required under the law uh and in terms of photographs
these are the four you know these are the vacant lots we're we're right here and as indicated
it before, we are not allowed to build on someone else's land. We have a survey. We're going to build
not allowed to build on someone else's land we have a survey we're going to build within the
within the context.
confines of our land and again we're more than happy to work with the individuals who do own
next door to us to make sure that they feel comfortable in all respects and act in terms of
the porches and this is probably not the best picture this is union this is where we are you
can't see it but these this is what we're trying to mimic the porches that are in this community
In terms of the parking situation, West Girard is public transportation. In terms of the commercial aspect, these are all CMX properties. None of them are commercial. 40th Street is a commercial corridor, but Girard here is not commercial.
So I hope that answers the pastor's concerns about our project.
And ultimately, we did get community support after making a full presentation to the community at a well-attended meeting.
Okay, I disagree with that.
I wasn't informed of the meeting, and several people have stated they were not informed at the first meeting that you all had, nor this meeting.
And there are commercial properties on our portion of the street.
it is not just on Gerard Avenue. It's a restaurant, soon to be a Popeye's, and something else with a
drop-through. That's all on Gerard Avenue, so we're going to give information. We have to give the
correct information. There are no porches on our half of the block. And I know you don't have that
picture, but we have to give correct information. No, what I'm saying is... Mr. Markinson did
identify that it was on the other side
of, was that
Noble Street? Union. Union
Street, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah.
Pastor, your church is on there. The
rest of it, my understanding from memory, because we
had the meeting on the lot,
they were all vacant otherwise.
The lots are vacant,
but not the buildings
are being, they are commercial
buildings that are on the other
end of our property.
All right, thank you. Anyone else
to testify?
chair we can keep going thank you planning commission
um from bednar city planning the comprehensive plan recommends no changes to existing commercial
mixed use zoning at this location and includes a specific recommendation to strengthen commercial
activity near the intersection of 40th and Girard Avenue, including this block.
The lack of the commercial ground floor on this application conflicts with the specific
comprehensive plan recommendations. The Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the
variance. I'm totally confused on this one. I'd like to close the record and have a discussion.
Well, Mr. Chairman, before you close the record, and I didn't think this was going to be a
contentious matter because it was pretty straightforward, but Mr. Wise, I would like
to have his testimony. In addition to being a representative of the owner, he is a licensed
realtor who handles both commercial and residential aspects. And again, I would have
Mr. Wise testify that you know in this part of town he he doesn't honestly believe that commercial
would thrive. 40th Street around the corner there is a significant amount of commercial. Further
down in Girard there is commercial but in this part of the area it's mostly residential other
than the church structure. So if I could just have Mr. Wise briefly testify just so it's before the
record closes and so the board gets to consider that as well. We'll get him on we'll get him on
I reckon. Yeah. Mr. Wise, can you say in your professional opinion whether or not commercial
usage on this lot would be successful? I didn't think so based on the complexity
and the fabric of the residential that's across the union and being as though they're all vacant
lots right there next to the church and the pastor is correct there is commercial going towards
further down towards 40th street and off of I'm sorry further down 40th and Gerard and on 40th
street which has a lot of commercial blight as is so I didn't see to put another commercial space
especially right there with that fabric of residential all along that side of Gerard
avenue yeah exactly so so you again that that point about 40th street 40th street is the
commercial corridor around there right correct and would you say there's a high vacancy rate
around 40th in that on that commercial corridor yes i would okay i have no further questions
yes I would okay I have no further questions just I'll just ask again does the board have
We'll be right back.
any questions no Mr. Chair no so MI 2021-002316 3934 West Gerard Avenue the record is closed
the board will discuss this matter and make a decision at next week's executive session
i think that concludes the two o'clock list that does any any unfinished business on the
two o'clock list and so anyone uh anyone believe that they have not had an opportunity to be heard
on any of the cases on the two o'clock list um hi chair this is tanya uh were you going to do
the add-on on the 3 30 or two o'clock list i was going to do it on the 3 30 is that all right or
i mean i can do it now it sounds good whatever works for you cheer all right let's do it now
and get that out of the way there's an add-on um it's for case number was listed on number five
on add-ons for this morning's list. MI 2020-002708635 West Olney Avenue.
This case was originally heard on June the 30th. It was held because I was not present at that
hearing. I read the transcript and I viewed the video at that hearing. There were two no votes.
Mr. Plaza and Mr. Snell were voting no. Mr. Holloman and Ms. Tenere voted yes. There was
another hearing held on August the 11th. All board members were not present. We are all present now.
So my vote on MI 2020-002708635 West Olney Avenue is no.
and i think that can is that sufficient tanya
do the other board members need to vote as well um chair if it's all possible i would ask that
all board members vote just to have a clear record understood okay carol tennari my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Jim Snell.
uh chair for the record you already mentioned that mr snell i'm previously voted so that's
sufficient okay thank you thank you very kindly chair thank you all right uh before we begin the
330 list um does everyone want to take a five or ten minute break yes yes that was the that was the
All right.
We'll be back here at 6.15.
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.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, good afternoon again.
or good evening let's see jim is here pauline tom confessor
and carol i think carol's here
ah there you go all right we all ready the court reporter ready i am chair thank you
you and pauline we're ready to go live okay we are already recording sir so you can go when ready
Thank you. And Mr. Hand, are we ready to go? Well, you need a few minutes.
Please proceed. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair
of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator, Mr. Jason Hand, and our Board Attorney, Ms.
Melissa Freeman, are also in attendance, as is our Zoning Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya
Sunken. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise
everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web
or otherwise. Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat that. For anyone
participating by phone. If you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. I will
repeat that. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. And I'd like to remind everyone, please do not
attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments, concerns, questions?
to testify in the chat. Any comments, concerns, or questions should be directed to our Board
Administrator, Mr. Jason Hand. With that, I will read off one of the first add-on, MI 2021-001866.
1820 West Venango Street. The request for reconsideration has been made by Councilwoman
Cindy Bass. My vote is yes to re-hearing and reconsideration.
Carol, you muted. You muted, Carol.
My name is Carol Tenere. My vote is yes to reconsideration and re-hearing.
Confessor Plaza, yes to reconsideration and re-hearing.
James Snell, yes to reconsideration and re-hearing.
Thomas Holloman, yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Thank you. And the second item on our add-on is MI 2020-003259, 250 by Berry Road.
Mr. Ward is the attorney of record. My understanding this is just a resumption hearing.
planning commission supports there's a letter from the somerton civic which we need to hear
from now and have read into the record so this is a resumption hearing to read the rco letter
into the record do we have that letter am i supposed to have that or is that going to be
read in by Mr. Ward. I don't have that letter. Let's see. Melissa, you need it, Melissa?
I don't have the letter either. I'll see if it was sent to me.
Okay, we can ask Mr. Ward to come forward to see if he has the letter, Chair.
Yes, please. Mr. Ward, if you're there, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Now unmute yourself.
Mr. Chairman, I am here.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
All right. Sean Ward, SHAWN, WARD. Address is 331 East Street Road, Trevos,
T-R-E-V-O-S-E, Pennsylvania
1-9-0-5-3
Attorney for Applicant.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I most certainly don't.
You froze up. Okay.
I do have a copy of the RCO letter.
Yeah, I will share my screen.
Do you agree with reading it?
I submitted it to the board.
John, can you hear me?
Carol, excuse me.
i don't think we need to do that because this is a resumption hearing
oh okay yeah and the only thing we need is to have the letter read into the record
yeah real briefly i would submit yes this is a resumption hearing uh as an officer of the court
i was sworn in at the prior hearing i would submit that i am still under oath and i provided to uh
The board solicitor today, the RCO meeting, notice number two, certificate of mailing,
the applicant's summary of relief presented to the RCO, a copy of their first RCO letter,
which was submitted to the board at the last hearing, indicating that we were going to meet again, basically,
and a copy of their second letter, which resulted in opposition,
that I believe the record will extend and the board can take judicial notice that
the second meeting of the RCO, however, the RCO letter of opposition fails to address the first
meeting at which approximately 120 persons attended with the vote delayed pending the second
meeting. 239 RCO notices were sent out via first class mail. At the first meeting, 120 total persons
attended while only 25 attended the second meeting of which one was a nearby neighbor
on the notify address list from the planning commission
uh very quickly mr pointed out four things the appearance of the building
uh and i submit these four things are not zoning related uh this building was on record
well reflect as presented at the original hearing for approximately 78 years uh it was it was a
millwork fabrication and distribution facility. It has not changed. They talked about the timing
of traffic, which was addressed at the meeting. They brought up the standard code violations,
which were a result of routine L&I inspections, which were complied immediately, but for the
which were complied immediately but for the zoning violation which is the subject of this hearing
zoning violation, which is the...
and then of course the retributory or you know penalizing a comment about failure to seek a
permit prior to use it was used for 78 years as a millwork fabrication distribution facility and
they were under the stake in belief that moving a storage company would be permitted uh it's it's a
non-conforming structure in an RM2 district. It's been zoned multifamily since, you know,
78 years ago when the other, you know, property was occupied by Premier Millwork. This is certainly
not created by the applicant. And at minimum, we would accept a three-year minimum, I mean,
a three-year attempt at minimum. But basically in their letter, which has been provided to
actually sean if you could do you have a copy of that yeah
can you say it now yes we can and uh i believe i'm it's my duty to read that into the record i
believe so if you can help me out get me up to the beginning the first paragraph
do you want to take it from the top there you go take it from the top yeah all right
so uh meeting attendees expressed concern about the appearance from by hold on wait a minute
now the top of the letter or or you want the final position the final this is this the final
position yeah i'll be right here all right let me read it from there a public community meeting
was held on september 22 i i know it's not your fault but you're jumping i i want to start at
the beginning of this letter sorry mr chair and i apologize i don't have it in front of me well it's
it's uh uh so mr warwick the delay in technical uh just move the letter up to the beginning
because our requirement is to read the letter in its entirety
okay how's that tanya all right stay right there stay right there don't move a community
public community meeting was held on September 22nd, 2021 by the Somerton Civic Association,
the coordinating registered community organization regarding the above reference zoning appeal.
The ZBA hearing is scheduled for today, September 29th, 2021 at 3.30 p.m. The meeting was held
outdoors under a tent at the Philadelphia Quartet Club located at 1290 Southampton Road
in Somerton. Social distancing protocols were followed at the meeting, which was the
Somerton Civic Association's third in-person meeting since March 2020 and the onset of the
coronavirus pandemic. Around 50 Somerton Civic Association members and others attended the
meeting where the proposal was discussed. No other RCO has geographical boundaries that include the
250 Byberry Road property. The final petition, excuse me, the final position taken by the
Somerton Civic Association membership was one of opposition to the requested variance.
The vote was taken subject to a condition, namely that the proposed variance be temporary.
to expire after three after three years elapsed. There were seven votes in favor of a variant
subject to this condition and 18 votes against it. At the request of the applicant's attorney
Somerton Civic Association's board polled attendees who had received the mailed notice
sent to neighbors living in living close to the applicant's property. Among those living near the
property. The result was zero votes in favor of a variance and one opposed.
Scroll up a little bit please. The property is situated below Byberry Road next to where
Byberry crosses SEPTA's West Trenton's line tracks. Adjacent properties include several
residential properties and the Forest Hills SEPTA station. Although the property has long
been zoned for a multifamily residential use for decades, it was the site of a business
that used the property pursuant to a zoning variance. That business has been closed for
a few years. The applicant's tenant, a moving company, began operations at this site some
point late last year, but the applicant did not seek a variance prior to the tenant commencing.
but the applicant did not seek a variance
prior to the tenant commencing operations.
If you can scroll down.
You got it?
Nope, not yet.
Scroll down, please, if you could.
I wonder if that's the next paragraph.
Next paragraph starts with-
Meeting attendees expressed concern about the appearance of Byberry Road of the buildings on the 250 Byberry property, the scale and timing of vehicle traffic into and out of the property and its impact on neighbors.
Code violations reportedly found that the property and the applicant's perceived failure to seek permits for this proposed use of the property before commencing such use.
the applicant's attorney and the proposed tenant characterized the amount of traffic at the site
as small and not bothersome to bothersome to neighbors noted that most of all of the code
violations had been resolved and stated that the applicant was not aware that the proposed use
required a variance the applicant's attorney referred to a separate application for a variance
at this property for a pool slash spa and sit-down restaurant use as an opportunity to make
improvements to the appearance of the property. The applicant indicated at the meeting that he
would like to commence the use of the property as a pool slash spa and sit-down restaurant pending
the grant of a separate variance, see appeal number 101049714 within three years.
Upon hearing of this timeline and observing several meeting attendees had spoken critically
of the proposed use of the property for moving and storage, the Somerton Civic Association
Board suggested that the vote on the present moving and storage variants be taken subject
to the proviso that the variants expire in three years. This would have accommodated the
applicant's proposed timeline while limiting the duration of moving and storage use.
But when a vote was taken, the majority of the Somerton Civic Associations in attendance
did not appear to accept the applicant's argument and voted against the variants,
even with these providers
scroll down a little bit please
to the paragraph that begins
no further letter
that's the last paragraph
no further letter of explanation is
attached
if you have any questions or require additional
information please contact me at the
email address below
sincerely Chris Bordelon
B-O-R-D-E-L-O-N
all right
So I've read the letter into the record. Mr. Ward, maybe you can clear something up before we call for a vote.
There was mention about a temporary variance. Was that, I think it was, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that a provisor that was put on the table by your client?
Yes, to the board. We have another application pending. My client proposes a day spa use at this site. Not a massage parlor use, as commonly thought of, but a recreational and health wellness center with an indoor pool.
will have massages by licensed therapists, but it'll also have a snack bar and outdoor areas
for recreational purposes, similar to a small country club type setting. That application
is pending, but because that application was taking quite some time, in addition to the COVID
shutdown. You know, for revenue purposes, he accepted a lease by this moving and storage
company to operate from the site with three trucks. They basically hold furniture in the
warehouse until such time as the, you know, the client or customer's house is ready. And then
they, you know, they deliver it in a moving truck. So we figured that three years at the most
with regard to the moving and storage would allow him ample time to get through the approval
processes, including, you know, the next application before this board and our next
meeting before Summer and Civic, and then get building permits in order to present a case
and then get building permits in order to present a case for that use.
And then the moving and storage would then cease, discontinue, or terminate.
But obviously, this is a – it was a millwork factory, warehouse, and distribution center.
It is not conducive to RM2.
It never was.
And I don't know why it's zoned that way, but it's been for multifamily use.
It's just not appropriate.
nor is it reasonable under the standards of the code,
nor the conditions for the grant of a variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-003259, 250 by Berry Road.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Temporary variance to expire October 1st, 2024.
4. Is that correct, Mr. Ward? I believe so, Mr. Chairman, I believe so.
Board members, Carol, you're muted. I apologize, the door was blocking. Carol Tenere,
my vote is yes with proviso. Confessor Plaza, yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman yes with proviso
Jim you're muted
we have a majority of the votes okay we'll move on to the regular list now
chair this is Tanya Sunkit the administrator may I just put something on the record we do have
hands up for this case but just to note this was for a reading of the letter from the rco lady
no other testimony would be provided thank you chair thank you thank you all right very much
good night thank you thank you uh first a regular list mi 2021-002 433 1213-19 walnut street
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney of record. Wash West RCO sent a letter of non-opposition, as did Councilman Mark Squilla.
Ms. Pritzker, if you're there, please identify yourself. You're still under oath.
good afternoon or good evening i guess at this point yeah rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 thank you miss canary has some questions for
you hi do you all do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes have you emailed the exhibit packet proof of ownership with proof of ownership proof of
tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes okay great you
may proceed. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Okay, this is 12, 13 to 19 Walnut Street.
As you can see from the refusal, this property is on CMX5. The only refusal we have is for the
proposed boarding and other services. Essentially, what we're looking to do is occupy space 150 in
this commercial mixed-use building, and we applied for animal services, including boarding
and other services in Space 150 as part of an existing structure on the same lot as all
other previously approved uses. Animal services is permitted by right in CMX5. However, boarding
and other services, which is a pretty easily identifiable adjacent use or accessory use
for animal services is not contemplated in CMX-5. I think it's only allowed in most industrial uses.
So that's our hardship is that we're putting in an emergency vet. It's a business called Veg.
And essentially, we're just looking to be able to have boarding in the event that an animal needs
to be put into temporary boarding just while they're being treated. Veg is a very unique
business. This is going to be their first location in Philadelphia. They signed a lease
with Goldenberg Group. So I have a copy of the lease in the application. And as you can see,
it takes place in the center building, the center lot on 12th and Walnut Street.
um this is an aerial view of the building um here are the zoning posters on the property
This is an aerial view of the building. Here are the
this is where the site is going to be
and veg only handles emergency veterinary services so there's no overnight boarding it's not a place
where you take your dog to get groomed or your cat to get groomed it's simply just for emergency
veterinary care. We met with the Washington Square West Civic Association back in June,
on June 22nd, and we have a letter of non-opposition from the Washington Square West
Civic Association. This is going to be the only centrally located emergency veterinary
company in Center City, so this will be a great addition to the city. Obviously, the property
zone, CMX 5, so contemplates most commercial uses. Again, the hardship is just that essentially
just only I1 or I2 allow for the boarding and other services, and there's nothing on
our end that we did to cause that sort of oversight in the code in our summation. I
would like to have Jennifer Hanlon or our architect, Ashley, go through the floor plans.
Jennifer Hanlon is a representative from VEG, and she can certainly answer any questions related to the operation of VEG, and any other questions can be directed towards Ashley if she's on the call, just to go through the floor plans for the existing building.
Welcome Ms. Hanlon to the panelists thank you
Ms. Hanlon please spell your full name I swear you in yes hi um it's Jennifer J E N N I F E R
hamlin h-a-n-l-o-n each square or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you ms pritzker yeah um just quickly jennifer have you heard the testimony that i gave
today in front of the board yes i have you believe it to be true and accurate to the best of your
ability and you adopt it as your own yes i do feel free to um add any additional information
that you'd like and i just wanted to make sure that the architect is here to be able to go through
the floor plans yes she is um hi Ashley I'm sure you can hear me um Ashley you just have to raise
your hand and then you can join as a panelist um I'm actually going to hand it over to Ashley so
she can walk you guys through our floor plan but um we really appreciate um the board taking the
time to hear this matter and that just very excited to come to Philadelphia so I'll hand it
over to Ashley who should hopefully be joining uh Jennifer is she under your name as well
excuse me is she under your name as well no ashley um does not work for veterinary emergency group
she works for a firm called animal arts and they design all of our um hospitals across the country
but did she did you send her the login because sometimes oh yes she she had to log it under me
yeah okay so you're you're correct tanya there might be two of me yeah that's what she was asking
we can make the presentation brief uh Rachel yeah it's just the floor plan I just want to
have it on for the record understood understood uh Jennifer Hanlon no I'm sorry Ashley is that
Ashley yes yeah yes I'm here please spell your full name yep my name is Ashley Schultz spelled
a-s-h-l-e-y last name spelled s-h-o-u-l-t-s you swear a friend to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes i do i'm sorry chair may i interrupt one second this is tanya
miss ashley can i ask that you turn your video off because that'll help with the connectivity
thank you so much careful driving while you're speaking to us please i'm parked we're good okay
Good. Thank you. Please. I have the plans up on the screen. So if you want to just go through
them briefly for the board, I figured I would put them up so that you don't have to do it yourself.
Sure. Thank you. So like I said, my name is Ashley Schultz. I'm representing animal arts.
Heather Lewis is the architect of record in our office on this project. But I am also one of the
partners at our firm. So I work with VEG on all of their projects across the United States. And
here in this location in Philly, we have basically our typical VEG hospital starts with the front
door in through the vestibule in a reception area where the clients would be greeted. Immediately
where the clients would be greeted. Immediately upon being greeted, they would be taken back
upon being greeted
into the main treatment space. So if any of you have pets and have been to a hospital,
most of the time you don't get to actually go see the treatment space. You would go straight
into an exam room at your veterinary hospital. One unique thing that Veg does differently is
they allow their clients to stay with their pet the entire time. And so that helps a lot because
these are typically emergency situations. It's better for the pet and it's better for the pet
owner as well. So that main treatment space that you see labeled kind of in the center of the plan
has three treatment tables as well as a doctor island and animal housing. So there's cages around
the perimeter as well as a lab and pharmacy and a pack prep area which is where you would prep a
patient if they're going into the surgery room. Additionally around the perimeter of the treatment
spaces you will see exam rooms, quiet ward, an isolation space for more critically sick patient
that maybe needs to be isolated from others, and then the surgery room and the x-ray room.
Kind of some back of house spaces that you will see shown on the plan. Up for left corner we have
a restroom. There's also a back entrance slash exit into the space. We also have what we've
shown here is a family room is basically a staff break room. We call it the family room.
Laundry storage utility. There is a medical gas room where we have an oxygen generator system
for patients that need extra oxygen. And then moving down the page, we have an on-call room
that doubles as an overflow exam, and then a multi-purpose meeting room and a small meeting
room. That's kind of the gist of what we have in the space, but I'm happy to answer any questions
if you guys have them or need clarity on what we're showing. Thank you. Any questions from the
board? No, Mr. Chairman. No. Rachel, do you have any other witnesses you need? No. Thank you. Anyone
else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand. Go ahead to this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission? This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for center city commercial mixed use. The city plan recommended
request of variance be granted provided no overnight boarding services thank you MI 2021-002433
1213-19 walnut street my vote is yes and we don't need overnight services correct correct
Jennifer I just want to clarify your overnight meaning like left unattended but there will be
animals who are being uh serviced by a doctor that may be there overnight so i just don't want to
you know what i'll just i'll remove that we'll just say uh again i'll do it again mi 2021 that
zero zero two four three three one two one three dash one nine walnut street my vote is yes my
vote is yes my name is carol tenere professor plaza my vote is yes james now my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes thank you and welcome to Philadelphia thank you thank you
thank you guys so much we really appreciate it MI 2021-000303 1240 Harrison Street
this is a second listing is there anyone here for 1240 Harrison Street
no hands chair thank you this was the second listing mi 2021 that's 000303
1240 harrison street my vote is to dismiss harold tenary my vote is to dismiss professor plaza
dismissed. Thomas Holloman, dismissed. Thank you. MI number three on our list, MI 2021-003193,
127 North 32nd Street. Darwin Beauvais is the attorney of record.
uh as of my notes indicate we've not yet received a letter from the rco but that'll
be cleared up once mr bovay gets sworn in mr bovay has been promoted to panelists
please spell your full name sir and i'll swear you in
there we go
there we go mr chairman members of the board how are you well thank you good how are you
it's always good to see you um i didn't hear you earlier so i don't know if you want me to swear in
yes please spell your full name and i'll swear you in all right first name darwin d-a-r-w-i-n
last name Beauvais. That's B as in boy, E-A-U-V as in victory, A-I-S as in Sam. I'm from the law
firm of Dilworth Paxson, and I represent the applicant in this matter. Do you swear a firm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Ms. Tenere has some questions for
you. Okay. Darwin, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I agree to the waiving of the reading but I do not stipulate to the accuracy and I'll
explain as part of my presentation. Okay have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes. Thank you you may proceed.
Yes, and if we can also raise as panelists, Stephen Griggs, the president of Republic Properties, as well as John Mendencorp from Pannoni Engineers, as well as Richard Hayden, who is the local development partner.
And if I could share my screen.
So do they all need to be promoted or just audio?
um i i guess audio thank you
why don't we get begin your presentation then we can bring them on individually just be sworn in
okay so 127 north 32nd street i just want to give the board a little bit of history and i'll
start so first and foremost we i submitted exhibits 1 through 15 that includes the tax
clearance certificate the deed zoning appeals site plans zoning maps aerials elevations a memorandum
of law and support letter from scepter as well as photograph the notice letter well as photographs
from of the property um scrolling down i would like the board's attention to uh page 27 let's start
there. Clearly I'm not doing that right. Okay, so 127 North 32nd Street is actually part
of the scepter rail yard and if you can see my cursor this is that parking area and that building
is what we are building on that building is the scepter crew quarters um that's where the crew
will go and conduct their business while they're dealing with the rail traffic.
But with that, and I want to give it to Stephen Graetz, who's new to Philadelphia in developing
this project. This is an industrial area, as you can tell from this map. And because of that,
This is what we're looking at. The actual property looks like this.
There's nothing there. Broad iron. And it sits right in the middle of Drexel University.
So that's Drexel right across the street. This is looking more north.
from the corner so and there's the crew quarters and the parking now i i i want the board to um
hear from steven great as to
why they're interested in doing something like this and if he can like i mentioned be promoted to
i don't know if you call it panelists or or yeah what's his full name even great if if he can
i'm sorry mr bouvet would he be under your name no no we we are
would he be under your name no no we we are all sitting in different locations right now
so i have someone with your name with their hands really okay let's try that
if you hear me and double then you know
this is the unmuted steve grigg okay steve please spell your full name
Stephen Grigg, G as in George, R as in Richter, I as in me, and G, G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Bovee.
Mr. Griggs, can you tell everybody where you work?
I'm the president and CEO of Republic Properties Corporation.
We're based out of Washington, D.C.
And have you developed in Philadelphia before?
Our predecessor firm did Franklin Mills years ago in the doing business as Western Development Corporation.
okay and so but it's within the last few years last 10 years this is pretty much the first
iconic project in southeastern pennsylvania correct affirmative all right can you tell
us a little bit about republic properties well republic is a firm that does work around the
country. Our principal offices are in Washington, D.C. We have an office in San Francisco and San
Jose, California, and an office in Greenwich, Connecticut. We've built projects from the West
Coast to Florida to D.C., and we do a variety of landmark projects, principally in Washington, D.C.
and in California, but we've built buildings around the country. We've done residential,
retail, multifamily projects, and we've also been responsible for office mixed-use developments.
And you can look at our website, republicfamilyofcompanies.com,
for some additional information if you wish.
And what kind of building are we building here?
This is a cell, a purpose-built cell and gene therapy facility,
which is a combination as the lower levels,
which extend out there below the first level green roof that you see in the
picture,
are really three levels of manufacturing's process space for cell and gene therapy.
It's unusual to have these facilities located in a multi-story building,
but we're doing this in the edge of University City,
and those three floors are really two-story high floors in a normal sense of 21 to 23-foot floor-to-floor heights.
And on top of those, there is a mechanical floor that provides services up and down, and then five floors of purpose-built general laboratory with some office-use space above that, and then another set of mechanical uses above that.
Now, these sit on top of a podium, which is because of the slope of 32nd Street and because of the need to put in replacement facilities for SEPTA down on the lowest level.
These are sit on top of a podium that's about a half a level above 32nd Street.
The existing SEPTA facilities are really down about six to eight feet below 32nd Street, which rises as you go north from Market heading north along there.
So the street slopes slightly. You can see an indication of that on some of the drawings.
If you look closely at it, it's a little tough with these photos, so that you really have a cellar that in some zoning situations, it would be called a cellar, which is where the crew facilities are.
But because the Powelton Yards are built based...
But because the Powleton yards are built basically half a level out, it gets treated as though it's
above grade. So this particular building sits up so that podium is up a little bit above this fence
and it tucks over the top of the SEPTA facilities which have to be replaced underneath it
in order to keep the pulp and yards operating.
The site itself is less than three-quarters of an acre.
Understood.
And I appreciate that, right?
So then I was – I think the board has an idea of what the design
and what the uses are.
Excuse me, Darwin?
Can you explain what's the podium in architectural terms?
that's thomas holliman asking the question uh that that's that's just a platform upon it's
just a term of art it's just a platform upon which the building rises from which is a which
is an elevated uh slightly elevated platform therefore is the floor level uh yes there it's
partially occupied and there's parking up above. The podium is the cellar level, which is the dark
level that you see some cars there, is actually below the street level, below 32nd Street,
six to nine feet, depending on where along 32nd Street you measure it, nominally six to nine feet
below it thank you so um so let me just get back to the rendering you know the the and and and i
appreciate the architectural um uh uh proudness but if i could just restate it in layman terms
right the picture that you're seeing here if you notice that there is the uh a bright white brick
that looks like it's hitting ground level that and then you'll see cars you'll see columns
and then you see another uh white brick running along 32nd street in a curve and then you see
columns and then you see the building right uh steven would you say that's the podium
uh the podium is the is the the if you go to the right you'll see the parking that's that you come
in off of 32nd street and rise up to that level to get up above the septa level which is down
sunken below 32nd street okay all right so it's anything that brings the building to street level
Okay, so with that, I don't want to trouble the board with more of the design because
I want to address the refusal.
So, if we can go there.
Our refusals, we received two use refusals and one zoning refusal.
The first one was dealing with our maximum Florida area ratio.
We were considered to be 5% over the max.
We submit that's somewhat negligible.
If you look at the total number of gross floor, the GSF, the gross square feet,
we're under 10,000 additional GSF.
We think that it doesn't create that much of an impact,
considering we are on rail yard level going to street level.
The third refusal deals with the maximum number or the minimum number of parking spaces, and those spaces in itself is a result of the laboratory uses that we have.
They calculated that we're at 165 spaces, but we're only providing 71 spaces.
That in itself, we can get into that in a few minutes because I would like to have Mr. Dick Hayden to speak. He's the local development partner and both refusals center around our limitations with the property as a result of building on a rail yard that's overseen by the
of building on a rail yard that's overseen by the Federal Transit Administration
and implemented and overseen as well by SAPTA. So if we can also promote or allow
Richard Hayden to speak. Mr Hayden, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Richard Hayden, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-H-A-Y-D-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Dick.
Now, Mr. Hayden, what I have on the screen right now is Exhibit 13 in everyone's packet.
And can you describe to me where did this letter come from?
So to provide context for this letter, as Mr. Bovee has laid out, SEPTA owns this parcel.
And as you saw from the earlier aerial presentation from Mr. Bovee, this is the only piece of a 23-acre parcel which can be developed on SEPTA's yards.
The rest of the parcel are, frankly, active rail yards.
So SEPTA undertook this project pursuant to a change in federal law in 2015 with a 2016 guidance where the Federal Transit Administration released guidance documents saying we want to encourage transit agencies around the country to develop parcels that they think have a higher and better use and bring in private development.
The conditions, however, for what's called a joint development agreement under the FTA rules require that you maintain the current public use.
So for design purposes, we had to start with what I call the rail grade level in terms of design.
So you saw that in the rendering, which meant not only do we have to replace the crew quarters,
SEPTA took advantage of this opportunity to expand it by 50%, modernize the interior, and then increase the parking along their rail grade bases.
So what we're left with is the only developed piece of this parcel.
Normally in an I-2 zone, as you guys know, an industrial zone, there's an expectation that you've got a lot of room to do surface parking that's accessory of the building.
That's not the case here.
The tracks are active.
we are occupying 97% of the parcel to accommodate the parking that we can provide on the site,
which is the septal level as well as the deck at the street level for our tenants.
The other issue that we had to consider in terms of parking was that, as Mr. Green mentioned,
this is cell and gene therapy, which has FDA approved, will have FDA approved manufacturing
capacity on site, we have to be very sensitive to vibration issues associated with that kind
of work.
So anytime you try to add and stack multiple levels of parking, you're really subjecting
your uses above that to vibration and other issues associated with, frankly, parking on
So we retained a vibration consultant and expert.
so we're able to program what limited vibration we have now into the building columns
so we can mitigate any vibration impacts for our FDA-certified manufacturing capacity.
So we have an impracticality and impossibility to add additional parking to this site.
And that's pretty much explained?
Yeah, I think that's the correspondence from the general manager of SEPTA
explain the limitations of the site, as well as, frankly, their requirements to first satisfy FTA
and then satisfy their own safety requirements. So the design for the rail grade level has already
been approved by the FTA and SEPTA, and that dictated and drove what we can do from that
point forward, meaning higher up. Yes. So with that said, and thank you, Ms. Hayden. With that said,
I would like the board's attention to back to our refusal, if you will, the third point.
If we look at in the middle, it says we also received the refusal for section 14-516-3b.2,
which basically this is saying
Basically, this is saying when you have a garage, that facade has to have active uses.
when you have a garage
that facade
Now, something about this was very familiar to me at the time, and I realized why.
And if I can stop sharing for a moment and go to, if the board can indulge me.
I am on, I am on the zoning code website and we're looking at 14-15, 5-16.
The particular reference is 3B.2.
This is the reference where it discussed that it should have active uses.
I realized when I read this, I knew why it was very familiar to me,
because this is defining the school pool yards development area.
This does not fit in school pool yards.
It's not part of the Schuylkill Yards development area.
And I did go back and forth with L&I.
I believe Mr. Hayden even discussed it with the Planning Commission.
It is not Schuylkill Yards.
It is, if anything, it abuts Drexel's campus, and Drexel is not Schuylkill Yards.
Just to clarify even more, as you see the definition for the Schuylkill Yards development,
area. You'll notice the footnote. The footnote as you click here will explain to you and the footnote
is right here. It actually discusses or tells you the bill that created this portion of the code.
Now I just so happen to have a copy of that bill and as you can see here that bill is 190250
and it discussed and increased the Schuylkill Yard's development area and what is interesting
about it, it makes reference to a map as to what Schuylkill Yard is.
And if I can just rotate.
this is the schuylkill yards development area and if i could bring this closer for the board
to see as you can see this is 30th street excuse me sir we don't see that we don't see oh you can't
can you see the map yes okay so this is the schuylkill yards development area
and as you can see where my cursor is it defines 30th street jfk boulevard market street
And it goes as far west.
And at the time of drafting, nobody could define this boundary.
So at the time, they said, well, for now, we'll just call it 32nd Street.
Because this actually is JFK.
And because of this misnomer, we're now finding ourselves stuck in L&I saying that this is part of Schuylkill Yards.
And we respectfully disagree.
But nonetheless, we are willing to show you what we have attempted to create for that area.
Excuse me, Counselor.
That's not Scoop Kill Yard, but how do you prove it's not?
Because I showed the board the ordinance, the reference to the code, and with the ordinance,
the map that actually describes what the boundaries were. And those boundaries
were on the other side of the rail yard and not on our side of the rail yard.
So I understand that, you know, it's almost a catch-22.
that, you know, it's almost a catch-22
because you can look at the language of what the code says,
but the bill actually shows the map.
And I say that's part of our hardship
because clearly the map shows something different
than what the verbiage is explaining.
But nonetheless, our hardship is even further
because of the limitations we have with the FDA and what we are suggesting,
because it's not that we're disregarding the spirit and what the code should have,
which is why I want the board's attention to our exhibit 10.
We're looking at what this wall is.
I'm sorry.
So we're looking at what the wall is because we have this. And let me show you a side view. This wall, even though it is, it is in front of our building, it's considered a garage facade by L&I.
And even though we've argued with Ellen and I explaining that this is more for structural integrity, this is not necessarily, you know, because the parking is further down as well as below, but be that as it may, they're insisting that this is a garage for thought.
What we have attempted to do is enliven. We're making it green. And the reason why we're seeking this variant is because they believe that it should have more commercial uses going on there.
And we're respectfully saying, because this is an R&D lab, it's in the middle of campus, there's already other active uses going along at Drexel, this could be different.
And we're asking the board to support us because when you look at our Exhibit 13, which clearly they're saying we cannot build more than what we're allowed to build.
And when you look at this map that suggests that Schuylkill Yards should have been on the other side of the rail yard and not on this side.
And then, frankly, we have tried to mitigate by putting greenery, and we believe that the board can see that we're creating the least minimal impact, and with that, we should be granted our variances.
this i understand i understand counselor would you agree that 32nd street should have more commercial
to no be available to drexel no no um and you can look at that i'm sorry um uh darwin this is
this is richard hayden can i address that issue the question from the board member
Good question. So Drexel, and Darwin has shown that. That's a dormitory right next to our site. And down from the dormitory is yet another Drexel building.
Directly across the street from us on this site is the, now it's the Arnold Inspector Squash Center where they converted an armory.
That building you're looking at there, right on that corner, that's the Drexel Police Department.
So we actually met with Drexel at the beginning, as well as meeting with the community group.
And Drexel had two requests for us.
They said, look, we don't want a pizza shop or anything, you know, street-level retail here.
It doesn't fit.
It doesn't work.
We said it actually didn't work for our uses upstairs.
We don't want food handling when we're, you know, trying to do CGMP manufacturing upstairs.
The second question they asked for us was, could you give us a street-level lobby entrance?
And we said, let's work with SEPTA to see if we can move the SEPTA occupancy north on our site to accommodate a street-level nice-looking lobby, which is a commercial use, you know, the street-level lobby.
And we were able to achieve that.
And Darwin, our architect, Kenneth Dubois, is also on the call.
on the um on the call but they actually drexel said we really don't want any commercial here
But they actually, Drexel said,
it doesn't fit we don't want another pizza parlor and if you go north and darn if you if you go back
to your photos there's nothing that see as you see that um black broad iron fence that's pretty
much the end of our parcel anything north of that is just a big wall that's a drop off down to the
railroad tracks. So there really isn't any room. We're going to be the last developed parcel on
32nd Street. So unlike other areas like, frankly, the facing on Market Street, where you want to
activate, you know, commercial, ground-level retail, whatever, that's really incompatible
with the rest of 32nd Street. Yes. I'm somewhat familiar with that neighborhood.
Market Street doesn't have any commercial space for the Drexel students?
With all due respect, I've spent probably 40 different visits.
I live in the city.
I've probably been to this site and around the corner of Market Street 40 times.
As soon as you get to 32nd Street and you go north on 32nd Street, that's where you begin to see some of the commercial activity on 32nd Street.
I admit, and you're right, if you go from 30th Street up to 32nd and all those parcels are controlled by Drexel and are now controlled under the Schuylkill Yards Development Area by Brandywine, you're right.
There's no retail or street-level activity from 30th to 32nd, but once you start north of 32nd, you begin to pick up both Drexel-related dorms and, frankly, some retail activity.
We use a restaurant that's for some of our meetings at 34th Street, and there's the beginnings of doing activation, but it's all right on the market.
It's really not on these side streets.
and and and with that we and maybe i can show the board additional renderings
why are you doing that uh as it relates to the lobby is that just for uh ingress and egress for
employees and workers is there is there is there any uh has there been any thought about any coffee
shop or something i'm not i'm not promoting that i'm just curious will be just be a a pedestrian
means of ingress and egress into the towers or will there be something like a coffee shop in there
so um i would and again i'm not promoting that i'm not saying you should i'm just trying to
understood this is this is a facility for uh uh principle for tenant use so um and we have i think
Darwin, I think this would be a good point for the architect to explain to the board
what's going on with the lobby and the facade.
That's Kenneth Dubois.
Yeah, if we can promote him, that'll be great.
Who am I promoting?
Kenneth Dubois.
He might be another person under my name.
I don't know.
henneth identify himself spell his full name henneth dubois k-e-n-n-e-t-h-d-u-b-o-i-s
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr bouvet okay hang on hang on darwin i think for for um it'd be quicker if you
went right back to that rendering which showed the lobby because that's what ken can address
the lobby there you go and the facade all right so ken why don't you start there sure so um as
was stated earlier the septa quarters got moved north which allowed us to put an entry level to
the south corner of the building um we also need to provide access for materials coming into the
site um which so we we have a very limited corner so the entry piece is not um significant it is a
it's a tall space it's a nice space with the continuation of stone that we're putting on
the outside but it is for tenant ingress and egress um there's no additional space within
the footprint in order to get all the other amenities not amenities but functional space
in to put a coffee shop or other amenity. Now, I want to point out that although the
septic facility is north, it is not a hundred percent below the surface of a J.
it is not 100% below the surface of adjacent grade.
That septic area does extend up
beyond the adjacent surface of grade.
So when you look at the elevation
that was shown earlier,
it actually, the parking level is,
go to the elevation that you showed with vegetation.
Yeah, keep scrolling down.
I'm getting there.
uh that go to the next one it's a little bit easier to see so if you look there you'll see
the dashed line at the bottom that's the lower level where septic quarter sits but the volume
of that space extends up beyond the sidewalk level as it goes to the south as it goes to the
north it starts to be more buried so the actual parking level is not at the top of that green
wall you're seeing it's actually down another few feet and then septa comes right up to it so it's
occupied space behind that wall it's not volume that we could put parking in without raising the
building and then causing additional issues with access to the parking from grade as well as
vibration um being amplified by um a taller structure that's not braced by a floor level
in the middle um but so we've activated this wall back to the main entry where we've continued
the materials into the main lobby but it is not activated for public use
so with all of that said all is not lost because we did some of the issues that we're discussing
right now we did discuss with the community we did meet with the coordinating rco powellton
village civic association and they raised concerns and we actually negotiated to the point that it
wasn't until around two after two o'clock today that that that we reached a an agreed decision
on how to make this more active.
So we are pleased to be in partnership
with the Powhatan Civic Association
to actually create a 6x10 veteran window
to play art that we will hopefully work with local artists
and Drexel or through some sort of art coordinator
and have that wall area enlivened so with that we also negotiated other community benefits with
with Powhatan Village they've agreed to support us and with that I think we're because we're going
to be around for a long time Powhatan Village is our intention is to be their their friends
and partners as we sit on 127 north 32nd street um with with that said i believe um
they should have sent you an email with a support letter and so darwin let me ask you this uh it's
not a proviso it's a community benefits agreement that's correct okay no provisos correct no
provide okay thank you so this is the letter that we were sent um that should have been sent to the
board um showing support for the project um they uh agreed that we will do this veteran window
the the other point earlier is part of the community benefits agreement
So it can't be part of this because the street trees and the raw iron fencing is beyond our property.
But nonetheless, I think they definitely showed us how much they love their neighborhood and we showed them how much we're willing to work with them.
So with that said, I believe during the two o'clock lifts, I also got an email from Andrew Goodman, who said he couldn't be here today, but that the councilman also supports this project.
and and we are happy and pleased to allow this new company this new developer to come in even
though they they've known about philadelphia for quite some time from their predecessor i i and
I and I will love it if this board could grant our variances to welcome them here in into the city
and i would love it if this board could grant our variances
with that said if there's any questions we're more than happy to answer them we also have our
engineers here as well as the architect thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no
Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Ms. Deborah McCarty. McCarty with her hand raised. I will allow her to speak at this time, sir.
Deborah, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
good evening deborah mccarty d-e-b-r-a m-c-c-a-r-t-y we're a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed so uh we apologize for getting
the letter hopefully you all did actually receive it we did send it to you um and uh you know while
PBCA was concerned that the plan doesn't meet the requirements of the code that Darwin cited
in Code 14 or that it would result in a good design where the building meets the street.
We do, however, after some negotiation, PBCA does support the project based on the improvements
outlined in our letter to the board to which the developer has committed. We believe these
improvements should improve the corridor to the developers and the community's benefit.
And I actually just want to add one other thing that there is actually residential just north
of this site on the west side of the street. There's the view which is an apartment building
And there's also a Drexel dorm just south, but north of there on the west side is all residential.
On the east side at Palnton Avenue is a Drexel facility.
But, you know, that's just because I have a thing for details.
It really doesn't probably make much difference here.
So the bottom line is we support the project as stated.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
No other hands Mr. Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Ryan Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for industrial use on the city plan
given the unique physical site conditions we recommend that the requested parents be granted.
Thank you. MI 2021-003193. 127 North 32nd Street, my vote is yes.
my vote is yes professor plaza my vote is yes
thomas holloman my vote is yes
go to case number four mi 2021 that's zero zero two eight three zero two one five six north 21st
Street. This is a pro se case. SAUD, S-A-U-D, Clark. There's a letter from the 32nd Ward RCO
in support of this application.
Mr. Clark has been promoted to panelists.
Please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Saoul Clark, S-A-U-D, C-L-A-R-K.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
So you're the owner?
Thank you.
And you're not a nonprofit or an LLC, correct?
Thank you.
Ms. Tenere has some questions for you.
Sir, have you emailed the exhibit packet in with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property,
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes i do okay great you may proceed
anyway this is a childhood home of mine and um there's some changes in the neighborhood and i've
seen how several people uh had to go to the zoning board to rezone properties that
my family among other families that we came i wanted to take advantage of some of the things
that was changing the neighborhood so I went through the process and I received a few refusal
notice it's my first time doing this so I wasn't really sure why I was refused and then as I was
educated with the um the neighborhood state representative and the RCO they they gave they
they helped walk me through the process and now what I wanted to do is make it a three-unit
He will help walk me through the process.
And now what I want.
structure with the an addition to the back. These additions, this particular addition
is- Mr. Clark, excuse the interruption, do you have any exhibits you can share with us?
Yes. Please do.
Can you see my screen?
Not yet. Mr. Clark, do you have a computer? Yes. So if you're on the Zoom application,
you're going to first make sure you have your documents open, visible on your screen.
Yes. Now here it comes. It's coming up. You got it. I appreciate it. Thank you.
so this is the um this is the property in this current state no or not uh we see it
says started sharing but we haven't we don't see any documents yet
sir when you started to screen share did you um choose the um document that you wanted to
share yes okay maybe try to stop and retry all right thank you one second
Can you see it now?
Okay, it looks like now you've just done the shared, so now try resharing.
There you go.
We got something now.
So this is the property in this corner form.
and where you see the arrow is where the existing the structure that where i'm trying to the addition
and you know several properties on this this particular block that has this this this addition
added. And what it does is it extends the third floor in order to make more room for
a two-bedroom apartment.
Do you have any other exhibits you can share with us? Showing where the extension. There
you go that's it all right so walk me through that shaded area yes this is that the that the
addition you want to put on yes that's correct so it's to the it's it's the width of the property
is that correct? Yes. So we're looking at, are we trying to figure that out? Are we looking at
it? Yeah, we're looking at it sideways. Are we? Is that a better picture? Okay, so the dark shaded
area is what you want to put on right that's the addition yes below that is a lighter shade of gray
that would be the front of the house yes the existing structure i meant to say yes all right
you're going back all right i see it okay all right any other any other exhibits uh quickly
if you have no okay all right so you want to convert this into a triplex
yes well there's is there yard space yes it's uh sufficient yard space actually we only take an
well there's is there yard space
extension to where the structure stops um there's not the second where the where the second floor
stops yes all right will the tenants have access to the yard for trash yes
uh any board members have any questions no mr chairman
No, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
I'm Bednar City Planning.
This property syndicated for residential on the city plan.
Given the documented improvement, we recommend the request of fairness.
Thank you. MI 2021, that's 002-830-2156 North 21st Street. My vote is yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you. We'll go to case number five. MI 2021, that's 002.
418 3301 south 20th street this is the first listing my notes indicate we have not yet received an
exhibit is there anyone here for 3301 south 20th street no hands mr chair thank you mi 2021-002
418-3301
South 20th Street is
continued. Must be heard.
Go to number 6
MI 2021-002
North 16th Street.
Rachel Pritzker is
the Attorney of Record.
My notes indicate we're still
waiting for a letter from the RCO.
Ms. Pritzker, please identify
yourself with the record. You're still under
Good evening, Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635, Marcus Reed Street, 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Mary, my name's Carol.
I said Ms. Tenery.
Oh, I said you said Mary.
No, Ms. Tenery.
It did sound like Mary.
I apologize.
so you're telling action i know i should have understood it do you agree to wait the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof
of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and returns of the property five days
in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter uh yes
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
So this is 3715 North 16th Street.
This is an RSA 3 property.
However, we're proposing the erection of a multifamily structure with a front porch, as shown on our application.
We generated a number of refusals based on the RSA 3 zoning for the site,
although on North 16th Street, there's a lot of multifamily, which I'll go into.
The refusals that we generally relate to just, again, RSA 3, required parking, we're required
eight, we're proposing zero. Front setback, eight feet, we're providing two. Occupied area,
we're allowed 50 percent we're proposing 53 percent um essentially i have it broken down uh
based on our plans um the central hardship is that single-family construction is not viable on large
lots on this block as the board and the planning commission have recognized on record through the
variance process several times in the past half decade in addition uh there's multiple properties
on the block that are similar size to ours that are multifamily. This lot is 2,500 square feet,
which is significantly more than 1,000 square feet larger than the 1,440 required for even
RM1 properties. Specifically, 3,521 has North 16 has four units, 3,523 North 16 has three units,
which was granted via variance, 35-25, three units, 25-27, four units.
25, 35, 25, three units, 25, 27, four units, 25, 35, three units, which was a variance, 35, 37,
north 16, three units, which is a variance, 35, 39, north 16, which is eight units, which is a
variance, and 15, 31, Tioga, 114 units, also a variance. Obviously, accessory off-street parking
is difficult, not only because it has to be accessed by a front street on this property,
given we don't have a shared alleyway or rear street or shared driveway, but also because
it would make it so that the property was even more out of character and have a large
curb cut in the center of the site.
The small de minimis variance we're asking for is about 73 square feet.
It's just to provide a little bit more viable space for the site.
And I also believe, and Scott, our architect, can go through this, but we are, I believe, adding a porch on this site.
And the covered portion of it, I do believe, takes into consideration the open space.
I'm just going to go through the RCO letter because we did meet with RCO.
Again, this is a very large 2,500 square foot vacant lot.
It's been vacant for a long time.
And as you can see from the aerial photos, this is a block that has a good mix of multifamily
and also I'm sure there's single family as well, mostly on the Sydenham side of the street.
These are the zoning posters.
I'm just going to go down to the RCO letter.
It's also worth noting in the archives of the property, it's not ever had a single family use.
the last use that was registered by the city in 1962 was for a triplex.
We met with the Upper North Neighbors Association, UNNA, at a July 18 meeting,
and we did receive a letter from them late last night, September 28th, as you can see in front of
you, and they have issued us a letter of support. There was a total of 16 people at the meeting,
9, 6 in support from RCO, 7 for all meeting attendees, and then 3 in opposition, so they
issued us a letter of support, and they have a letter as well basically stating that they
desire fewer vacant lots with replacement of affordable units. The property is consistent
with the existing houses on the block. The plan that we showed was considered of the community's
desire to maintain the look and feel of the neighborhood. The developer's well-thought-out
plan for property management, rental criteria, maintenance, and trash plan, and UNA members
acknowledge that the 3600 block of North 16th Street block housing is consistent with neighborhood
neighboring Tioga and Benango streets, and that the developer is a community partner who has
demonstrated commitment to revitalization of the community by employing community residents and
participating in neighborhood cleanups. So with that said, I'm going to have Scott Woodruff just
go through the plans. I do believe Kiana is here as well to speak for UNNA. And I will just get the
plans up because I think that Scott is currently in the car. So I will do my best to put up the
plans so that he can go through them.
Thanks, Rachel.
Just on my way home here.
So I am good.
Do I need to be sworn in again?
No, you're still under oath.
Thank you.
Just state your name for the record, Scott.
Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F, 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia,
EPA 19127. Thanks and I don't know if you can see this and just be careful with driving.
Okay if you could just go through the plans briefly for the board
and specifically if you could address the open space
and parking refusal that we have I think I made it clear about the multi-family on the block.
yeah absolutely um so we're proposing a four-story structure um here given that the adjacent
structure uh i believe rachel is six to eight stories um in that regard uh we thought that
it was appropriate to propose this um at this location regarding the open area we did talk to
this um at this location regarding the open area we did talk to the community about uh the reason
the community.
for generating that refusal which was to create the front porch um and their sense was that they
would rather have that as a fit in with the feel and the character of the neighborhood
um uh and it was it was worth the diminished uh refusal of the you know three percent over the
the allowable area in this. Trash is proposed along the alleyway. There is both a front
access and side access that's provided for the tenants so they can access the trash from
a stairway that's roughly in the middle of the building for ease of access and then obviously
there's there's a large rear yard um which can also be accessed by the tenants in this uh regarding
the parking um obviously uh providing parking would take off uh parking off the street and put
it on the site that being said they could really only put uh one to two um parking spaces on the
site and i think it would probably degrade uh the look and feel of the block as well as again we're
we're taking off parking from the public access on the street any questions from the board no
no do you need your client to adopt your testimony yes please um it's uh nadal hassan
nadal if you could just raise your hand
nadal please spell your full name uh nadal n-i-d-a-l last name hassan h-a-s-s-e-n
you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you rachel nadal have you heard my testimony today in front of the board
yes you accept it as true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and do you adopt it as
your own yes thank you thank you uh anyone like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
other hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission i do believe wait i apologize
i do believe kiana has her hand raised jason oh i'm sorry i'm sorry mr cedric please unmute yourself
Who's hand are we looking for?
She's the representative from the RCO.
Okay, I got it now.
Got it.
Thank you.
Yes, I'm here.
I'm sorry.
No worries.
Ms. Sedgwick, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Kiana, Q-I-A-N-A, last name Shedrick, S-H-E-D-R-I-C-K.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Yes, just to agree with what we already submitted in writing.
The meeting was well attended.
There were several cases on that day, so the neighborhood did have input.
They brought forth a well-thought-out trash plan and agreed to continue to be a community partner.
And just wanted to point it out that the proposed development is consistent with some units that already exist on the block on the opposite side.
There's an apartment building and that same unit also swings around to Tioga Street, which is adjacent.
So it fits in with what exists.
So just wanted to say we're in support of the proposed development.
Thank you.
And thank you for hanging in there.
Anyone else to testify?
I think that was it, right?
Planning Commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for residential and a city plan, given the physical circumstances and the documented site context. Recommend that Equestor Advantage be granted, provided no parking.
And there's no parking in the plan, correct, Rachel?
Correct.
Thank you. MI 2021, that's 0024283517 North 16th Street. My vote is yes.
Harold Tineri, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Last case, MI 2021, that's 002430.
3801 Ridge Avenue, Clementa Amazon is the attorney of record.
there's a letter of support from the
RAH Civic RCO
Ms. Amazon you're still
Ms. Amazon, you're still under oath, but please identify yourself for the record.
under oath but please identify yourself
for the record
And then Ms. Tenere will have some questions for you.
Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Alan Nockamson will be representing this case.
Okay. All right.
Mr. Nockamson, please identify yourself for the record.
Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street,
philadelphia pa 19109 you're still on their oath miss miss denary has some questions for you
otherwise known as mary um do you also agree to read the reading of the refusal and stipulate to
its accuracy sure have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes in all respects um and we do have a letter of
support not only from uh the coordinating rco ross civic association but also from the district
council member curtis uh jones jr uh may i share my screen sure and i don't mean to make light of
this i know it's really late and this is very straightforward project all i'm going to say
as an example, is that this board heard 3883 Ridge Avenue approximately two months ago under
MI-2021-001623. Same exact project. We're trying to do a 22-unit planned community with off-street
parking on 3883 Ridge Avenue. And this is essentially phase two, 3801 Ridge Avenue.
The letter of support, and you'll see this is a rendering of the property. We'll quickly go
through the plans but even the letter of support uh references both properties 3801 and 3883 this
board heard the same uh arguments being made that would be made tonight this board unanimously
approved it the community was very in support of it that's why the council member also wrote a
letter of support as you know council member jones typically doesn't weigh in and it's atypical for
council member to actually support something rather than non-opposition in my in my materials
i have a copy of the deed this property is owned by an affiliate of argo property group which is
well known in the philadelphia region for projects of this sort in there as well you'll have a
certificate of tax clearance uh the notice refusal so this property is known as icmx
Most of the refusals are pertaining to ICMX, but you'll see from, you know, the maps of the area, this is in a regular shape locked.
Right here.
This is, by the way, 3883.
This is 3801.
We are the gateway to this neighborhood, which is now being known as and called Paradise.
That's the name that the neighborhood has taken upon themselves.
But back here, this is all residential. Here is ICMX, just like 3883, 3801. This community wants residential single family leading into this neighborhood. We initially proposed to have an apartment building. It was shut down completely.
over the course of a number of years we've worked with this neighborhood and this is what they want
and this is what we're going to give them so again i'll just go quickly through the you know the
plans and drawings not to make light of this this is a very impactful project and a beautiful project
as well and and you know we're very proud of it but this is just a rendering of the front facade
again single family homes each home will have uh off-street parking turn it and just make this a
little smaller. Traditional brick facade, very clean lines, different color. There's a 35th
Street side and there's a Ridge Avenue side. And the site plan just kind of walks us through it.
So most of the properties, the single-family homes, are going to be facing Ridge Avenue right here.
There's three of them untucked along here that are going to face North 35th Street.
Again, each of them have, again, the traditional floor plan with the garage, first floor, open area, go up to the second floor, open floor plan.
you know go up additional flight you have two bedrooms and a bath and then above that
is the master so which we'll show quickly right here so I just wanted to keep it brief
which we'll show quickly right here so i just wanted to keep it brief i'm sure if the board
has any questions we can answer them um i do have uh david ross from the owner the ownership group
who can adopt my testimony and we'd be more than happy to answer any questions if i if there are
Mr. Ross has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Ross, Argo Property Group.
Frank, you're muted.
Mr. Ross, can you spell your last name?
R-O-S-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Nockleson.
yes mr ross you heard everything i stated today yes is it true and correct yes and do you adopt
it as your own testimony yes all right thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no no
mr chair commission uh this is ron bednar city planning and while this property is currently
indicated for industrial commercial mixed use on the city plant in the physical site conditions
and its position in uh paradise requested there it's been granted
we have mary joseph and paradise
MI 2021, that's 002430, 3801 Ridge Avenue. My vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Does anyone feel as though they've not been heard on this afternoon 3.30 list?
please raise your hand
see no hands Mr. Chair
thank you
8 o'clock
8 o'clock on the dot
any unfinished business
all done Chair
if there is any unfinished business
it's going to remain unfinished
I'll tell you right now
I want to thank everyone again
as usual on behalf of the board
thank you to the board
have a good weekend
we love doing this
we signed up for it
have a good night
take care
good night all
good night
thank you everybody
thank you
thanks Melissa
Thank you.