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