With that, members of the board, I would submit that this is an oversized,
irregularly shaped lot with the the L shape. The refusals are generated due to
um the refusals are generated due to the unique shape of the lot the use of this property as two
families is in keeping with the this block and in harmony with that the uses on the block
and there would be no negative impact to the subdividing of this lot and adding two single
family homes to this location we would request that the board support our request for the two
variances uh as part of our refusal and if number if i could have mr again bajrami raise his hand
mr bajrami can you please raise your hand
they have been allowed to speak sir could you please state your name and spell for the court
stenographer hi uh hello my name is agent a-g-i-m last name b-a-j-r-a-m-i
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Bajrami, did you hear the presentation and statements I've made to the board?
Were they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Would you adopt my statements as your own?
No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
We have not available for questions, if any.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no chair
no chair
thank you
questions or comments
from our attorney
Hillary Anderson
not at this time
Mr. Chair
questions or comments
from the virtual audience
I see no hands
Planning Commission
thank you Chair Bergman
Sarah Bond
Philadelphia City Planning Commission
the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing RSA-2 residential single-family zoning. The dimensional
requirements of the zoning code do not create any economic detriment to, or sorry, for the
appellant. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance.
In line 2023, 004-599-488 Byberry Road, I vote yes for Viso. Revised plans, three pages,
stamped by ZBA, March 13th, 2024. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
We're provisors.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
I do have one other matter.
We'll be back to you.
Thank you.
Number seven, MI 2023, 007-093, 630 North 37th Street.
Meredith Furlicker and Brandon Saverin are the attorneys.
No RCO letter, but the meeting was held on 2-21-24 by the Mantua Civic Association.
Meredith is joining us as a panelist.
Good afternoon, counsel. Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Certainly. My client is 666 North 33rd Street, LP, represented here today by member Rami Shrine.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wave the reading?
of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
we did um we did also supplement those exhibits earlier this week and were provided to staff as
well as board council thank you fair enough please proceed and share the screen thank you and mr
chairman i don't know if it was already corrected but this is actually 6 20 north 37 street not 6 30.
Oh, I'm sorry. I said 620. I thought I said 620. Sorry.
Maybe you did, but my brain thought it was.
Okay, it's okay. It's okay.
Just making sure.
And just for point of information, I understand we're going to hold the vote on this.
Our council is going to talk to Elle and I.
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
And I will address that in my presentation so that you are fully aware of why we're holding the vote.
Okay. You should see my screen now, I hope.
We do.
Okay, great. So as you're aware, the property before the board today is 620 North 37th Street, which is a large vacant property that measures 5,250 square feet.
which is a large vacant property that measures 5,250 square feet and is just off the corner
of Mount Vernon Street and North 37th Street. So North 37th Street is here and here is Mount
Vernon Street. The exhibit packet in front of the board today includes 14 exhibits. By way of just
a preliminary summary, this property was actually previously approved and permitted for the
construction of a multifamily dwelling to contain 15 dwelling units. As we'll explain, the request
today is relatively minor and seeks to add an additional extra four units, which will bring it
to a total of 19 units. Starting first with a basic property overview. As you can see on the
aerial that I have up on the screen at Exhibit 6, this property sits along a predominantly
unoccupied stretch of Mount Vernon Street that is directly across from the Mount Vernon Park
and Playground. Along North 37th Street are primarily three-story structures which are
predominantly multifamily in nature. Directly across 37th Street you'll notice a large swath
of vacant land and the board may recall having approved a large transformative development for
those sites, known as Village Square. And that development will encompass the entire block all
the way from North 37th Street to North 36th Street, between Wallace to the north and Haverford
all the way to the south. Just by context, that particular development will include a grocery store,
retail and office space, and nearly 150 units. And that is directly across the street from this
property. On the opposite end of Mount Vernon Street, you can see at the corner here a vacant
parcel of land that the board recently, in the last year or two, approved a 19-unit development
on that site at 3527 Mount Vernon Street. Looking at the zoning map at Exhibit 5,
the board will note that this property is currently zoned RSA 5, but is surrounded by
RM1 across the street, as well as CMX2 and special purpose park zoning.
If we look more closely at the photographs, just to give you some additional context,
you'll again note that this is a large corner lot that is the subject of this application.
And again, looking west here, you'll see that site of the future Village Square development,
which should be under construction any day now.
Notably, the portion of that development, which is directly across the street from the property,
which I'm pointing to with my cursor here, that is going to be the large parking lot
that will serve the grocery store, which will be right on the corner of 37th and Mount Vernon Street.
And again, scrolling, this is just a view showing the context along North 37th Street,
where you'll see the existing three-story structures that are immediately adjacent.
As the board may gather, this block was one of the many blocks that was previously zoned RM1
prior to the 2017 Mantua rezoning. This board hears about the Mantua rezoning effort quite a lot,
but it is especially important here given the history of this lot. Back in 2017, prior to the
lot being zoned RSA 5, this property was granted a zoning permit for the erection of a new structure
for use as 15 dwelling units. You'll notice at the top it was zoned RM1 at the time.
It was not until several years later that a building permit was also issued authorizing
the construction of this project. That building permit still remains active. Under the current
permit, the proposal includes a mix of predominantly three and even four bedroom units.
As the board is aware, four bedroom units have been rendered essentially inhabitable due to the
three unrelated rule in the zoning code. This is especially true in this case where the four
bedroom units that were approved for the site were nearly 2,000 square feet, which is
uncharacteristically large for the area and would be extraordinarily challenging to fill
without seeking a special exception to permit that fourth occupant for each of those four-bedroom
units. In addition, the currently approved design has zero one-bedroom units, which are generally
more in line and consistent with the marketable development trends in this area. As a result,
but before putting a shovel in the ground, the applicant sought to redesign the interiors
based on some community input he had received to align more closely with the unit mix.
based on some community input he had received to align more closely with the unit mix of the
immediate area. The most efficient redesign ultimately resulted in the addition of those
four extra units. The current design includes one, two, and three bedroom units that range from 575
square feet all the way to 1250 square feet. This unit mix is far more consistent with the
Mantua community's desire to see a broader mix of unit types and price points.
Just generally speaking, trash will be stored in the rear and will be collected via a commercial
hauler. And as the board noted early on, we are asking that the board hold the vote today
as a result of the applicant's request to also remove the green roof, which was included in the
previous approval. The green roof is going to be removed to try and accommodate some additional
space for the current tenants. But we do understand that the board has to hold its vote
since we have not been able to seek clarity on whether the board can do that via proviso
or whether that needs to be done through some form of revised plan proviso. So that is ultimately
the reason that the vote will need to be held. However, since the record is going to be closed,
I will note that the removal of the green roof will not impact or change the ultimate refusal
that was issued. The refusal, as the board can see, was drafted as if the full 19 units are not
permitted, despite the fact that 15 of them were already previously approved and will remain
approved. Regarding the refusal that's up on the screen, the proposal did only receive one refusal
for the proposed multifamily use. As the board can see, the refusal is not specifically for the
additional four units, but is instead issued as if the entire proposal is prohibited. As the board
has seen today, this proposal is fully permitted for 15 units, and the scope of the review should
be limited just to those four additional units. No dimensional variances are requested and the
proposed structure is not changing from the previously approved design. This change would
only impact the interior layouts to create and generate a more efficient and desirable design.
The applicant submits to hardship given the history of this property, the size of the property,
as well as the context of the neighborhood and the block. As I noted earlier, the property is
over 5,200 square feet, which is significantly larger than the predominantly 800 to 1,100 square
foot lots on this block. While the multifamily use is not necessarily in question today,
given the applicant's permitted right, single-family homes on this lot would be significantly out of
character with the direct area here in Mantua. Even putting the lot size aside, proposing a new
single-family home on this block would also represent a deviation from the predominantly
high-density multifamily development in this area. As referenced, the other end of this block
was recently approved for a similar 19-unit proposal, and Village Square directly across
the street is slated to see the construction of over 150 residential units with significant
commercial uses that will thrive on the additional density in this in this immediate neighborhood
this additional density will directly contribute to the vitality of this neighborhood
and support the viability of the coming coming soon grocer and other retail uses
this property is also uniquely situated in that it has a nearly 15-year history of attempted
development with a variety of zoning and building permits dating all the way back to 2009 that were
never achieved all for a variety of multifamily proposals the applicant is confident today's
request will finally achieve the missing balance that will enable the project to come to light
The applicant submits the number of proposed units is the least minimum, as this is a de
minimis increase in the unit count that is directly driven by design and unit feasibility
considerations. Furthermore, as I did mention previously, the project was designed to include
a significant mix of unit types, sizes, and layouts to encourage a variety of price points
and tenancies, and of course no dimensional variances are needed to support the proposed
use and i do have up the previously approved zoning site plan and elevations which are not
slated to change with this request we do submit the proposal will not increase congestion
harm neighbors properties or impair light and air the proposal is slated to be
harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and air. The proposal is slated to be consistent
in height with the surrounding structures, particularly with the surrounding new structures
that did receive height variances to be quite a bit larger than this proposal, which is by right.
A full analysis is provided in the Memorandum of Law submitted to the Board at Tab 12,
and I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
With respect to the community, we did meet with Mantua back on February 21st, and just in case, because I did see it just come through this morning, we did receive a letter of support from Mantua that I do have up on the screen now, and I do note that was sent to board council this morning as well, in case you don't have it.
So at this time, I would call up Rami to adopt my testimony if the administrator could look for Rami Shrine.
Rami, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Sure, it's Rami Schraim, R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Rami, have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered for the board today?
Would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
And is there anything further you'd like to add?
No, thanks.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Anderson?
just briefly