So what we're offering is not out of character to what you would expect in this part of Philadelphia.
And then here's the use permit for the beauty salon.
Again, it was referenced in the notice of refusal.
So I think that was just a mistake on the examiner's part to issue that part of the refusal.
And then the aerial view of the property.
Again, you can see all these building structures in the rear that we were mentioning, but we want to give it from a photographic point of view as well.
And then maps of the area.
Even though this is an RSA 5 property, you know, there's nothing about it that looks like RSA 5.
This looks like a CMX 1 property.
It may have been CMX1 back in the day. And it's just mapped to the area. We're at the corner of Westford and Tabor. And then you can see this, you know, the property from Westford. And then you can see it from the side. And you can see here's the beauty salon right here. Again, the quintessential, I would say, CMX1 property.
And then this is, you can see kind of here, the pictures aren't great, but like this is our building structure in the rear.
And you can see that we put the orange posters on both sides of the property.
And then this is westward, you know, from different angles.
And this is east of Boer from different angles.
And then you can see the building structure right here.
He's not using the building structure. He wants to legalize it.
So, and then this is just our simple site plan, but here's a building structure here. It already exists. We're just trying to legalize it.
And then this is our community meeting notice. We had a meeting on March 7th at 6.45 p.m. 101 addresses were notified in the meeting, list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal on Mr. Alvarez's behalf, along with the notice of refusal in the project information form, our deed to the property showing that Mr. Alvarez is the owner of the property since 2007, and our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
Technically, there's a balance due, but that's only for 2024, and those monies are not technically due until the end of the month.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Alvarez virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Now, it's a real quick question.
How long do you think that structure has been there?
um since since they did i looked at it on google earth it looked like the foundation itself was
there as late as 2007 or as early as 2000 as late as 2007 and then over time he's expanded
that structure by eventually including the the the roof on there okay thank you yeah
mr alvarez mr alvarez as you're in the audience please raise your hand
i see no hands so so counsel you're an officer of the court gladly take your testimony
questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair bergman um i just do i want to clarify um if mr nalkamson could just um could
just uh once again let us know if the if the structure was there before the current owner or
where essentially it was built by the current owner?
The foundation was there.
I looked at Google Earth myself.
And you can look at Google Earth.
The foundation was there.
And over time, he built the structure,
like, you know, the walls and the ceiling.
But it was set up that way for him.
All right.
So the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing residential single-family zoning.
The proposed uses for multiple principal uses in residential districts and personal services for a beauty salon are consistent with the documented prior use of this property.
However, the appellant's claim, hardship claim, seems to be self-created in terms of the accessory structure.
So I think what we are testifying on behalf of the City Planning Commission is that we grant the uses for multiple principal uses and for the beauty salon.
multiple principle use and multiple principle uses and for the beauty salon
and deny the for denying the legalization of the of the structure accessory structure
Mr. Chair can I just respond briefly sure yeah so you know the the existing law in Pennsylvania
is this. You look at the surrounding properties and seeing if there's similar characteristics
to the variants that we're seeking. And here, again, my office did a thorough review of the
surrounding area, and I didn't count it, but there are like 20 or 30 properties which have similar
structures which we're seeking legalization here. So for those reasons, we would ask that the board
grant the variance. Number 14, MI 2023, 007, 095, 5341 Westford Road. I vote yes. Thomas
Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank
Thank you, Council.
Thank you.
Number 15, MI 2023, 007159, 217 South 24th Street.
Robert Keralis is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
Applicant also provided 12 form letters of support from the neighbors.
Mr. Keralis.
Good afternoon, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Robert Careless, C-A-R-E-L-E-S-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and a relationship to this property?
I represent South Bonsall, LLC, the record owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Certainly.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to leave the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his
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? Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. Thank you again, Bob Terrellis of Cozen O'Connor.
We're here on a very straightforward application by South Bondsville LLC, the record owner of the properties.
Ken and Kerry Cox, who are the principals of the ownership entity, our longtime residents of this subject street that you'll see today.
I have for the record here all the required exhibits.
A1 is our deed. A2 is our tax clearance certificate. A3 is our zoning permit application.
A4 is our refusal. A5 is our application to the board.
A-6 is our drawing submitted to Dell and I. I will go through the remainder of the exhibits through the course of my testimony here.
The application is to permit an off-street parking space for an existing single-family structure, which is being renovated right now.
Our refusal, the subject's underlying zoning is RSA-5.
The residential parking control area of the Center City District overlay district does not permit off-street parking,
except when that parking is accessed by a shared driveway or a rear alley.
As I'll go through and describe to the board,
you'll see the rear of this property is accessed by Bonsall Street,
which effectively acts as a rear alley and fulfills the intention of the code here.
Just to orient the board here as to where we are,
this is a view looking north on 24th Street, property right here.
The view looking the other way south on 24th Street.
Here you see you have Chancellor Street here, and now we're looking east in that direction, continuing to look east.
And you can see we're starting to get into how cars are accessing the rear of the property here.
This is a perspective that looks south on Bonsville Street.
This is the current exterior of the property on Bonsville Street.
We're now looking west on Locust Street, where my cursor is indicating, and looking east on Locust Street.
So, essentially, cars come in and access Bonsall Street here for access to rear parking.
Photographs of the postings of the property.
Exhibit A8, you'll see this is essentially another of the views of Bonsall Street, but we're highlighting the existing off-street parking that is currently on Bonsall Street.
Now, you can see there's a number of properties that have garages and off-street parking on Bonsall Street.
Just more properties here, properties, existing properties on the street that have garages.
It's an elevation of the rear exterior of the property.
It's an elevation of the rear exterior of the property where I was showing you in the earlier picture, where we're now proposing a garage to access.
And here we have a turning diagram.
This was submitted with our plans to L&I that show we have the proper turning radius for the garage off of Bonsal Street.
This is perspective rendering of the proposed renovations.
This is clearly an upgrade over the existing conditions.
and clearly harmonious with the existing properties on Bonsall Street,
including those that have off-street parking currently today.
We have 12 letters or petitions of support here from our near neighbors,
which are included in the packet that was submitted to the board.
I'll scroll through these.
We met with Center City Residents Association on February 27th. We have a letter of non-opposition from them as the coordinating RCO here.
And I do have one witness, Mr. Chairman, to bring up. Just before I do, I just would like to state for the record that, as evidenced by the images here, there are a number of numerous off-street parking spaces on Bonsall Street, as the Board has seen.
the existing conditions of Bonsall Street, I think, clearly demonstrate the hardship here,
where this is, I think, theoretically or technically a glitch in the code. The code
very well does not want to have curb cuts along 24th Street or Market Street or similar streets.
They want the parking in the rear properties, access through shared driveways or rear alleys
here. Bonsall Street, as you saw, effectively acts that way. And once upon a time, the code
allowed off-street parking there, as you saw by the number of properties that are built there with
garages. Now, and that obviously evidences a clearly harmonious design with the surrounding
properties. And as I mentioned earlier, the fact that Bonson Street effectively acts as a rear
alley and fulfills the intent of the code section that we cited here for where the code would like
to see off-street parking placed. Allowing the parking here would not cause any traffic
congestion. In fact, quite the opposite. It would relieve pressure by taking away an on-street
parking spot otherwise. It will not increase the danger of any fire, endanger the health,
public health, safety, or welfare. Granting the variance would not adversely affect any public
facilities, nor would it create any significant environmental damage, have any impact on light
and air. And we obviously would argue that this is the minimum variance to grant relief here to
provide a harmonious design consistent with the rest of the surrounding area. So, Mr. Chairman,
if I could ask Warren Fisher from Peter Zimmern Architects to be promoted as a panelist just to
not my testimony you see the owner of the property he's not he's our architect on the project
warren fisher is coming in as a panelist hi mr fisher could you please state your
name and spell for the court stenographer
Warren Fisher please unmute yourself sorry about that uh w-a-r-r-e-n-f-i-s-h-e-r
I do swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do please proceed counsel Mr. Fisher are you with the architect for this project
And did you hear the testimony, my testimony to the board here today?
And given the opportunity, would you adopt that testimony as if it were your own?
I would.
I don't have any further questions for Mr. Fisher.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
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 comprehend excuse me the comprehensive plan recommends
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5 for instance residential
single-family zoning the proposed use of off-street parking is consistent with nearby
properties on this block of bonsall street where the proposed parking and accompanying curb cut
would be located. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the
variance. Thank you. MI 2023-007-159-217 South 24th Street, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman,
my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
So we have one more case left on the two o'clock list, but what I want to do is take a break now
But what I want to do is take a break now for five minutes.
for five minutes we'll come back and do that case then go right through
We'll come back and do that case, then go right through the 330 list where we don't have a lot of cases.
So let's take a five minute break, everyone.
MI, thank you.
MI 2023-007-097-2226 Hope Street.
David Orfanides is the attorney.
letter of support from NARS Square Action Network, and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
I am here.
Thank you. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
Certainly. My client is ODA LLC, and they are the owner of the property.
Okay. Isher, you back? Mr. Holloman, could you take care of the follow-up questions?
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon, Mr. Holloman.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or referral and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do. Both.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
We did forward everything, but it was not five days in advance.
It was earlier this week.
It was either yesterday or Monday.
We were waiting for some documents.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Certainly.
All right.
So again, good.
We're getting into almost good late afternoon, good early evening.
David Orphanides from Orphanides & Toner on behalf of ODA LLC, the owner of the property.
As mentioned by the chairman at tab 1A of our exhibit book, we have a letter of non-opposition
from Councilwoman Lozada that was based upon the coordinating RCO.
So, as mentioned, the North Square Community Action Network issuing a letter of support
for the proposal that we were going to be presenting to the Zoning Board today.
As indicated, they had well over 40 people at the meeting.
It was an in-person and Zoom meeting, so we had both options for people to attend.