Thank you.
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes that we have thank you
please proceed to share your screen thank you very much
all right so well first of all thank you so much for accommodating my vacation schedule i really
appreciate you allowing me to proceed first. I'm here to present 2035 and 2037 South 56th Street
in our presentation materials. And these are separate zoning matters, but I figured we would
present them together. We will have the notices of refusal, the correspondence from the Southwest
Philadelphia District Services, maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and
drawings, or RCO meeting notices, or applications for appeal, or deeds of property showing that my
client owns it, and the certificates of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing
with the city with respect to real estate taxes. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask
that Mr. Dewey virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and then I'll ask him a few questions and adopt
my testimony as his own. The notice of refusal. So these are pretty straightforward projects.
we're looking to place two duplexes on these properties which have not had much activity in
some time and we're not the only variances we're seeking are these used variances there's no
dimensional variances at all we try to conform with the surrounding area by in terms of
occupied area rear yard setback we do have a three-story structure we're not taking advantage
of the full 38 feet we're doing 33 feet uh five uh 33 and a half feet uh here's our correspondence
from the coordinating rco uh so i would you know concede that the that the community members were
not uh in support of this project although it does show that the city council member is in non-opposition
to this project. And I think one of the reasons why this is the case is that, you know, these
properties have not had any activity in some time. Our records show that online, these properties
have either been vacant or dilapidated as far back as Google Earth would go, and that's as far
back in 2007. The reasons for the community non-supports had nothing to do in terms of
zoning-related matters, or some of them didn't, like in terms of height. They were concerned that
the buildings were too high. We are on a two-story block, but we're not having a two-story
on the residential side of the block. We're not seeking a full 38 feet. We're seeking 33 feet,
six inches for these properties. And then affordability was an issue too. Again,
that's not a zoning related matter, although a duplex is probably more affordable than a single
family home. But if you look at the- So could you go back a minute? What did you say about the
council person? Yeah. So if you look at it, it says non-opposition from member of city council.
Yeah. I mean, we have a pretty strong letter. Oh, from the city council member? Yeah. Yeah. And
And it basically says they don't see any hardship, nor do we see any substantive revisions of their plans.
The community opposed this dating back as far as their first RCO meeting in 2020.
We submitted a letter of opposition back then, and we do again today.
Well, again, I don't remember seeing that letter.
I'm just going based on what our office has received.
but if you look at the maps of the area too we you know so first of all we're basically a block
off away from a commercial quarter which is woodland abbey um and that's up here and that's
all cmx2 and behind us we're surrounded by i2 and rm1 so there's this small pocket of
of residentially zoned single family properties um but there has not been some development
sometime in this area. So, and again, from a Google Maps perspective, it shows where we are
on 56th Street. And as you can see, there's a shipping company. There's a lot of like non-traditional
commercial use behind us. And then Woodland Avenue down the strip has commercial use along
with a trolley as well for public transportation. And then the photographs of the property. Again,
these are two vacant lots and have been vacant for some time this is proof of guard uh hearing
notice posting and then south 56th street to right and as you can see this is across the street
And then South 56th Street to right. And as you can see, this is across the street from, again, industrial zone lands configured as such as well. So we're not in the heart of a residential neighborhood. We're at maybe the beginning of one, which blends between, you know, which blends with I2 and R1 behind it. And behind that is commercial on Woodland Avenue.
and then our plans and drawings like we really did try to conform like our our building structure
not the use but the building structure to this not only to the philadelphia zoning codes but to
the surrounding properties so you can see our properties don't go any deeper than the properties
the left and right of us we have substantial rear yards we conform to the rear yard setbacks
we conform well within the height requirements so uh and then these are just the uh elevations
as well and then the floor plans are pretty basic you have two you have two units one is a first
floor and lower level the second unit is the second floor and third floor both have outdoor space
unit number one has in the rear uh on the first floor unit number two has the roof deck we would
agree to a proviso for commercial trash pickup.
And again, yes, we have met with the community previously to this project
at the beginning of the pandemic.
Things have only gotten worse in terms of interest rates rising
in terms of construction materials.
There's really hasn't been much development
that I've seen from a single family nature in the surrounding area.
And probably for good reason.
It's just not feasible to build and, you know,
a single family structure given this environment.
And, you know, we're hoping to add much needed modern housing to this area of Philadelphia, which will be more affordable for a two unit rather than one unit.
So 106 addresses were notified in this meeting. Here are the list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, and then for both matters.
and then our applications for appeal showing that b2 properties entity six is the owner
of these properties and then there are finally our deed as well showing that they own these
properties and then our certificates of tax clearance so with that being said i would ask
that mr dewey virtually raise his hand
is mr dewey's hand up yes mr dewey is being promoted to uh excuse me he's been allowed to
speaks here hi morning hi good morning could you state your name please and spell for the court
reporter it is robert dewey and that's spelled r-o-b-e-r-t and dewey d-e-w-e-y you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel oh
yeah mr dewey you heard everything i had to state about these zoning matters yes i did it is
what i stated true and correct yes it is and do you adopt as your own testimony i do thank you
questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission good morning board this is ron bednar city planning first
named Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R. Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, Ron. So this is for both 2035 and
2037 South 56th Street. These properties are indicated for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plan, recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning
at this location. The applicant's hardships are not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent them from being used conformity
with the code. Therefore, we recommend that the variance for both not be granted. Thank you.
Number one, MI 2020, 000-869-2037 South 56th Street, and number four, MI 2020, 000-777-2035 South 56th Street. I vote no to both.
i vote no to both thomas holliman my vote is no to both ishmael shaheed my vote is no to both
Thomas Holloman.
thank you counsel um your number two your other two cases so number five mi 2020 000 871
53 36 pascal avenue and number 8 mi 2020 000 872 55 34 pascal avenue uh just state your name for
the record please alan opposite and for the record just identify your client again yes also v2
properties uh for both of these we also have uh letters of opposition from the rco and a letter
of opposition from the council. Our vice chair has just a few questions. Morning, counsel. Do you
agree to wave your reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed
in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing yes we have thank you please proceed thank you
okay so um similar to 56th street uh you know we're looking to do two duplexes yeah in a on
rsa 5 zone properties so we'll review the notices of refusal the correspondence we got from the
southwest philadelphia district services maps in the area photographs of the property
our plans and drawings or rco meeting notices or applications for appeal and decent property as
well as our certificates of tax plans and again mr dewey is still in a virtual audience and
he'll also adopt my testimony as his own for these numbers similar to 56th street again
there is actually caddy corner uh uh to uh 56th street pascal um you know again there's not much
development here there we're sandwiched between cmx2 and i2 and rm1 and yes we have a sliver
of rsa5 but these properties have been vacant for some time and it would be a shame if they
remain vacant for some time but i understand you know we have a a standard to reach and i hope that
we reach it for this one but again we purposefully chose not to go anywhere near dimensional
variances the only variances we're seeking are for multi-family use of two units each
and then the correspondence like again we have met with this community many of the
uh objections they have to this project are non-zoning related had to deal with height which
is not an issue because we're 33 feet five uh six inches tall uh had to do with affordability which
again it's not a zoning related matter but two units are more affordable than one uh and you know
So unfortunately, this community has not been accepting of creating this type of density.
And for that reason, there's many projects which have never come to fruition here.
So maps in the area, again, just like, you know, what we saw for South 56th Street, we're surrounded by I-2.
There's commercially zoned properties on Pascal across the street from us.
and what's up here is woodland avenue which is a commercial corridor which is a block away which
again density from a city planning perspective is always good because it helps support the
commercial corridor that does exist and then these are just maps of the area again as you can see
um we are you know a block away from woodland avenue um you know we're tucked behind where
there's industrial use as well and we're just this little small sliver of rsa5 properties
and again just like the properties on 56th street these have been vacant non-usable
residential properties for some time photographs of the property as you can see these have just
been vacant lots proof of posting of for this uh for this hearing pascal to the right of the
property as you can see there's many vacant lots even nearby to us pascal avenue to left and as
As you can see, here's the industrial use that we pointed out on 56th Street.
And, you know, just our plans and drawings.
Again, we're trying not to overuse these properties from a dimensional standpoint.
We're trying to mimic the rear yards, the rear yard setback, the open space.
the rear yards, the rear yard setback, the open space. And, you know, yes, we are in a two-story
block, but we tried not to go anywhere near the 38 feet that were allowed under RSA 5. We're
trying to be respectful of that. And then these are just the floor plans. Again, the basic floor
plan for a duplex that you've seen many times that I present. First floor and lower level is one unit,
second floor and third floor is another unit their unit number one has access to rear yards
unit number two has sole access to a roof deck we would agree to commercial trash pickup
we you know met with the community um you know on same time as 56th street on may 24th 134
addresses were notified i would say that there weren't that many people there um you know there
was mostly the board members of the coordinating RCO. I think there were maybe two, maybe three
members of the community. They didn't stay where they lived, so I don't know if they
were nearby, but we notified a lot of people this meeting. And proof of mailing for these
meetings, as well as the other RCO notice, our applications for appeal, and our deeds
to property, showing that B2 property
is just the owner of the property,
along with the certificate of tax
allowance. With that being said, I would
ask that Mr. Dewey virtually raise his hand
yet again.
Mr. Dewey, just for the record,
state your name.
Robert Dewey.
You've already been sworn. Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Dewey, you heard everything I had to state
about these matters on Pascal Avenue.
Yes, I did.
and what i stated true and correct yes and do you adopt this your own testimony i do
thank you questions from the board no chair no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands planning commissioner ron bednar city planning these properties both
5534 and 36 Pascal Avenue. These properties are indicated for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plan recommends no change the existing residential single-family zoning
at these locations. The applicant's hardships are not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent them from being used in conformity
with the code. Therefore, we recommend that the request for both of these variants does not be
granted. Number five, MI 2020-000-871-5536 Paschal Avenue. And number eight, MI 2020-000-872-5534
for Paschal Avenue, I vote no to both.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is no to both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no to both.
Thank you, counsel, and we do appreciate you
interrupting your vacation to move these two cases. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Have a great day. Okay, thank you.
My case in chief was over. However, we've been working with Mr. Rosen and his clients, and we've come up with a revised design that I've literally, I mean, as of last night and today, with the final plans.
And with that revised design where we've pulled the back of the building in towards the front, reduced the depth so it doesn't pass his client's properties, I believe we now have, and I can show them to you, letters of non-opposition from his clients based upon the zoning board approving those plans.
And Joel can speak to that.
Yeah, that is correct. Since the scheduling of the last hearing, there have been multiple conversations between myself on behalf of the Protestants and Mr. Orphanides.
um the plans have been revised my clients have reviewed them and my clients have signed based
upon those plans and the promise that the construction will be in complete accordance
with those plans have signed letters of non-opposition okay thank you hillary where do
we stand with this um mr chair um i have not seen the letters of non-opposition nor the revised
plans yet so i would suggest um that those be submitted and we can vote this when we resume
in two weeks because i would like to just review the revised plans and make sure there isn't
anything um that would require an amended refusal is everybody okay with that yeah that's that's a
completely understandable makes sense and um we're fine with that i don't know if there was
anybody else on the last hearing that had um had a position to make other than mr rosen we only got
as far as as that so i mean i guess that we did not yes as i say we did not hear from planning
or the public according to my notes so we should we should take planning's position and see if
there's any members of the public who wish to comment correct thank you anyone in the virtual
audience who has comment relative to this case i see no hands planning commission
we will also wait for the revised plans to be submitted okay fine thank you all right so this
will be continued for two weeks hillary we said yes so so then if planning wants to wait to see
the revised plans we'll do a very very brief resumption in two weeks um well it'll be the
28th i believe okay um at 9 30 we'll do a very brief resumption for planning to give their
opinion and then the board can vote okay thank you very much and and thank you to both the
attorneys involved thank you and i just want to note that the the record is um is otherwise closed
except for plannings, testimony, the revised plans, and the letters of non-opposition.
David, are you submitting the letters and the plans?