all um is there just want to take one look at the property that's all okay
um rich do you know if there is a picture
yes all i forwarded you all the documents i sent to the rco so the email titled uh
uh 807 north 2nd street appeal has pictures of the property in them okay
there we go uh
is it still being shared is it can you see this picture not yet no we don't see it yet okay here
do we it's a sure screen okay
yep we're good okay
okay and you have the approval the northern liberties neighbors association right yes and
so this is the special exception we need right you're applying for a special exception
i'm right hillary right special exception right
yes that is correct and a list of enforceable provisos i see it i i have those all right so
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman all right questions or
comments from the virtual audience i see no handshare planning commission
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the board, in 2014, this property was remapped from medium industrial to commercial
mixed use, CMX 2.5. This was done in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
The proposed special exception is unlikely to 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. MI 2022-002-347-807 North 2nd Street. I vote yes with the following provisives.
Access the restaurant from 2nd Street only. No trash pickup before 7 a.m. Interior trash storage.
No outdoor seating in the backyard. No cooking on the premises. No outdoor music. Hours of
operations sunday to saturday 7a to 9p thomas holloman my vote is yes with the provisos
james snell yes with provisos ishmael shaheed yes with provisos thank you council thank you
hillary do we have any of our how do we make out with number one
um number one um we we are good to go mr chair okay so why don't i go to that yes is that okay
MI 2021 003 844 1217 South 50.
003-844-1217 South 50th Street.
John Taylor is the attorney.
He's already been sworn.
I love you.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note for this case,
this is an application for two-family household living in an existing structure.
There's one refusal that two-family household living is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
There's a letter of support from Southwest District Services.
Thank you so much, Hillary.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor is coming back in as a panel.
Thank you.
Good morning, Commissioner.
Good morning.
You've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
My name is John J-O-N Taylor, T-A-Y-L-O-R. I'm the attorney for the applicant, Ms. Renita
Palmer, also known as Renita Murphy. And she's the owner of the property.
She is the owner of the property. Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to
is accuracy? I do agree. Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required, such as proof
of ownership, tax clearance, copy of the refusal or referral, pictures or drawings of the property
five days in advance of this hearing? Did you meet with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, we met with the RCO. We have a letter. We submitted a documentation of more than five days
earlier, we are having difficulty getting a tax clearance request. We have put information in
and it doesn't allow us, but all taxes have been paid. Thank you. Please proceed and share your
screen here
mr chairman is everybody able to see my screen we see it mr sir excellent so to be this is a
request for a single family home. The purpose of the initial application was simply put is that
Ms. Renita Palmer, the owner of the property, wanted to sell the property to her daughter.
Her daughter wanted to make it into a two-family so she could move in and may have an easier time
making mortgage payments. There have been significant changes in their life since that
date. Specifically, their father, Mr. Murray, has become a double amputee, and the new plan
is to actually move into the property, meaning Ms. Palmer and her husband, they intend to live
on the second floor, and Shanice Murray would live on the first floor. The plan has been made
based on changes and events that occurred over the last 40 days. Attached to our application,
we have the application for appeal. We have the project information form.
we have the deed here which is owned by showing that Ms. Palmer is the owner of the property
she will be here to testify with her daughter Shanice Murray
this is the real estate tax balance again we put in the information Ms. Palmer's social
security number the OPA number but we're unable to get a cert generated
these are the submitted lni plans which i will have the witnesses go over to explain
this is a posting of the property
these are photographs of the property right now it's actually a vacant property nobody has lived
there um it was at one point where miss palmer and her daughter lived this was the family home
It needs repair at this point, and part of the variance request is to get the financing to make those repairs.
This is the letter of support that we received from the RCO.
And this is our witness list from Renita Palmer, Shanice Murray.
And this is our
Again, when this was submitted, part of the understanding was that, you know, the community wanted, you know, housing to be, you know, for low-income people.
Ms. Murray has a certificate of completion with the PHA,
but that's now a mood issue
because of the change in family circumstances.
If I may, Chairman, may I please bring
Ms. Renita Palmer to testify?
Mr. Taylor, before you bring anybody on,
so you want this, this is right now a single home,
you want to make it a duplex?
Correct.
Right. Okay. So could you tell me what the rest of the block looks like relative to that?
The rest of the block is mostly single-family homes. Let me see here.
Let me put the address in.
so this is the block it's mostly single family homes if you look at the neighborhood i do not
believe that this use will create congestion because there's ample parking around the nearby
park um right now the number of people who live at the premises is three uh miss murray would
live shanice murray the doc the daughter would live on the first would live on the second floor
and her parents would live on the first floor.
Now, there are two bedrooms on the second floor,
so more people could move in to the second floor.
But at this time, it is just Janice Murray,
the daughter, who would be living there.
Again, it's not going to do anything to impair light
because we're not asking for an addition
to increase the height of the building.
Again, we're just trying to make it into a duplex
at this point and just for a point before you bring in a bill and go back to the letter
what was the vote of the rco sure
for there were 11 members for support
no opposition okay all right thank you yeah with the when the rco made that support the plan at
that point was to make a duplex miss murray would um live in the first floor and then she'd rent the
second floor uh again so yes the rco has supported the plan um my belief though is i'm sorry my video
My belief is that I don't believe the RCO would have any problem with Ms. Murray's parents living on the first floor, especially in light of.
Yeah, I mean, so, but it's still the same thing.
In other words, she's going to live in one and right.
Now the change is because of family conditions, she's going to move her parents into the duplex.
Understood. Correct. That's exactly right.
All right. So why don't you do this? Why don't you call someone to adopt your testimony?
Okay. I'd like to bring the owner of the property, Ms. Palmer, Renita Palmer, to testify.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court report?
I'm sorry, Chair. We don't have anyone by that name, but we do have Shanice Murray.
That's fine. That's fine.
hello everyone um hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes uh my name is Shanice Murray and I do have my mother here with me we're just using um we're
just sharing this um device okay so but you could testify we're fine you can testify
Okay. My name is Shanice Murray. That is S-H-A-N-I-C-E-M-U-R-R-A-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel, proceed.
Ms. Murray, have you heard the initial testimony in today's hearing provided by myself?
Do you adopt today's testimony?
okay okay thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yeah, we have Brendan Van Gorder.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon.
My name is Pastor Brendan Van Gorder, B-R-E-N-D-A-N space V-A-N space G-O-R-D-E-R.
Good afternoon, Chair Brendan.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
So I'm a member on the block, and we are a very intimate block.
People know the mom from back when.
They're excited to have them come back to the block.
We are concerned. I was at the RCO meeting and we asked for something in writing stating that they won't be signing it out of the family. Our concern is that it'll bring into a bigger development if it changes from single family to multifamily.
um so we're we're happy to uh as as the block we're happy to have them back um but uh we we
asked weeks i mean months ago now uh for something in writing stating that uh it would remain in
their family or if not if you know if they would consider selling it to the block um the the issue
is that we just fought and won at a zba meeting a developer across the street who wanted to make a
three story um a duplex um and we won because we said you know this has to stay single family
um and we don't want it to kind of fall into someone else's hands just wanted something in
writing from the family from the lawyer saying that it would remain in the family that would
remain kind of a single family you know um culture of the block so we haven't gotten that yet and i'm
just wondering if there's plans for that um i don't want definitely don't want to put the family
through anything else more in terms of continuing but we did want something you know and i thought
we were we asked yesterday you know why haven't we had anything and got no response so thank you
pastor thank you is there anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands chair council
do you want to respond to that well we deal directly with the um rco we provided a letter
to the rco is part of our exhibit and after we provide that letter we got the letter of
authorization um with all due respect i i've never had the pastors never called my office
i've never had communications with the pastor the communications i have are with the rco okay all
right all right thank you council um questions uh planning commission thank you chair bergman
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Members of the board, the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the single-family zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship
claim here depends solely upon circumstances that are unique to the current owner. However,
per the zoning code, the appellant is required to support their hardship claim with evidence
of unique physical conditions of the property, such as prior legal use of the property as a
two-family, for example. This is because variances are assigned to the property, not to the owner of
the property. We've heard no evidence of unique conditions of the property, and so the City
Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the variance. MI 2021-003-844-1217 South 50
Street. I vote no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Okay. So, Council, we have a tie. Yes, we do.
We will, we have another board member. We'll brief them and then we'll come back with the
vote okay we'll come back with a vote probably by next week okay would it be i can ask you
submit additional information and a follow-up brief um is that possible um no the record is
closed at this point we're going to close the record but we'll we'll we'll vote again next week
okay all right all right thank you thank you okay so hillary did we ever find leo
I have tried to reach him by phone, and I have not seen him back on here, so unfortunately, I think we may need to continue that matter.
Okay, so why don't we do that? MI 2021-001-675-614 North 64th Street. This case will be...
614 North 64th Street.
These cases will be continued.
And did we finish Bergen Street?
No, Mr. Feynman, I believe, is back on with another computer that he can share his documents.
Okay, so he was coming back on.
Let's see.
There he is.
All right.
MI 2021-00128-1737 Bergen Street.
Again, good morning, Mr. Chair and panel. I'm still I realize having heard the other case, I was on an Apple laptop and I realized that that's where some of the difficulty in sharing my documents.
So I've worked to get on another computer to share those documents.
OK, are you ready to go? If you give me one moment, please.
all right let me let me ask this good identify your client please in the relationship to the
property yes again um mark feyman council uh the the property is lna installations llc
the sole member of that entity is uh present with me his name is yusuf spelling is y i'm sorry
spelling is u-s-e-p-h last name abu ali a-b-u-a-l-i right and i and i think mr hallman has already
spoken to you about your doctor yes okay so let's see if we can get your computer open