a dilapidated property at one time and you'll see from my current photographs it has since
been renovated and is a three-family dwelling. So we're asking that the property on the left
1538 also be permitted to be used as the same usage as the property next door i.e. a three-family
dwelling. This is an aerial photograph just giving you a perspective. This is looking south
Sydenham Street to your left and Tioga Street dead center.
This is the current photograph of the property.
You can see where the zoning notices are posted on the front of the property
and note the property next door is now completely renovated
and the subject property is in dire need of renovation.
Same photograph showing houses side by side.
And this is a close-up view.
The zoning records do indicate 1540 is a triplex.
You can see three mailboxes on the front entryway.
And they both share almost a common set of steps.
Our plans are basically to have two two-bedroom units and one third-bedroom unit.
The plan does show an addition on the rear third floor.
we're not asking for that today from the board we're just asking that the use be changed so
basically the plans will be as they appear save for this third floor addition which will not be
included within the project this is the floor plan basement will have the mechanicals
and steps leading to the exterior there'll be one apartment on the first floor
one apartment on the second floor and then it will be just one apartment
And then there will be just one apartment on the third floor in the front.
on the third floor in the front again the
Again, the rear addition is not part of this application.
These are the elevations.
And we do not have a tax certification per se, but we were able to pay the real estate taxes.
So all the real estate taxes are paid up to date.
so in conclusion this is a long vacant property which was once used as a three-family property
we're asking that the usage be reverted back to what it was a three-family dwelling which is
consistent with the house next door as well as consistent with with the prior use I just wanted
to show the board briefly some of the zoning records indicating from 1986 and 1985 it was
his three-family dwelling. And then back in 1949, it was actually somewhat of a rooming house. It
had one housekeeping unit and five non-housekeeping units. This is the record from 86, indicating
three-family dwelling. This is the record from 84, indicating three-family dwelling.
and this is the record we're able to find from 1849, again indicating one housekeeping unit
and five non-housekeeping units. So in conclusion, I'd ask the board if they have any questions
and just a quick summary. We're not going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood with
this application. It's consistent with the adjacent property as well as with other multifamily units
in the neighborhood. We're not detrimental to the public welfare. We're not going to affect
the development of any adjacent property, and it will not impede any light or air to
any adjacent property in the neighborhood. And with that, I rest and will entertain any
questions from the board or from the community. Mr. Clinton, could you have your client adopt
your testimony? Sure. Archmishop Blount, can you unmute yourself from your telephone?
He will have to raise his virtual hand, please.
Archbishop, can you raise your hand?
Okay, we have a calling user with the phone number ending in 6262.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry.
Good morning. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Chairperson and committee. My name is Eugene Blunt, E-U-G-E-N-E, last name Blunt, B as in boy, L-O-U-N-T, as in time.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Thank you. Proceed, counsel.
Archbishop Blunt, were you on the call when I just presented the project at 1538 West Tioga?
yes sir and did you hear my testimony yes sir and if you had the opportunity to testify would
you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct yes sir i will thank you very much
questions from the board yes mr chairman uh council did you submit a revised uh plan
no Mr. Heilman because we are not changing the dimensions of the property we're just asking for
use so we didn't make any alterations to to the property that weren't reviewed by the board
thank you
questions from the virtual audience
chair we have Charles Richardson Mr. Richardson you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good morning mr richardson state your name and spell for the court reporter please
good morning mr chair charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n office of councilwoman
cindy bass room 312 city hall do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed councilwoman has no objection to granting this variance
Thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The City's zoning archive shows that this property has a long-standing documented history as a triplex.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the use of variants for three dwelling units.
the city planning commission recommends the board grant the use variants for three dwelling units
thank you MI 2021-005-228-1538 West Tioga Street I vote yes
Carol Tenere my vote is yes Thomas Holliman my vote is yes
okay we have three votes thank you thank you mr chairman and members of the board have a great
day right mi 2020 003 118 2109 gillingham street burn out of stage is the attorney
letter of opposition from the rco letter of opposition from the council person
Chair, Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning.
State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Yes, it's Vern Anastasio.
It's V-E-R-N-A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, sir.
I represent the owner of the property, Mr. Joe Berkhauser.
Thank you.
John Berkhauser.
Our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Got it.
Hi, Mr. Anastasio.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of that, Vice Chair. Correction on the stipulating to the referrals accuracy. Yes, the corpus of the referral is in fact accurate. The only mistake made by the examiner was instead of hitting the referral box, they hit the refusal box at the top.
But the corpus of the actual document is very explicit that this is a special exception approval only.
Okay, you may proceed and share your screen, please.
Thank you. Thank you very much. This is the referral.
The application is for personal vehicle repair and maintenance and storage of parts to be in an existing structure.
As you know, a special exception assumes that Mr. Joseph Burkhauer's business is compliant with the code unless there is evidence that our use could somehow be detrimental and negatively impacting the community more than a like-situated use of a similar situation.
So I wanna be able to show you the plans that were drawn.
It's just the basic offices with a garage.
The lot size is 3,200 square feet
and the coverage is 100%.
We have photos of the property in question.
where all the work is done inside the property
this was a welding facility for 40 years operated by my client
it is on a block that is completely surrounded by automotive businesses of all sorts shapes and
sizes zero percent residential uh auto bodies on either side we've got auto repair auto painting
uh so it's the whole block is completely encircled with all sorts of uh automotive uses
and then there's parking over here and that's there's a bar and restaurant on the corner
so there's there's lots of commercial and or light uh industrial
i'm going to show you the letter that was mailed out to all impacted neighbors 43 individual people
all impacted neighbors, 43 individual pieces of mail, and we have a tax cert as well.
I want to come back to this so we understand where we are in context. Now, the appellant
is the owner of 2109 Gillingham. For approximately 40 years, Mr. Chairman, the property was used as
a welding shop, which is a buy-write use under the zoning code by my client. In late 2020,
my client leased the property out to Andre McIntyre for use as vehicle repair and maintenance,
believing because of all other adjacent uses that this was compatible with the code and as a matter
of right. But shortly thereafter, the Department of LNI did inform them that a special exception
certificate was in fact required. On Thursday the 14th of 2022, my client met with the
Frankfurt Neighbor Advisory Committee, which is the registered RCO. My client presented its case
for special exception, including how his business operations would not have any greater negative
impact on the adjacent community that would normally be expected from the proposed use.
I'll briefly go over them. Due to only scheduled vehicle drop-off and pickup and on-site internal
parking, business operations would not cause congestion in the streets or overburden the
transportation system. Due to the compact nature of the shop and its use as a self-contained
commercial operation, it would not overcrowd the land by causing any density issues. Due to the
compact nature of the shop and its use as a self-contained commercial operation with no
residential neighbors on its block face and height well below what would be as a matter of right,
It would not impair adequate supply or air due to the compact nature of the shop and its use as a self-contained commercial operation.
At the center of commercial use block, it would not burden water, sewer, school, park, or other public facilities.
It would not impair or permanently injure the use of adjacent conforming properties.
and it would not pose a public health or safety by fire threats or other means since such threats
would be obviated by the permitting licensing and inspection process and since the proposed
use required a special exceptions it is a presumed legal use akin to a conditional use
in other municipalities and therefore not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for
the city of Philadelphia, and that through hours of operation, schedule delivering, and general
upkeep, along with being sited on a commercial block with no residential uses on the block face,
there would be no general detrimental impacts on the neighborhood. Now, at the RCO meeting,
participants did raise concerns about abandoned cars being a long-standing problem
up and down the street on Gillingham and even on the Cross Street.
My client shared with all the participants that when he operated the welding shop for the last
40 years, he too often had to call L&I regarding abandoned cars blocking his business and his
driveway and advised that the responsible party was an unrelated operation further down the block.
my client and his tenant further stated that all cars associated with the instant use
shall be delivered according to only scheduled times and housed inside the facility. Appellant
further stated that the type of vehicles serviced at the property are working vehicles, like you and
I would take our car in for repair, and is not the type of quote-unquote junk vehicles to be
chopped up and left on the street. The RCO chairperson never advised that the property was
on an alleged quote-unquote nuisance list, as indicated in their letter dated April 21,
which, by the way, was given to me on April 28th. Moreover, not a single participant alleged or had
an iota of proof that this apparent long-standing problem of junk cars was the responsibility of
my client, considering my client and his tenant's responsible business practices, have not generated
any additional L&I violations, but for the special exception. And that's really important. If you
look at the history of L&I violations, other properties on that block, get them. My client
Other properties on that block, get them.
My client has zero L&I violations for any illegal use, junking of cars on the street, blocking of other people's property.
has zero L&I violations.
The only violation my client has ever received was for the special exception that we're here to clear up today.
As such, we meet the burden because we presented the categorical definitions and objective
standards governing the granting of the special exception.
We will provide testimony, we already did at the RCO and will today, that the proposed
use is not sustainably likely, substantially likely to cause a detrimental impact on the
health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood exceeding that which normally might be expected
from the type of use proposed. This RCO letter, which I do object to, fails to meet either its
burden of proof or burden of persuasion in opposing to the granting of the special exception,
merely stating that the property is on some sort of nuisance list and that quote-unquote junk cars
are being left on the street without providing a scintilla of evidence as to why the property
is suddenly on a list sent to the council person's office and how any of the junk cars are associated
with my client. When my client and the tenant have testified before them and will testify today
that junk cars are not serviced under his business model, that all deliveries and pickups
and pre-scheduled are pre-scheduled to avoid community disruption and all vehicles are stored
within the property and with that i'd like to call my first fact witness if that's okay mr chair
sure uh i want to call attorney harry cook who was uh present at the rco meeting on behalf of the
client mr cook could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
harry cook h-a-r-r-y c-o-o-k do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do proceed thank you mr chairman mr cook uh were you the attorney present at the
rco on behalf of the client yes i was okay and did anyone at the meeting identify junk cars
coming from this particular business?
No one at the RCO meeting identified any junk cars associated with this,
presented any evidence of any junk cars associated with this operation at the property.
And did the RCO identify this property as a nuisance property at the meeting
or had any evidence that the cars were related to this business?
Okay. Did anyone recognize that the junk car problem could be associated with one of the other businesses on the block, also automotive related?
Yes. And in addition, everyone did advise it was a longstanding problem.
Okay. Did Mr. Berkhauser speak to the RCO about his struggles dealing with the junk car problem on the block?
Yes, and your recitation of all the facts relating to what was presented to the RCO is accurate.
Did everyone recognize that junk cars were a problem even prior to this business becoming operational?
The general tone of the meeting was that this has been a longstanding problem, predating the change of use.
And the change of use was at the end of 2020, is that correct?
uh yes i believe so approximately the end right and the the problem of junk cars had been years
prior to that is that correct correct uh were you able to look at the rco letters submitted
in opposition to the special exception yes i did did anything strike you as curious