So let us know when they're ready.
okay chair as you wish okay thank you carol i'll start it and then we'll i'll get it i'll let
everyone know when i'm getting off okay that's great all right so good morning everyone my name
is Frank DiCicco. I'll be chairing this morning's, excuse me, my name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the
Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating at today's hearing along with
our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator, Ms. Fatina L., and Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon
Soletta are also in attendance, as is the Zoning Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkit.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web
or otherwise. Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone participating
by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself finally to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your
email address and the address of the property at issue i'll repeat that as well to enter an
appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of
the property at issue and i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the
chat any comments questions or concerns should be directed to our board administrator ms fatina l
all right with that i will read off the list of the add-ons for this morning
number one on our list mi 2021-001569 760 south 18th street
my vote is yes with proviso
revised plan
one page approved today
my vote is yes with proviso
consisting of one page
approved today
I reviewed the transcript
and I watched the video
I'm sorry
thank you very kindly
identify yourself
identify myself
that is I still am Carol
Tenere. Thank you, Ms. Sunkett and Mr. Chair. Excuse me, Ms. Tenere. If we could,
there's a mistake on the add-ons list. It should be two pages, the plans, please.
And I'll read that back in. MI 2021-001569-760, pardon me, South 18th Street. My vote is yes.
With proviso, a revised plan, two pages approved today.
This is Carol Tenere. I reviewed the transcript and I watched the video. My vote is yes with revised plans consisting of two pages stamped today.
Professor Plaza, I watched the video from August 25th, 2021 and the transcript and my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Number two on our list, MI 2020, that's 002-607-1713-SEYBERT, S-E-Y-B-E-R-T, Street, my vote is no.
My vote is no, and I am Carol Tenere.
Professor Plaza, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Number three on our list, there are three cases.
Number three on our list.
MI 2021-001-531-537 Jackson Street.
MI 2021-001-499-539 Jackson Street.
And MI 2021-001-552-541 Jackson Street.
my vote is no to all three. Carol Tenere, my vote is no to all three. Professor Plaza,
my vote is no to all. James Snell, my vote is no to all. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no to all.
You, number four on our list, MI 2020-000835, 621-25 Reed Street, my vote is no.
Harold Tenere, my vote is no.
Professor Plaza, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
And Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
Chair, if you could just confirm on the record
that you did review the video for the last hearing.
I did review the video and the transcript for 621-25
Reed Street, thank you.
MI 20, number five on our list, MI 2021-001-720, 4223 Poulton Avenue, and MI 2021-001-612-4225 Poulton Avenue, my vote is no to rehearing and reconsideration.
Harold Tenere, my vote is no to re-hearing and reconsideration.
Professor Plaza, my vote is no to reconsideration and re-hearing.
James Snell, my vote is no to reconsideration and re-hearing.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no to reconsideration and re-hearing.
Thank you. I will now go read the list of requests for continuances or withdrawals.
Number six on our 930 list, MI 2020-003-418-3108 West York Street is withdrawn.
And number nine on our list, 930 list, MI 2021-001-785-4601 Old York Road.
This case is continued at the request of the applicant in order to meet with the RCO.
Now at this time, I will ask if anyone disagrees with those two items I read off,
the withdrawal and the continuance, so please raise your hand.
Only if you object to the two cases I just read into the record.
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you. I will now ask if anyone would like to request a continuance or withdrawal for the 930 list, please raise your hand. If you would like a continuance or withdrawal for the 930 list, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Jermaine Harris. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, Chair.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Jermaine Harris, J-E-R-M-A-I-N-E, Harris, H-A-R-R-I-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir.
Please proceed.
Yes, I'm asking for a continuance.
This is for the 930 calendar number MI2021-001752.
two uh i'm requesting for a continuance so that way we can have appropriate architectural plans
and uh photos for the property we need a little more time for that um this is the first listing
and i would just be asking for a continuance on that basis okay thank you number 11 on our list
semi 2021 that's 0017525136 wayne avenue is continued any other requests for continuances
or withdrawals please raise your hand i see no other hands chair okay with that um i am
going to be leaving this hearing momentarily uh our vice chair ms carol tennieri will be
chairing the case for the rest of the list. Thank you all.
Is everybody ready? Calendar number 1781-1523 West Indiana.
1781-1523, West Indiana Avenue.
Vice Chair, this is Tanya Sunkett.
Would it be okay if I ask board member Mr. Holloman
if you could turn your volume down a tibet?
It's a little loud for us.
Yes, I did.
Thank you very kindly.
And again, calendar number 1781-1523, West Indiana Avenue.
The attorney is Vern Anastasio.
Good morning, Madam Chair.
Good morning.
Can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in?
Of course. Verne Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Suite 1006, Philadelphia PA 19107.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
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, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal 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 that.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. Please allow me to share my screen.
1523 West Indiana Avenue. The proposal is for new construction
for child care on the first floor at a two-family dwelling above.
It's a corner property. The lot is approximately 896 square feet.
we are staying well within the height limit of 22 feet seven inches
first floor elevation is going to be a reception desk and a classroom
utility a child care center a kitchenette there'll be no cooking on the premises
ADA bathroom and another classroom in the rear.
And then we've got...
I also see that the Allegheny West Civic Association, which is the RCO, gave you a
letter of support. That is accurate. We did meet with the RCO. It was very well attended. 137 pieces
is a mail one out. And as a result, we have unanimous support. My client is in the daycare
industry. She's got an impeccable reputation. She has a waiting list in that neighborhood,
and she's looking forward to getting this started. So with that, for the sake of time,
I'm going to ask my client to raise her hand so she can be recognized. Her name is Nancy Lynch.
Nancy, are you there?
Yes, Ms. Lynch, you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Ms. Lynch?
Ms. Lynch, can you put your name
and address on the record, please?
In the chat.
Just speak it, Ms. Lynch.
Oh, 2940 North Comanche Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19133.
And please put your name on and spell your last name.
Nancy Lynch, L-Y-N-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Byrne, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Ms. Lynch, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
and was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and will you adopt it as your own
testimony if necessary yes thank you i have nothing else but we're open for questions
does the board have any questions no chair lady no no thanks tom
does the board have any questions no chair lady no
um planning commission
uh good morning chair i believe uh charles richardson from the councilman office has his
hands up. Okay, that's the one question I forgot to ask. Mr. Richardson?
Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning. Name and address, please, and then I'll swear you in.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. You may proceed.
It's putting on the record that the Councilwoman has no opposition to granting this variance.
Okay, great. Again, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ian Hegarty with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
And I do swear and affirm to tell the truth.
Well, you know what?
Today is just not my day. I'm sorry.
I'm glad you do swear and affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You may proceed.
Thank you, Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, members of the board, Ian Hegarty with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single-family zoning for this property.
This is an RSA 5 lot.
This is a corner lot that's been vacant and cleared.
We don't have any doubt that the operator would run a good operation here.
However, we can't support this application because there's no claim of hardship that can be supported with unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
And so we would recommend that the board deny the variance.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience who would like to testify?
Madam Chair, I would just like to put on the record that the property's history always had mixed use.
first floor was consistently a commercial space with living quarters above, which is consistent
with corner lots and many neighborhoods. Okay, thank you. Calendar number 1781-1523,
West Indiana Avenue. My vote is yes. Professor Plaza, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you. Calendar number 1784-1810 East
Moyamensing Avenue, Parcel F. The attorney is Rich DeMarco.
Mr. DeMarco is coming back in as a panelist. Okay, thanks Fatina.
Good morning. Can you hear me, Madam Chair?
I can hear you and see you. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes, I can. Richard DeMarco, D-E-M-A-R-C-O, address 2005 Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia VA, 191 Oath Ring.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I swear and affirm and stipulate to the review.
you're doing the whole thing i'm doing the whole thing for you yeah do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes wave and stip yep have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal 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 the above we did meet with um penn sport civic and have a letter
of non-opposition we showed that uh pensport civic sent a letter in of non-opposition
councilman squilla also sent a letter of non-opposition so you may proceed terrific so
yeah i'll try to be brief in light of those facts i'll share my screen right um i do want to just
house housekeeping madam chair we do not need any stamps we were going to ask the board to stamp um
the overall site plan. This is lot F of, let me show you the old plan. This is basically the last
lot to be developed of a townhome development lot that this board actually approved the same
variances in the fall. This is the remaining lot that we did not propose a development for. When
I show you the plan, you'll understand what I mean. We're asking for the same variances for
of this particular property.
It's lot F, it's the corner property of Moore
Moore and Moyamensing excuse me. I'm sorry Oriana it's front zone Oriana.
and Moyamensing, excuse me.
I'm sorry.
You see the red. This is the plan that you approved last year and this is the lot right
here. We're doing the same duplex development. This is Moyamensing. This is the eModa building
which is a non-conforming structure which is currently being demolished in light of what the
before granted last year. The hardship that we articulated in that case was basically the
building is no longer usable. There is no interest in reusing the building. So the only viable use
was multifamily residential townhomes. We initially proposed a large apartment building,
which we, after complaints from the neighbors, we abandoned and we are moving forward with
these townhomes. Again, that's the plan that shows the easement. We are going to ask you to stamp.
we no longer need you to stamp because the refusal is accurate and the plan is accurate for this
particular lot which is lot f so you can disregard that i'll show you the site plan so you can see
what we're dealing with and i'll ask we have a gada on the line and a developer matt milano
this uh these curb cuts front on ariana along with other curb cuts that the board already approved
on the neighboring lots, with trash storage in the basement.
Oriana is a non-parking street,
so we are not displaced in any parking.
And we are maintaining the sidewalks
on the other side on Moia-Mensing.
And this board approved the same variances.
This is the E-Moda building that is dilapidated
and unusual that's being demolished.
I can have Matt Milano promoted to a panelist to accept my testimony.
And trash storage in the basement, duplex dwelling, homeowners association.
We have Matt Milano authorized, please, without my testimony.
Hello, this is Matthew Milano.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record?
Spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
M-I-L-A-N-O.
My address is 246 Pierce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19148.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. You may proceed, Rich.
Matt, good morning.
Did you hear all my factual testimony that I offered to the board today?
I did.
you adopt it as your own testimony and as true and accurate yes i do and this is the final lot
of your townhome development proposal uh for the old e-motor site in pensport correct yes it is
and the main development was approved uh last last fall by this board but this is the remainder
lot that you uh are finalizing the entire plan yes yes it is you met with the neighbors
of non-opposition. Correct. All right. I don't have any questions, Madam Chair. That's all I have.
Thank you. Does the Board have any questions? No, Chair. I would only note for the Planning
Commission that this was a non-conforming structure that was a dilapidated warehouse
that was vacant for many years and no longer viable at that location. The only interest was
to do multifamily and contextually the block is a mix of commercial uses there's a few single
family but there's also multifamily and commercial is there anyone in the virtual audience who has
any questions or testimony i see no hands madam chair thank you planning commission
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. For the record, we were on the record for opposition of the original variance granted by the board last year.
And the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing single-family zoning for this entire property. With regard to the use refusals, the applicant's hardship claim is not supported by evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
and with regard to the dimensional refusals we believe the dimensional requirements of the code
do not impose a financial burden on the applicant accordingly we sustain our opposition to the
development of two family buildings here including on the subject parcel and that is the subject of
this hearing today city planning commission recommends that the board deny all variances on
this application just just for the record madam chair brief response there is a hardship caused
by the existing dilapidated, unusable, and unviable structure that has created additional
dilapidated an unusable and unviable structure that has created additional development costs
and single-family use is not viable in light of the fact that the developer must do all sorts of
demolition and redevelopment of the site and the non-conforming structure has to be replaced and
there's simply no demand for a single family. Thank you. Calendar number 1784, 1810 East
Moyamensing Avenue. My vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
confessors off now okay um good luck uh mr demarco
thank you for your time madam chair have a good evening thank you calendar number
0979 2003 north 9th street dan our back is the attorney
he's coming in as a pattern move thank you
good morning madam chair good morning can you put your name and address on the record spell
your last name and i'll swear you in and auerbach a-u-e-r-b-a-c-h 1500 john f kennedy boulevard
suite 1203 Philadelphia PA 19102. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet consisting of proof of ownership, tax
compliance, refusal, 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 everything with the caveat
that uh we are here today for a realistment hearing or resumption hearing uh because the rco
did not provide a letter we repost the property i've tried to reach out to the rco which is 8pm
i have not been able to get a final position from them the only issue they ever raised during the
meeting or by email with us was a small issue with the trash which i believe we resolved so
i'm not aware of of opposition but they have not provided a letter and to my knowledge we do not
have an RCO letter, Ms. Saleta, you would know best. I have not received one either, but given
the opponent's efforts to obtain one, I think the board can vote this today. Okay, sir, you can continue.
We've made a presentation last time. My client adopted my testimony. Should we
go over everything again? I believe the only purpose of today's hearing was to ensure that the
community members had an opportunity to weigh in, but I'm also happy to go over the presentation
again. Are there community members here in the virtual audience who would like to testify?
I see no hands, Madam Chair. Ms. Saleta, is it okay to go to a straight vote?
Yes, Mr. Obrecht, just to confirm again, your client met with the RCO.
You did not receive a letter since the last hearing. You've made several attempts to obtain
the letter, is that correct? Yes, I've made any number of emails and phone calls to my contact
at the RCO without success over several months. Okay, I think it's fine to vote this thing.
Thank you. Calendar number, no, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem. Ian Hegarty with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for multifamily residential in the comprehensive plan.
This lot, however, is only 930 square feet, and we feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property.
Accordingly, we recommend against the granting of the variance.
Thank you, Mr. Hegarty.
calendar number 0979 2003 north 9th street my vote is yes
jane snell my vote is yes thomas holloman my vote is yes
good luck thank you very much madam chair calendar number 1828 2203 jackson street
the attorney is faith comes
if that's i hope i'm not ruining that last name
ruining that last name.
Excuse me, Madam Chair, I'm not sure if I missed this, but did you call both cases?
No, I did not. I called one. The second case would be calendar number 1827-2201 Jackson Street.
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Faith Hammes. I'm here for the applicant.
Okay, can you please spell your last name? Sorry for the mispronunciation that I gave you.
That's quite all right.
And give us your address, please, and I'll swear you in.
Sure. Faith Hammes, H-A-M-M-E-S. Address is 10 East 6th Avenue, Suite 300,
Conchahokan, PA, 19428. Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Do you greet away the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing, and do you have a letter from the RCO and have you met with the RCO?
yes to all of those things okay we have letters from the rco which is east passion of neighbors
association and their letters of support for both uh cases so you may continue that's correct
i'm going to share my screen here
hopefully that worked it did okay okay um yeah so this application is through two properties
2201 and 2203 Jackson. 2201 is on the corner. It is zoned CMX2. The next is 2203. It's a residential
property next door, and that is zoned RM1. These properties were in joint ownership. My client,
2201-03 Jackson, LLC, through John Tripodi as the sole member, acquired them in 2020.
For many years, these properties have been essentially abandoned and boarded up.
Taxes hadn't been paid in 20 years.
I'm not sure how it didn't go to tax sale, but somehow it survived.
So my client now proposes to rehab these buildings, reuse them.
And with that, we need some fairly modest zoning relief.
I'm going to have Richard Miller, the architect, go through in a little bit more detail briefly the proposed plan.
But what we wanted to show is, you know, what's happening now on this site where it's been abandoned, it's been boarded up, it was a nuisance bar.
We're now proposing to change the first floor of the corner property into a cafe, coffee shop type use and residential above, which it is currently residential above, and then just have a residential unit at 2203 as the inner building.
um i think what i'll do is if we can have um richard miller who should be on with us if he can
go through in a little bit more detail the plans we did go through this with the rco and they
they you know we're very much in support of the project
mr miller is coming back in as a panel
I believe I'm on.
Hi, Mr. Miller. Put your name and address on the record and I'll swear you in.
My name is Richard Miller. I'm with RKM Architects at 1230 Marlboro Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125.
five. Can you spell your last name for the court stenographer? M-I-L-L-E-R. Thank you. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. You may proceed. Good morning,
Richard. Can you just take us through, we can go through it briefly and then maybe open it up for
questions. We know we see what's existing. If you can just briefly explain what's existing,
what the proposal is, and what zoning relief is required?
Certainly. The existing building is a two-story structure on the corner, which is 2201,
and a two-story single-family residence, 2203, directly decided.
When a two-story single-family residence, 2203, directly decided, they were illegally
joined as a part of, there was a pass-through, and they were basically functioning as an
illegal kind of bar nightclub for many years.
But originally, the residence at 2203 was a single-family residence, and our proposal
is to return it to that use.
And in that case, what we would like to do is add a third floor, renovate the base, and that's what's currently being shown in the plans.
And then for the corner property, we have a referral for use because what we would like to do is propose a cafe there, which would allow for takeout food.
it's a very small space about 575 square feet so it's not going to be uh we don't think it's
going to have a huge impact on the neighborhood uh what we're going to do is add a new stair
at the rear of the structure because currently the only access to the second floor is via an
exterior stair that's illegal so we're providing a new stair inboard uh that will serve two
apartments above uh so the the fact that we're doing a rear stair is somewhat complicated uh
but because the the original lot is 100 lot coverage so there is no rear yard which is
required uh by code but because it's an existing condition um we are allowed to do that the
problem is we're looking to do a third floor addition and we're looking to build that out
to the full footprint of the building because that's the logical location for the stair
in order to allow for the retail space to function so that's the that's the hardship that is that
we're facing in terms of uh of that variance uh for the rear yard setback the other issue with
this property is that it is um we we need we need permission or have a referral for takeout food
which we hope is not a concern because there are other uses like that in the neighborhood.
With the house next door, the refusal is based on not having a front setback at the third floor
when it's adjacent to two two-story residents or two two-story structures.
In our case, because we are legally building up the third floor of the corner,
we believe that it it's a perfectly rational extension to go ahead and do it here as well
for the residents and the biggest reason that we are trying to do that is that the floor plate
of this of the original residence is quite small and we're trying to work with the existing
structure of that residence and the location of the existing stair and in order to do that
in order to get a usable bedroom space at the third floor, it really is much better for us to
not have the eight foot set back here. We also believe that architecturally it makes a lot of
sense to do it design-wise because we think it works well with the overall massing of the building.
That's basically the extent of the design. I don't know if I need to get into much more detail,
but if there are questions we'd be happy to answer them for the most part we would see where is
i'm sorry where is the trash stored the trash would be inside the building for the uh for the
commercial space at the first floor there is a basement
okay sorry for interrupting you but i had that on my mind
the support of any questions yeah sir no no vice chair we also have uh john trapodi who is the
owner of of the buildings and who will operate the cafe uh john hopefully is on somewhere
here and can accept the testimony that was presented
john are you out there in the virtual audience
yes can you hear me yes there he is yes can you put your name and address on the record
please and spell your last name sure uh john propote uh 901 north penn street
philadelphia pa last name is spelled t-r-i-p-o-d-i
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes
Okay. He's all yours.
John, you heard the testimony that Richard and I both presented today?
And do you accept that as fact and accept it as your own testimony?
Okay. Is there anything that you want to add with regard to the use and plan for the property?
Uh, nothing I need to add, I think, uh, I think you guys covered it pretty well. Uh, I do have
a number of properties in that area and, uh, you know, talking with my tenants, they were all
asking, you know, a cafe would work good in that, in that location. So figured, you know, let's do
that and develop the other side as a single family home and really get rid of the eyesore that's been
there for quite a while, if people in the neighborhood know. So, I mean, that's all I
can add or taken to add right now. Thank you. I would also add, as a final note, that
the letter from the RCO is attached also to our application. We met with them in July. I think it
was fairly well attended. All the letters went out. And they were in support of it. Not only did
they not object to it they were in support of our application so I think that's worth noting
and with that um I think we can wrap up and open it up to any questions are there any questions
is there anyone in the virtual audience who would like to ask the question
Madam Chair we have one calling user please unmute yourself and please wait for Madam Chair
Hi, Tiffany Green, Concerned Citizens, Point Braves.
Tiffany, wait up one second.
Can you put your address on the record and then spell your last name?
Tiffany Green.
G-R-E-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Madam Chair.
I just we did have a chance to speak with the developer. It was an oversight. He said he didn't. I did not receive the actual notification for the meeting, but that was fine. You know, you know, right now with the pandemic, that's fine right now. But I did want to address our concern is, you know, the cafe, the community, if that's what they want, that's fine with us.
These corners are four corners, two-story.
They've been like that for 80 years.
A lot of the people in the area are homeowners whose generation passed down.
And we have a real concern.
Yes, the CMX2, he is allowed to build up to 38 feet.
However, we want to put on the record that the local residents do not have the right at this point to address the height issue.
So, therefore, that is a matter of by right.
probably 2203 we felt should be built to code the Philadelphia zone code city recommends a set
the eight-foot setback this was the promise that was made by the city officials to address
uh local residents concerned about three-story houses on two-story blocks to protect against
privacy height I mean uh skyline and light and I think that the eight-foot setback should be
uh acknowledged and honored here um most this is the main untouched area that has not really had
any um little three stories in the area and by all four corners mean uh two stories to have two
buildings sitting right there would be quite a change in the character as well as the feel of
the neighborhood and so we will hope that the the code the uh plan the zba would at least honor the
code to for the eight foot setback uh which would still be uh in line with the rest of the block
which is mainly single-family homes, and to, at that point, you know, at least provide the long-time residents with at least some type of relief from having three, two, three-story houses right, platter right back on the, right there on the corner.
Tiffany, are you speaking about both 2201 and 2203?
Right. Well, 2201, he is a bywriter. He can build up to 38 feet on the corner, as he stated, and he has the right to do that. Okay. But we're saying 2203 is still a two-story. It's aligned with the rest of the block.
And we are asking the ZBA to honor what the city has stated, build a code, which is an eight-foot setback.
We're saying that was the promise made to long-term residents to guard against privacy and light and skyline and that type of thing.
So until they're able to put together their own preservation plan.
So we're saying that we would like to start seeing more honor of the eight-foot setback.
Okay, and when you say we, who are you referring to? Because we have a letter of support from East Pachonk neighbors.
okay and when you say we who are you referring to because we have a letter of support
Well, I'm saying at this particular point, we did not receive notification from the RCO.
Who is we?
We did not receive.
Ms. Green, who is we?
I'm saying our RCO, which is this is part of our boundary areas.
Okay, and what is your RCO?
concerned citizens appoint breads oh okay okay we did not receive notification from the rco or the
developer about the meeting actually that is a violation of 14303 code however we were not going
to push that and we're just saying that since we were able to have a conversation with the uh
developer i mean the applicant and his lawyer and we're saying that based on what we've gathered
it from the community and based on residents we know in this area uh because we would at least
sent them over there to that meeting we're saying that this is the uh promise made to local residents
that live on two-story blocks they live on two-story block that the eight-foot uh setback
would be there to guard against privacy and blocking light and air and we're just saying
that there's no hardship here to not build to code.
There's no hardship here at all.
He's still going to have a single-family home.
It's still RM1 and everything.
And at this particular point, we're saying we're asking the DBA to honor the code.
Ms. Thomas, have you met with the concerned citizens of Point Breeze?
We did have a phone call.
I don't know what happened.
They were on our letter list and our notice list,
so I'm not sure if there was an email error, but in any event, we did, and they, so for the
initial meeting, they've informed us that they didn't receive the initial email regarding the
meeting. A couple hundred letters did go out to the required surrounding neighbors. We did meet
with our RCO on July 22nd and the Point Breeze group was sent the letter of approval on July
22nd. I think we've heard from the Point Breeze last week that they were not aware of this. So
yesterday we did have a meeting with them, um, with Tiffany and a couple of other members, I
believe. At our RCO meeting in July, we didn't have any neighbors there with any, you know,
concerns. I respect, you know, they're saying on the phone right now, but we didn't, you know,
we had this open to all the surrounding neighbors and we didn't have anybody come out and object to
this. So I would also like to state that with regard to 2203, the hardship is that it's an
existing structure, we can't push back what is already there. The zoning does allow in one year
if we build 2201 up a third story, it will allow 2203 to be built a third story by right. We feel
that it's a better, less disruptive to the community. It'll look better if it's done at
one time rather than waiting a year just to get in by right, that it just works out better for
everyone with construction on that street at one time and a consistent facade with the same
products, the same age, everything. So in the long run, we believe that we will have a second story
regardless on 2203 and it would look better and be more cohesive and less disruptive for
the neighborhood if we were able to do it all at one time. Thank you. Does the board have any
questions no vice chair no is there anyone in the virtual audience who has any questions
or who would like to testify please raise your hand
i see no hands madam chair planning commission
thank you madam chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
um so uh the comprehensive plan with regard to 220 sorry 2201 comprehensive plan uh recommends
a zoning map change to cmx1 at this corner parcel with regard to the rear yard dimensional refusal
the applicant has demonstrated that the dimensional requirements of the zoning code would impose a
financial burden because of the necessary location of the stair and with regard to the special
exception for takeout food, we believe that the use will not cause detrimental impacts to the
neighborhood beyond what would normally be expected. With regard to the refusal for 2203,
With regard to the refusal for 2203, there's a single-dimensional refusal.
there's
The applicant has demonstrated that the dimensional requirements of the zoning code would also impose a financial burden
and that the totality of the project, given the development concurrently of 2201,
would lead us to recommend that the board grant the variance for the setback as well.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that all the variances be granted.
Okay, thank you.
i do have one question for 2201 jackson is there going to be a takeout window
um i i guess i can let um your architect but uh if i'm incorrect but uh at this point no
there is no takeout window okay thank you and the board still has no questions
Correct, Chair. Okay, thank you. Calendar 1828-2203 Jackson Street and calendar number
1827-2201 Jackson Street, my vote is yes on both. James Snell, my vote is yes to both.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
calendar number 1780 327 south smedley street
there are no exhibits for this case and miss saletta you'll be able to inform us if otherwise
exists i have not yet received i did not receive any exhibits i believe this is the first listing
Is Russell Weigley and Emma Seifert in the virtual audience?
Madam Chair, we have a Brendan Kelly with their hand up. I'm going to unmute them.
Mr. Kelly, can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
can you put your name and address on the record spell your last name my name is brendan kelly
k-e-l-l-e-y my address is 2115 pine street in philadelphia 19103 sir are you an attorney
no i'm the owner um it seems that in some city records it's still showing uh the prior owners
um the names you just mentioned russell weigley and emma forget her last name um but they we
purchased my wife and i purchased this house in february of this year and in some cases it's still
showing the prior owners excuse me this is sharon saletta mr kelly if you had submitted the deed
it would have been correct on the summaries that we send the board i don't have any record of
having received exhibits from you, did you send them in?
I believe they were sent by my architect,
Peter Elsbeck, who is on this call.
Do you know when they were sent in?
Hi, Madam Chair, this is Tanya Sanka, the administrator.
If I could request that the architect is here
with his hand up with clarification about the exhibits that would be great
hi this is this is peter elsbach the architect thank you can you spell your last name and put
your address on the record e-l-s-b-e-c-k and my address is 877 north beechwood street
philadelphia pa 19130 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes ma'am i do okay you may proceed so i i'm i'm i'm not sure why there are no um exhibits we
submitted them on august 31st 2021 uh at 12 20 p.m eight days ago um the one exception
in that was that we were having technical difficulties likely due to the ownership
issue with the tax clearance form, which Brendan was able to subsequently acquire in person at the
MSB. We shared that back a little bit later on. I'm sorry, sir. Again, this is Tanya Sunkit,
administrator who did you submit or email the exhibit package to um let me see rcozba at phila.gov
brendan kelly uh it's s-u-l-e-t-a-z-b-a i'm sorry my email is not showing me the um
um at gmail.com and then pc pc.zoning um at
um at gmail.com and then pc pc
villa.gov um okay chair could we in that case move this back um a bit for me to try to locate
those documents and mr elsbeck would you mind also resending them to me just forwarding the
emails? Yes, of course. Thank you. That's to S-U-L-E-T-A-Z-B-A. That's right. Yes, please.
Sure. Thank you. I'm going to move forward with number eight,
calendar number 1773, 3617 Helen Street. Jennifer Bozillo is the attorney.
on this case we have a letter of support from harrogate civic association and councilman
squilla has sent in a letter of non-opposition jennifer are you there yes can can you just say
you had a letter of support from harrogate correct you it was cut out letter of support
from harrogate and councilman squilla has sent in a letter of non-opposition great all right i will
try to keep this fairly short then and share my screen name and address spell your last name and
i'll sure sure uh jennifer bazidlow b is in boy a is an apple z is zebra y d isn't david l is in
larry o is an oscar 4500 worth street suite d202 philadelphia pennsylvania 19124 do you swear
for him to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth i do do you agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with
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. You may proceed. All right. As I said, I'm Jennifer Bezidlow. I'm here on
behalf today here today excuse me on behalf of uh Tara Buendano I'm sorry I butchered that last
name and her partner Julio Lopez um I've submitted a packet we'll just go through here briefly
um with the refusal which we'll get back to the deed good stuff here uh proof that the property
taxes have been paid. See the zero balance. The RCO letter from Harrogate Civic of unanimous
support. It was fairly well attended. There was 15 people there. Copies of our notification letters
that went out to all of the required local addresses and the civic groups. There's the proof
of mailing, zoning map. Let's see. We also have aerial views. We're going to get to some of this
aerial views of the property, an archival image of the property, and other photographs.
So let's just get to the photographs so I can start talking to you about the proposal.
Okay, so there's our zoning posters that got put up. All right, so this is 3617 Helen Street.
It's an approximately 1,550 square foot RSA 5 zone parcel. It's located, Helen Street is a small
dead-end street that's accessed off of Venango. It's between Jasper and Emerald Street in Harrogate
just kind of to orient you where we are. And our proposal today is the legalization of an addition
to the existing structure for use as Mr. Lopez's personal single-family home. And the application
also includes three off-street garage parking spaces as an expansion of a previous use
where there was only one garage space. And also this front balcony is also included. This proposal
creates four refusals. The first is for a roof deck. As you can see, there is no roof deck.
This balcony is what is being considered as a roof deck. And since it's not set back five feet,
it generates a refusal. But it is not adding to the height of the building or creating any visual
disturbance it's not a safety issue considering it's only one story up where you would normally
find a deck if it was in the rear of the property there would be no no refusal and most importantly
the neighbors do not object to it um the other uh is the expansion of the parking um so let me just
go back to what this building looked like before the addition which is here you see that there was
a one car garage, if that was approved back in 1959. When the
addition was added, there's two additional parking spaces that
there's two additional parking spaces that are in the depth of the property. I will go to the plans.
are in the depth of the property.
Sorry, one second, let me
and then just reduce this a little bit. One second, sorry.
All right, so yeah, so there's just three garage spots but they are stacked.
So there is only, this is where you access the garage, there's only one curb cut, it's the existing curb cut, there's no additional curb cuts or expansion of that, it just creates more space to put more cars, which is important when we go to the character of this street.
Well, let me just get back up to, sorry, the plans are different.
I couldn't fix this one. So you can see the street here. Helen Street is basically all garages
for other properties. And some of them are just single family or single standalone garages. But
this is Helen Street. There's 38 parcels, there's only four single family homes on it,
two multi-families one vacant four rears of properties on emerald and a total of 28 garages
so really expanding this garage use is kind of a benefit um because you already have the curb cut
you're not taking away parking and you're preventing this situation where you see in this
photograph where there's not enough garage spaces and people park on the sidewalk so there's also
really no one going back here other than the people accessing their own garages um so that's
that there is also two dimensional variances that are requested uh the first is for the nine foot
rear yard uh requirement we are at 8.83 so that variance is really de minimis it's equals about
two to three inches so we're really there uh the biggest variance is um for open space required is
25 we're proposing 10. um let me just get to the aerial view so i can show you some context here
This is really not, this block is not consistent with occupied lots and uses.
It's kind of this mishmash block.
So if you look, 3619, which is directly adjacent here, has no rear yard.
And the only open area is actually their parking lot for, this is a four-unit apartment building.
You can see that 2021 has 100% lot coverage and no open space at all. And then you could say that
probably, you know, the property to the rear, 3620 Emerald, has a really large rear yard,
so you actually still have a lot of space between the two parcels. They were notified they didn't
come to the meeting to object. One of the most effective properties is probably the property
to the south, 3615. And this is actually owned by another member of the owner's family and
they have no objection to this expansion.
Thank you. Does the board have any questions?
Yes, Vice Chair. Is there any water repair work done in the garage?
No, it's going to be for personal vehicles.
Thank you.
Does anybody else have any questions in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ian Hegarty with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2017, the zoning map was amended from RM1 to RSA5 in this area.
now is done in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan with the support of the
community. This is a proposed legalization of an enlargement with several use in dimensional
non-conformities. The front garage door was a pre-existing condition, so we find evidence of
a physical hardship for the front-loaded parking refusal. With regard to the open space and rear
yard dimensional variances, we actually hold that the hardship was self-created through the
construction of an illegal structure. And finally, with regard to the roof deck, we believe the
dimensional requirements of the zoning code don't actually impose any kind of financial burden on
the applicant. It's simply just not something that's allowed. So accordingly, the City Planning
Commission recommends that the board grant a variance only for the parking access from the
front street and deny all other variances. If I could just talk about how we wound up in this
situation with the structure as it is in a legalization. I think it's important. So my
clients are not professional developers. Like I mentioned, this is for their own personal home.
Like I mentioned, this is for their own personal home. They bought the property in 2014 and started to develop it in 2018. They hired a general contractor, a licensed contractor to GC. The project gave him a substantial amount of money, over $70,000.
They bought the property in 2014.
dollars. We got to this point, L&I came out, and apparently the contractor had not pulled any
permits or filed for anything. And so they had believed he was taking care of all of this. They
had paid him to take care of all of this. They have been ghosted by that contractor and the
architect they have been using. There's a separate legal matter going on about that. And so now we
have just kind of an average person born and raised in this neighborhood who's trying to
improve this property who's stuck right now. And quite frankly, if he's made to take down the
addition, this building's just going to sit. There's not an ability to fix the wrong that
this contractor has done to him other than to try to get these zoning variances and finish this
project so that we can have a livable single-family home on the block. If I might say that entire
street is a mess with people parking on the sidewalk throwing trash in the street but can
I ask Planning Commission again what was that that you said what you do approve parking
There's a refus- thank you Madam Chair Ian Hegarty with the City Planning Commission.
There is a one refusal for parking access from the front street expansion of a non-conforming
parking use.
we support that variance simply because the curb cut and garage entrance are pre-existing conditions
associated with the former form of the building on this site. And no to? All the other refusals,
including the dimensional refusals and the location of the
roof deck. Thank you so much. Calendar number 1773 3617 Helen Street. My vote is
yes to the parking from front street from the front of the street and no to all other refusals.
james snell yes with proviso thomas holloman yes with provisos
thank you calendar number uh miss saletta are we prepared to go back to yes you can go back
i did receive everything thank you okay great calendar number 1780 327 south smedley street
it's russell wigley or wiggly we're mispronouncing names today so i apologize and emma actually
the chair we do have the correct other information now um it's mr kelly and ms golfer
so mr kelly is the one person who was called is that for number seven
it's for smithly street okay who are russell and emma they were the sellers they were the prior
owners okay but now that we have the exhibits they show that the current owners are that mr
kelly is the current owner okay i'm sorry this is tanya sunkett the administrator
mr kelly um are you declining to be promoted to panelists for your presentation
no i'm sorry i didn't mean to to do that oh sorry
mr kelly can you hear me um one moment madam chair he has to come back in as a panelist
thank you miss saki yes i can hear you okay great can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name? Brendan Kelly, K-E-L-L-E-Y. My address is 2115 Pine Street in
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Okay, you may proceed, assuming you're not an attorney. I'm not. I believe that my architect
is on the call here, Peter Elsbeck, and he is going to walk us through this. Okay, can you
share your screen with us? I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. Kelly, did you say you were not going to do the
presentation? I didn't hear you. Peter Elsbeck, my architect, is going to do the presentation.
Well, actually, what he could do to assist is he can provide the screen share and you can talk
through as the owner your presentation, okay? He's not allowed. Only an attorney can speak in your
he's not allowed. Only an attorney can speak in your behalf. Okay. Okay. Peter, can you put your
behalf. Okay.
name and address on the record? Spell your last name and I'll swear you in. Yes, ma'am. It's
Peter Elsbeck, E-L-S-B-E-C-K. My address is 877 North Beachwood Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19130.
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do.
Thank you. Mr. Kelly, you may proceed. Thank you. So at the rear of this house,
Peter will put up some diagrams of it, but at the rear of the house there is an addition
that was built I believe in the 1950s on the second floor and it's a bump out that is just
exclusively on the second floor. So this section of the house doesn't touch the ground level
and at the time when it was built there was a tree that was in the yard and from everything
we can tell the original bump out was built with a clipped corner in order to avoid the tree that
used to be in that space. My wife and I bought this house this past February and the tree
from what we can tell was removed around three to five years ago and so the tree is no longer
in the yard but the clipped corner still exists on that on that addition and so the the hardship
we're experiencing is really twofold one is that the interior space is really awkward and not
functional and and then the second issue we have is that we're we're in the process of trying to
restore the house in a in a historic way people who know the block know that it's it's a really
charming historic street and we're trying to put the character back and this this bump out is not
in alignment with with that type of of historic look that that we want so we want to square off
the the back it it adds to almost exactly 10 square feet that we're asking for to just make the
the uh the north side of the bump out uh squared off the same way it is on the south side of the
bump out now that the tree is is gone um we have a letter of i believe if the terminology is right
of non-opposition from ccra that's right yeah and um the uh the neighbor to our north um had
expressed some concern and so my architect had created a light study and the study
showing here shows that the impact of adding this additional bump out is only noticeable
at certain times of the year and in a limited number of hours of the day. Certainly the impact
as far as light is concerned the amount of light that was gained by the tree being removed
I love trees but but obviously when the when the tree was removed that created a huge amount of
additional light and this bump out will have a an incredibly small impact on light so
I guess my architect's not allowed to speak to it but there are there are moments I'm sorry
sir this is tanya sunk at the um administrator because you have done the presentation any
technical information that goes along with the plans the architect can speak to now he just
cannot do the actual presentation so you can allow him to talk okay okay sorry for the mess up
no sir thank you thank you sorry we we missed that uh that um requirement so all that part
now you can speak thank you um you know i think brendan really covered just about everything that
that we would um want to speak to um if there are any questions or anything about technicalities
beyond what he covered i'm happy to answer any of those questions does the board have any questions
no vice chair is there anyone virtual audience with questions please raise your hand
madam chair we have joy mcintyre please unmute yourself and please wait for madam
Hello? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you put your name and address on the record?
Yes, Joy McIntyre, MC, capital I-N-T-Y-R-E, 325 South Smedley. I'm the neighbor to the north that
325 South Smedley. I'm the neighbor to the north that Brendan just referred to.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay. You may proceed.
I have several concerns about this and how it affects my property. I understand that the CCRA
did not oppose but i just want to say that i reached out to them and i was told just to send
in a letter that they were not going to have another meeting but evidently they they must have
done so so i did send a letter to the board i did send a letter to um the rco and also the zoning
zoning board of adjustment so i'm hoping that my my letters may have been received um because um i
think it, I wish I'd been able to contribute to the CCRA's decision. I understand the solar light
study indicates that the effect on my property is minimal, but it is not minimal to me to have
light cut off from my kitchen window. So I do want to say that. More to the point, though, with the
addition being bumped out to the property line I feel that I I'm going to be closed in a lot more
my to the to the east the property to the east and I had sent in pictures but the property to
the east was built out to the property line and over and over the whole alley and so there's just
a wall at the alley, this will bump out and close me in on the south side.
And on the north side, sometime along back in time, one wall of the house was built over
about a foot over onto my house.
So all of these little encroachments add up.
windows have been expanded over time and all of these encroachments add up to not all of them I
believe were legal and they may have come at a time when the zoning board was not as vigilant
but they do add up. If you don't mind I'd like to interrupt you. You mentioned CCRA.
right what is CCRA because we know it to be an RCO in the Rittenhouse Square area
who is your RCO? Center City Residence Association Center City Residence Association
and then the other thing is that who that's who that's who I care it is that that is the RCO for
that area it's it is the property is between spruce and pine um i think it only runs for one
block but it is in center city wow okay thank you um the the other thing is um i'm not really
to me i'm not thinking this is a hardship um to not be able to kind of put a sofa there or something
um the i i will say you know that the house has been gutted so the argument that this is an
historic reservation renovation doesn't um convince me um but it's been gutted down to
the bricks and i think it's worth noting that mr kelly is a professional developer so um i just
I just feel like this is maybe bigger than it looks in regards to my property and how it all adds up to affect me.
Thank you for your testimony. Does anyone else have questions?
I would like to respond, if I may.
It is true I'm a professional developer. What I do primarily is rental homes.
This is a home that I purchased along with my wife here.
It's in our personal names.
We intend to live in it.
And so we are developing it for our own personal use.
I also have history, experience with doing historic renovations.
And so it's true, we've gutted this house out, except for the minor amount of historic items that were still available.
We've left things such as fireplace, that type of thing.
But I have a history of using architectural salvage to put the history back.
And so that is absolutely our intention here is to come with historic components to make a historic house.
As far as the encroachments, the clipped corner at the moment has a window that looks down directly into her yard.
As far as the encroachments, you know, the clipped corner at the moment has a window that looks.
When we extend this, the window will only face directly towards the back of the property, so it will face only east.
And there won't be any windows to the north that would be looking down into her yard.
So in that respect, it provides additional privacy for her because we're no longer able to see unless we crane our neck to look down into her yard.
So there's additional privacy there. And I think that since we're talking about the light, so I hope I addressed those issues.
I would ask if Peter could walk us through a little bit about the times of the year and the hours of the day that the sunlight would actually affect her house.
Because it's, in my opinion, so minor. I mean, I guess anything that gets built has some effect on somebody around them.
and here we're talking about something that's just so minuscule and and compared to a massive
tree that has been there for decades the amount of sunlight in the yard at the moment is just
dramatically higher than it must have been three or four years ago. Thank you.
does the board have any questions um yeah i think peter was going to address a little bit about
peter can you uh talk a little bit about the times of year and the hours of the day yes i'm i'm happy
to if if that's helpful okay sure sure so the board need this testimony i'm okay with it i'm
okay okay i'm going to go to planning commission okay thank you thank you madam chair ian hegarty
with the philadelphia city planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
rsa 5 zoning at this location this proposed dimensional variance is minimal at about 10
square feet and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code
city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance
calendar number 1780 327 south smedley street my vote is yes
professor plaza my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
thank you thank you sure calendar number 0328 thank you all sure and good luck 4609
Hedge Street. The attorney is Leo Mulvihill.
I'm not showing Mr. Mulvihill yet, Madam Chair.
okay then we'll move on to number 12.
calendar number 1765 6520 rising sun avenue
miss wilson is coming back in as a panelist
Ms. Wilson, can you hear me?
Ms. Wilson, if you're...
Yes, I'm sorry.
I can hear you now.
Ms. Wilson, can you put your name address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes, my name is Andrea Volson. Last name is W-I-L-S-O-N. Address is 6520 Rosenson Avenue, Philadelphia, PA-19111.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Have you submitted the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, 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, ma'am.
Chair, this is Farron. Excuse me, but I had some communication with Ms. Wilson. I can confirm that we now have the documents we need.
Oh, great. Okay. Ms. Wilson, you may proceed.
yes um i mean this is this is all new to me so i don't know what information you need from me but
um currently i'm leasing the building um first floor is can you share excuse me i'm sorry for
interrupting you but can you share this on your screen um i don't have any full what did you need
I don't have any, what did you need?
like i have my um the floor plans but
Like I have my, the floor plans, but I wouldn't even know how to.
I submitted it.
Photo plans.
Copy the refusal.
Copy of the deed.
I mean, I have the copy of the refusal.
I'm actually leasing.
I don't own the property.
I'm leasing the commercial.
We need to see this on the screen.
Okay, well, let me see how I can get this on the screen in a second.
So, Ms. Wilson, do you have your documents on your device currently?
Yes, I believe I have pictures.
The exhibit package that you submitted to us via email.
Do you all have those documents on the device you are using Zoom on currently?
Yes, I do.
Okay, so if you have those documents pulled up and actually on the screen,
on your zoom are you using a computer or a tablet or laptop i'm on my phone right now just because
i'm at my daycare right now yeah so she you might not be able to bring it up on the phone
to present madam chair madam chair this is a special exception for a daycare if you'd like i
can right now email you the floor plans if that would help that would be great thank you
And Ms. Saletta, can I move forward and ask questions that I know are usually asked when it is a daycare?
Of course.
How many children do you expect to have in the daycare?
No more than about 24.
I know it was previously zoned as a daycare, and I think the zoner was for about 20 to 25 children.
Where is their play area?
I have an outdoor yard off of the back of the building that's fenced in.
And it's fenced in.
Where do you store the trash?
There's also a side on the side of my building right under the fire, a skate rack and put
a, I plan to have a dumpster that will be like fenced in.
So the children don't have access to that?
Okay. Geez, I'm trying to think of the other questions. Days and hours of operation.
It will be Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Okay. And where is the drop-off area?
The drop-off area is on Rising Sun. It will be in front of the daycare building. I'm also in the process right now of getting a loading, like a parking space.
I believe it was like a 15 to 20 minute low in sign pit in front of the building just for parents to drop off.
Okay, what are the ages of the children?
The ages will be from six weeks to 12 years old.
And how are they separated?
They'll actually be separated by their age group.
So we have the infants, we have younger toddlers, older toddlers and school age children.
Are they all on the same floor?
Yes, there's a one floor.
Okay, and do you live in the building?
I don't.
Sharon, should I be looking now?
I didn't receive...
The floor plans.
The email.
yeah i didn't receive them yet okay
jeremy
okay i was thinking if you send them to me i might be able to project them on the screen if the chair
um wishes okay it is only the it's just the floor plans that i have okay
can you do that just so we can get an idea of sure i'm doing it right now okay thanks
how many employees will you have
um i plan to well depends on the ratio of the children um i know my infants is one to four
um i mean i don't know if we were emailing back and forth last night yeah if the ratio has changed
but um i plan to have um between four to five as well as myself okay and are they certified
through the state? Yes, they will have. Yes, they will be. Okay.
Madam Chair, if I can just say on the record, there was some confusion as to whether she
required an attorney.
I did check the lease.
It is in her individual name.
So she does not.
Okay, great.
And you're sending the plans to Tanya.
I sent them to both of you.
Tanya, Ms. Sunket, have you received them?
Not yet.
I'm trying to work it out.
Give me one second.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, for some reason, Zoom is not letting me come in and telling me to register,
so I won't be able to present.
I have another question, Ms. Wilson.
How many bathrooms?
There's one bathroom.
and the maximum number of children would be 24.
And as you wish, Madam Chair, this is Tanya Sunkett again. If you
wish to review the documents offline, and then render a vote
next week, it's always your call.
I think I'd be more comfortable seeing the documents because it
is a daycare and madam chair as far as the number of children just a reminder that they
the state will have to license the daycare and if they will permit fewer than are suggested today
that she will be she'll be held to the lesser number how about could we
i'm also wondering about divisions are there different rooms is it one huge room because if
and again all that would be would be reviewed by the state prior to licensing um could we
perhaps hold the vote for one week for receipt of photos sure
do i ask for planning commission now yes okay planning commission i'm sorry madam chair this
is tanya the administrator i hate to interrupt but we do have a representative from the council
office who wishes to speak whenever you wish to allow it thank you for always keeping me on track
can you please identify yourself good morning good morning madam chair hillary emerson from
councilwoman sherelle parker's office my last name is spelled e-m-e-r-s-o-n thank you do you swear
for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you you may proceed
thank you um the councilwoman is not opposed um to the relief requested um the the location is on
a commercial corridor what's being proposed is a is a commercial use um in a space that was
previously used for a group child care facility um so there was there was child care there
previously this is just for um more children in the facility which of course will be um assessed
by the state the community was not opposed to this use at this location thank you thank you
miss seletik can do you still request that we hold this um i do not i mean if you were
comfortable voting given the councilwoman's input and the rco's support yeah i think i think so
does the board have any questions no questions is there anyone else in the audience who would
like to ask a question I see no hands madam chair okay and
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Okay, Ian.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, this is a special exception, and so we find that the proposed use will
not cause any detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what would normally be expected for
this use.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the special exception.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1765-6520, Rising Sun Avenue, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Howellman, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Okay, I'm going to go back to number 10, calendar number 0328-4609, Hedge Street.
The attorney is Leo Mulvihill.
We also have no RCA, RCO letter.
Mr. Malvin, will you there?
Madam Vice Chair, this is Tanya Sunko, the administrator.
I do not see him in our waiting attendee list.
If I could respectfully request that it be continued.
I don't know if it has quite a few listings or not, but it doesn't seem that he's available,
which is unusual for him absolutely as you wish i would request a continuance
i yeah i agree with you and then i'm sorry again sorry someone just raised a hand i don't know if
that's the applicant our services if you are the applicant
please raise your hand again if not i'm sorry this is sharon i did call and text mr mulvihill
So I guess we can move on as you wish, Madam Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Calendar number 0328-4609 Head Street.
This case is continued.
And that concludes the 930 list.
Madam Chair, if we could just ask if anyone present in the virtual audience is here for
a case they believed was going to be called this morning.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience here because you believed your case would be called
this morning?
Please raise your hand.
Madam Chair, we have someone from ARB Services.
Please unmute yourself and please wait for Madam Chair.
Good morning, Madam Chair.
Good morning.
What case are you here for?
Good morning.
My name is Roger Tennant.
That's T-E-N-A-N-T.
I am the chairman of the Frankfurt RCO board.
We were here for a case 4609-11th Street, Hedge Street.
there was no letter submitted because we were going to bring our comments.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, if I could please.
Sir, we just continued that.
Repeat that.
So that concludes 930's hearings.
Unless there's someone else out there who believes that their case was not heard.
I see no hands madam chair. Thank you administrator. Okay I'll see everybody at two o'clock.
thank you thank you thank you and mr we should be ready whenever you are okay tanya do we of course
i have to get the approval from miss sunkett ready when you are chair
okay you're a friendly board good afternoon my name is carol tenary i'm usually the vice chair
of the zoning board of adjustment today i'll be the acting chair i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with Board Secretary Confessor Plaza and Board Members Thomas Holliman and James Snell.
Board Administrator Katina Owl and of course Tanya Sunkit will be there.
Board Attorney Sharon Saleta is also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of which you can expect.
i'll go through some of the basics of which you can expect first we will be administering
First, we will be...
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony second we'd like to advise everyone that
this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded this is available to the public and on the web third for anyone participating by
phone. If you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine, then star six to
unmute yourself. That's star nine, then star six to unmute yourself. To enter an appearance statement,
call 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. The
number again is 267-270-5548. Fourth, question and answer box is not for testimony. Any comments
are to be directed to Ms. Tanya Sunkit or Ms. Fatina L. I will now probably get corrected,
but i'm calling the continuances out calendar number 3248 1201 west gerrard avenue this hearing
is continued and if sharon if you agree with that i think there's only one other number 12
yes that's correct calendar number one nine seven one sixty four forty three dash forty
nine van dyke street that case is also continued i don't see any withdrawals
on this is there anyone in the audience who disagrees with what i've said
about continuances? Madam Chair, we have Sean Whalen. Okay, Mr. Whalen, can you hear me?
Yes, I can. Hi, can you put your name and address on the record? Of course, Sean Whalen,
S-E-A-N-W-H-A-L-E-N, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And you're concerned about number two?
I am the attorney for 1201 West Girard Avenue, and I agree that it's continued, and I was
just wondering if I missed, my Zoom broke up for a second, if I missed the new hearing
It was supposed to be continued to a close date, and I didn't hear it.
No, you did not miss it.
Mr. Whalen, we are going to try it.
Ms. Sunkit is going to try to schedule that for a close date.
We want to ensure that all of the board members will be present before setting the exact date.
In that case, based on the new hearing date, if we do it close, we reposted the property
and reserved formal letters to all properties within 200 feet.
I'm just trying to understand if I'm going to have to do that again, kind of immediately, or if that will be excused for this matter.
Mr. Wellen, I'm sorry, this is an appeal against O&I, isn't it?
It is, but we just wanted to make sure that there's no question that notice was had by all parties, because we're aware of the sensitivity of the case.
Okay, well, we can discuss that offline.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chair.
Thank you. Is there anyone in the virtual audience who has a request for a continuance?
Madam Chair, we have someone underneath the heading D as in dog, P as in Peter, M as in Mary.
Madam Chair, my name is Dan Mackerel-Hatton and I logged on earlier and was not able to
to get any video, I now have the video of you
and obviously I think you can hear me.
I can hear you, but I can't see you.
Okay, all right.
That's okay, I know who you are.
Can you put your name and address on the record please
and I'll clear you in.
Daniel P McElhatton, MC, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N.
Okay, do you serve from, go ahead.
2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
i do okay i do not have a continuance request my understanding was that there was possibly
I do. Okay. I do not have a continuance request.
one being made for the peachin street property but if i'm in error then council who uh miss
pritzker may correct me um we do not that misled it that's number 10 4112 peachin street i don't
think we have a request for a continuance i haven't received one excuse me but perhaps you
You can call Ms. Pritzker.
Yes, she's available.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, how are you?
I'm great, how are you?
Can you put your name and address on the record,
spell your last name and I'll swear you in?
Yes, Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R,
1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear her for them to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Okay. So we will be requesting a continuance for 4-1-1-2 Peachin Street. I wanted to request
if we could actually have it heard as a special. We have a significant amount of experts
and witnesses, and so wanted to just be considerate of the board's time and see if that was something
that we could work with Ms. Sunkit on. Okay, then you'd speak with Ms. Sunkit off of this,
correct, Tanya? Yes, Madam Chair, we will speak offline and arrange a date for a special listing.
Okay, and are you in agreement with that, Mr. McLaughlin? I am, Madam Chair, we had
approximately 20 neighbors on this call today and a special listing would be more
amenable to their schedules also. So we had been in touch with council about a week or so ago
and only learned of the request within the last hour. Okay so calendar number 2115-4112
Peachon Street is continued. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sure. Have a nice day.
Are there any other requests for continuances? Madam Chair, we have Alan Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson.
Alan are you there yes can you hear me now yes I can name and address please spell your last name
and I'll swear you in yes Alan Nochamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n 1-2-3 South Broad Street
suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 we are asking you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you you may continue yes we're asking for a continuance
of 1317 north 49th street which is under meeting id mi-2021-002165
okay you may proceed i'm just asking for the continuance oh god
somewhere 1237 north 60th street is there anybody no no no no 1370 north 449th street
it's number five on your list okay so i was looking at number four
Is there anyone here in opposition to that or who would like to speak to that?
Madam Chair, we have Mark Harris. I'm not sure if his name is up for this case,
but I can allow him to speak. Okay.
My hand is up for this case and I'd like to question why or what reason.
Sir, I'd like to question you.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name,
and then I'll swear you in?
Gotcha.
Mark, M-E-R-K, Harris, H-R-I-S, 4987 West Thompson Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Okay, and you are speaking in reference to, do you want to state the address?
Oh, the 1317 North 49th Street.
I'd just like to question, why is the continuance being requested without any reasons stated?
The reason why we're seeking the continuance is to try to work with the community, see if there's some type of middle ground in terms of this project.
And my client also has other projects in this neighborhood as well, so we just want to continue the dialogue.
I'd like to oppose the continuance.
I'd like to oppose the continuance. Okay.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no other hands, Madam Chair. Okay, calendar number 2165 1317 North 49th Street. This case is
continued. Anyone else? I see no hands, Madam Chair. Okay, great. Calendar number 1909-119
9 East Lehigh Avenue. The attorney is Dawn Tancredi.
Madam Chair, I believe
there was an add-on first. You know what? You're
absolutely correct. The add-on is
MI-2021-003706
342 West Gerrard Avenue.
um carol tenary my vote is yes to grant the appeal
james snell my vote is yes to grant excuse me this isn't just a vote it's a request for
um approval of an administrative it's effectively an appeal against lni
mr um phillips will state what the changes are on the record and we have an email from um mr
reuter saying that the city takes no position and then there's a vote
is that correct yes it is sorry i muted myself too soon okay
okay is mr phillips here i'm here uh good afternoon how are you uh name and address
spell your last name and i'll swear you michael phillips claire harrison 1835 market street suite
1400 it's p-h-i-l-l-i-p-s sorry for that snuff do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do okay you may proceed okay i'm going to share my screen but i will be
very brief. We are here just seeking a minor administrative adjustment to a variance that
was granted in December 2020 at 342 West Girard. At the time, we were approved for a mixed-use
building with 50 residential units, ground floor commercial, and there were nine parking spaces.
um the original layout you can see it is right here with the nine parking spaces access or fourth
street now at that hearing we had advised the board that there was a plan in place that would
result in reducing the parking spaces from nine to seven to create a shared driveway and then place
additional parking spaces at the neighboring property of Cigar Factory, condominiums at 1147
North 4th Street. And so we are here today to finalize that plan. Now, L&I denied the
administrative application because the creation of the shared driveway would technically create
a refusal for not having a rear yard. And so far as now we have to look at the easement as opposed
to the actual building. I'll note that initially when we filed this application back in 2020,
we had a refusal for no rear yard because the parking spaces were originally all up against
the property line. We shifted them to the building as a result of the community and then eventually
changed it from those nine spaces to the seven that you can see up on the screen now.
We have the full unequivocal support of Northern Liberty's Neighbors Association.
Here is just the plan for, this is not part of the application, but this is the adjacent property.
will be creating 10 new parking spaces on their lot accessed by the shared driveway.
I have the letter from Northern Liberty Neighbors Association strongly supporting
the administrative adjustment to create these new spaces and to reduce the spaces at 342 from
9 to 7. And also this is just the RCO notice that did go out notifying up the
And also, this is just the RCO notice that did go out notifying up the appeal against
As Mr. Letta indicated, the city has not taken any position on this, and we simply request
that the appeal be approved as a minor administrative adjustment insofar as we are only changing
the space parking spaces from 9 to 7 for the purpose of creating 10 additional parking spaces
resulting in a net gain to the community of parking spaces. Mr. Phillips this is Sharon
just for the sake of clarity if the board should approve this how many pages are the plans I think
there should be some reference to them and have they can be stamped. Yes there are three the
revised plans are three pages. Okay, thank you. Is the Board of any questions?
No, Vice Chair.
Planning Commission? No questions.
Planning? Planning Commission? Planning Commission, this is Ron Bednar,
R-O-N-B-E-D-N-A-R. City Planning Commission? Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth
and nothing about the truth? I do. Thank you. Excuse me, Madam Chair. This is Sharon again.
Though Mr. Bednar is, of course, he can put his position on the record. It's not really
necessary because this is an appeal against L&I. Okay. That's exactly what I was going to
state that we will not take a position on this okay thanks thank you sure calendar number three
seven zero six three forty two west gerrard avenue appeal granted with the proviso as per plans
stamped today how many pages three pages okay with three pages stamped today
James Snell, appeal granted with proviso
Confessor Plaza, appeal granted with proviso
Thomas Holloman, appeal granted with proviso
Thank you very much
Have a great day
Thank you, you too
Back to Don Tancredi, calendar number
1909-119 East Lehigh Avenue
Ms. Tancredi is coming back in as a panelist good afternoon hi Ms. Tancredi can you please
put your name and address on the record and spell your last name sure Dawn Tancredi T-A-N-C-R-E-D-I
And the address is 2005 Market Street, 16th floor of Philadelphia, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos, and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Okay, you may proceed. First, I want to say there is a letter of non-opposition from the RCO, and we do have that, so you may proceed.
Great, thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Dawn Tancredi. I'm here today on behalf of Liana Inc., the owner of 119 East Lehigh Avenue. It's 119 through 123. May I share my screen?
Yes, you may.
With me here today is Tony Aliba.
He is a member of Liana Inc. and also Carolina Pena.
She is the architect that prepared the plans. I do have a submission packet here before you today,
which we submitted in advance. I would ask that this be incorporated into the record.
So what we have here is a plan to consolidate three vacant structures and renovate them for
use as medical offices that will provide important services to the community.
And in front of you is a rendering of the proposed offices.
And in front of you is a rendering of
So the property is situated on the 100 block of East Lehigh Avenue, which is a busy multi-laned thoroughfare.
The property is located across the street from the Temple Hospital Episcopal Campus.
This block includes other doctor's offices, pharmacies, and commercial uses, such as a barbershop.
There's a nearby gas station, government building, and community health center.
There's also other multifamily residential on this block.
There are photos of all of these uses in the submission packet on pages 48 through 60.
And here are some for you.
Two of the structures that are part of this application, in particular 119 and 121 East Lehigh Avenue, have been used for medical offices in the past.
and that's evidenced by the archives that are included in the submission packet beginning on
pages 63. We did meet with the RCO on July 14th and again on August 18th. The submission packet
does include a letter of non-opposition. As you mentioned, you have a copy before you.
We also have a fully executed community benefits agreement, which shows support.
In this case, the community was primarily concerned about medications being dispensed at the site and also parking.
In response, my client did agree that no medications would be dispensed on this site, and that's included in the CBA.
As for parking, we did speak with Temple Hospital, their parking lot is going to be under construction
for the next six months, but upon completion of the construction, they will have a conversation
with us about renting spaces. And with that, I would ask Carolina Pena to just go through the plans.
i'm sorry what is the name again their hand isn't up carolina payna p-e-n-a
miss payna you've been unmuted please unmute yourself
can you hear me fatina she needs to be promoted to panelists
my apologies i'll do so now no problem thank you kindly
she's coming back in as a panelist
okay can you hear me yes carolina can you put your name and address on the record and
spell your last name and i'll swear you in okay carolina pena uh that spells p-e-n-a
the address is 230 south broad street 17th floor philadelphia pa 19102
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you you may
proceed. Carolina, can you describe the plans? Sure. So we have our proposal is to consolidate
three lots that are occupied by three buildings. Our proposal is to connect the three buildings
and make one big medical office. Some of the buildings were used in the past as medical
offices 121 in the past was used as four exam rooms and we are proposing to extend use to
eight exam rooms. We will drop the first floor of all three buildings to the sidewalk level
to avoid having ramps and steps like other buildings in the block have done.
We are also going to preserve the features on the facades and the existing window openings
on the second floor to keep within the character of the block.
So the first floor will be all of the medical exam rooms and waiting rooms and bathrooms
medical exam rooms and waiting rooms and bathrooms and stuff like that the second floor will be used
Thank you.
for staff um and medical offices private medical offices for the doctor
and that's our proposal is the board of any questions no no
Okay, Ms. Tancredi, you may continue.
Okay, I mean, if there's no one else here, I would just give a brief closing.
Even though this property is zoned for RM1, it's surrounded by non-residential uses such as the doctor's office, gas stations, a barber shop, a nonprofit, and government buildings,
which creates a hardship to use this property for residential use.
In addition, the history of the property shows that it's been used as a doctor's office.
The number of exams rooms is less than the average number of rooms that it was used for in the past,
which is evidenced by the archives, and therefore the variance is the least minimum to provide relief.
The community benefits agreement does show evidence that there is no adverse impact to the community.
thank you is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions or any witnesses
madam chair we have richard oast please unmute yourself and please wait for madam chair
i'm here sir can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
Sure. Richard Ost, OST, 101 East Lehigh Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19125.
Also with me, I'm sharing the Zoom meeting with Dr. Enid Doria. Could you share your...
Yes. My name is Enid Parada-Doria. I'm spelled P-O-R-R-A-T-A, capital D-O-R-I-A, and my address is at 103 East Lehigh Avenue, Philadelphia.
You're going to have to speak louder. I don't know if the court reporter can get what you're saying.
Yes, my name is Dr. Enid Orada-Doria, last name B-O-R-R-A-T-N, capital D-O-R-I-A.
My address is 103 East Lehigh Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19125.
Do both of you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Okay thank you. You may proceed. We attended both of the RCO virtual hearings
and we had protested the project because of parking on the block. There are many people
double park and triple park to get to those offices. We do respect the decision of the RCO.
However, the owners of the building did agree to a proviso to be put at the zoning hearing that there
would be no additional dental offices and there would be no additional drugs dispensed for
outpatient use at that pharmacy. So while we disagree with the RCO's decision, we respect it,
but we just want to make sure those provisors are properly added to the zoning variance.
And what are the provisors you want added? The first one is that they would not have a dental
office because there already are dental services on the block and the community did not want things
duplicated. And the second one was that there would be no outpatient drugs dispensed from the
medical offices. There already are two pharmacies on this block. And for those who are familiar,
this block does have some drug issues and the neighborhood does have some pill mill issues.
And I'm not saying that is what the client is going to be using it for. But however, we want
to protect it that someone can open and start dispensing medication out of there where we have
medication problem i've been in this block for 40 years and i've worked very hard to clean it up we
face continual problems and we just want to make sure we don't have any more problems brought into
the neighborhood i do respect what they're doing i do think it is well i object because of the
parking i do think it is good for the neighborhood so i just ask that the proviso be added um this is
Sharon. I'm not sure those provisos would be enforceable. Ms. Tancredi, do you have any
comment on the provisos? I can tell you that my client agreed and it's part of the CBA that
no medications will be dispensed. And that was an issue that was raised at the community meeting
and we've addressed that and you can see that by the letter of non-opposition and the executed
cba the reason why i'm asking for the provisos is when you go to that barbershop property next
CBA? The reason why I'm asking for the provisos is when you go to
they tried to open a pharmacy there also and we did have the zoning board put the proviso in
um the variance to use that from it was um just i think single family housing to retail
so i'm not an attorney but i just i'm following what has been done before previous zoning hearings
and as i said that has been done at the barbershop miss tancrede i don't have the address of the
barbershop in front of me but you might have it from your renderings. Right and Mr. Ost you have
the pharmacy on the corner correct? That's correct. Okay so this is Tanya and yes I do concur with
you. I believe that neighbors are already protected through the CBA. I mean I think so too.
how do you go to a doctor's office? And what if the doctor gives you a script?
Dispense the outpatient medication, not writing prescriptions.
Some doctors give you medicine right there and you walk out with it. And
I know what you're concerned about, but Sharon, can you weigh in on that?
I just don't see LNI enforcing this proviso. I don't know how they would do that.
but I think you were probably better protected by the CBA.
Right, I agree.
Does the CBA reference a dental office?
Because I did not hear Ms. Tancredi say that, which they agreed to.
It does not.
Okay, I guess there is no harm in saying no dental office.
I don't think one is proposed, so probably superfluous, but there is no harm in adding it.
So that would be a proviso.
And my client indicated at the community meeting that there would be no dispensing of medication or a dental office.
And, you know, the RCO drafted the community benefits agreement.
You know, it wasn't as though we drafted it, so they included what they thought was important.
does anybody have any other questions
no no i just think you know competition really isn't the reason to add a proviso
are objecting to it no my client agreed to it at the community group
meeting and it's part of the CBA and that probably is sufficient and again including
it in the actual decision might give false assurances since I don't believe that I would
enforce that okay planning commission this is Ron Bednar city planning all this property
is currently indicated for residential on the city plan given the surrounding land use context
we recommend that the request of variance be granted. Thank you. Calendar number 1909-119
East Lehigh Avenue, Carroll Tenere, my vote is yes. Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes. James Snell,
my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. Calendar number 1970, 1200 Jackson Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Alan, are you here?
We have Clementa coming in, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon.
Actually Clementa Amazan from my office is going to be handling this matter.
Okay, great.
Hi, Madam Vice Chair. Where are you? I'm right here. Can you see me? There you are.
Name and address for the record, please, and spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in.
Sounds good. Clementa, Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A. Last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N. Address is 123 South
cross street suite 1600 19109 you swear from the tell the whole truth and nothing but
19109. Do you swear for them to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. And I have letters of support and I submitted my materials. Wait, did you already
respond to agreeing to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulating to its accuracy?
i did okay it's just me so the exhibit packet you have submitted that with proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal referral photos and plans five days in advance of this hearing and you've
met with the rco and you do have a letter yes and it's a letter of support okay we have a letter
from the lower moya mensing civic association which is in support and a letter of non-opposition
from Councilman Squilla. You may proceed. Thank you. Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Perfect.
so again my name is lenta amazon i'll be presenting 1200 jackson street so this is a
very straightforward project in that we are looking to have a hair salon on the lower level
and we're maintaining residential use on the upper level we do have a letter of support from
the community and then we also receive support from the property next door so i do i'm sorry
miss amazon to interrupt this is tanya would it be possible for high could you enlarge that a
little bit? Sure. Is that better? Yes, that's great. Thank you kindly. Of course. So here I
have a pack of materials, which includes a deed to the property, certificate of tax clearance,
notice of refusal, prior permit showing that there was a history of commercial use,
my client's cosmetic license. This is going to be a family-owned business with a husband and wife,
but the wife primarily running it. The application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the
property, or proposed plans and drawings, as well as the letter of support from the
Moor & Moor & Mensing Civic Association. So here we have the deed to the property,
our certificate of tax clearance. So there was a balance that was paid on Friday, September 3rd.
a notice of refusal the property is currently zoned a single family and we are looking to have
a hair salon on the lower level and single family use my client plans on living in the property
and just a permit showing the history of commercial use my client's cosmetic license
was expires in 2023 the application for appeal our project information form maps of the area
view of the front of the property view of the side of the property from south 12th street
view from jackson street view to the left of the property from jackson street
south 12th street to the right of the property south 12th street to the left of the property
so we are corner lot and our posters that were posted at least 20 days prior to today's hearing
and i'm just going to zoom out a bit so you guys can see the full drawings again we're just looking
to have the hair salon on the lower level and maintaining that single family use on the upper
level which my client plans on living in so as you can see here we will have an ada compliant
bathroom as well and then a single family use on the second floor and a letter of support from
the Memorial Convention Civic Association.
We did have a meeting with them on Monday, May 24th at 6 p.m.
We notified 152 properties in total.
And here's our certificates of mailing,
indicating that the notice was sent out on May 7th.
The list of properties that were in fact notified.
So with that, if I can have my client, Alfred,
raise his hand virtually so that he may accept my testimony.
alfred you can unmute yourself okay alfred can you put your name on the record and spell your
spell your last name and i'll swear you in yeah my first name that's alfred the last name is t-e-n-e
q-e-x-h-i-u can i hit you do you swear if i'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do you may proceed thank you alfred did you hear my presentation today yes and was it true
and correct yes and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you well does the board
have any questions no no vice chair is there anyone in the virtual audience
no vice chair is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions
experience.
i see no hands madam chair thank you planning commission
this is uh ron bednarcy planning well this property is currently indicated for residential
use on the city plan given the documented use history recommend the question variance be granted
calendar number strike that calendar number one nine seven zero twelve hundred jackson street
my vote is yes professor plaza my vote is yes jane jane snell my vote is yes thomas holliman
my vote is yes thank you thank you calendar number two one six six one two three seven
NORTH 60th STREET. THE ATTORNEY IS ALLEN OCCAMSEN GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR GOOD AFTERNOON.
You've already been sworn in.
There's a letter of support here from HMC Squared Community Association.
So can you put your name and address on the record?
Spell your last name and I'll swear you and I won't swear you in.
Alan Ockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Do you agree to waive the reading and the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and 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, in all respects, and as Madam Chair stated, we do have a letter of support from the court in the RCO.
We do. And they've requested, well, no, the owner must provide fire letters to the second
and third floor units. So, okay, you can proceed.
Okay. May I share my screen?
All right, so you'll see in our packet of materials for this matter,
is this large enough, by the way?
Can you make it larger, please?
IS THAT GOOD?
BETTER.
ALL RIGHT.
GREAT.
YOU'LL SEE THE DEED TO THE PROPERTY, CERTIFICATE OF TAX CLARANCE, NOTICE OF REFUSAL, APPLICATION
FOR APPEAL, MAPS OF THE AREA, ZONI MAP AND GOOGLE MAPS, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY IN
THE SURROUNDING AREA, PLANS AND DRAWINGS, AND THE LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM HMC SQUARE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS THE COORDINATING RCO FOR THIS MATTER.
What we're trying to do here is simply add a fourth unit for this RM1 property.
We're just slightly below the limits.
This property is owned by Wise Holding Company, LLC, as indicated by the DEED.
Certificate of Tax Clearance, I'm just going to make it a little bit smaller.
It's just easier to navigate some of these documents.
But as you can see, there's no money owed by them.
They are tax compliant.
The notice of refusal, again, we are RM1 property.
We're seeking four dwelling units.
Under the code, we're required to have 1,440 square feet of lot size.
We have 1,376, so we're just slightly short.
Our application for appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment requesting approval of this
zoning variance along with the notice of refusal and our project information form.
Maps to the area.
Again, we're not seeking to take an RSA 5 property and make it into multifamily.
We're simply asking, because of the size of the lot, the way it's situated, and giving
the community support to allow us to have one additional unit there.
maps of the area with the google map photographs of the property my client purchased this property
this way it clearly needs some tlc and my client tends to do that photographs to the right of the
property on north 60th street as you can see we have a trolley line here for public transportation
to the left of the property on north 60th street there is a similar situation and i think it is
even referenced in the letter of support there is a nearby multi-family dwelling which is also
four units which is undersized which has a zoning permit at 1243 north 60th street so it's not out
which has a zoning permit at 1243 North 60th Street.
So it's not out of sorts to have such a use on this block,
similarly requesting for units.
Plants and drawings, I'm just going to reduce it just slightly
so we can just quickly walk through the plants and drawings.
But there's a front porch.
We're not changing dimensions of the property at all.
You walk from the porch, there's a vestibule area.
To the left is unit one, which is a bi-level.
You go up a flight of steps, you know, the flight of steps, there's two units on the second floor, units two and unit three, and then unit four is on the third floor.
One of the reasons why I believe we did receive support is that by increasing it to four units, it makes it more affordable for the community.
So our letter of support, just going to increase size here.
but as you can see not one member of the community was against this project they are in support with
the proviso that we provide these fire ladders there i don't know if this is a proviso that's
enforceable but there's these ladders that you can build into the wall which roll down on you know
outside and my client has no objection uh to doing that on the second and third floors excuse me
counselor yeah they're not uh legal oh we've gone in front of that we've gone in front of the board
of building standards similarly for situations like that when that when we talk about sprinkling
the the uh the building or not and one of the remedies that we've come across and that the
board of building standards have allowed us to do is to have these type of ladders so if it's not
code compliant i i do apologize but we have presented this in front of the board of building
standards you appeal for them yes okay i mean i'll look into it and obviously we don't want
to do something that's illegal but i have i have presented you know those similar type of like
situations those ladders that are embedded in the walls
thank you you're welcome so again you can see the letter of support the again they reference this
other properties under similar circumstances there are undersized lots and then just proof
of our notice of refusal the addresses of the 136 properties that we gave notice to the community
meeting and proof of mailing so with that being said i do have brian wise of wise uh holdings
holding company llc on the line who can adopt my testimony and of course we would be more than happy
to answer any questions from the board. So, Mr. Wise, can you virtually raise your hand?
Mr. Wise, you can unmute yourself. You're free to speak.
Good afternoon. Brian Wise from Wise. Hi, Mr. Wise. Can you put your name and address on the
record? Spell your last name and I'll swear you in. Brian Wise, B-R-I-A-N, last name W-I-S-E.
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you you may
proceed oh yes um mr wise you heard everything i stated today correct and is it true and correct
yes it is and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes i do i have no further questions
at this time planning commission uh ron bednar city planning this property is currently indicated
for multi-family residential on the city plan given the nearby public transit we
recommend that the request i'm sorry madam this is tanya sunkit yes might we um just check to
make sure the community doesn't wish to testify? I thought I did that. Is there anyone in the
virtual audience who would like to testify? Please raise your hand. I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Calendar number 2166-1237 North 60th Street. My vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Calendar number 2118-1437, Point Breeze Avenue, Parcel A. The attorney is Steve Bertil.
Mr. Burchill is coming back in as a panel okay great
Okay, great.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair.
Hi, Mr. Bertil.
Can you put your name and address on the records by your last name, and I'll swear you in and then ask all the questions.
Absolutely.
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, Claire Harrison, Harvey & Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with 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, I have a letter. I'm not sure if it reached Ms. Leto, but I can forward that along. I have a letter of support from the RCO. They circulated an email yesterday. I'm not sure if it reached the board.
Who is the RCO?
Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
Mr. Berto, I don't believe I received it. If you could forward me a copy at some point.
Thank you. Okay, you may proceed. Thank you very much. I'll start sharing my screen.
Okay, as was stated, my name is Steve Bertil. We're here presenting an appeal for 1437-39
Point Breeze Avenue. I represent the owners and the applicants of this appeal. Lepore Properties
with me I have our architect Ivano D'Angelo and representatives from the owners Tommy Lepore,
which I will call on later after my presentation. As stated, as you can see from here, the property
in question sits along point breeze avenue uh between um along the point breeze avenue corridor
uh the property itself uh is zoned to cmx2 um as the entire corridor is um we're seeking the
erection of a mixed-use structure um for use of ground floor commercial with some commercial
storage in the basement and six dwelling units um along among uh three floors above the ground
for commercial. Just to give everyone context, here's an area of the block and the commercial
quarter we're talking about. The property is currently or received approval for a lot
consolidation. It is one structure. It originally was two, but sometime in the history of the
property, they were combined for one large storefront with residential units above it.
but it still sat on two individual parcels, although it was one structure. And so we
consolidated the structure, and the property itself is going to be demolished due to conditions,
which you'll see in a second, and this is what we're proposing to erect post-demolition.
Again, you'll see here, it's between Reed Street and Dickinson Street,
next door to a vacant parcel. And so just to get a sense of the the current condition of the
property, here's an exterior of the frontage on the property is currently vacant and blighted
with structural issues, hence why it needs to be demolished. And it's in the middle of a commercial
corridor. Here's some additional shots. This is along the sidewalk. As you can see, there's some
foundational cracks down the side. You'll get a better idea of conditions when we get to the
interior. Here's a better shot of it. This is just a shot of Point Breeze Avenue so you get a sense
of the area context with it. As I stated, you can see it's all commercial on the ground floor,
residential up top. And here is a shot. Let's start looking at the interior. As you can see,
at one point it was a commercial uh i believe a sneaker store um as you can see it's vacant
there's um some foundational um water damage structural damage it's not in great shape as you
can see i think part of the reason the community um supports this uh project is because as was
discussed in our multiple meetings, this property at some point is coming down, whether we do it
safely or not. It's either the elements are going to do it or we're going to do it safely. And so
as you can see here, there's sinking on the roof. You'll see structural issues there.
you'll see structural issues there.
Okay, so the refusal that we have is
for the proposed use of the residential,
or excuse me, the density.
At the time of the refusal, we were allowed,
we were permitted three units by right.
We were seeking six.
At the time that we received the refusal,
in fact, two days before,
the law changed and the new calculations for the section that dictates the buy right density
increased our buy right proposal from three units to four units. We are still seeking the six,
which I'll explain in a second, but this is the refusal that we have. Now we did meet with the
community meeting, meet with the community group twice. We met in July and in August.
The community group, as I stated earlier, is the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
We had a pretty substantial meeting that generated some actionable and really sort of detailed comments about our proposal, our original proposal and where we are now.
And so just to give you some context, this was the original design.
After our initial meeting, we leave a lot of comments stating that it's too modern,
it doesn't fit within the character of the neighborhood, too much glass, the commercial
space is not highlighted enough as this is a commercial corridor. The community wanted
to see additional three trees, benches, wanted more storage and overall change to the character
and also wanted us to agree to some provisals regarding trash. And so we went back to the
drawing board, took a lot of all, you know, many of the comments, seriously considered them and
made some substantial changes to what we're trying to do. And so, sorry, excuse me.
And so just to give you some additional context, all of these structures here on these photos
are structures along the commercial corridor on this block.
So this was our inspiration for the redesign in conjunction with all of the comments that
we received from community that were very helpful.
and so we ended up as i stated making some substantial changes um here is this zoomed
in enough can you see that it would be helpful if you can make it larger okay
Is that better?
It's great.
Okay, awesome.
So the first section is the basement.
As you can see, we have some commercial storage.
One of the changes that we made is we added interior laundry storage.
We added interior bike storage, which is a request, and then additional residential storage,
but maintaining some storage for the commercial space.
The next section is the ground floor commercial, which is entirely commercial. It's about
1,100 square feet of commercial space. This next section is identical on the second, third,
and fourth floor. As you can see, there's two units per floor. The front unit is about 651
square feet and the rear unit is 581 square feet. This floor plan, as you see here, is identical
on the second, third, and fourth floor.
There is a pilot house, but there is not
a residential roof deck.
The only thing that's up here is mechanical.
So the residents will not have access to the roof.
That was something that we thought
was not in the community's best interest
to have a roof deck for residential
along this commercial corridor.
Let me zoom out a little bit here.
And so, here's the elevations. As you can see here, you'll get a better sense of the rendering.
We redesigned it to match the bays that existed. Smaller windows, we added more brick to match the community's desires.
We changed the street frontage completely to highlight the commercial exclusively with space for canopy design like the rest of the buildings on the block.
The residential entrance is down the side yard.
We added, as I said, rear storage.
We added rear trash storage.
We agreed to private hauling, which will be every other day.
And then we added street trees and benches.
And then we added street trees and benches.
And so here is the redesign.
I'm pleased to say that the community was very receptive
to the redesign that we took their comments to heart.
And you can see that what's highlighted
everything I just discussed on the change to the bay
to match like all the bays that are up and down the block,
the prominence of the commercial space. This is basically on the entire frontage, the additional
street trees, the brick. In addition to that, as I stated, agreeing to the provisal of rear trash
storage, we have an entire area in the rear designated just for the rear dumpsters that
will be brought out through this breezeway for on collection days.
And so I'm pleased to report that in our second meeting after presenting the redesign that
we did we did obtain the support of the community.
We circulated they circulated yesterday this letter of support, which I will circulate
which I will provide to Ms. Saleto and the board
per her request.
And as such, due to what we believe is something
that's designed us in the best interest of the community
that's responsive to community requests and desires,
we believe that the proposed density,
which is our only refusal um is de minimis in nature that the it's not a situation which we
see sometimes when we're trying to cram units someplace that doesn't fit we have two units per
floor we want to keep these one bedroom men um units to maintain the affordability um if we you
know did one unit per floor of course that would have to be necessarily two or three bedroom units
And that was a discussion that was had with community and ultimately understood that the size of the unit now that they're because they're combined is to one big unit comfortably fits one bedroom units that are not unusual in size in any way.
And as such, we ask that the board grant this variance and allow us to hopefully help revitalize this property, which is in a pretty bad condition, and support this commercial corridor.
With me, I had a representative from the owners, Mr. Tommy Lepore.
He did message me saying that he got kicked off and he was having trouble logging back on on his phone.
So I would check to see if he's on and I'll ask him to raise his hand if he can adopt
and affirm my testimony.
But if he can, I would ask the board to recognize that he would adopt and affirm my testimony
as an officer of the court.
There are no hands up at this time.
So as an officer of the court, we would accept what you're saying.
thank you very much i also have the architect if the board has any question design questions
as well but i'll wait to see if the board has any questions does the board have any questions no vice
chair okay we have one calling user please unmute yourself and please wait for madam chair
I think there are, this is Tiffany Green from Concerned Citizens Appointment.
Hi, this is Tiffany Green from Concerned Citizens Appointment, RCO.
Mr. Patil, is this who you're expecting?
No, I think Ms. Green is a representative from an affected RCO.
I'm sorry about that. I do have another hand up. Balfour, is that your client, Mr. Bertull?
Sorry, I didn't catch that name. It should be Tommy Lepore, L-E-P-O-R-E. But I think the board
already recognized he would adopt in the firm. So for the sake of time, I think we can move on from
him and the board has no questions no vice chair correct
planning commission i'm sorry this is time i'm i'm trying to speak
yes they do have testimony if we can allow that okay i didn't know
Yes, they do have testimony, if we can allow that.
Okay, I didn't know there was anybody raising their hands.
Is anyone out there virtually raising their hand?
Ms. Green, you can unmute yourself. You're free to speak.
Thanks, Tony.
All right, we have another hand up. We have Balfour. Please unmute yourself and please
wait for Madam Chief.
Hello? Yes. Hello. Yes.
is there anyone in the virtual world but there can you please raise your hand if you would
like to testify on mr burtel's case there were three hands up i'm gonna try to unmute them again
Okay. Thanks Fatina. No problem. Please unmute yourself and please wait for Madam Chair.
Chris Davis can you unmute yourself and speak please. Yes my name is Chris Davis D-A-V-I-S.
i'm a resident of point breeze at 2118 reed street thank you do you swear in front of me to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do and i apologize this is my first meeting of this sort
so i hope it's okay that the community speaks right now in this process is that correct yes
so you may proceed thank you um i uh thought that the revisioning of the the building is much better
However, one thing I am concerned about is that, as you saw in the pictures of Point Breeze Avenue, all the other buildings nearby are two stories, and on the corner, they are three stories tall.
This building effectively would be the tallest building on Point Breeze Avenue, and I think it sort of takes away some of the charm and the feel of the small town of the avenue.
So one part is that the building is, in my opinion, too tall.
Secondly, talking to a lot of my neighbors, they mentioned bike parking in the basement, which is fantastic.
However, it seems likely that many of the people that live there will probably have a car and there is not sufficient street parking available.
and the last thing I'll say is that Tommy Lepore the owner never managed to show up to the community
meeting either just as he hasn't shown up today so he seems to either have trouble with his computer
or he just doesn't show up to things and I think that is somewhat concerning for the project
as well and that's all I have to say thank you thank you uh madam chair if I could just respond
Sure. When it comes to the height, we don't, this is a by right height, we're not increasing on past, we don't have a variance for height. In fact, I believe we can go a little taller than we're actually proposing.
And so because this entire parcel, excuse me, this entire block is CMX2, this may be the tallest building there now, which I haven't, I would have to confirm that.
I don't believe that's necessarily true, but we know that's not going to be the case because there's other development projects that are going to utilize them by right height on this very block.
um so that's the first thing um but in terms of parking um i think as the board and and many
people know that this is a design is a commercial corridor cmx2 properties um can't have accessory
parking unless there's some sort of rear um alley a rear access alley and what you can
see from the let me go back to the aerial
from the aerial here is that um that doesn't exist and so there's there's no way to place
parking here um the idea and partly why we put the bike storage and and and just the location
of this is that someone living on a commercial corridor um would would understand that and see
and i have to weigh the risk of having um a car or not um but as for uh mr lapoor mr lapoor
admittedly has had some trouble today accessing. He was on, one, I saw his name and then he texted
me, but he accesses Dura's phone. He doesn't utilize his computer, and there was issues with that.
he doesn't utilize his computer. And there was issues with that. He actually was at the second
meeting. He just couldn't, he just couldn't speak. But he was at the second community meeting.
And so I don't know if the gentleman that just spoke came to both meetings, but he did participate
in this process. Okay, Madam Chair, I would like to make one last attempt to allow those witnesses
with their hand up to speak if your name is bar for it might be betty please unmute yourself and
prepare to testify hi betty beaufort name and address on the record and spell your last name
please b-e-a-u-f-o-r betty beaufort b-e-a-u-f-o-r-t 1330 south garnett street
the EPA. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Okay, you may proceed. Well, we, this project, we had a community meeting on the 17th of
August, and out of the community group, out of the community meeting, 20 people opposed this
project because some of the same reason that Chris has just stated. It is a business corridor,
And with all this on the business corridor, we'd be much too busy.
This is a business corridor where people come and want to shop,
like mom and pop shops is on this corridor.
And as Councilman Clark has said, when he asked for the $400 million to do the
project for the safe corridors, he wanted to revitalize the small corridors.
And we had asked him back in December about this project.
We never got a decent answer, but we have been working on this project to see what we can do to save our community atmosphere, as Chris has just spoken about.
It's an atmosphere that's community-wise, where people can go and shop, walk and shop to put things that they needed on the breeze.
So we oppose the community, 20 people, 20 residents, oppose this project as of today, 8, 9, 8, 20, 21.
Thank you.
I'm sorry. I think Ms. Barford may be confusing this case with another one. I know there were
multiple projects along this block, but we had two community meetings, one in July,
where there wasn't a vote taken. There was multiple comments and suggestions to changes
and revisions and provisals which almost all that we've agreed to and at the second meeting
i believe there was only one vote in opposition um so i'm not sure what i'm not sure what she's
referring to i'm not speaking of that i'm not speaking of that community we had a pop-up
community meeting at the site so people could work so people could understand what was coming
on the site. One second. Who's speaking? Buford. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
Go ahead. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This is Tanya Sunkett. If allow, may I ask Ms. Buford
to state the address she's testifying about, just for clarification? Sure. 1437-39 Point Rees Avenue.
What happened was, Beansley was on the business corridor, we wanted people to come to the site and see for themselves what was coming to this specific site.
So we had a pop-up, we couldn't meet in a building.
We had a pop-up community meeting there at the site on August 17th.
This has nothing to do with Mr. Bertel's meeting he's talking about.
This is a community meeting that we had amongst the residents.
and out of 20 residents they said no they opposed the project. I'm not confused. This is what we had
as a community group. Madam Chair hearing that one that's news to me but two I have to object
to the testimony because she's testifying about some the the desires of I guess 20 people who
showed up for a meeting that I wasn't even aware happened. My understanding from my communication
with the registered RCO, there were two meetings. I was never aware of any meeting
among the neighbors. We've had conversations with the near neighbors. We actually had support from
the businesses on the corridor and support from the registered community organization
after multiple meetings, which were both notified per the regulations of the CBA.
Notices were sent out.
um the representatives from the owner even knocked on the doors on the corridor
The representatives and the owner even knocked on the doors on the corridor.
um and there were suggestions and provisals that were suggested after the first meeting
we came back and redesigned it to almost completely to the suggestions that were provided to us
um the community group and the attendees which were were happy with that and and made testimony
on the record of their meeting that they believe that they were heard and then voted to support
this project. So I'm not, one, I'm not aware of any other meeting until now, but two, I would
oppose to just a testimony of that because she's not a representative of RCO. She only can testify
her position. Madam Chair. Yes. Hi, this is Tanya again. We do have a calling user, Ms. Green,
i believe if you wish to testify you can do so now otherwise we will continue with the cases
hi good afternoon green just put your name and address on and spell your last name
the third citizen point breeze rco
um okay you're already sworn in so you can go ahead and testify thank you first of all uh
This particular project, again, it's about the two-story community at this particular point, and the community, as I stated earlier, has stated that they want to deserve the two-story community.
As I put on the record before, that the residence rights have been removed to address the height issue. So we will address the units that he's proposing. He's proposing putting six residential units in this building, which is really out of the character of the block.
The majority of the properties on the block are two-story, first floor commercial, and at least one apartment on top.
We, at this particular point, since we have no other way of addressing this, we will support what the city has stated,
which is to have the, I believe it was the three apartments in that particular project,
And so that it would not be so overwhelming with the residential living that this project would be changing over to. As you know that there was a lot of community pushback, as you all may know, from another project. And so therefore this project is bringing the same type of distastefulness in the community.
And so Ms. Buford, I was at that meeting with Ms. Buford, and she is correct that the residents came out. We also spoke with local businesses, and they are very concerned about this overusage of the property and the increased residential units coming on regarding the project. And we don't think it's a hardship here for him to build six. There's no real hardship. He can still add the property with three residential units.
Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, if I could just ask if the board could request if there's a representative from the RCO on the line, because this has been an ongoing conversation regarding the unit count.
and the discussion was that the one-bedroom, over two meetings with the coordinating RCO,
the discussion was that the one-bedroom units were preferable to the larger, I mean,
we could put four massive units here. The height and the massing of the building won't change
regardless of the density. Again, that's not a refusal and that's not really relevant here.
But the discussion was that that was preferable considering the providers that we agreed to.
One of the main issues that was really the first item of discussion is the trash that would be generated by any increased unit in the storage of it.
And because the owner agreed to supplement any hauling with every other day trash hauling and store whatever we have in the rear as a proviso, that was something that was addressed.
in addition to essentially every other change that we made in response to the discussions that we had.
As I stated, there's been no hiding the ball here.
The community was aware.
People came out to both of the meetings.
And at the end of the second meeting, it was a fairly positive result
that people were happy with where we ended up and were supportive of the project going forward.
Furthermore, in terms of the businesses, we knocked on every door on that block.
door on that block. We talked to the business owners that were there that could talk to us,
We talked to the business owners that were there that could talk to us.
and we had support from them as well. We also reached out to the business association
for Point Breeze, and in general, I did that myself personally. And so again, I'm not sure,
this is the first I'm hearing of another meeting of some neighbors, maybe, I know Ms. Green herself
was on the first meeting. I don't know if she made the second one. And maybe she's just not
aware of what the results and what happened there. But again, we have a support from the community
group over, not as a result of one meeting, but multiple meetings and changes that they wanted to
see that were made pursuant to their desires. I think that the size of the unit, excuse me,
the size of the parcel would require exponentially more expensive and larger units if we changed
the design with what was being proposed from the one bedroom.
And that was not something that they wanted to see.
Affordability was like at the top of their list when we were discussing the density and
how that helps.
And so, again, nothing that's being stated here by the testimony you just heard, everything that's stated here was discussed pretty thoroughly with the community, through the community groups, over four months.
And then we ended up at a place where they supported where the project ended up.
And so I would, considering that due process and considering that level of engagement, I would ask that the board give some credence to what the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition end up deciding.
I should also add that as a community group, they've done what I think is a pretty good job of making sure all the other affected RCOs were aware of what's going on.
This is one of the few community groups where I go to a meeting where they let the effective RCOs have a representative to ask questions individually before opening up to the public.
Most community groups don't do that.
So there was no hiding the ball here.
There was no non-engagement here.
It was full engagement, and we ended up with full support.
We have no other hands, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Does the board have any questions?
Yes, Vice Chair.
I'm a little confused.
What is the hardship for the increase in density?
Well, essentially, the size of the units would require some, excuse me, I keep saying units, parcel.
The size of the parcel and the need to fully demo and build ground up in conjunction to that creates a hardship.
One, the neighborhood doesn't, the community group does not want units that big and that expensive, which would be the case with a lower density.
Two, the increased cost of having to fully demolish or remediate the unsafe structure creates just an additional hardship of having to do that, which preferably would be an adaptive reuse and just doing an addition on top, but we just can't do that because it's structurally unsound and it needs to be remediated per why the demolition was approved in an expedited fashion by L&I.
And so the conjunction of those two things, plus, which I think is important, the community
desires, because again, months of community engagement that ended up with support is something
that we think.
And the marriage of those two things is why we believe that this variant should be granted.
Thank you.
Board Member Holloman, any more questions?
No, Vice Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Property is currently indicated for commercial mixed-use on the city plan.
Given the surrounding neighborhood context, we recommend requested variance be granted
and strongly encourage further application of the city's mixed income density bonus
Program. Calendar number 2118, 1437 Point Breeze Avenue, Parcel A. My vote is yes.
Confessor Brown, my vote is yes.
excuse me i believe there are revised plans with this is that correct mr burtel that's two two
pages my apologies i should have mentioned that before that and also a proviso for trash to be
stored in the rear yard is that correct that's correct okay i had no idea
I will re-vote this.
Okay, calendar number 2118-1437 Point Breeze Avenue, Parcel A.
My vote is yes, with trash to be stored in the rear yard.
Sharon, what was the other one?
Two pages.
Revised plans, two pages.
Two pages.
Yeah, because I have that crossed out on here. And revised plans consisting of two pages.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
I think that's it, Mr. Bertil.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have another matter, so I won't ask to be excused.
Okay. We're going to go to calendar number 1951, 226 South Street. The attorney is David Orfanides.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. David Orphanides, Orphanides & Toner, 2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I've emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and our plans of the property five days in advance of this meeting.
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
We have. We have. We do.
Okay. I'd like to say that South Street Headhouse District and Queen Village Neighborhoods Association both have submitted letters of support.
councilman squilla has sent in a letter of non-opposition so you're up probably with a
very brief presentation uh yes i could make it brief may i share my screen sure
can you see it yes we can great it's great so um again my name is david orphanetes um
from Morphinides and Toner. We have two properties at issue here, 226 and 224 South
Street. 226 South Street is located on the southeast corner of South Street and South
American Street. If I show you an aerial, you can see right here. So there are two properties.
This is 226 at the corner, and then 224 is just to the east of the property.
right now what was last used is a real estate office and some apartments it's been vacant for
some time as for those of you who've been up and down south street south street is suffering from
quite a bit of commercial vacancy right now that was we had information that was provided by south
street headhouse district documenting that there's considerable vacancies on on up and down south
Street, which in and of itself is one of the bases for our request for the variance. The application
is to treat the two lots as one lot, utilizing the establishment of a unity of use to create
the one from the two existing for zoning purposes. Our ground floor will be a retail sales of consumer
goods, and then we'll have one visitor accommodation unit on the ground floor, and then six on each of
the second and third floors. That use to visit or accommodation is not permitted in the underlying
zoning district. We do have two projecting signs, one on South Street and one on South American
Street. And because of their location above the second floor windowsill, they require a variance
as well. And that was set forth in the notice of refusal that was issued by LNI on the 24th of
March. And here you can see a copy of that. That's exhibit for setting forth those two refusals.
in terms of the signage we did take that to the art commission we do have a tab exhibit
We do have a tab exhibit eight of my exhibit book.
eight of my exhibit book you can see you
You can see you have, we did go before them
for a virtual meeting and they did approve it
based upon any type of revisions
that may come out of our meetings with the community
or the zoning board.
And thus far, at least out of the community,
there were no changes to the projecting sign.
These are pictures of the signs.
They are projecting, but they're small.
they're not internally illuminated fabric signs and you can see one here on south street
and that's a signage for the retail establishment and then one on south american street that's the
access for the hotel or visitor accommodations and as i said that's one of the refusals and as
you indicated we do have the support of both the south street head house district june 30th
we have their letter of support there were approximately 30 people in attendance that are
meeting back on may 19th and then july 19th queen village neighborhood association is not the
coordinating rco south street headhouse district was a coordinating rco participated in the meeting
that we had with the community and they issued their own letter of support that was based upon
a revised elevation dated July 12, 2021, which is essentially the same as the elevation that
we provided with our application with the addition of some lighting. It's not a zoning-related issue.
We are going to follow through with that. It doesn't require, in my opinion, the stamping of
revised plans by the Zoning Board because, again, the lighting change or depicting confirming the
location and the type of lighting that they wanted to see on South American Street is not
a zoning issue. Here are the interior floor plans that we're proposing. You can see here's the
corner here South American Street here would be South Street. Here's the retail design office
and there's a possibility of a cafe over on the front of the 224 side and with the ADA
a type b unit at the rear of 224 for the visitor accommodation so you have two uses here that are
going on you have but they're all involving the same people so the the retail establishment
and i have her with me today shannon maldonado presently operates yaoi at 17 716 south 4th
street the intention is to move her business from there into the ground floor of this of this new
operation she is also involved in the hotel she's involved in a hotel with two other people one of
whom is here with me today everett abbott ball and um bill vessel who's he has the agreement of sale
with the existing owners of the property if you recall they were the they're the owners and the
operators and shannon was actually involved in the design of the deacon at 16th and christian
which i brought before this board um for a visitor accommodation there and shannon was involved in
that you can actually see uh here are some examples of her projects in the bottom right
hand corner is the common space of the deacon there at 16th and christian in the above the
first american baptist in the first american baptist church building above the daycare
that's located at the in the rest of the building so chanon has uh extensive design experience you
can ask her all about it stop in her store anytime that you want she's smiling right now she will be
relocating to this location and she will be also involved in one of the owners of the hotel along
with everett bill gets approved we we i mean here's a picture of the existing building as you
can see it's vacant partially boarded up again it was a this existing signage that's there or was
there for the real estate office is going to be removed as part of the application and again the
two existing signs are what we are going to be adding to the facade side alley and and you can
see on south street the type of signage that we're proposing exists up and down south street with
higher located projecting signs. And this is just on the neighboring buildings to the east of us.
We have a tax clearance at Exhibit 22. Our posting, both on the South Street side and on
the South American Street side, of the notice for today's hearing and the copy of the notice
of refusal are included in Exhibit 23. And then our mailing to the coordinating RCOs
for the Coordinating RCO meeting.
Again, the Coordinating RCO was confirmed
by the Planning Commission on April 30th
as a South Street Headhouse District
and a copy of our notice
for the community group meeting
that went out to the list of addresses
provided by the Planning Commission
that we accessed through the Planning Commission's link
that we access through the Planning Commission's link is included at Exhibit 25,
is included at Exhibit 25.
along with the Certificate of First Class Mailing.
So with that, we have, as you indicated, full community support.
We have the non-opposition of the councilmen.
We have extensive commercial vacancy up and down South Street,
which I think warrants whether it's under Hertzberg or.
Well, I'm going with the support from Head House District
and Queen Village Neighborhood Association
and Councilman Squilla's letter.
Does the board have any questions?
No, Vice Chair.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions
about this project?
if so please raise your virtual hand
i see no hands madam chair okay um mr orphanetes does your client want to adopt your testimony
are you frozen
i think he's frozen
is everybody else still on no i'm sorry somehow my my internet just
popped off. You just froze. Does your client want to adopt your testimony? Yes. So, Shannon,
would you like to identify yourself for the record? You'll have to be sworn in.
Yes. Raise your hand. We can't hear her, David. No, I think she has to be...
Hi, this is Shannon. Hi. Name and address, inspire your last name, please.
recording in progress
can you hear me yes i can great i'm sorry this is tanya um mr orphanetes um is your client in
the office with you yes so here's the problem two devices on causes feedback for us would it be
possible for you to mute yours while she while she gets sworn in by the chair mine is muted
okay okay so why don't you just mute yourself okay now if you can speak shannon hi this is
shannon maldonado okay okay can you spell your last name sure it's m-a-l-d-o-n-a-d-o
Your address? 2420 Trenton Avenue, Philadelphia PA 19125. Thanks. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Mr. Orphanides, you can ask her to adopt
your testimony. Sure. Question is, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. Shannon, did you hear
what I stated today to the zoning board? I did. And was it true and correct to the best of your
knowledge? Yes, it was. And would you adopt it as your own statements and your own testimony?
Yes, I would. Thank you. Is there anyone else
out there with questions in virtual world?
I see no other hands, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Planning Commission? This is Ron Bednar, City
Planning. Property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the
city plan. Given the proposed unity of use plan, we recommend that the request for variance begin.
Calendar number 1951-226 South Street, my vote is yes. This is Carol Tenere.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Professor Plaza, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Okay, good luck. Calendar number 1921-3145 Grace Ferry Avenue. The attorney again is
Steve Bertil.
Mr. Bertil is coming back in as a panel.
Okay, great. Thank you.
good afternoon again madam chair i name and address for the record spell your last name
and you're already sworn in uh steve bertill b-e-r-t-i-l claire harris
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, Claire Harrison Harvey in Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street, 14th floor, 19103.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, to all of you both.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the rco and do you have a letter uh yes and um again i'm not sure if the letter it is part of
our exhibit packet but i'm not sure if that was independently sent to the board or miss um seleta
if not i could forward that along as well uh we have residents organized for advocacy and direction
that's correct and it's there's a letter of support that's correct okay so you may proceed
thank you
uh as was stated my name is steve bertill i'm here representing um the owners um and applicants for
3145 grace ferry avenue um we're here requesting variance relief to allow for the erection
The five-story structure for use is moving and storage facilities with 11 accessory parking spaces and two loading spaces.
As you can see from the zoning map here, the property zone is I-3.
It's situated on Grays Ferry Avenue.
Here's the area of the property so you get a better sense of the context.
This is long in an industrial corridor.
of Gray's Ferry Avenue is another 3D shot so you can see the property itself is near the corner of
34th. This is 34th here and Gray's Ferry, this triangle line is the property or kind of curved
triangle is the property. Part of it is under the 76th overpass as you see here. And so the
The refusals that we have for this property is for the amount of parking and loading that we have.
As you know, the parking ratios are dictated by the zoning code utilizing the lot area, or excuse me, the ground floor area of the proposed structure.
we're proposing a use of moving and storage facilities and the zoning code doesn't really
contemplate parking ratios commensurate with the storage facility. Ratios determined by square
footage is obviously problematic for that because for storage facilities, typically there's no daily
users. There's a low employee number count, typically one or two individuals. And essentially
the spaces will go greatly unused as you can see from the refusal if we're just going based off
the ratio calculations this project will require 79 parking spaces and six loading spaces
and again it really just looks at the fact that it's i3 and not the actual sub use which for many
other industrial uses maybe this amount of parking might make sense but as you know from
for moving and storage facilities, it doesn't.
And so that in conjunction with the unique shape of the property,
the addition of those, as you can see, the property is pretty unique
that it kind of points, it gets narrower the further you go back.
You'll see in a second the proposed facility to add the required amount of storage.
we'd either have to do some sort of underground parking at the very least we have to add an
additional floor um to accommodate that um so essentially we would have to make the building
a floor at least a floor taller to accommodate parking that would never be used um
and so just so you get a sense of the project that we're proposing um here is a site plan
as you can see we have the 11 parking spaces at the front this gray structure is the uh
Let me zoom in a little bit.
That might be tough to see.
Is that better?
Okay, great.
The proposed facilities for self-storage use, about 26,000 square feet, over six stories.
As you see the entrance and exit of the properties off of Grace Ferry Avenue, the parking is in the front and the loading is also in the front because that's what accommodates with this lot.
here um we didn't meet with the community group um in addition to a coalition we've met with the
In addition to a coalition, we've met with the coordinating RCO, but we also met with the coalition of area RCOs that are affected.
coordinating rco but we also met with the
I'm pleased to report that we received a letter of support from the coordinating RCO, but also have support for the affected RCOs as well.
Again, we don't have any dimensional refusals.
All we have is the refusals for the park.
We don't have a use refusal either.
what we have is a parking, a refusal for the parking alone, which you'll see here is the
letter notification that went out per the requirements of the zoning code. And at the
very end, you'll see that we have a letter of support from both, or excuse me, from the
coordinating RCO, which is the Residents Organized for Advocacy and Directions. And again, this
is in conjunction with support from the coordinating uh from the affected rcos that took part of a
coalition meeting that we had um prior to the community meeting and afterwards um and so
considering this um this is i guess as you would call a fairly straightforward um variance request
because there's no technical um dimensional aspects to it it's um just a parking and the
loading that's commensurate with the use that we're trying to do um which is self-storage facility
We have agreed and discussed with the community to be, you know, our intention here is we own the property and we're building the facilities.
Our intention here is to be good neighbors, although we don't really affect or have any effect of any residential properties because we're along an industrial corridor.
That's why we didn't have to go to CDR for this.
um we still understand that we have industrial neighbors and at some point um there are
residential people in uh properties in grace ray area and so um we had very good discussions about
being a good neighbor and supporting the community groups which the owner has agreed to do so um
and with that unless the board has any questions um i believe i have a representative from the
owner on the line who can adopt and affirm my testimony. And I would like to conclude
there for the sake of time. Is the Board of any questions? No, Madam Vice-Chair.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions? Please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Madam Chair. Planning Commission? I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
I don't mean to interrupt.
I just wanted to see if we could call up
representative for the owner,
so they can, Vince Jolly,
so they can affirm and adopt my testimony.
If not, I'll be happy to have the board assume adoption.
If you want to call them, call them.
What's the name again?
I'm sorry, sir.
Vince Jolly, J-O-L-L-Y.
i checked into the first and the last name there's no participant here underneath that name
okay with that um for taking time i'll just ask the board um to unrecognize that they would adopt
them for my testimony as an officer of the court absolutely thank you planning commission
so ron bednar city planning property is currently indicated for uh industrial use in the city plan
given the surrounding neighborhood context, we recommend a question. Thank you. Calendar number
1921-3145 Grace Ferry Avenue. My vote is yes. Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Madam Chair, if I could just ask, I don't know if this is a question for Ms. Sunkit
or Ms. Stiletto. In the process of this appeal, there was a new permit number issued, and
I just wanted to. Thank you for that, Mr. Bertil. Yes,
there should be a reference to that. Do you have the ZP number from the new refusal?
I do. I could state that on the record and or send it to you directly, whatever you prefer.
If you could state it on the record, and Madam Chair, if you could re-vote this as yes with proviso as per ZP, whatever number it is.
But the MI number remains the same.
ZP number, which I think it may be up on the screen, is ZP 2021-005342.
okay so we're revoting this calendar number do i miss saletta do i read the calendar number as
Do I, Ms. Saleta, do I read the calendar number as ZP eliminating MI?
No, the MI number remains the same.
You read that, but at a proviso referencing the new ZP number.
Calendar number MI-2021-001921, 3145 Graysbury Avenue.
My vote is yes with proviso ZP 2021-005-342.
Confessor Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1908-5146, Randstead Street.
the attorney is alan knockerson i'm sorry madam chair this is tanya as always interrupting
may i ask a question that was just presented to me
henry clinton had a case for wrinkle street that is number seven
was the reason why we skipped it or did i miss something
uh no the reason why we skipped it is because i was writing all over the place on this piece of
paper no worries chair it was just asked of me so i just wanted to question you thank you
i'm going to call him right now
calendar number 2176 1533 south ringold street the attorney is henry clinton
mr clinton is coming back in as a panelist okay
thank you madam chairman good afternoon hi mr clinton i am so sorry i've been writing all over
this piece of paper and i wrote all over ringgold street so i apologize no problem understood okay
can you put your name and address on the record spell your last name and then i'll swear you in
Sure. Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, 1313 South 33rd Street, Queen Memorial Building, Philadelphia, PA, 19146.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
refusal 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 the above
okay you may proceed all right let me share my screen
is that visible enough? Yes, it's great. This is my cover page for today's hearing,
1533 South Ringgold Street, table of contents composed of exhibits AA through A10. I'll walk
through the relevant attachments as we go through the process. Appearance statement,
the refusal. We have two refusals, one of which we have eliminated. The minimum open space required
is 25%. Our original proposal was only 20%. After we met with the community group, we revised the
plans and we increased the open space to make it equal to 25%. So this refusal is going away.
The second refusal concerns the fact that this is a vacant lot in between two two-story homes.
And the proposal is for a three-story home. But again, we've changed the plans. It's not a straight
up three-story home it is a three-story house with a mansert roof on the third floor
with windows so it can't away from the front of the house and we've met ended up matching
the cornice lines of the homes on either side and i'll show you that as i walk through it
we do have a letter of support from the point priest community development corporation
you can see it's support and support and we also have a petition from about six or seven
neighbors on the block in support of the project just for perspective this is the vacant lot right
now these are the homes on either side one has an old cornice that's been covered over with
aluminum siding and there really is no cornice on the other side it's a brick corbel at the very
time. I'm giving you just some perspective of the block. We have a proviso plan and one plan
one plan that needs to be stamped if the board looks kindly upon this application.
that needs to be stamped if the board looks kindly upon this application. Basically,
Basically, we've opened areas of an increase from 20 to 25 percent,
and the building has been shrunk down to 37 feet, six inches in depth, and we have
windowed protrusions on the mansion roof, and the mansion roof some detail.
I'm sorry.
Sorry, I was having trouble hearing. Could you please repeat that? This is the court reporter.
You want me to talk louder? No, there was some audio interference. If you could just repeat.
Something about your plan that needs to be stamped. That was the last thing I have.
Okay, thank you.
so we have submitted a revised proviso plan and in this revised proviso plan we've indicated what
the changes are we've changed the zoning page which which is one page and those changes are
in bubble and we've increased the open space from 20 to 25 percent and we've installed the
window protrusion on the mansert roof as per our discussions with the community group
and this is a layout of the site plan indicating that our depth of our building is now matching
the homes on either side and this is the mansert roof which you really have to take a look at the
side view to get a perspective you can see the house elevation front elevation does not go
straight up it's can it backwards and we have a window protrusion on the third floor
these are the floor plans just some open space in the basement half bath living room dining room
kitchen on the first floor on the second floor there are two bedrooms and on the third floor
there's one bedroom with access to a rooftop deck which is set back five feet from the rear yard
the rest of the documents are the pro forma documents that you typically see in a zoning
application tax certificate application for appeal a proof of mailing zoning map
indication of ownership of the property by tri-state trimmers and our notice letters and
there's our certificate of mailing. So in a nutshell, we've had two refusals. We've eliminated
one. The main refusal has to do with building a three-story property in between two two-story
properties. We've adapted that third floor to make it a mansert roof. We've met with the community
group. They're in full agreement with that. And the reason we're going for three floors is these
homes are very narrow, they're 14 feet wide. With new construction, when you put in a stairwell,
your stairwell has to be three feet wide. And then if your side walls are six inches,
basically you're shrinking the living area down to about seven feet wide. And when you have that
kind of a width on a property, it just makes sense to go up another story as long as that
third story is compatible with what the community wants and the rest of the block. So with that
I rest. I know my client was trying to call in. I don't know if he's still there, but his name is
Keith Palsis, P-A-U-L-I-C-S. I'll entertain any questions that the board may have, and if I can
get Mr. Palkus on the line, I'll get him to adopt, and if I can't get him on the line, I can verify
that were he able to communicate with the board, he would adopt my testimony in full, and that's
That's true and correct.
Call in user 5.
Please announce.
Tiffany Green.
No, I'm sorry.
We're looking for Keith.
Oh, sorry.
Okay, Mr. Planton, as an officer of the court, you can adopt his testimony.
Since Mr. Palkus is, I guess, incommunicado,
is an officer of the court, I've represented the board.
Had Mr. Palkus been on the entire call,
he would adopt my testimony as his own
and as true and correct as I presented it to the board.
as i presented it to the board thank you is there anyone else who would like to testify
Thank you.
see no hands madam chair wait a minute we have one calling user
i'll unmute please unmute yourself and wait for the chair okay this is um tiffany green
percentages of point three rco affected rco and again we're calling your last name can you just
tiffany can you spell your last name g-r-e-e-n okay and you're already sworn in so go ahead
okay the concern is and i think the zba needs to know that there is a problem with the transparency
of the vote from the coordinating rco and so therefore i just want to make the record that
But the coordinated RCO only sets the date, time, and location of the meeting.
Their letter is no more important than other RCOs in our testimony.
And we feel at this point we're not getting the same type of treatment in terms of our testimony.
Now, the thing about it is that the RCO, Point Pre-CDC, recommended Nash here and put it in the proviso.
And we did not, the community residents did not agree with that.
Okay, but since they are controlling the Zoom, we have the vote link. We have no control over that. So we said that to Henry, and it was said to Henry at the meeting, that we want you to follow the code. You know how the people in Point Reef field, particularly around the area. You just had another property around the corner on 24th and Tasker, where the residents told you they wanted to maintain a two-story community, and that we're asking you to build the code, which is the eight-foot setback, because of the fact it's a privacy issue.
And it is really messing up the character of the South Philadelphia block.
And we don't understand.
We're not saying we're against the new development.
We're saying, can you maintain a respect of the residents on the block in terms of the, you know, turn to the setback and the character of the block?
This is the issue here.
And so, therefore, because there's an issue regarding obtaining the vote and the summary letter, this is why we're calling up the ZBA and putting in our own testimony.
There is a letter from Point Breeze Community Development Coalition in support of this.
Mr. Clinton is that correct? Yes, Madam Chairman and Ms. Green did participate
in the meetings. She was able to voice her concerns. On this block there's already a
three-story house and we didn't want to go that route based on what the community said. We pulled
the third floor back so I think you know there was input it was commentary and then the vote
was held so if there's some you know disagreement among the RCOs it's it's tough to get the client
involved in that. So you are doing an eight-foot setback? No we're doing a mansert roof on the
third floor. Oh okay. Okay Ms. Green is um are you finished with your testimony?
I, it's not, the thing is that we have no way of really proving that that support is, is legitimate. And at this particular point, this is why it's been very hard for us to attend the public meeting with the, with the coordinated RCO and then bring the community resident support because.
Excuse me, do you know, do you know Albert Littlepage and Pietra Gamble?
yes i i know them very well and uh we're having this we're having they have submitted the letter
we are having this discussion at the planning commission level and right now and we're saying
that and that's why that's why there was a separate meeting for 1437 because there is a concern about
obtaining the vote uh the transparency of the vote so madam chair i i don't not that we put
you in the middle we just want you to know what is going on down in point threes right now
whatever it is it just continues um so a planning commission
this is uh ron bednarcy planning properties indicated for residential use on a city plan
based on revised design we recommend the request of variance beginning. Calendar number 2176
1533 South Ringgold Street my vote is yes. Madam Chair there is one page revised and with revised
plans consisting of one page. Professor Plaza yes with proviso. James Snell yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman yes with proviso.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the board.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the board.
Thank you. Calendar number 1-9-0-8-5146, Randstead Street. The attorney is Alan Nockramson.
Thank you.
Clementa, Amazon, and Allen is coming back in as panel.
Good afternoon, everybody, Sharon.
Hi, Clementa.
Can you put your name and address on the record?
spell your last name you're already sworn in of course clemente amazon c l e m e n t a last name
a m a z a n addresses one two three south broad street suite 1600 1910 now do you agree to waive
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal 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, and it's a letter of support.
Thank you. The RCO is Walnut Hill Community Association, and Councilwoman Gautier has
submitted a letter of non-opposition, so you may proceed.
Thank you. I'll just share my screen.
can you see my screen yes we can perfect so in my materials i'll be going through the deeds
certificate of tax clearance notice of refusal application for appeal maps of the area photographs
of the property as well as the proposed plans and drawings as was mentioned we do have a letter of
support from walnut hill community association we also did a ton of community outreach and we
did receive a petition or we do have a petition indicating support from nearby neighbors as well
Here we have the deed shown that my client does in fact own this property and she does intend to move into the property as well.
The certificate of tax clearance, our notice of refusal.
The property is currently zoned as CMX4, although as you'll see in the pictures in my presentation, this is a residential block.
If I recall correctly, during the community meeting, the Council of Mazzoni A did mention that it is mis-zoned.
So if they were to rezone it, it would probably be zoned for residential use.
and we are just looking to have a duplex here we have the application for appeal again the refusal
maps of the area as you can see it is known to cmx4 but as you'll see from photographs
you have the front of the property this is a very clearly residential block
it's a left on randstead street here we have our proposed drawing so as i mentioned we are
looking for a duplex my client doesn't tend to move into the property
we have the letter of support from walnut hill neighbors association we did receive a unanimous
vote in favor of this project the meeting was held on july 7th at 7 p.m we also received a
letter of non-opposition from one of the affected rcls with philadelphia economic development
council and as i mentioned we did do outreach to the community to ensure that everyone was
comfortable and happy with this project so we received significant amount of support from
the nearby neighbors as well, including the neighbors to the left of the property, the
notice that we sent out of the July 7th community meeting, all the properties that were notified,
and our certificates of mailing. So with that, if I can have Chanel Surratt raise her hand for Julie.
Ms. Saragui, ma'am, you just-
Hello.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name,
and then after I'll square you in?
chanel surrett c-h-a-n-e-l-l s as in sam u-r-r-a-t-t 7-4-2-6 road street philadelphia
pennsylvania 1-9-1-5-1 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes i do okay you may proceed thank you chanel did you hear my presentation today
yes i did and was it your own correct yes it was and was you adopted as your own testimony
yes i will thank you thank you does the board have any questions yes madam chair could you go
could you go back to the basement floor plans of course so we do not have any
bedrooms for the basement i'll just zoom in so you can see that a bit better
I'll just zoom in so you can see that a bit better.
Okay, thank you.
Of course.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions?
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
This is Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
While the property is currently indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan,
given the surrounding use context, we recommend that the requested variance be granted.
Thank you. Calendar number 1908-5146, Branstad Street. My vote is yes and my name is Carol Tenere.
Professor Plaza, yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
I'm going to ask the board we have one more case for the two o'clock session and I don't know if
the court reporter needs a break or does the court reporter and the board want to hear the last case
and then break for the 3 30 hearings what is your preference this is the court reporter and that's
fine with me uh just do the next one and break either way is fine okay and the board is okay
with that that sounds good okay calendar number one nine seven two nine one three west dakota street
alan occamson
is the attorney
Hi, Alan, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
You're already sworn in.
Yes, Alan Nochumson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia,
PA, 19109.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal and 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, we do.
We have an RCO APM letter of no opinion.
So you may now present your case.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS THEY ACTUALLY PRESENTED IT AS A LETTER OF NON-OPPOSITION.
BUT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE LETTER.
MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN?
NOCHEMSON, I ACTUALLY QUOTED THAT DIRECTLY FROM THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED.
ALL RIGHT.
I THINK THE VOTE TALLY WAS ONE IN NON-OPPOSITION ON THE FRONT PAGE.
THEY SAID THEY HAD NO OPINION, BUT THE ACTUAL VOTE WAS ONE IN NON-OPPOSITION.
I AGREE.
I DID SEE THAT.
Okay, so I'm here to present 913 and 15 West Dakota Streets.
As you can see, these are going to be two properties next to each other.
These are RM1 properties.
What we're really trying to do is redistribute the land from one property to the next.
9.13 is currently 1,005. 9.15 is currently 7.47, and we're trying to equalize that
to put two family dwellings there. What you'll see is, let me just increase the size of this.
We have deed set property showing that West Dakota Development LLC owns property. Certificates
of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing with the city of Philadelphia with
respect to their real estate taxes. The notice of refusal, again, confirming that these are
RM1 properties, merely trying to reconfigure them to make them more functional because 915 is only
747 square feet. It would make sense to kind of equalize it. Showing the 900 block of West Dakota
Street, showing the lot sizes that is not out of character based on what we're proposing compared
to other properties on that block. Our application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the
property, our plans and drawing, and our letter from APM. So first things first, W Dakota Development
LLC is the owner of the property, well both properties, 913 and 915 West Dakota Street.
Our certificate is a tax clearance. There was a small debt owed on these properties which my
client took care of as you can see from payment here on there again there was a small debt owed
and payment was made here
and then i'm just going to just decrease the size just slightly so everything on one page
But our notice of refusal, we're just trying to relocate the lot lines here for this RM1 property.
but our notice of refusal uh we're just trying to relocate the the law
We're not taking an RSA-5 property and trying to increase the density.
It's the most minimum request necessary from the variance in terms of we're not asking for more units than is allowed.
Technically, we're asking for two units for an RM1 property.
And then you can see just the square footages of the lots on the 900 block of West Dakota Street.
Ours were equalizing it to 876.2 square feet each.
Again, right now, 913 is 1,005.
915 is 747.
To create functional floor plan for 915, we're just asking to equalize these properties.
but you can see that it's not out of character. Our application for appeal to the ZBA along
with our notice of refusal and project information form that we filed. The zoning map of the
area, as you can see, this is again an area that's RM1 predominantly. As you can see from
On the Google map, we are between 9th and 10th on Dakota, and on the other side is Arizona, as well as Dolphin Street.
Photographs of the property, West Dakota to the right of the property, West Dakota to the left of the property.
I'm going to decrease the size a little bit.
because my client owns both properties just gave him an opportunity to create a breezeway
down the middle so that will help not only for you know trash removal for both properties
both of these two two unit dwellings but also will help in terms of safety in terms of the
unit, you know, the bi-level unit on the first floor and the lower level will have access
not only to the front of the property, but going through the rear of the property for safety
purposes. And then just, you know, our floor plan. Again, if you go through this, you know,
you go up a flight of steps, you have a vestibule area to the right, go into unit one, which also
has, you know, first floor and a bi-level, unit two, you go up a flight of steps, same
thing, second and third floors are bi-level, it's a bi-level for unit two, or just our
survey showing how we're reconfiguring our lot lines, and then our letter of, I believe
non-opposition, but I can be, you know, again, I know they gave no opinion, but again, this
was a, you know, we'd flyer to the neighborhood by mailing out notice. Only one person showed
up to the meeting, and they were in non-opposition. So, so, and, you know, I know their letter
says they give no opinion, but, you know, again, you know, there was a community vote
taken, and it was in non-opposition. Here's notice of our community meeting for June 29th,
2021 at 5.30 p.m. They did not ask us to have another meeting because of the low turnout.
Again, we're taking an RM1 property and just reconfiguring it, and we're not creating any
extreme density to the neighborhood. This is a multifamily section of Philadelphia.
146 addresses were notified at this community meeting. Here are all the addresses. And then
AND HERE'S PROOF OF OUR MAILING.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DO HAVE ISAAC KATZ, THE MEMBER OF WDAKOTA DEVELOPMENT LLC, WHO
CAN ADOPT MY TESTIMONY, AND THEN I WOULD FEEL FREE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
SO MR. KATZ, CAN YOU VIRTUALLY RAISE YOUR HAND?
I'm sorry, there's no hands raised and I was checked under his first name and last name.
So I hope as an officer of court, you would take my testimony as true and accurate.
And if there's any questions from the board, I would be more than happy to answer them
Does the board have any questions?
yes madam chair the uh properties new construction what what percentage is it is
properties new construction what what percentage is it is it is the building out of the ground
uh what percentage is out of the ground um i have to take a look at that let's uh share the uh
let's share again
let's see
i'm just gonna i'm gonna just decrease the size just to help myself look through the drawings
if you don't mind not at all
um it looks like it's three feet three inches out of the ground thank you you're welcome
is there anyone in the virtual audience with any questions
i see no hands madam chair thank you planning commission
This is our Ron Bednar City Planning.
Properties indicated for residential use on a city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that were prevented from being used in conformity with the code.
Therefore, we recommend a request for variance.
Is there a basement? There's a basement here? There is a basement, but again, we have a
with no bedrooms, no bedrooms in the basement. I believe that the drawings do have bedrooms in
the basement, but I would say this, that there is a breezeway that we specifically created for
emergency circumstances, which will allow the individuals who are in the lower level to either
access from the front of the first floor or go through the breezeway. Also for trash removal as
well. Again, all we're trying to do is equalize these properties. Right now, 913 is 1,005 square
feet. 915 is 747. All we're trying to do is equalize these two properties to allow both of
them for the floor plans to work. In addition, again, this is an RM1 section of Philadelphia.
So by having such a harsh stance on not equalizing this, they're creating it so that we would be required to build a single-family home or seek a variance for 9-15.
So, again, this is completely RM1.
This is not like a single-family section of the area.
That's why only one person...
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
No, that's why no one really showed up.
One person showed up and they weren't opposed.
How many windows?
How many windows where?
In the basement.
There's two. There's one for the front and one through the rear.
I mean, we have an egress well, obviously, for both. That's code required.
So there's an egress well and another window and two other windows.
Hold on a second. Let me see.
There's two egress wells.
In each unit or in individual units?
Oh, no, in the lower level unit.
There's an egress well in the front and there's an egress well in the back.
And those are the only windows.
And they are three feet of window?
It's three feet, three inches off of the grade level.
does the board want to vote this or hold this
may i suggest we hold it madam chair okay well i'd like to know what the other board members want
can you repeat that yeah do you suggest that we vote it or hold it
i'm concerned about the basement and maybe we just need to take a better look at it yeah i i i'm in
agreement with you yeah i'm okay with you guys yeah so what i okay alan we're gonna hold this
calendar number one nine seven two nine one three west dakota street we're gonna hold this and vote
it. Ms. Sunkit, can we vote it next week?
Yes, as you wish, Madam Chair, if you could just announce that the record is closed and
it will be discussed in next week's executive session and vote it at the beginning of the
9.30 session.
Thank you. And this record is closed. We'll discuss it in executive session.
and um we'll begin our hearings at 9 30 and that's when it will be voted did we get our
planning commission's input we did all right great um madam chair i'm sorry to tell you about this
but i learned that there is another case on the list that has to be called um i'm sorry jaron
yes it is 3 30 oh perfect thank you then never mind i'll let you know during the break
oh my gosh so we really did miss a case at two o'clock no it
it i guess according to tanya it's actually at 3 30 but it's to be heard
but it is not on your 3 30 list i will send you the information now
oh no you're doing this again okay thank you okay we're going to take a break um and we will be back
at 4 is 4 45 okay sounds great madam chair okay great thank you so much
good afternoon my name is carol tenary and today i'm the acting chair of the zoning board of
adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with board secretary confessor plaza
and board members Thomas Holloman and James Snell.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunkett and Fatina L. will also be present.
Board Attorney Sharon Saleta is in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone this proceeding is being recorded, and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. It is available to the public and on the web.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine, then star six to unmute yourself. That is star nine, then star six to unmute yourself.
to enter an appearance statement call google strike that to enter an appearance statement
call 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and address of the property at issue again the
number is 267-270-5548 leave your email address and address of the property at issue fourth
The question and answer box is not for testimony.
Any comments are to be directed to Ms. Tanya Sunkett, our administrator.
Are there...
There are no continuances for this 330 list.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience with requests for continuances?
Madam Chair, we have Catherine Missimer. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Good afternoon. Hi. Catherine, can you put your name and address on the record?
Sure. It's Catherine Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
okay and you are requesting we had actually submitted a attorney moving party request
via letter on august 12th for 2100 benson street mi 2020 000735
okay that is not on our list miss saletta can you shed light on this
I cannot. Kate, does this say a resumption hearing? I know the address, but.
I'm sorry. This is Tanya. This case is attorney moving party.
Yes. And we received notice. It was scheduled for today. So we just submitted our letter to
confirm we were still attorney moving party. Yes. It's attorney moving party.
Okay. Great. So we're all set. Remains continued.
Correct.
Great.
Until you reach out to me.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
There are no other hands, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1792-1402, Castle Avenue.
Castle Avenue. The attorney is Jennifer Bezidlo.
The attorney is Jennifer Brasivlo.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name,
and you're already sworn in. Sure. Jennifer Bezidlo, B as in boy, A as in apple, C as in zebra,
Y, D as in David, L as in Larry, O as in Oscar, 4500 Worth Street, Suite D202, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 19124. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, 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.
Okay, and I show that South Broad Street Neighbourhood Association has submitted a letter of support with provisos.
I believe that is true.
Okay, so you may proceed.
We're all on the same page.
Okay, good.
Hold on one second.
I just, the bar of this, I need to move something.
Hold on one second on my computer.
Let's see.
Okay, there we go.
Sorry, technical difficulties.
All right.
My name is Jennifer Vazidlo.
I'm here today representing Lindsay Koontz, who is the owner of this property, and also her husband,
Lee. I've submitted this packet that has the refusal, the deed, just so you know they purchased
this property in July of last year. Not all the city records are reflecting Lindsay's ownership
yet, but she does own it. So there's the deed. Let's see. Proof of tax compliance. Here we go.
Tax cert. Zero balance on property taxes. The letter of unanimous support from SBSNA.
Our notifications that went out to all the addresses with proof of mailing.
notification to all the RCO groups. And then I also have the zoning map of the area. This is
our property right there highlighted in blue. And then I'm going to show you the rest of the
exhibits as part of my presentation which are aerial views of the property photographs,
our proposed design materials, and plans. So let me just get to the right page.
And so here we have, let's go to larger view. This is 1402 Castle. I just want to orient you a little bit of where this property is. It is a little over 1800 square feet.
it's zoned RSA 3 and it's located on the corner of Castle Avenue and this little street
South Rosewood Street it's right off abroad just north of Moore and across the street is the South
Philadelphia Community Health and Literacy Center with the library and CHOP and there's a playground
over here. So like I said my clients purchased this property in July of 2020 and they are currently
renovating the property and restoring some of its historical characteristics. Let me go to
a front view of the property so you can see it. There's our zoning posters. So this is the front
of the property um so they're restoring it they are intending to use this as their personal single
family home uh for themselves and their growing family including their one-year-old daughter
um so this isn't you know a flip situation this is for their own personal use um the property was
in pretty rough condition when they bought it um Lindsay has a design background and they're
working on really restoring even more so than renovating this unit this excuse me this property
But we're not here for the inside of the building, we're here for the outside of the building today.
They are seeking to add an accessory off-street parking space in the rear of the property.
So let's just go, this is the side here, and we'll show you the rear. So this is the rear of
property. And that accessory parking space would be accessed off of South Rosewood Street, which
is a tiny, this is the rear yard. South Rosewood is a tiny little alley street here that it only
runs right here and then it goes down to Moore. So in RSA 3, the curb cut and the
parking accessory parking itself is a oh sorry let me just back up so yes it's a small side street
So yes, it's a small side street. There is no on-street parking. The car you see here is
there is no um on street
actually parked in another parking lot. And there's also very little pedestrian traffic
because this is right off of Broad. So most of the pedestrian traffic going north-south is on
Broad Street. So like I said, this is an RSA 3 property. The curb cut and the, I'm just getting
to the plans here one second. The curb cut and the concept of accessory parking is allowed by
right in RSA 3. However, this parking space, I don't know if you can see it, hold on this is
blocking this, is in the required rear yard area which is what's generating the refusal.
um there is limited space in the rear yard um the uh rear yard itself is 17 and a half feet
and the required rear yard is 15 feet so there's physically no place where you could put this
parking space um on this property um that would not be in the rear yard um so that's kind of where
we're limited here, but we are creating a curb cut and the concept of the accessory
parking is allowed by right in this zoning district. This is not out of character with
what's going on in the neighborhood right across the street. So let's just go to the
zoning map actually. Hold on one second. I just want to show you. So here you can see
when you go to the area, right across the street, you have the parking lot for Prudential Bank,
and then across Castle, you have a parking garage for CHOP and the library. So you have an area
that's pretty, it's not out of character. And then also, so that's where the parking space
would be would be in the rear yard um let me just go to that's the parking garage that's across the
street from the property this is the bank and parking lot that's across rosewood and then so
the other thing is that this is the other side of castle avenue at 15th and castle um between castle
and more uh which is exactly like the the opposite property opposite end of the block from where ours
And they not only have parking, but they have garages that are built occupying 100% of the lot area.
And these spaces also, unlike ours, take away from street parking.
Our proposed parking spot, while it would be in the required rear yard, is still open.
There's no proposed parking structures.
There's no garages, huts, whatever.
It's still going to be open space.
It's just going to have a car on it.
um all right so when we applied so that's the first variance and then there was another variance
so when we applied for this off-street parking that was the only variance we were anticipating
however we also got a variance for this side wall um as far as I can tell there's pictures that go
back online to 2007 this wall has been there when we talked to the neighborhood association
none of the residents could remember a time that this wall wasn't there and there are several
people who have lived in the neighborhood for 30 plus years. My guess is that this is a very very
old existing wall. There is no plan to change the height or material of the wall or extend the wall.
We are going to leave this small wrought iron wall in the front and we had extensive conversations
with the RCO about this wall.
In fact, we went back a second time
to discuss the design of the wall.
So let me just show you the design we came up with
that I think creates a nice balance
between maintaining that privacy
for the owners of the property.
Because if you look out of their property,
you just see right through the parking lot of the bank
onto Broad Street,
like one of the busiest streets in Philadelphia.
So let's see, here we go. Let me just get to the proposed design. So here's the wall and the design we would, we are proposing adding trellises and possibly planter boxes on top, painting the wall a solid dark gray color, maintaining some of the historical character, creating visual interest, but not blocking the narrow side.
but not blocking the narrow sidewalk of the street.
sidewalk of the street. And that was really what neighbors care.
And that was really what the neighbors cared about,
was just trying to break up the wall a little bit.
We'll also be adding for the parking space a sliding wrought iron gate,
so it'll have a more open feel to it,
and it will be like a design that's aesthetically pleasing
and matches the wrought iron, the historic wrought iron of the property.
So like I said, oh, and it's also really important to note
that I know the lower height fence on side fences is it's often brought up a security issue.
This doesn't exist here because as you turn the corner you actually have this open area with this
very short very open fence. You're not going to be you know turning a corner to a six foot fence
and having someone jump out at you. It's not what's going on here. You have a nice open space
for most of the property, and then just the rear yard area is blocked off with this existing
cinder block wall that the owners intend to improve and add some really nice design elements
to. Like I said in the beginning, the owner has a design background, and so she doesn't want this
wall to be ugly either, is what I'll say. This is their personal home. We met with SD and SAA,
A, South Broad Street Neighbors, let me just get to their letter. Hold on, this is up here.
And we had two meetings. We met with them first on June 15th, and they asked us to come back
with some more design options for the fence. There was absolutely no concerns about the
off-street parking. All of the concerns were regarding the design of the gate and the fence,
And so on 720, we came back.
There were 16 members there.
Nine of them were nearby neighbors who had been notified for letters.
And there was unanimous support.
They did include two provisos.
We all acknowledge that they're not enforceable.
And they are about the design of the wall and the gate.
But we agree to those and have every intention of following the desires of the neighborhood.
Because quite frankly, they are the desires of the property owner as well,
which is really to make this a nice space and improve the overall aesthetic of the property.
So with that, I would like to have Lindsay Kuntz, the property owner, raise her hand and adopt my
testimony, unless there's questions from the board. Does the board have any questions? No, Madam Chair.
Lindsay, are you here?
you can unmute yourself and please wait for madam chair
hi lindsey put your name and address on the record spell your last name and i'll swear you in
i'm lindsey kentz k-o-o-n-t-z my address is 1402 castle avenue in philadelphia 19145
Thanks, Lindsay. Oh, sorry, Carol. Do you want to swear in?
She needs to be sworn in, right? Or did you already swear?
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Okay, go ahead.
All right. Hi, Lindsay. Did you hear my testimony here today and believe it to be truthful and accurate?
And would you adopt it as your own?
Great. Thank you. Is there anything else you want to add? It's okay if no.
I know this is just your home.
Okay, great.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who would like to testify?
So please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Okay, Planning Commission.
Hi, this is Mason Austin, representing the Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
okay and mason can you spell your last name for the court stenographer sure no problem a-u-s-t-i-n
thank you great thank you madam chair and members of the board um property is designated for single
family residential use in the comprehensive plan and is zoned for that use because the proposal
would not reduce the supply of on-street parking or negatively impact the use of adjacent properties
and would improve the existing conditions of the wall in question the staff of the planning
commission has no objection to the granting of the proposed variances thank you calendar number
1792 1402 castle avenue my vote is yes and my name is jane snell my vote is yes
Thomas Howellman, my vote is yes.
calendar number 1829 1600 north 52nd street joseph vaccaro is the attorney
Calendar number 1829-1600.
mr vaccaro is coming back in as a panel thanks
Mr. Vaccaro, can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name?
Yes, good afternoon. My name is Joseph Vaccaro, V-A-C-C-A-R-O, attorney for the applicant.
My address is 5918 Torsdale Avenue, Philadelphia, 19135.
to my left do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes i do and who is to your left mr sammy tater he will be uh he is the uh the client the tenant
at the property who is the proposed operator of the proposed store okay excuse me this is
sharon saletta mr vicaro did email me this afternoon a letter of support from the rco
and miss aletta did you get the tax clearance certificate that i sent you this morning
i did thank you mr vicaro okay thank you so so sir you do have support from the community and
that's good have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and um
We know that you've met with the RCO and there is a letter.
So you may proceed after you answer.
Yes, thank you.
I did send everything.
I did submit everything on time.
Saved the tax clearance certificate.
I was only able to send that yesterday.
And I finally received the letter of support from Parkside today.
And I forwarded that.
So that's all good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
How do I share my share screen?
Don't ask me.
Mr. Baccaro, do you have your documents up already?
I'm looking to put them up.
Okay, so...
So put them up first and then click share screen.
Okay, I'll do that.
now I'm looking for there we go there it goes coming up you got it open up your
document okay let's start with the application this is an application we
can hear you and I'm sorry can you hear me now yes we can hear you but we're
wait for your documents to open. We'll do that. Are you seeing the documents? No, that's why I
would think that you might want to unshare, then open your documents and have them present on the
screen, then share, and they should come up. Okay. Okay. So we'll open the documents first.
they're opening. So once they're visible on your screen then go to the green share
screen button. Okay. Now we'll go to the green share screen button and then I click on share,
correct correct okay so we got it okay so let's see here let's minimize this so i could find the
okay this is what 1600 north 52nd street looks like right now it is an empty shell
Well, before my client took over this building from Mr. and Mrs. O, the current owners, there
was a beauty shop, and that beauty shop had been closed for many, many years.
As I had just testified, this building has been empty for quite a few years, and my clients
would like to open up a retail hot and cold food beverages and grocery store on the first
floor of this building. The plan is to use the second floor, the basement, as well as
the third floor for storage of whatever products they plan to sell, as well as supplies. Mr.
Mr. Tahir, who's sitting to my left, is the proposed operator of the store, and he is involved
But Tahir, who's sitting to my left, is the proposed operator of this.
in the operation of two other stores, two other similar stores to the one that's planned. One is
located at 6856 Elmwood, known as the Elmwood Deli and Grill, and I'm showing you pictures of
what the Elmwood Deli and Grill looks like, the external as well as the internal, the inside of
the store. And what they have planned at Elmwood, what they are operating at Elmwood as well as
their other store on South 4th Street is what they plan for 1600 North 52nd Street, the empty shell
that you have just seen. Right now I'm showing you photos of their store at Elmwood Street.
You may notice that there are some tobacco paraphernalia at the Elmwood Street store.
It is not their plan to be involved with tobacco in any way at the North 52nd Street property, the property at issue.
So this was Elmwood Street.
Then I have, this is their store on South 4th Street.
the address is 630 South 4th Street. That's their menu for the products that they sell.
You'll see smoothies, sandwiches. Let me see if I can show some other.
I can maybe move. There we go. I can move this. Various salads, fries, sandwiches. This is more
than just a corner bodega. Fresh fruits, fresh yogurts, parfaits. You see some fresh fruits
and vegetables in their refrigerated case. And again, here, what they're doing on 4th
Street and Elmwood, as well as the Elmwood store, as well as the 4th Street store, is
what they plan on doing on 52nd Street. Here I have my notice to the neighborhood of the
meeting which was held on July 28th, as well as the certificates of mailing, if I could find those.
Here they are, certificates of mailing.
We have the refusal. The reason for the refusal is that this use, the proposed use, is not
permitted in this district. It is zoned residential, but again, by way of history of this property,
no one has lived in this property for many years. Here's the lease agreement. Mr. Tahir
has possession of the place from Mr. and Mrs. O, the landlords, pursuant to a commercial
lease. We had submitted the application. And again, here's our tax clearance certificate
showing that my client is valid and cleared.
The project information statement with its details. And here's the sign that I had put up of
today's zoning hearing. I put that poster up on August 9th. This is the Jefferson Street side.
and then you see the other sign on the 52nd Street side.
It's a corner property.
And then I gave us a close-up of the hearing notice for today.
And you've met with the RCO?
And we've met with the RCO on July 28th.
Who is that RCO?
Parkside Community.
the Parkside Association of Philadelphia. And how did they vote? Five, nothing in support,
no opposition and no non-opposition. Okay. I have Mr. Tahir to my left.
Sir, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
uh sammy tayher last name t-a-h-e-r uh 1600 north 57th philadelphia 19131
you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you
yes sorry can't hear you we cannot hear you
Mr. Vaccaro, we can hear you.
Mr. Tahir, did you hear my presentation?
He said yes.
And would you adopt it as your own testimony if you were to testify?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony if you were to testify?
Did you hear that?
Yes, we did. Thank you.
Mr. Tahir, what days of the week do you plan on operating?
We plan to operate seven days a week.
What are the hours?
Approximately from seven to five, maybe to six, 10 to 12 hours a day maximum.
Do you plan on hiring anyone in the neighborhood?
Yes, that will be our first choice is to hire from the neighborhood.
And we've already spoke to the community, the community board that we spoke to Parkside Association on dropping off applications, job applications at their location first, just in case they have anybody in mind.
Where will you store the trash?
we cannot hear you i'm sorry there was can you hear me now now we can okay there was discussion
about trash i'll show you where will you store that i don't want to hear a discussion about it
where will you store it in the back there's a back area i wanted to show you the photograph
of where the trash is proposed to be stored.
So here's the empty shell of the inside.
Let me just scroll down so I'll get to the area
where the trash would be stored.
And will that be commercial trash pickup?
Correct.
Here we go.
Let me enlarge this photograph.
That looks great.
Well, the plan is to clear it out.
the plan is to put in a better fence so no one in the neighborhood or no one will will illegally
dump anything in that area right and once that's done that's basically where the trash will be
stored correct okay great thank you no thank you word of any questions no madam chair
um is there anyone in a virtual audience with questions
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Planning Commission.
Madam Chair and members of the Board,
property is designated for multifamily residential use
in the comprehensive plan and is zoned for that use.
However, given the history of commercial use
and the non-opposition of Parkside Association,
staff of the Planning Commission has no objection
to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1829, 1600 North 52nd Street,
my vote is yes and my name is carol tennari
thomas hollivan my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes thank you and good luck thank you
have a good day thank you too calendar number 1831 1703 montrose street matt monroe is the attorney
Mr. Monroe is coming back in as a panel.
Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board.
Hi, Matt.
Hi, Mr. Monroe.
Can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name, and I'll swear you in.
Matt Monroe with Monroe Law.
We're working out of our South Philly offices at 2030 Pemberton Street, 19146.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Do you agree to wait for reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Absolutely.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
I did, I did, I do.
Okay, and I see now that the South of South Neighborhood Association
has given you a letter of support with the proviso
for asking insurance for any damage to adjacent property,
which is unenforceable.
Understood.
My client's happy to do that, but we understood.
That's the board's province.
but okay so your client will do that on his own sure my my client intends to pull the permits and
abide by the code anyway okay so you may proceed okay great and um i know it's been a long day so
hopefully we can uh get through this pretty quickly i'm madam chair members of the board
again i'm matt monroe happy to be here on behalf of my client and neighbor eileen o'donnell who i
know is on the call as well whose property is at 1703 montrose street um she's been in the
been in the neighborhood since 2013. And back in June of 2019, she got some unfortunate news
neighborhood since 2013 and back in June of 2019.
that there'd been some jackhammering by her house and a sheer wall of her home just kind of
came clean off. That afternoon, Ellen and I determined that her house was in imminent danger
and slated it for demolition and knocked it down. A few days later, she had basically an hour to get
her stuff out. There was a reporter in the news. And here, all she's trying to do is rebuild her
home in Graduate Hospital 1703 Montrose. She has very minimal refusals here. She has a very small
lot size. The lot's 540 square feet. This is an RM1 zoning district. And as we're probably very
well familiar, in RM1 zoning district, minimum lot size is 1,440 square feet. So when you're
look at 540 square feet, you're not dealing with a whole lot. Well, you're dealing with an entire
lot, but it's not very much. The refusals are all related to dimensions in the rear yard.
We've got refusals for open area, very minimal, 25% required, 15% proposed. Same thing with the
nine foot rear yard requirement, can't meet that.
So we've proposed seven feet and just over seven feet
and the rear yard area was the last thing
that we were refused on.
But in any event, the plan as designed
and I'll just get down to it
so we can just walk through it very quickly.
If I can get down there, yeah, here we go.
a little bit too big all right
about that okay so here's just a nice rendering of what you're going to see from the street
they're proposing to do a brick facade mirror some of the traditional look and materials of
the neighborhood with a cornice line at the top to mirror some of the traditional
uh philadelphia row home designs uh you can see that the um the house is it's not going to be an
overbuild or anything like that because of the small lot size uh you know we're we're getting
as much house as we can into the into the lot and at the rear right here you can see is the um is
the side of a home with no windows because it's right there on a property line they can't build
them back by right so there's going to be no deprivation of light and air the immediately
adjacent neighbors uh 1705 montrose uh they were in support of the project came out in support of
it we're going to try to be here today um but um they had other commitments weren't able to they're
in support of the project they're aware of it uh the the home is is uh basically designed just to
kind of meet the uh the size of the footprint that they had before and um and and also just as it
relates to the uh hardship uh because this was a property that was lost through casualty through
no fault of the property owner under section 14 uh 305 10 zoning code any property uh that has
been lost due to casualty like this that's not the fault of the owner uh i.e she didn't burn it down
herself uh and tried to get a rebuild um that uh she can replace a property that was previously
non-conforming the home was previously non-conforming it did encroach on the uh what
what is now the uh the 25 open area nine foot rear yard um at the rear and so we're just really just
trying to go back um stick with that floor plan and go up again although the uh although the home
is going to be taller than the home next door it's still below the uh maximum height of uh in
this rm1 district uh it can build up 38 feet uh proposed is to build up to uh just over 35 feet
at the roof line and um just uh over uh it's uh 36 uh 36 feet nine inches at the parapet
and uh the pilot house is going to be right smack dab in the middle of the uh of the roof deck to
access the roof deck and so it's going to be won't really be able to see it from the street um and
from the side and because there's a um because there's a vacant lot there right next to her right
now it eventually there's probably going to be a house next to there uh so you won't be able to
see the pilot house from that side as well. So for that reason, I do have, I believe Ms. O'Donnell
is on the line. And just to go over quickly, we did submit Ms. O'Donnell's deed at Exhibit 1
and her tax clearance at Exhibit 9. We have some context photos. It was properly noticed. We have
the certificate of service, etc. So with that, if unless there's a question.
et cetera. So with that, if unless there's questions from the board, if Ms. O'Donnell is
online, if you could raise your virtual hand.
Ms. O'Donnell, if you're there, put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name and I'll swear you in. Hi, my name is Eileen O'Donnell and you spell my last name O-D-O-N-N-E-L-L.
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay jimmon row good afternoon miss o'donnell um did you hear the factual statements that i made
about this project to the board yes i did and were they accurate yes they were do you adopt
them as your testimony yes i do okay thank you thank you just the board have any questions
no madam chair is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions
i see no hands madam chair thank you planning commission
madam chair and members of the board the property is designated for single family
resident for single residential family residential use in the comprehensive plan
but a zone for multi-family residential their imposed use is in line with the recommendation
of the comprehensive plan, and in the recommended RSA 5 zoning, lots with a depth of 45 feet or
less are not subject to any of the provisions that have generated variances for this proposal.
Consequently, because the requested variances are largely de minimis in nature, the staff of the
planning commission has no objection to the granting of this variance. Thank you. Calendar
number 1831, 1703 Montrose Street. My name is Carol Tenere, and my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Sure. Calendar number 1795 4006 Chestnut Street. The attorney is
Mr. Jinn is coming back in as a panel.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name, and I'll swear you in?
Zenjen, Z-H-E-N, J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia, PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
Do you have a letter?
Yes to all questions.
And I do see that the Spruce Hill Community Association has submitted a letter of support and Councilwoman Gautier supports this as well.
yes that's correct so briefly you may proceed thank you i'm going to share with the board the
information relating to this case this is a straightforward application the refusal in this
matter which i'm going to jump to at this point indicates that for a cmx4 property which is what
my client has as a property in order to put the proposed new structure with three residential
dwelling units and one vacant commercial space, it would require one off-street parking space.
Now, the easiest way to tell the difficulty here from a hardship standpoint is actually looking at
the photos and plans of the property. The issue here, and I'm going to zoom in in one second here,
the issue here is that this is on Chestnut Street, which has on-street parking on both sides.
The property itself is right here in between other buildings and it's a narrow lot.
It simply is not possible to put a off-street parking here without actually negatively impacting the neighborhood rather than helping.
As a result, Spruce Hill was more than happy to support us in this endeavor.
In fact, they indicated there's no way to provide parking at this site for a project of this size and in this location.
So they're in agreement with our position that it is simply a hardship to squeeze in an off-street parking spot while taking away what would be viable on-street parking.
The proposal itself will be a new construction, which includes a commercial space and residential above.
There is no basement living as the basement is part of the commercial space.
The residential units are all above.
The residential units are all above one of the larger units coming in at 1,680 square feet, and even the smaller two units are almost 800 square foot each.
one of the larger units
So these are substantial size units, even though we're asking for three, which the unit count itself is no issue as well under CMX4.
In all ways of looking at this application, what we're proposing is very consistent to what is around on that portion of Chestnut Street,
even though further down they're proposing hundreds of units but our one lacking space
will not be impacting those proposals nor impacting the neighbors on chestnut that we are
proposing to build at so with that i'll be happy to answer any further questions from the board
and direct to any particular exhibit the board would like to see again
Does the Board have any questions?
No, Madam Chair.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions?
I see no hands, excuse me, I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Fatina.
Planning Commission?
Madam Chair, members of the Board, the property is designated for high designated
DENSITY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE. BECAUSE THE LOT IS IN A HIGHLY TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE AREA
ALONG AN ACTIVE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE CORRIDOR WHERE A CURB CUT FOR PARKING WOULD HARM
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND RESULT IN A NET LOSS OF PARKING, THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE GRANTING OF THE VARIOUS. IF I MAY, MADAM VICE CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE MY
client just to verify my testimony? Sure. Thank you. Mr. Manok, can you raise your hand
in Zoom so that you can be identified? My name is Manok Ponukda.
Wow. Can you spell your name, please? The first name is M-A-N-O-C-H. The last name is Ponukda,
P-O-R-N-M-U-K-D-A
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing about the truth?
Thank you.
It's all yours, Mr. Jin.
Thank you.
Monarch, you heard my testimony
and saw the presentation I made before the board.
Can you verify that what I presented is true and correct
and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Calendar number 1795-4006, Chestnut Street, Carroll-Tanary. My vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Harleman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Calendar number 2719-6832, Ridge Avenue.
Mr. O'Brien is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. O'Brien, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair.
William O'Brien, O-B-R-I-E-N, 4322 Main Street, Philadelphia, 19127.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, 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 each of those questions.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
All right.
So this is one of two companion parcels. The board heard the first parcel, 6830 Ridge Avenue,
on July 21st, and granted the required variances. This is the companion piece. It's 6832
Ridge Avenue, and it is an existing non-conforming use, it's a three-family dwelling, a photograph
dwelling and photographs of the existing structure is on page five of the materials.
of the existing structure is on page.
It is considered contributing to the Ridge Avenue thematic historic district,
so there's actually two pieces to this development of 6832 Ridge. The first is the restoration of
this historic structure to reintroduce a porch that would have been on the original structure
and to remove a non-contributing addition in the rear.
Although the property is zoned RSD 3,
there is no detached single-family dwelling in this block of Ridge Avenue.
I direct the board's attention to the photographs on pages 12 to 22,
where you see a bank, a supermarket, professional and medical offices,
a funeral home, a bar, restaurant.
In fact, two doors, two properties away, on page 14 of the materials, these two semi-detached structures were demolished in the last two weeks to make way for a by-right 77-unit multifamily structure.
On pages 7 to 11 of the materials are the prior approvals that have been issued by the Historic Commission, Streets Department, Water Department.
and page 11 is the approved erosion and sediment control plan.
As I mentioned, the RCO has met about this project
and their letter of support is on pages 3 and 4 of the materials
and they strongly support this project.
I'm going to turn this over to Chris Karakoff, who is here, if he could become able to participate,
I can bring up the renderings and he can talk you through what we're looking at.
Chris, could you raise your hand?
He's coming back in as a panelist. He has to unmute himself.
Thank you.
While Chris is turning back in, the building to the left, that was the subject of the hearing
on July 21st. This hearing is about the building on the right, the white stucco facade that shows
the historic building restored with the original stucco finish that it would have had and the
reintroduction of the front porch. Chris is now here and I'd like him to speak about the structure
that will be introduced into the rear portion of 6830 and you can see it here uh on the right side
behind the driveway. Okay Chris can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name and then I'll swear you in. Sure Chris Karikoff it's C-A-R-I-C-K-H-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay.
um thanks bill for the intro uh yeah just to speak briefly we we met with historic
and worked closely with them uh at the uh with the design of this so we're restoring uh the historic
structure to the front um and at the request of the historic board we were asked to separate our
proposed uh three-story structure in the back from the the main historic building uh which we
We are separated by about five feet, making this a second building on the site.
The exterior, we're proposing to do a stucco.
There's no roof deck proposed, just roof access for maintenance.
It's three stories.
We have parking below with 16 spaces, and then we have two floors of units, each with
six six units per floor
this is the first floor plan you're seeing the parking to the rear of the the site which is on
the left of the page here below that is the unit one in the historic building which is a one one
bedroom unit you jump to the next page maybe go
second floor you're seeing in the green there is a two-bedroom unit of the historic structure
on the second floor of that building and then to the rear is are the six
on the second floor of that building and then to the rear is are the six residential units
occupying the second floor of the proposed structure to the rear of the parcel
and then a similar floor plan on the rear building uh we we did do a um a mansard
roof design to the front so it kind of brings the height and scale down more in line with uh
with the street neighborhood and then we have an additional one bedroom unit on the third floor of
the historic structure so all in we have 15 units proposed for this building which is in line with
the with like an RM1 type of zoning are there any questions for Chris before I ask the managing
partner of the owner to adopt my testimony. Is the board have any questions? No, Madam Chairman.
I don't. Sitting to my right is Steve Oszewski, who is the managing member of 6830-32 Ridge
Partners LLC and the owner of this parcel. Steve, would you give your name, spell your last name?
Sure, it's Steve.
Last name is O-L-S-Z-E-W-S-K-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed, Bill.
Steve, did you hear my testimony?
I did, yes.
Was it accurate and truthful?
And you adopted as your own?
Is there anything you wanted to add?
i would ask that the board accept all the documents that were submitted by email five
days before the hearing including the elevation plans we can go through those but i don't know
that it's going to be contribute anymore um who is the rco the rco is the ridge park civic
association um their letter of support uh is on pages three and four um and they support it uh
strongly is there anyone in the uh the virtual audience who would like to testify
i see no hands madam chair um actually madam chair i have a question mr o'brien the plans
that you referred to those are not revised plans is that correct that is correct thank you
no plans are stamped today sharon
no no plans to stamp calendar number 1795 no strike that calendar number 27196832 ridge avenue
my name is carol tanarian my vote is yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes
there are other board members bill
mr snow
oh i'm sorry i was muted i'm very sorry about that uh jane snow my vote is yes
thank you kindly thank you is confessor here no no chair just the three of you okay great
okay so you have three votes thank you sure may i be excused sure thank you having a great day
You too. Calendar number MI-2021-000-336. The address is 4401 Ridge Avenue.
The attorneys are Sean Malin and Paul Bonney.
there's Sean good evening madam chair hi how are you oh doing well it's been a nice long day for
everybody right sure has hi Mr. Bonnie hello madam chair nice to see you and everyone else also
thank you so one by one I'll ask you to put your name and address on the record spell your last
name uh sharon do i have to swear them in because this is a different day yes we do okay uh we'll
start with you sean certainly sean whalen w-h-a-l-e-n address is 6 coulter avenue suite 1000 ardmore pa
Address is 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, and Mr. Boni?
Yes, my name is Paul Boni, B-O-N-I.
My address is 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1109, 19106.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
excuse me this is sharon before we get started at the end of the um last hearing i believe there was
a question as to raised by the planning commission representative as to whether the revisions made to
the plans would trigger the requirement for additional cdr review i believe that we got
a response on that saying that they would not is that correct to you
西偉大人, I think I can address that. Yes. We got a response from the Planning Commission
that there would be no further CDR meeting required. And therefore, in line with kind
of trying to continue to work with this RCO and all of the community members and the other
RCOs we've met with, we will be proceeding with the most recent revised plans that incorporate
all of the community input that we've received and we will not be proceeding with the the prior
iteration of plans that we discussed at last meeting. Thank you. Could you circulate those
materials by email? I don't know if it's too much to ask to do it now so that we can look at them.
i think we only saw them on the screen last time mr bonnie are you asking for the exhibits that
mr wellin submitted or the um specifically the plans or the planning commission feedback
because i guess i'm i guess i'm just no no not not the planning commission if you i my my
understanding is that there is a some some revisions that um the applicant is is uh is
proposing and we appreciate that i'm just saying i don't think we have a copy of it i think i will
try to find those in my email and forward a copy to you now okay thank you
madam vice chair i understand the hour is late so i can just quickly
bring us up to speed and keep us moving
i didn't know who was going to start no reason to belabor anything um this
I'll just share my screen very quickly. Like I said, I can.
And just to be clear, for Mr. Bonnie's sake, we are proceeding with the revised plans that were created following the last community meeting at the end of June.
and we are going to those were already presented and all exhibits were presented before the
the August 17th hearing that we had and that was the first hearing in this matter
so I hope you can see it again this is I'll be very quick so if the board has any questions
just please interrupt me I don't mean to be short but just succinct if I can so this is an image of
the project. This is 4401 Ridge Avenue. This is Ridge Avenue. Here's Merrick Road. As you're
going up Ridge this way, you're just about to hit where you can see that 76 on-ramp and the
on-ramp sign, just to give everyone an idea of context, just so you can see what we're talking
about. Here was an image of the first presentation of the building. As you can tell, there's been a
significant amount of work between the participants. There are upwards of a dozen, I think, 11
meetings, public meetings, discussions, and significantly more communications than that.
So we've gone to there, and I will just very quickly show you. Here was, this is a long ridge,
kind of just a different angle. You can see what the original looked like, and this new project
incorporates many design elements and and whatnot that was requested by the community
all of which were testified to at the last meeting so I won't go into those unless the
the board has any questions again the project we're presenting has two refusals
may I ask a question just to clarify to understand is the is the height the same as
um the height is the same and has not changed okay and the unit count is the same correct
okay thank you so yes so the the project itself is 185
Yes, so the project itself is 185 units with one-to-one parking and first-floor commercial at the corner of Ridge and Merrick.
The property is about 18,000 square feet.
It is, since Mr. Bonney went there, I'll jump forward.
Here's Ridge Avenue.
Here's the Arthur Ashe Tennis Center.
This is Merrick Road.
this is our property right here as you can see all of this basically has been already approved
and is in development for other large-scale projects that you also heard about at the last
meeting so again our project our property is only this right here we are about the closest point is
75 feet and then it goes up to significantly more well over 100 feet from our property to
property there's this weird uh kind of jagged l-shape behind us
cms3 so heavy commercial use excuse me was an rm2 hang on
sorry i didn't hear what he said i had to unmute myself i don't know if you're moving something in
front of your speaker or uh in front of your mic just be mindful of that because it's blocking
what you're saying. Thank you. And if I could, this is Tanya, ask that everyone mute themselves
so we don't keep having that problem. Sure. And Ms. Doyle, if you have any problems hearing,
just let me know. I'm happy to be interrupted. I didn't actually move at all. So I'm not sure
if you want me to restart from wherever you left off. You're okay. Thank you. Okay. So again,
we are CMX3. This was rezoned in 2016 by Philadelphia City Council in line with the
2035 plan from the Planning Commission to increase this from a solely residential zone
to a high-density commercial mixed use. The project we have, again, 185 apartments,
one-to-one parking. We originally received two refusals. The off-street loading refusal is
actually cured by the revised plans that were submitted. We added, all it required was the
adding of a second space, loading space, which we did. So the only issue we have is steep slope,
which we are, here's an image. Again, we went through this at length with the engineer.
This is all steep slope, as is this whole section here, which prevents the development of any CMX3 commensurate project without the disturbance of the steep slope.
As the Planning Commission confirmed last time, the disturbance of the steep slope is not just the final building, but any disturbance throughout the entire construction process as well.
um we have uh full support from east falls forward one of the two rcos in the area excuse me sean
excuse me sean i just before we move on um first of all i want to um reiterate the objection that
i made last time which is that you know i'm not stipulating that attorneys may testify um and
And secondly, you just said something about the Planning Commission agreeing to something last session, and I'm not sure I understand what you're – I don't remember them agreeing to anything.
And could you just restate me?
Certainly.
ian litwin uh confirmed for the board when a question came up as to whether or not steep slope
area disturbance what triggered a variance only when there was building on the steep slope or
whether it was any time there was construction across that or any kind of vehicular access across
that steep slope that was a testimony of our engineer uh thank you paul i'll continue though
Well, please, Sean, I just want to say, Sean, you can't talk over me.
And then confirmed by the committee.
Wait, you know what?
We're not going to do this.
Sean was speaking.
You interrupted.
And then it continued.
So I'm going to let Sean continue.
And I am, again, I apologize for going backwards.
I just wanted to bring us up to speed where we were.
I'm just about done.
So we have full support from East Falls Forward.
86% vote actually was 30 to 5, I think, were the final numbers.
That's one of the two RCOs.
We also have full support from the EFDC East Falls Development Corporation. You have both of those letters. And that is it as far as I'm concerned.
We also have full support from the EFDC, East Falls Development.
And Mr. Bonnie obviously represents East Falls Community Council, EFCC, the other RCO in the area.
Like I said, we had over 10 public meetings and major meetings with them, all of which were gone into at the first hearing.
And I can go into those if the board would like.
But we made significant changes and they are still in opposition.
So the final piece I would add is that at the first hearing, you heard from a representative of my client.
You heard from my architect and my engineer.
We were concluded with all of them.
So I only have one final witness, and that is my traffic engineer.
So and then I will be able to be done with my case and move this forward.
And obviously, Mr. Bonney will have whoever he has to present.
Thank you.
and your two RCOs were East Falls Forward and East Falls Forward EFF and East Falls Community
Council EFCC the latter EFCC is the one that Mr. Bonney represents okay
may I Mr. Nery sure okay but I think Mr. Whelan don't you have someone else
Yes, I have one more witness to present.
Well, I want to touch on something that Mr. Whelan said.
Okay, briefly. Yes, you may.
Okay, thank you very much.
It's not my personal recollection that the Planning Commission said last time what Mr. Whelan just represented, but the transcript will say what the transcript will say.
I would say that the zoning code prohibition on steep slopes says that for these steep slopes, no site clearing or earth moving activity is permitted.
That's the prohibition.
So I think Mr. Williams said something different.
We can argue about it later, but I just wanted to put that on the record.
And I also would say that I believe last time I was in the middle of cross-examining Mr. Spitson. I hardly have, I don't have a lot to finish. I only have a short, I can finish with him very briefly, but I think that's where we're at.
um with with uh with respect to mr bonnie my understanding is we finished with mr spitson
uh that was what we were trying to race to uh chairman de chico was chairing that meeting
and you know obviously we were trying to get done uh the whole process before you know we got
delayed to the second hearing uh my understanding is we were done with mr spitson there was
no further relevant conversation going on. It actually kind of devolved into
legal argument between myself and Mr. Bonney. I think it was pretty clear
that we were not, that we were midstream.
Is he available today? Well, I'm going
to put it to Madam Chair about whether or not. Is he
available, Ms. Saleta?
Madam Chair, he's available. Would you like for me to
for him to speak? I want to speak to Ms. Saleta first. Yes, though I did recently review the
tape, I honestly don't remember what point the question was at. So, Mr. Bono, you had just a
few more questions to ask him? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, he's here then. Sure then, he's here, why not?
Really just two or three questions, so I think it should be very quick.
And his name?
His name is Mr. Dan Spitson.
He's here on behalf.
He's the corporate representative of Atapco Properties, which is the equitable owner of the parcel.
May I also ask the chair or the administrator, what is the ending time today so that we can do our best to meet it?
In 20 minutes.
Well, okay.
Well, I smiled.
I smiled.
well but it's it's not going to be too long we're not going to be here until seven o'clock
you just have you just have a few questions
well i'm just saying so the ending time is sometime between sometime before so but why
don't you just we the guys here why don't we bring him up yes swear him in and start the questions
yes swear him in and start the questions madam chair i don't think that mr bonnie was saying
madam chair i don't think that
it was
that that was the end of his presentation that's correct isn't it mr bonnie you had other witnesses
information you wanted to present yes well mr whalen has a traffic engineer and i have my own
witnesses yes thank you thank you all right madam chair i believe mr spitson is on now
mr spitson can you put your name and address on the record spell your last name
and then i'll swear you in well spitz in s-p-i-t-v-e-n uh 150 monument drive
do you swear or firm excuse me your audio is not that well i need you to speak up louder thank you
sorry is that better it's great do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes i do okay you may proceed okay thank you and thank you mr spitz in
You know, this ATAPCO, which is your company, made an offer to PHA, which is the current property owner, to purchase this property in and around 2019.
Is that correct?
The agreement that we have with the seller was dated in 2019.
Right.
So I assume the offer was, you know, somewhere in the first eight months of 2019.
In making the offer to PHA, is it correct that a TAPCO, or shortly after making the offer,
described, gave a general description of the project to PHA?
um madam chair i don't mean to be rude um mr bonnie has just a few questions i understand but
um yeah this is wholly irrelevant and we've already been delayed through one hearing
this hearing needs to be completed tonight and there's uh zero relevance to the zoning matter
at hand about uh you know what happened in 2019 uh yeah there's no doubt and no argument that
a TAPCO is not the equitable owner of the property or that PHA is the present owner of
the property. So therefore standing has been, you know, kind of, I'm not, I'm not getting into
issues of standing. I'm getting into how the property was described by a TAPCO to PHA. It's
like two questions and we'll be done. Okay. So how was it described?
y'all that was placed um on the property i'm sorry could you say that again we can't hear you
clearly mr spitz and you need to speak up sorry is it is it better can you hear me now now it's
better yes okay sorry about that yes uh we made an offer on the property based on the existing zoning
and is it correct that that atapco described the proper described its proposed project
as multi-family residential with ground floor retail and with the residential to include
plus or minus 150 units i don't recall that there was any description provided to pha when we made
our offer now you're saying that you don't recall whether there was any description
Madam Chair I'm happy to allow this to go forward but again the board has an application
in front of it it has proposed plans that have been revised in front of it that show 185 units
whether or not there was a discussion at any point in time about 150 units is irrelevant
and just more delay stop stop accusing me of delay please Mr. Whelan you've you've just
your clients have testified that this cmx3 commensurate project has to be 185 units i think
that um it's relevant as to whether in fact uh it was described as significantly less um your
your client has answered the question and i'm i'm done with this line of questioning but but
you know okay so you're done with that line of question yes i i am and thank you thank you
he doesn't remember surprise surprise um that's not okay
next question
i'm finished all right thank you as witness thank you obviously before uh letting uh mr spitson off
i would obviously offer him to the board if they have any direct questions does the board have any
questions to Mr. Spitson? No. No. No. Okay. Thank you. In that case, Madam Chair, I would call
Guy DiMartino. Okay.
Guy DeMartino.
Mr. Martin, excuse me, Mr. DeMartino, you can unmute yourself.
I think you did.
Yes, Mr. Martino, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes, my name is Guy DeMartino.
I'm employed with Traffic Planning and Design, Inc.
Address is 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1230, Philadelphia, PA.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. DiMartino, are you familiar with this project?
Yes, I am.
And I jumped ahead.
You are with Traffic Planning and Design, is that correct?
that's correct and how are you familiar with this project uh we are engaged to perform a
traffic study for this application okay and you presented a report to the board for the board
uh with regard to that traffic study that's correct okay and um mr demartino obviously we
all understand that evening is late uh i will offer you up at the end of uh my presentation
for any direct and specific questions the board may have.
But if you would, would you give us sort of your summary
and conclusions of your report?
Yes, we conducted a traffic study following all the standard procedures
and industry standard practices when preparing a traffic study,
evaluating the signalized intersection of Ridge Avenue
and MERIC and then the site access intersections. And in doing so, and following all the standards
and procedures, we determined that the intersections that we evaluated will comply with
all the standards that are required to meet the PennDOT standards, the streets department level
service standards. All right. Thank you, Mr. DiMartino. So if I can just very quickly kind of
sum up where we're at. We obviously all know and have personal experience with Ridge Avenue and
understand the type of road and, you know, its current conditions. Did you, when you were taking
into account the current conditions, am I correct that your conclusion is that the increased
traffic from this project will not lead to any further deterioration of Ridge Avenue?
Yes, that's accurate.
When you're performing a traffic study, you're charged with looking at the incremental impact
that the subject site or the application will have, and we will have a material impact,
de minimis impact, to the intersections evaluated.
Okay. And finally, Mr. DiMartino, I assume, and I'll let you correct me if I'm wrong,
that your numbers and traffic counts that you used incorporated both the new developments
that have happened recently and the planned, the approved, but not yet constructed developments
that I referenced immediately across the road and up and down Ridge, and obviously took into
account non-COVID numbers. Is that correct? Yes, all of that is accurate. Okay. Thank you very much.
Obviously, Madam Chair, that was very truncated, but the report speaks for itself, and I'm happy
to offer Mr. Demartino up for any questions the board may have. Does the board have any questions?
No, Madam Chair. All right. In that case, Mr. Bonney, I would turn him over to you.
Okay. I'd like to share my screen to put the traffic report up there. Can you folks see it?
Thank you. Yes, we can. Thank you. Mr. Demartino, thank you for being here.
on page three of your report you have traffic counts and I see that the traffic counts that
you have for Ridge and Merrick which is you know exactly where this project would sit
are from June of 2014
um yet uh the traffic counts you so my first question is why is that why so old
they were we utilized traffic counts from 2014 due to the fact at the time this traffic study
due to the fact that at the time this traffic study was prepared, it's dated May 4th,
was prepared it's dated may 4th
2021, we were in the midst of COVID. The utilization of 2024 traffic counts
is accepted practice for PennDOT standards and streets department standards
at the time this traffic study was prepared due to COVID. If we were to conduct traffic
counts at that bridge merrick intersection um in may of of this year the traffic volumes
um would have been reduced um when compared to the 2014 volumes due to the travel patterns we're
all experiencing or were experiencing at least in in may um with schools being closed or not being
open full-time people working from home more frequently than they may be today those sort of
things. So the utilization of 2014 counts is an accepted practice due to the COVID situations.
Okay. Well, we don't know what the counts would be today unless we took them today.
Would you agree with that? Well, I would agree that the utilization of 2014 counts is an accepted
methodology approved by PennDOT at the time of traffic studies prepared. Okay. Yet on the next
line um did you did you well maybe i'm misreading it uh did you collect traffic counts on merrick
road and palisades drive on march 25 of this year yes we did okay so if if so if you collect
so the policy guidance that you're referring to which is in this paragraph it's called a
PennDOT strike-off letter, 494-2004, basically says that due to COVID, you can use 2014 data.
And you took advantage of that for one intersection, yet would you agree with me that for the other
intersection, Merrick Road and Palisades Drive, you went out and collected current data. So why
didn't you just collect the current data for the first intersection? Well I would I would disagree
with the disadvantage statement or the advantage statement of collecting at Palisades and Merrick
utilize the 2014 counts at Ridge and Merrick were conducted by our firm for another application so
we had those historical traffic volumes. We did not previously count Merrick and Palisades in 2014
or any other prior year that would have been permitted to be used by PennDOT.
So I disagree with the statement where you said we took advantage of using the 2021 volumes at American Palisades.
I would actually suggest it was a disadvantage to us to utilize 2014 volumes at American Ridge.
If we wanted to create an advantage, we would have used COVID volumes,
which would have been less than the 2014 volumes at Ridge America.
Yes, I didn't mean advantage in terms of advantage versus disadvantage. I meant advantage in the sense that you used the allowance by the strike-off letter that allowed you to go back to 2014.
That's the only sense I said you took advantage of it, not that it biased one way or the other, but of course we don't know because we don't have the current data.
So what you're saying is you were allowed to use the 2014 data for one intersection, but you didn't have any usable data for the other intersection, so you went out and did the counts for the second intersection.
that's accurate and and and in order to account for the difference between any difference that
may have occurred between the two we balanced the volumes or adjusted the volumes on um along
merrick okay at palisades to account for any any change in traffic volumes that were that may have
occurred between those two different dates that accounts were conducted in this report so so you
adjust. In this report, are those adjustments found in this report? Yes. And where is that?
In the appendix. Well, okay, we'll go to those in a minute. I didn't see them, but
uh well let's go there now um where
do you know do you have the report in front of you do you know what page it's on
i do what how many pages is the pdf document you have 80 80
I do. How many pages is the PDF document you have?
80. So if you go to PDF page 38.
Okay. Thank you for helping me.
Is this it?
That is.
Okay. Can you just very briefly explain to us where these adjustments are?
So if you look in the area towards the top of the page, it's tough for me to see on your screen,
but also i'm going to look on mine um it says 2021 existing or 2021 counts yes um and then
there is a then there's a row walks through westbound left there we counted 16 vehicles
and one that this is the weekday am peak hour during a 60 minute period there's 16 people
making a left from palisades on to southbound merrick um and if you continue across the
row where the 16 is, it continues on with various vehicular traffic movements. And what you can see
the next row below it is balancing. So that's 16 that we counted in the west down left. We then
added 26 additional vehicles to that movement in order to balance with the traffic volumes that
we collected in 2014 at Bridging. Thank you. Would you agree with me that the PennDOT letter
that came out because of COVID allowed people in your industry to go back to all data,
not forget all that go back to data um as far back as 2014 but no further
i believe that's accurate okay and that this data was in fact from 2014 so there would be in keeping
with that um with that strike off with that pendot guidance letter yes it's in compliance
with the PennDOT strike-off letter.
So it would allow to go back seven years,
but no further.
Would you agree with me
that that PennDOT guidance letter
was April 23rd of 2020?
I don't have the date of that.
I don't have the date of that strike-off letter,
but I can't tell you specifically
if that date's right or wrong.
Okay, does it sound wrong to you?
It's in the ballpark.
the time frame i can't thank you okay and so now being in um uh 2021 that we're um one year past
that uh here we are in september of 2021 we're one year past that and your report even was in
may of 2021 so that that would make the 2014 data um even old one year older at this point
Would you agree with me?
Would I agree with you?
May 2021 is one year after April 2020?
Okay, so now you're using data that's over seven years,
which is too old at the time PennDOT came out with its letter.
PennDOT didn't specifically state a duration from the time that their strike-off letter was issued.
They said it was, and I'm going to actually try to pull it up as we speak,
um i have it handy given the questions and the dates you've uh indicated but um the guidance was
2014 counts um and this is the this is essentially i'm paraphrasing but the guidance in that strike
off letter was this is the methodology and the practice that will be accepted by penn dot by
the department um for utilization of traffic counts dating back to 2014 or newer um until
until further direction or update is provided.
I agree with you.
At the time of the traffic study
that we're speaking of this evening.
I agree with you and I don't want to argue with you.
I'm just making the point that at the time
it was, PennDOT was comfortable going back seven years
and now we are more than seven years past it
and that, you know, the TAPCO certainly had the ability
to have you gather updated information as you did up the street in 2021. So I have no further
questions for this witness. Okay, thank you. Mr. Whelan?
No further questions. I think Mr. DiMartino opined expertly.
are there any other witnesses uh not on my end madam i understand that there are a number of
people who wish to speak and support um from the community but uh they will be doing so on their
own or on behalf of their organizations so at this time i would close for uh paul to or mr bonnie
So at this time, I would close for Paul, or Mr. Bonnie, rather, to proceed with his case so we can get this done.
rather.
Okay, Mr. Bonnie.
I have a relatively brief opening statement, as Mr. Whalen did, and I'm not saying that my statements are evidence,
but I want to give the board an understanding of what our case is and a little bit of a roadmap as
to the evidence that we're going to present. And without further ado, generally speaking,
we believe that this is a massive overdevelopment of the site given the environmental constraints.
Those constraints are, of course, the steep slopes. And we will get into that. And when I say steep slopes, I'm talking about 25% grade or greater.
And also, we believe it's a massive development of overdevelopment of the site, given the surrounding areas on this hill, the small houses, both rental and home ownership on this hill.
And we will give some history with this area, this precise area, because, of course, this was a complex, if you will, a public housing complex known as Schuylkill Falls, owned and operated by the Philadelphia Housing Authority since the 1950s,
with two very large high-rises and then a lot of low-rise residential development
as part of the public housing development.
That was demolished in the 1990s and redeveloped in phases.
So we think that's critically important to understanding the context in which this parcel sits.
um to to touch before i expand on that a little bit as far as our legal argument is we're going
to we we believe the facts that we'll be presenting will demonstrate that there is no hardship
because the site can be developed in a reasonable way without impacting any of the steep slopes
and so that therefore um there is no hardship we have a secondary argument sort of an argument in
the alternative. And that is that if the board does find that there is a hardship, that there
is a much lesser variance that could and should be granted to cure that hardship. And as you saw
on one of Mr. Whalen's exhibits, and as we will go into, you know, there's largely two bands of
steep slopes on this property. They run horizontally. The upper band is much larger
and wider than the lower band. And as I said, our first argument is that
a reasonable development can be made on this site without impacting either band.
But if this board does find that there is a hardship, we believe that certainly only the lower band need, the much smaller lower band need be impacted to reasonably develop the site and that that lesser variance would be the variance that this board should grant if it does find there's a hardship.
Of course, this stands in contrast to what the developer is seeking, which is 100% alteration of all of the steep slopes on the property.
Moving on, we are going to present testimony about the Schuylkill Falls public housing development.
And we're going to explain, as we touched on obliquely during the first hearing, that the site was to be redeveloped with PHA and real estate partners in three phases and that the very low density development was done in the first two phases.
And this is the now sort of the third phase referred to as phase three, and that PHA, in fact, proposed to the community and to the tenants and residents of Schuylkill Falls, a 30 unit, 30, 30 units of an apartment house of 30 units for this property.
30 30 units an apartment house of 30 units for this property and we think that's very relevant
in terms of explaining to the board that a much smaller project is is reasonable for this
for this site um uh you know we will have testimony from uh neighbors and people who
lived through that process about the redevelopment of this site. And we're going to be providing
other evidence about how the site can be reasonably developed. But at the end, at the end of the day,
I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Bonney. When you've referenced other evidence, have you produced
any exhibits to the board? No. Okay. And it's not our obligation to do that. We're members of the
public and um we have no such obligation it's we've confirmed with the board solicitor in other
in other cases i make no statement as to whether you're obligated to or not i was simply going to
ask that you email me copies of whatever you were going to present um madam chair again just to
move this along i certainly understand mr bonnie can present what he wants to present as long as
as long as you allow it. But I would suggest that anything with regard to or any kind of
agreement, written or otherwise, there is no mean PHA and the neighbors in history would be a third
party agreement that is irrelevant to the present application in front of this board.
The present application is based on the underlying zoning. It is revised as we've set forth and any kind of agreement or lack thereof between PHA and the individual neighbors or community groups would be a third party agreement that could only be enforceable by the court and would not have any bearing on this matter. Thank you.
I'm not making, let me stop sharing. I'm not making that argument, Mr. Whalen. I'm not making that argument. And I'll be clear because there is a couple of documents in which PHA had proposed a much smaller building.
And one of them is this settlement agreement that we referred to last time and that we will be showing today.
And yes, it's an agreement between community stakeholders, including my client and others, and PHA.
But we are not introducing it here today by any stretch of the means for saying that it's an enforceable document and that we're asking this board to enforce that document.
We are not. Even if we ask the board doesn't have the authority to enforce contracts, and we know
that, you know, people disagree as to whether it's enforceable or not, we don't want to get into any
of that. All we're doing is we're showing that PHA did propose a much smaller project. And we are
using that for the sole purpose of saying it is reasonable to put a much smaller project
on this property. We would assume that without any pronouncements from PHA,
if we said something smaller could go here, that the applicant would say, well, it's not reasonable
to have something that small. And we think this evidence says the opposite, that it is reasonable
to have something that's possible.
It's not our entire case.
It's part of the story that we're telling
and we don't even need to,
we're not trying to enforce that document.
So we don't need to get-
Mr. Bonnie, I'm sorry.
I don't need to interrupt you,
but I think we understand that you are submitting this
in order to go to the least minimum requirement.
We have such limited time now, if we could move on.
I'd like to call my first witness.
Okay, was all of that your opening argument?
Okay, first witness.
How many witnesses do you have?
Okay, and they're going to be brief.
Well, we...
You know, let's not get into this back and forth.
Call your first witness.
My first witness is Ms. Emily Nichols.
Ms. Nichols, you can unmute yourself and please wait for Madam Chair.
Ms. Nichols, put your name and address on the record and spell your last name.
My name is Emily Nichols, N-I-C-H-O-L-S.
My name is Emily Nichols, N-I-C-H-O-L-S. Address, 3655 Stanton Street, Philadelphia, 19129.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Ms. Nichols. I'm going to ask you a couple of questions a little bit later, but
But, you know, I understand you have sort of some opening statement to make.
And why don't you just take it from here and I'll jump in when I need to.
What is the opening statement?
Is it a letter that's going to be read?
No, she has some remarks.
Ms. Nichols is the president of the RCO, the East Falls Community Council, and she's going to introduce her organization's position and reasons.
and you know to tell you why we're opposing that's great um thank you very much to the committee um
and and of course i'll try and keep this brief um i'm a 13-year resident of east falls i've been a
member of the community council for the past 10 years i was on zoning for seven years our zoning
committee and a member of the executive committee since 2015 since october of 2020 i've served as
elected president of the East Falls Community Council. Both as a homeowner and the president
of Community Council, I am in support of any and all developments that enhance our neighborhood
and benefit our residents, including the various projects we've supported in the past. Unfortunately,
the proposed development before you today is not that sort of a project. We don't take lightly
opposing uh a development in our neighborhood um and i i just wanted to make sure that that was clear
please tell us a little bit about the community council's engagement with the neighborhood
on this one um since the beginning of this year the community councils hosted multiple
public meetings they were all virtual uh on zoom meetings of course because of
the pandemic um public meetings with the developer as well as arranging some conversations
with some of the near neighbors and conducting tours of the community.
We've sought to provide a TAPCO with an understanding of the sort of developments
that would enhance the neighborhood in the hopes that they might revise their plans
to be less disruptive and detrimental to our community.
We've been frustrated by their unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion
and particularly disappointed by their lack of concern for the negative impact
this development will have on residents, owners, and renters closest to the property.
At every step, we've hoped for substantive changes to the project design, size, density,
traffic, parking, environmental impact, changes that would allow us to come before the ZBA
today in support, but that hasn't happened.
At every opportunity, ATAPCO has responded to our concerns with implicit and explicit
threats that if we oppose the development in its current iteration, they would build
bigger and denser and fully exploit the boundaries of zoning.
regardless of how it impacts the community and the neighbors.
I'd like to share my screen so that we could show a couple exhibits, some exhibits. And the first
is, so let me just move this around a little bit. For, since Ms. Nichols is East Falls Community
Council, her exhibits are EFCC, not numbered as EFCC 1, 2, and 3, I believe, maybe 4 also.
So the first is a number of aerial photographs, and I'm sure you can see my cursor. This area
here is the subject property. This is Ridge running left and right, and this is Merrick
going up the hill. And this area here is the subject property. Ms. Nichols,
can you describe what's happening here in the top right-hand corner here where my cursor is?
That area is Falls Ridge. Okay. And those are small houses?
Or clusters of houses?
What's down here?
That's a senior building apartments with commercial, ground floor commercial.
Is it 50 units of senior housing on top of commercial?
And what is, and what, is that what is referred to and what we will be referring to, well,
referred to by PHA as phase one of the redevelopment?
That's correct.
How about over here on the left-hand side? What's going on here?
That's Hilltop, or the hilltop at Falls Ridge.
Okay. And that's the phase two of the redevelopment?
Okay, and that's the phase two of the redevelopment?
Okay. Now, going back to Merrick Road, which is right here, these houses right here, again, these are small houses.
I want to, let's just go a little, this is a different view, is that correct?
little close up this is closer up so that the board uh and and everyone can see um these
houses on this side and then this is hilltop now i'm gonna uh go sort of more from a over
up from uphill near the near the ridge if you will uh looking down towards the river and you
we can you know see a little bit of the sloping that we're talking about uh falls ridge is on the
left those houses those houses with the peaked roof the 50 unit senior housing is along ridge
to the bottom left and then hilltop uh is is here to the right um but these houses here on merrick
road um and these these houses right here uh is this an accurate this is from merrick this is what
they look like right on eric road yes those are the houses two stories two stories and an attic
right yes okay and this is what would be right opposite um the 90 foot high building uh in fact
it would be right there would be those folks would come out their door looking at this
garage and then you know this 90-foot building that's being proposed is that correct that is
correct okay um did efcc generally support that phase one and phase two and that senior housing
that we all talked about yes we did okay in fact you were um efcc was intimately involved
as were other community stakeholders with the redevelopment of the Schuylkill Falls
public housing complex and these new phases. Is that correct?
Mr. Barney, I'm sorry to interrupt again, but we are so short on time. We understand that your
witness has been supportive of development in the past, but if we could focus on this project and
what her objections are please well we we are i'm around i'm trying to round third to head to home
for this this witness um but um you know we have documents to introduce about the redevelopment and
it's it's important so we're we're still we're still making that part of the case and i i hear
you i want to expedite as quickly as we can um mr bonnie i would simply uh obviously object
now to any uh presentation of evidence i literally four minutes ago asked you if you
were presenting any documents you said no i asked you for copies of them uh you said there'd be none
presented um i didn't say that i i will request them again from you to be emailed to me so i can
see them while you're presenting them um but you know go ahead obviously um madam vice chair i'm
happy to uh stipulate to what we can stipulate that you know the the projects that are existing
that have been testified to by Ms. Nichols are existing uh they were built in coordination with
or connection with uh PHA and that our project is not being done so um and is different than
those individual houses. I have a suggestion at 639, it's not likely that this can finish today
and I'm wondering if we need a resumption hearing. Madam Chair, with all due respect,
and I know Mr. Bonney objects to this, there is a clear pattern of delay here. This matter has
already been continued in April. It was continued again in June. There's always another meeting,
another continuance request, and we had extensive delay in the first hearing, and now we're getting
the same thing. This is already a resumption hearing that's now almost six months after we
were supposed to be heard for the first time. Excuse me, Mr. Whelan, I don't think it's fair
to suggest that Mr. Bonney is doing this only to delay.
He believes this is a complicated case.
He believes that this evidence is necessary.
So I think the objective here is to get what he needs to submit in as quickly as possible.
And Ms. Saleta, it has to be a little more organized.
I understand.
I understand we're running short on time. I would like to try and finish this witness today. It would not take probably five minutes. I'll try my best to get through in five minutes. But at least let's get through this witness. This is an important part of our case.
That's great. That's great. Then why don't you just follow through with that?
Okay, thank you. Ms. Nichols, PHA applied in 1997 for federal funding to redevelop the entire site, and your organization supported that funding request. Is that correct?
Yes, we did.
Okay. And then what's shown on the screen is the first page of the PHA application to HUD.
That's called the HOPE VI program for the federal grant. And the next page shows what was in that.
Well, this is the application seeking $26 million. And then this is what the application consisted of.
And I highlighted the plan objectives, the description, and also community engagement.
And on page one of the application, PHA showed a sketch which showed this building, we would call it, I would say it's a relatively small building, at least compared to the applicant's proposal that we highlighted in yellow.
And that at the bottom of page one, PHA has a little cartoon about the public engagement process for residents and adjacent neighbors guiding the development. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Madam Chair, if I could, I don't want to prolong this any further. We're willing to stipulate that all of these documents say whatever they say. Mr. Bonney can introduce all of them.
We're willing to stipulate that our development is not in line with any of the 1997 documents, but we're now talking about something that's more than 25 years ago that has literally nothing to do with this case other than to suggest that there's a different context for this property than what we are presenting.
and we're willing to stipulate to that there are houses behind us and houses to the right of us
and we are not building houses i'm happy to stipulate to that but you know there's literally
no way this can otherwise be relevant so there are no it's highly relevant i'd like to continue
i'm trying to get through this and i can get through it very quickly but there are a number of
factors in the zoning code that guide this board into whether it should grant
a variance or not. One of those factors is that the variance may not be granted if it substantially
impairs the appropriate use of adjacent properties. And we will be making that K.
That's one of our arguments, that this project is harmful to the adjacent neighbors. And it's
partly harmful because of the neighborhood that they bought into and that were induced to buy
into with certain representations. And that's relevant. There's other questions in the zoning
code about whether it affects other public facilities. And a public housing development
exists on those houses that we just showed you, many of which are subsidized. Those are public
facilities so mr bonnie again it's we understand the legal arguments but this witness is not an
expert is she can she please testify to how this will affect her how it will negatively affect her
we have other witnesses for that um is she finished then no she's she's not finished
she's helped these are documents that are maintained by the my client the east falls
community council as you'll see there's a letter from east falls community council a few pages
after this and it's and i we're we're wasting time you're right okay let me do she is testifying
about why she is opposed to this isn't she she is and then we let's let her do that and then
Can we shift it into the history of the site?
No, we can't.
No, we're not doing that.
She is not an expert.
If you want to address the history of the site, we can give you an opportunity to use these documents to draft a brief and submit that.
This witness can testify as to the negative impact that she will suffer.
Okay, well, can I page through this and then ask her a question after I page through it?
Can I page through this and then ask her a question after I page through it?
No, you must focus on the relevant information that she has, not the history of the site.
Again, she is not an expert, please.
Of course she's not an expert, but she is the president of the East Falls Community Council, which supported this document in front of you.
And again, we understand that they have been supportive of other development.
But I know specifically about this development, what is that is going to negatively impact the neighborhood and her personally?
Again, you're asking her, she's not?
We're asking her a simple question.
How does this negatively impact the neighborhood?
We're trying to give you that answer.
I don't want to go back to the, and I don't mean to be wise, it's almost like we're going back to
the Declaration of Independence. Let's just stay in the here and now and ask Ms. Nichols why she
feels it negatively impacts the area. That's a fair question. Yes, and Madam Chair, I believe
the board is permitted to ask witness questions. Can you ask her that? I agree. I agree with that.
you're allowed to ask her questions. And Ms. Nichols, you've heard the question from the board.
Do you have an answer to that? I want to make sure I understand what you're asking me. Why do
I think this will negatively impact the community? And you personally, how are you going to be
impacted by this? She's the president of the organization. It doesn't matter what she is.
How is she impacted personally? That's what Ms. Saleta asked.
So there's two different questions in front of me then. There's a question of how I think it will negatively impact the community, and you're also asking how it will impact me personally, correct?
Well, you are part of the community. You and your neighbors, how will you be negatively impacted by this specific project?
the composition of the east falls neighborhood is it strongly encourages long-term residents
whether they be homeowners or renters and it strongly encourages a sense of community
um our feeling from the beginning at looking at this particular design is that it did not do that
that it encouraged a transient population we have people who live particularly um
in that area closest, the near neighbors to that development, who have been there since
the towers came down, since those houses were built, and they bought into a neighborhood
with an understanding of what sort of composition it had. And I would say that this development goes
very much against that. My concern is to see people putting their homes up for sale or choosing
to leave what they thought would be a community they'd live in the rest of their lives um for the
sake of a development that will cater to a transient population i'm sorry but this is too
speculative this is too speculative and the board is not in the board cannot base any decision on
the form of ownership please if you're going to address things like traffic light and air
do that. Not your assumptions about how a transient population might not mesh with the
existing residents. Well, I would say you mentioned traffic. I think this will absolutely have a
negative impact on traffic flow along Ridge Avenue, which I know personally affects me
because my only access to my house is off of Ridge Avenue. And, you know, traffic now is a
challenge. To add several hundred more cars into the mix will be challenging. So that is a personal
impact for me. Okay. Is there any other impact? You're asking this witness if she's finished her
answer? Yes. Is she finished? I would say in the interest of time that I am, yes.
Thank you. Do you have another witness, Mr. By? Ms. Soletta, Ms. Soletta, Ms. Soletta,
you said I could get these documents in some other way. What is that other way?
We will allow you to, if there is going to be another hearing, and I'm not sure if there is,
You may summarize them and along with submit a legal brief attaching those documents before
the next hearing.
we would have to work at a schedule
We would have to work at a schedule where each side would have an opportunity to respond.
where each side would have an opportunity to respond.
But at this point, I guess the board
will have to make some calls on relevance.
Can we hear the next witness?
Madam Chair, I have literally four questions
that are all yes or no for the FCC.
I'm not ready yet, Sean, to turn her over.
If I could ask Ms. Zuletta and the Chair,
can i ask that this witness testify to the settlement agreement that we've talked about
of which the her of which the efcc is a party mr bonnie we want to know how it negatively impacts
the neighborhood and i think she's done a great job in answering that i and i understand and i
think she did a good job too and I'm and I'm I have a number of exhibits in this package you've
said that the current one isn't appropriate for this witness and as I look through the remaining
documents in this package one of them the last one is the settlement agreement with PHA and I'm
asking whether she can testify to that today um before I turn it over to is she going to say
anything beyond i mean the relevant factors are okay her organization was part of the settlement
agreement the settlement agreement allowed for fewer houses for a lesser development
and therefore you want you are arguing that that supports a finding that this is not the least
minimum variance isn't that the bottom line is there something else she needs to no but we need
to get that document into the record.
Madam Chair and Ms. Saleta, I can move this forward.
Mr. Bonney seems reluctant to share his documents with me.
I believe I understand the document that he's discussing.
I've seen it before from EFCC.
I'm happy to stipulate that it can be admitted as an exhibit
and it says what it says.
The board can read it, Ms. Saleta can read it,
and he doesn't need to introduce it through Ms. Nichols.
So we can please move on.
Okay. How about these portions of the other PHA documents?
You know what, Mr. Bonney, we're interested in hearing from witnesses.
We've heard one witness. Can we hear your second witness?
Because we're going to shut it down.
i mean i don't understand what's so difficult well i understand that because i have because
witness who's the second witness madam chair if i may i literally have four
questions all yes or no from for the efcc chair go ahead
um miss nichols i don't mean to be rude but i'm going to speak very quickly
You said that you've been involved with the EFCC since about 2015, I think you said?
No, I think 2014, I think.
Okay. Are you familiar with two other projects referenced as generally as the Howe and Grasso projects?
Somewhat familiar.
okay uh mr bonnie if you could stop sharing your screen i have two images to show you
miss nichols and i will ask two yes or no questions about them
miss nichols are you familiar with this image of uh the approved project at 4300 ridge avenue yes
Okay, and this is, I will say, for the record, colloquially discussed as the Grasso project that is also CMX3 across the street, correct?
And this was approved by EFCC and supported by EFCC, is that correct?
Thank you.
Similarly, are you familiar with this project at 44, 40, and 42 Ridge Avenue, colloquially described as the Howe project?
Not as familiar, no.
Okay, but is it your understanding that EFCC also approved
and supported the approval of this project?
I believe so.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Nichols.
I apologize for being so short.
It was not out of curtness.
Madam Chair, I am done.
Well, I have just-
Thank you, Mr. Bonny.
I have a brief-
Second witness.
I have a brief redirect, Madam Chair, I'm sorry,
but Ms. Nichols, would you agree with me
that none of those projects involve steep slopes?
that's correct um okay uh my next witness is i'm sorry i'm madam chair this is tanya sunkett the
is i'm sorry i'm madam chair this is tanya sunkett the administrator yes we are at the
Administrator.
seven o'clock mark just about um my staff my staff have left if you wish i can arrange a
resumption date that would be great madam chair it is really desperate at this point could we have
have a question for mr bonnie as to is there any additional witness he said he has four other
witnesses and then we're done with the whole case and we can get to a vote. Is there any witness
who's going to introduce something new or can we just stipulate that these additional four witnesses
would testify similarly to similar density traffic considerations that Ms. Nichols already testified
to? Each witness has something new and different to say and very relevant to this case. I'm not
willing to abandon our case I'm sorry. Okay so Ms. Sunkett if we have a resumption hearing can
we limit it to one hour? Whatever you wish Madam Chair I just have to look for a date
which will not be that soon. Yeah I think we should limit it to one hour and then and that's
it when we vote it. We also Mr. Bonney ask for offers of proof as to identify the witnesses
the remaining witnesses you plan to call
and what they will be addressing that is relevant.
Would you like me to do that now or by email?
Actually, can we do that briefly now?
The next witness I was going to,
it may be in a different sequence,
but first of all, I will be submitting these PHA documents
in the interim,
and I think that would make things go much quicker.
because we'll be able to refer to them
instead of having to introduce them
and doing it the more burdensome way.
So thank you for that.
One of my witnesses is Cynthia Kishenshand,
with a K, Kishenshand.
And she will be testifying about the value
and importance of the steep slopes
and the habitat that it supports.
So it's sort of an environmental witness, if you will.
If I could, Mr. Bonney, what are her credentials to testify to those aspects?
Do I have to do that at this time, Ms. Zuleta?
I think you asked me for an offer of proof.
I'm telling you the name of the witness and what they are going to testify about.
Well, I think what we're trying to find out is, is she just a neighbor?
No, she is not. She has experience and training in these areas.
Then I would say that she would have to submit a resume showing that she has some expertise in order to...
Okay, I wrote that down.
I have a witness by the name of Roxanne DeStewitt.
I'll spell it for Sean by email.
she is a near neighbor on one side of the uh in the east falls area um i'm sorry in the falls
ridge development that those little townhouses i also have another witness named and she will
be testifying to harm okay i have another witness named raymond adams he lives at hilltop which is
the part to the top. And he will be testifying extremely briefly also to harm.
And finally, I think I'm on number five, I have Hillary Langer, who is the chair of the zoning
committee for my client. And also a registered architect in Pennsylvania. And he will be
testifying about a couple things, but feasibility of a smaller development is a key part of his
testimony. Okay. If we were to schedule a resumption hearing, could we do it with the
understanding that it would be for one hour and that anything that is not, any testimony that
cannot be given within that hour, you will submit written testimony or statements from the witnesses?
That's, I think that's fine. I mean, given that we're now into our case,
I think an hour would be sufficient. Ms. Sunkit, does that make it easier to schedule this?
Very much so, Ms. Saleta. So I have come up with a date not too far off, which is October the 19th
at 9 30 a.m what was that again Ms. Sunkit? October 19th at 9 30 a.m
October 19th at 9.30 a.m.
A couple of other things.
Mr. Bonney, if you could please provide Mr. Whelan with anything that you are going to be submitting.
Any exhibits?
Any documents?
Well, we've talked about this in other cases.
um i don't believe that that's my i don't believe i'm obligated to do that well then you will be
barred from presenting them you are not obligated to do that but if you are going to be presenting
them then he has a chance to respond i think at this point in the proceedings
miss sunk at october 19th make my objection for the record is tuesday yes we already have cases
schedule for that day therefore we can push this in there with the board's understanding that we're
only going to be able to do an hour because unfortunately we're scheduling in March now
and I don't want to do that to Mr. Whalen and hold this up for so much longer so we can push it in
but we can't exceed an hour. Thank you Madam Chair. Just to make this clear Mr. Bonnie you are not
required to submit anything but if you are going to submit something we want to submit it in
advance both to mr whalen and to the board so we can perhaps review it for relevance
i i of course i i have to try i'd be remiss if i didn't um is there any chance we have a date in
in September, Ms. Sunkett, given that we're tailoring this so nearly?
No way in April. I'm barely able to get you in in October.
Okay. Madam Chair, if I may, then I would just request that prior to, and I will do it prior
to the next hearing, I will email or send a letter to you, Madam Chair, with my closing argument
to make sure that we don't end before that
and we can make sure we get this done in one final item.
Okay, will you be doing the same, Mr. Bonney?
Yes, when is that due date?
October 19th is the next hearing.
So it'll be prior right to the hearing.
Okay, so I'm going to be submitting my exhibits
and a closing argument in writing.
Okay, and we're on for October 19th
from 9.30 to 10.30 in the morning.
No, we're not.
We are?
The case is scheduled for 9.30.
We already have case is scheduled.
You will go at the end of the 9.30 listing.
Oh, okay.
Oh, okay.
So at the night, we'll be on the 9.30 list
and when we're up, we'll have an hour.
Yes, sir.
Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification.
I'm sorry to misunderstand. Thank you.
My apologies. I'm putting cases all over the place, but that's the best I can do for you.
We can only imagine.
Thank you, Ms. Sunkit.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.
And thank you.
Yeah, we appreciate it.
Thank you all. And Lashana Tova to anyone who's celebrating.
thank you thank you
that concludes today's hearings thank you madam chair have a good night sure thank you
good night all good night good night good night