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.