and although the total vote of course the rco brings in the total vote actually the the impacted
neighbors it was actually a very close vote it was i think seven to four uh most of the folks
who live on the block couldn't attend that evening that's why my client went door to door
and was able to secure the signatures of just about everybody on allman street and of course
the surrounding three blocks as well i'm asking this board to review this uh separately uh because
uh there are two separate refusals
and because there's two sort of legal ways in which to review them the garage i'm sorry the
The structure itself is a dimensional variance, which under Hertzberg, this board can evaluate that based on the financial cost that it would take to not only have hired this person who they believed was doing this correctly to put it up, but then the cost to tear it down and then replace it with something else that is only six feet tall, which, by the way, would not be safe for that vacant lot, that empty lot.
they use it ostensibly for their side yard because they live there they live right next door
so i'm asking for a valuation of that in and of itself and then of course because of the parking
as the parking hardship is quite clear as i said the dimensions of that lot make it very limiting
and we could not build on it by right and still meet all of the open space and rear yard
requirements. We'd have to come before this board to do that. So using other parking on that street
similar? Yes, I just, well, actually ours is a little bit more secure. Okay. Yeah. Because
Because the one photo that I showed you showed just basically an open parking pad where the car was just open.
the one photo that I showed you showed just basically an open parking, parking.
The second one is a front-loading garage where there's no eyes on the street there.
This one has a door and a roll-down gate.
They use the roll-down gate now for scooters.
My client's wife needs accessibility issues, so she has an accessible scooter, and that's what they currently use it for.
they would like to be able to use it to park their car okay and i'm going to rest because i've given
you a ton of information already in the binder i move it all into evidence okay i'd like to call
mr sure sure could you please state and spell your name for this denographer christopher franklin
it's c-h-r-i-s-t-a-t-o-p-h-e-r-f-r-a-n-k-l-i-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes counsel thank you chris did you hear my
presentation to the board. Is it true and accurate? Yes. Do you adopt it as your own? Yes. Thank you.
Questions from the board. I have a quick question. Could you go back to the picture?
I'm looking at a photo and it's a tree. I don't know if it's still there. It's a Google photo,
so I don't know if it's still there. So did you have to remove that tree? It was removed before
we moved in okay yeah all right thank you other questions to be clear the curb cut already existed
it's certainly indentured yes but it's not it was not considered like it's legal or in the city no
in fact you're going to hear testimony from one of the neighbors on that block the former owner
actually used to put cones and he had a whole sort of system for parking his own cars in and around
this lot so uh nothing was ever legalized and that's why we're here and then the i guess your
client's property is 28 10 yes he's got an eight 28 8 10 12 and 14 okay but they're all those are
rentals so or is it all just all of our property and that's partly the unity of use for that and
they live adjacent they live in the in the building or station to the vacant lot got it but
28 28 08 28 10 and 20 12 are already combined so this is really just about combining with 28 14
that's correct correct got it okay all the questions
yes about the so you put down the there was a concrete wall that's correct
Correct. And the contractor took down the concrete wall, because it was unsightly, and then replaced it with that structure.
Same height, same width, same everything.
But no permits?
Well, unbeknownst to my client, the contractor did not pull the permits, yes.
okay all right and you claim that's that was your your argument about this is that it's
non-conforming and so well the initial the the original one which is 30 years old was a pre-existing
non-conforming structure so my argument uh and this is not an appeal to ellen i obviously yeah
I know you were going to say that.
I knew it.
I knew it.
Thank you.
She's listening, Vern.
I'm watching.
I know.
She's ready to pounce.
I wouldn't say that.
Go ahead, Vern.
But I just wanted to put it out there that in my opinion, you know, my legal analysis is that the replacement should not have triggered a refusal because that old wall had been there for 30 years.
You know, that's my opinion.
Now, the fact of the matter is, I think the contractor probably felt the same way, which is why they didn't pull permits.
I don't know.
We haven't talked to the contractor.
We haven't been able to get in touch with him.
He was tearing down a concrete wall and sitting up a roll gate.
So he didn't think that there was a difference.
I guess.
I mean, I could only guess.
I don't know.
He went ghost because, obviously, we were pretty upset when we found out that this was noncompliant.
and he didn't had he submitted the building permits when we when we hired him to do this
it would have generated a refusal or and we'd be here a lot sooner but that's not what happened
um and oh okay and then i mean not to get in the weeds but um once you tear down something that you
claim is nonconforming you can't just rebuild it you gotta get permits to put something back
permits to put something back the contractor knows that well the contractor should have known that
the contractor knows that well the contractor
whatever non-conformity there may have been just
all right i mean i will put a just as a note it does look like there's only one other curb cut
on this whole block and it's a corner property with a garage that's built into the first floor
um and so i guess there's the parking pad too there's a that's a leaking pad yeah that's legal
as well. I did that one
before this board.
And that's on Allman Street? Yes.
Hold on, I'll bring it up for you.
There it is. There's the two other properties.
Yeah, the
one on the corner. The parking
pad, do you know what the address is on
that one? I believe the owner
is going to be on the call
himself. I was just trying to figure out, like, in
terms of where it falls on the bike right across the street like across the street yeah it's like
across the street yeah okay all right questions are your attorney
well i i was going to ask that question but it's not non-conforming once you tear it down
but just to clarify not an l and i not not an l and i issue yeah yeah questions or comments
from the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
Good afternoon, Liz Fuselay on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the current RSA 5 residential single family.
There is no evidence that the parking space or fence were constructed with the benefit of permits.
The appellant has not shown that there are unique physical circumstances or conditions
that would prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
the planning commission recommends the board deny the requested variance for parking and fence site
one point of clarity we're not using it for parking right now so there uh that that hasn't
been done that use is not done yet if that makes any sense uh the only thing that wasn't uh
compliant was the fact that the contractor did not pull those permits when he built the wall
i also think i have a witness of mr charles whalen who's uh he didn't in the virtual audience
Charles, what's his name?
Waylon. Charles Waylon.
Charles Waylon.
Charles Waylon
has been promoted to panelists.
Before you do that, Vern,
your refusal
states for legalization of a gate
and fence and the creation
of a surface.
To create it, right.
Planning Commission's position was that
neither the fence nor the parking
was created
with the benefit of permits and i just wanted to do a point of clarity that the fence was not built
with the benefit of permits but there is no current parking use we're not legalizing the
parking we're asking for the parking okay just one question parking is at play you absolutely
absolutely mr whalen am i correct whalen yes sir could you please state and spell your name
for this stenographer charles whalen c-h-a-r-l-e-s w-h-a-l-e-n you swear affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth yes sir counsel thank you mr whalen uh you
please explain where you live on the on the block your address please um kind of right across the
street, like maybe one or two houses up. I'm almost directly across from the parcel that in
question with the gate. Okay. And you're one of the many folks on the block who've signed the
petition in support of this appeal. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And you've lived on the
block how many years? It'll be 31 years, one month from today. Okay. And can you explain to the board
why this particular proposal is an improvement over previous use and condition and why you
support it thank you well the previous owner this he i don't know he sort he had a business
supposedly but he used to have no parking signs from the beginning of what's a 2806 is the
beginning of the property all the way up to where that gate was and he had no parking signs and it
was a point of contention with a lot of people and then we i fought it got it taken down to one sign
and this person had three vehicles plus the no parking in front of his
residence which i believe is now christopher's residence and so what he would do is
He'd jockey his three vehicles to take up all the spaces that would take his, basically cross his entire property there.
he'd jockey his three vehicles to take up all the spaces
And if you were one of his preferred neighbors, he would let you park in that no parking zone.
But so, okay, that's not really part of, I get it, I get it.
Is it your opinion that as an immediate neighbor that my client's proposal is an actual improvement over the previous conditions?
Oh, my God. Yes. Yes. Yes.
There's there's no longer a sign there or the reserved parking spot.
It's it's aesthetically a lot better looking than that ugly yellow cinder block wall.
um and i'm i'm just logically speaking i i think it's an improvement i don't i don't understand
why it would be turned down but thank you and you are you are cognizant of the fact that there's
already at least two off accessory off-street parking spots on your block is that right
well yes i i have one of them and the guy up the corner has
a garage which is there's another property right behind him that were built at the same time and
they had the same exact setup as him with the garage on a street that's half the size of ours
so thank you mr whalen all right planning commission we've already waited oh they
We went out of order a little bit, sorry.
So MI 2026-003-522-2808-12 Almond Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanata Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Ty Owen, my vote is yes.
Layla Beebe, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Kel.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, Meredith.
M-I-2026-003792, 148 North 2nd Street.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
You sit there.
Meredith, could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Sure, Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i certainly do um could you identify your
client a relationship to this property my client is urban fund inc uh represented today by virgis
anusakis who is sitting right back here to my right and we have letter of support from old city
district a letter of non-opposition from councilman squall a letter of support from
neil campbell a neighbor our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon i have you submitted
your documents and exhibits 14 days in advance of this hearing? Yes, I did. And do you waive the
reading of your refusals and stipulate to their accuracy? I do waive the reading. I don't stipulate
to the accuracy. As board counsel knows, there was an error in terms of the occupied area that's
listed on the refusal. It is slightly incorrect. I'll address it during the presentation, but
otherwise, yes. Great. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed. Thank you. The request
before the board today is for the redevelopment of a well-known historical site in old city
philadelphia that comes with support from the old city district at exhibit 18 as well as non-opposition
from councilman squilla at exhibit 19. there are quite a few requests for relief before the board
today some of which are technical in nature some are slightly more substantive administratively
speaking, the deed and the tax clearance are included at Exhibits 2 and 3 for all of the
properties that are before you today. To my left, we do have our architect, Derek Spencer,
with NoMarchitecture, that will walk you through the plan. The proposal has also been reviewed and
approved by the Historical Commission. And as a result, because of that Historical Commission
process. We do have voluminous information to provide, but I will move through quickly and
then can reference any of the supplementary information we have if necessary.
So as I mentioned, the property before you is located at 148 North 2nd Street. As you can see
here on the aerials at Exhibit 5, the property sits at the corner of North 2nd Street, right as
it joins quarry street just west of i-95 and the riverfront the property is just about
The property is just about two blocks south of the Ben Franklin Bridge approach.
two blocks south of the ben franklin bridge
And then as you can see on the plans at the zoning map at Exhibit 7, the property itself is zoned CMX 3, so fairly dense commercial zoning.
And then just for reference, I won't go into detail on these, we did include some of the historical maps that the city provides also at Exhibit 7.