that I'm now showing on our screen, dated 10, 19, 21. By this point, this property had been
down zone from cmx 2.5 to cmx 2 but our application with respect to the dimensional variances is
exactly the same as before we are simply seeking to have additional units for a total of 14 units
altogether as requested by this community group north square civic association so looking to the
right we can see our property indicated in blue it's actually a double wide lot so it's this and
lot directly to the north or located right there on Front Street, just north of Susquehanna.
Here's the overhead view. So we can see just zooming in on that. We're right by York Dolphin
Station to the north. We have Burke Station to the south. So relatively close to the number of
public transit options. This is our deed.
My client's commercial activity license and tax clearance.
Our notification letter. Proof of mailing. This is the letter of support. It is dated March 16th, 22. There was a total of 13 eligible residents to vote. And overall, we did receive a letter of support.
if you go back into this letter itself what we can do is take a look and we can actually see
the history of this project as explained by the rco we did initially bring this out with fewer
units we came back with a revised plan at a significant expense and time because we wanted
to be amenable to what the neighbors were requesting which was specifically more affordable
smaller units in new construction so here we have photographs of the property again it's currently
a vacant lot directly behind us is new construction single-family homes but our lot does not go all
the way through that's looking northbound on front street
that's directly across front street
and now this is looking southbound on front street
we can see the new construction multifamily going down front street there's been a lot of infill in
the time since we initially set this application but there is a significant number of multifamily
projects now on the block this is upside down so I'm going to fix that I'm going to try to at least
now well members of the board it appears there's some sort of issue with the floor plans here so
allow me to reopen those in a different folder so that we can actually see what we're taking a look
at rather than what we have here which looks like a bunch of gobbledygook
all right just one moment members of the board as I stop my share and then change my share
all right so members of the board you should now see the floor plans for the property
and more or less what we're looking to do is have the second and fourth floors before studio units
we're seeking to have either refuse or common,
pardon me both refuse and common area washing and dryers in the basement there's commercial
pardon me, both refuse and common area
washing and dryers.
space on the ground floor along with that refuse and potentially where we may be putting our
washers and dryers in the basement we have storage this may also be a place that we put refuse and or
the washer dryer we haven't really figured that out yet elevator space and then bike storage the
front along with building storage in the middle for the tenants we can see the layouts of the
second and fourth floors here. And then on floors three, five, and six, we have a mix
of units. Units one and three in the building will have one bath. Units two and four in the
building are going to have two baths. Pardon me, two beds, two baths. Altogether, each
floor is about 1850 to 1900 square feet. And I will show you a rendering as well, but one moment
as I must change my screen share. And members of the board, this is what we're looking at along
the property for 2222 to 24 north front. We're with, we are a little bit taller than what's
allowed in CMX2. We would be allowed to go to this height in CMX2.5, which is where we originally
were when we first submitted this application. So I suggest the zoning
chain underneath of us going through this zoning application present itself to
be a hardship and ought not be taken against my client. So we're gonna have
little balconies in the front to allow for outdoor space. Roof is for
mechanicals only and the rear yard is open for the use of the commercial
tenant on the ground floor. Finally I'll just get to our actual zoning submission.
so this is the property members of the board we're going to look to do some sort of a cast stone
brick and metal paneling on the front the rear is going to be either hardy board or vinyl same thing
with the sides this is the existing one-story building that's directly to the north of us
and if you take a look here members of the board we can see this is our backyard
which is just going to be more or less for trash storage for the commercial tenant
this is our pilot house elevator and pilot house for roof access only we need to have the two
pilot houses to minimum steps for egress. And that's essentially it, members of the board.
There's been a lot of development going up and down Front Street and Kensington Avenue recently.
My client hopes only to add to this. We have a hardship in developing this project by right,
especially considering the zoning was changed directly under us, and we have the full support
of the community. So I'd ask the members of the board here to vote in support of this project.
Mr. Melvihill, is your client here to adopt your testimony?
He may be, Boris, or if you're available on the line, would you please raise your hand and unmute yourself?
Mr. Schottler, can you please unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, hello. My name is Boris Stoller, spelled B-O-R-I-S, last name Stoller, S-H-T-O-L-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
I'll proceed Mr. Mulvihill. Mr. Schuller you've heard my testimony with respect to this project today. I did. I know it's been going on for a long time but is everything that I've said been true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Do you have anything you'd like to add at this point? No. Questions from the board.
testimony as your own mr scholler no uh yes um mr gentleman uh counseling yes you have four
zoning refusals what is the hardship for all four zoning refusal so members of the board i'll go
back to my presentation packet there we go share
one moment members of the board just trying to get back to my packet here there we are
and can everybody see my screen we can okay so initially and mr halliman i want to go back to
our original refusal since that's kind of where this started way back in march of 2020. so when
One-year zone CMX 2.5, we were allowed seven units.
We went for 10, and the community group asked us to put more in there because simply they're
not able to afford the new construction that's going up, two, three-bedroom condos all in
the area.
Maximum occupied lot allowed 75 for post 89.
We just have a small rear yard for the commercial space, and the reason we're asking for that
variance is just with respect to the overall lot depth and making habitable units that are priced
and making habitable units that are priced and laid out accordingly for the neighborhood.
and laid out accordingly for the nation.
We were initially put at 64 feet for the height but that's only due to the fact that we have at
a very front of the structure our pilot house which needs to be located to the front because
of the layout of the building there's simply no other way we have a place we can put our stairs
and just for the record that pilot house is only for use for roof access for mechanicals it's not
for recreational use and we don't have a roof deck set back as initially proposed simply because it
was just going to be used for mechanicals members of the board what I'll do now is I'll switch over
to my amended refusal so what happened when we switched over from cmx two and a half to the
downgrading of two we were only allowed three dwelling units we were proposing 14th request
of the community group so that's a huge difference in what we were allowed initially versus what
we're allowed now since the property has been downgraded uh bike parking spaces um we do a
bike parking spaces proposed in the basement in the floor plans we just don't have any on the
sidewalk building height because of the down zoning we're only allowed to go to 38 feet now
under cmx two and a half when we initially submitted this application it was taller
and as i suggested the reason for that height had to do with the location of the elevator
and stairs in the pilot house to the front of the structure only used for rooftop access for
mechanicals maximum occupied area is still the same as before again we only needed the small
back door space for the storage of trash and whatever else for the commercial unit
and to allow for a slightly larger footprint of the building to maximize the usefulness of
the units we're proposing i'm not sure where our minimum rear yard depth of three feet came from
because very clearly in our application, we don't have a three-foot rear yard.
We have a five-foot rear yard. So I'm not quite sure where the examiner got the three
from. So I would submit that that's an error. So the hardship essentially is one,
this got zoned under us, re-zoned under us, and down-zoned. So that would be a hardship
with respect to this application as we had no bearing on the rezoning of the parcel and at the
time of the zoning it was two and a half the open space we asked for slightly larger units so we can
put more units in at the request the community so they are more affordable for members of that
community and that would I that's what I would submit are the hardships here simply that everything
got switched out from under us and we purposely and intentionally delayed this project over two
years so we could have this discussion back and forth with the community to better incorporate
what they want into the building versus what was allowed under the zoning code and we met with a
community group at least four if not more times with respect to this project before we arrived on
this final version of it members of the board thank you all right any other questions from the board
no mr jim now questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty
representing the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board as council
has stated this property was affected by a zoning map amendment from cmx 2.5 to cmx 2 in 2021
we reject the hardship claim related to the zoning code in this case circumstances or conditions
generally created by the provisions of the code are specifically noted as not being eligible as
grounds for hardship in the code while the presence of the elevated train we believe
does create a unique physical condition that could be considered grounds for hardship here
We also feel that the applicant's dwelling unit density exceeds the minimum variance
necessary to overcome this hardship.
Further note for the board that a dwelling unit density bonus would have been earned
by the participation in the mixed income housing program, which the appellant has neglected
to do.
We would recommend that the board act as follows, and I'll address each refusal separately.
We recommend granting of variances for the rear yard setback, for the occupied area,
and for the roof deck setback. We recommend that the board grant the variance for bicycle parking.
And then we recommend that the board grant a height variance for height not to exceed 55 feet,
as shown on the amended application, and grant a dwelling unit density variance up to a maximum
of no more than seven dwelling units, which is what would have been allowed under the
previous CMX 2.5 zoning district without any bonuses.
uh if i may address the city planning commission's comments so because this application was originally
If I may address the City Planning Commission's comments.
submitted back in 2020 this wasn't something that we had initially considered for the bonus that was
brought up at our community meeting but my understanding is we'd have to resubmit and
simply this project has been lingering for so long because of the meeting with the community and then
our choice to respond and react to those comments as to affordability to add the additional units
So that's why the density bonus wasn't really taken into consideration.
With respect to the height, again, the height, we're right up against the elevated train.
There's buildings of similar height up and down Front Street at this point, probably
due to when these projects were all zone CMX 2.5, but there's a number of five, six-story
apartment buildings up and down Front Street and Kensington Avenue at this point just to the north
such that this project is not out of scope or out of bounds with anything and just with respect to
the affordability one last time two bedroom units are going to rent for 1750 $2,000 easily which is
what we had originally proposed upon hearing those numbers we went back and we had got to these
smaller studio units which are going to rent for closer to a thousand dollars which was much which
was much better received by the community simply because with the cost of new construction there's
no way that we can make something that's more affordable with only seven units and downgrading
the number of units that we're requesting from our current apps to seven will only continue to
put the squeeze on long-term neighbors in the area and make it even less affordable for them
to live in new construction um and could you go back over your list again yes uh thank you chair
the uh the recommendation from the city planning commission on this application is as follows
we recommend granting of variances for rear yard setback occupied area and roof deck setback
and for bicycle parking we recommend that the board grant a height variance for a height not
to exceed 55 feet and we recommend a unit density variance up to a maximum of seven dwelling units
thank you mi2020-002-336-2222 north front street i vote yes with uh graining a rear yard
interior and bicycle parking height of 55 feet and density of seven dwellings
Thomas Holloman my vote is no. James Snell my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you sir. Thank you Mr. Chair can I just clarify the provisos for the record
you were granting for. Ian will go over them again. Okay so the the rear the rear yard depth
the occupied area you did not mention the roof deck setback i'm sorry roof deck okay and the
bicycle parking um height variance not to exceed 55 feet right and then the seven dwelling units
okay all right thank you mr chair thank you um is there any is there anyone in the audience
who their case has not been heard yet or called?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, everybody.
We are continuing to 2 p.m.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergen, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
You're muted, vice chair.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Ishmael Shaheed, our board secretary.
He should be here.
And James Snell, our board member.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Also here is our executive director, Tanya Sunkit, and our board attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phill.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments should be sent to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkin.
I'm going to take a look at our continuances for this afternoon.
number one