Thank you.
Chairman, we have about 35 people.
You can begin now as you wish.
We are ready.
Good morning.
my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning zba hearings with me is carol tenere
our vice chair present mr chairman ishmael shaheed our board secretary
he's here yeah he was just here thomas holliman art board member present mr chairman
also here is our executive director tanya sunkett and our board attorney hillary emerson
our virtual format be advised proceedings are being recorded by participating your knowledge
agreement to record it a video will be available by contacting tanya sunkett at phila .gov for the
benefit of our court sonographer we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before
testify. If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute. To enter the appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property in question. And last, please note the question answer box
is not for testimony or comments. Any comments have to be directed to our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkiff. Now, before we start today and look at continuances,
I want to read a few statements to you.
effective july 18 2022 if the case is continued attorney or applicant moving parties the attorney
or applicant has 90 days from that date the case is continued to either request a hearing date
ask for an extension of moving moving party status or withdraw the case if the zba staff
is not contacted by the end of the 90 -day period, the case will automatically be listed for a new
hearing. Please note that extensions for moving party status must be sent to Executive Director
Tanya Sunkit with Board Attorney Hillary Emerson copied. Second statement, ZBA staff is currently
sending out letters to list the applicants on appeals filed prior to 2019. If the case has
been pending in a hold status. If the applicant or their attorney does not contact the ZBA staff
to discuss the next steps for their case, within the time period stated in the letter, the case
will be considered abandoned and administratively closed. Any questions about this, either of the
policies should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett, and our Board Attorney,
Hillary Emerson. So let's look at continuances for the day. Number three, MI 2022, 003 -585 -1500 -30
East Dairy Avenue. That case is continued. And number 14, MI 2022 -000 -479 -8917
Revere Street. That case is continued. Both those cases are continued.
Does anyone have any questions about those two cases?
i see no hands chair are there any other requests for continuance
i see no hands chair thank you we also have
five cases that are being rescheduled the cases are being rescheduled to tuesday
october 18th at 9 30 a .m number seven mi 2020
at 9 .30 a .m. Number seven, MI 2022, 001 -644 -448 -52 -Rawne Street, Parcel D. Number eight, MI 2022,
001 -642 -448 -52, Braun Street. Number 9, MI 2022, 001 -638 -451, Braun Street. MI 2022, 001 -641 -451,
Rawn Street, and number 11, MI 2022 -001 -637. Those cases will be heard on October 18th at 9 30 a .m.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just wanted to note on the last case, number 11, the address is
518 Hartel Avenue. Thank you very much.
number eight, MI 2022
000477228
North 63rd Street, the Pritzker Law Firm.
Is either of the attorneys there, here?
Chair, we have Brandon
Savron. Okay. Good morning,
Good morning, Brandon. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Brandon Saverin, B -R -A -N -D -O -N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
So, Brandon, this case is going to be continued. The exhibits didn't come in too late last night, and we just, we can't go through them when we get them that late.
So the case will be continued, and Mark must be tried.
Okay, I apologize, Mr. Chair.
No, no, that's okay.
That was caused by the RCO meeting summary coming in yesterday as well and having deficiencies, but I understand.
So, Hillary, do you want to add to that?
Yeah, no, I just wanted to make a note for the record.
Well, I appreciate council waiting until they have a complete packet to submit.
I really encourage counsel, if you want to move forward on a case, to submit what you have within the five -day deadline and then just supplement as you receive additional information.
Because if I don't have anything, hold on one second, please.
If I don't have anything to start with, I can't be reviewing everything at the last minute.
The board, I just don't have time to review and then go over it with the board.
So I just want to make note of that for the record.
I appreciate your comment. And I think the confusion here, and it's not to say it will fix the situation, but because this is a continuance, you already had the plans from the April hearing, the only real change of substance was a reduction in units, there's no like physical change to the plans.
that's why i didn't resubmit them without the rco letter because the rco letter is essentially what
we were waiting on but you need to be able to do your job and if that wasn't possible given
the circumstances i understand um so and i i wasn't i wasn't aware of any exhibits being
previously submitted so yes this because this was a continued hearing they were submitted with the
original hearing which was on april 20th okay all right we're gonna we're gonna continue this
Brandon. And, you know, they must be tried. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any question for withdrawals?
Chair, we have Stacey McCoy. Okay.
Hi, good morning. I just have a question about the... Wait a minute. Could you state your name,
please and spell for the court reporter? Sure. Stacey McCoy, I, S -T -A -C -E -Y, M -C -C -O -Y,
and as in Nancy, D as in David, I -A -Y -E. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. What case do you want to talk about?
The one we're talking about now. Yes. Number five, 220, 228, North 63rd.
yes all right so that case is we know there was people in the audience for that case
but we have to continue it because we didn't get all the packages for it till late last night
and we just couldn't process it we're going to continue it and its mark must be heard so the
next time it has to go on and we're sorry you came down and waited for the case no no worries
i just had a question i'm not sure if it's appropriate but how do we get a copy of the
rco letter the resident um this is i think what you should do is contact yeah hillary go ahead
hillary yeah i mean you can um if you were in attendance at the rco meeting you can
Yeah, I mean, you can, if you were in attendance at the RCO meeting, you can contact the RCO for a copy of the letter.
Counsel for the applicant could also provide it for you.
And once it is received by the zoning board, it is a matter of public record and you can request to see the file.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
All right, we're going to go to our add -on case, MI 2020 -001 -129 -6134, Carpenter Street.
The board dismissed this case at the start of the 930 -aim list on Wednesday, August 10th.
The applicant was present for the hearing, but not able to communicate her presence to the board.
This matter will be continued and will be marked, must be heard next time.
going to go to our first case of the day because of scheduling issues we're going to start
with number six mi 2022 000 474 298 delmar street al knockamson is the attorney
mr knockamson is coming back in as a panelist
good morning mr chair good morning mr knockamson um could you state your name and spell please for
the court reporter yes alan a -l -a -n last name knockamson n -o -c -h -u -m -s -o -n 1 -2 -3 south broad
Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19109. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Could you identify your client and
relationship to the property, please? Yes. My client is NHA Development LLC, and in the virtual
audience, I have its member, Tony Chabon. Thank you. Our Vice Chair, Carol Scenari, has a few
questions. Good morning. 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 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? Yes, in all respects.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Alan, a real quick question. Do you have an updated letter or just the original letter from the RCO?
Just the original letter. I wasn't worried if there was an updated letter. I do know that there was another RCO, I believe a Democratic ward that may have sent something while I've been away from my office, but I have the original letter or I think the only letter from the coordinating RCO.
Right. And since then, you have three amended, you've amended three different issues, right?
We have. We have.
All right. Okay. Proceed.
All right. Well, first of all, I would like to thank the board for accommodating my schedule.
I am on vacation, so I appreciate that. I do apologize for the relaxed attire. I realized
when I got here that I did not have a collared shirt, so I do apologize for the relaxed attire.
I would like to say this is the first time I'm presenting a zoning matter in Europe, off the North American government, so hopefully it doesn't affect my presentation.
Well, we are jealous, just so you know. Very jealous.
Well, I'm in Scotland, and it's raining, so.
I know. Well, good. You'll have a good time. Don't worry.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. So let's get this over with. 298 Del Mar Street. So you'll see from this presentation that we did try to accommodate many of the technical refusals we have. We're proposing three single family size, three single family dwellings on this considerably sized lot in the, I would say, Roxborough -ish area of Philadelphia.
The rendering is a little bit different than what our now new layout is.
Instead of having the building set back, we are now having them flush with the building facades to the left and right of us.
As indicated, we have an original notice of refusal, and then we did amend it.
So if this board is inclined to grant our pending zoning appeal, I would ask that there would be a proviso specifically referencing the new zoning permit application number.
We have correspondence from Ridge Park Civic Association, and we'll go over that and we'll respond directly to their concerns.
They reference another project, 311 -13 Delmar Street, as
They reference another project, 311 -13 Delmar Street, as a guide to what we should do, and I'll explain why that does not make sense under our circumstances.
And then I'll also show what they're asking us to do and how it may not make sense in terms of an actual feasibility standpoint, from a feasibility standpoint, with 283 Delmar Street, which was foreclosed upon on March 17, 2022.
Go over maps of the area, including the width of our property, proposed structures as compared to nearby properties, and show why we're asking for three single -family dwelling units with front -loading garages.
Photographs of the property in the surrounding area.
Again, the photographs you'll see is similar to what, you know, the properties on our side of the street are similar to what we're asking for in terms of front -loading garages, curb cuts, things like that.
So what we're asking for is not out of character.
We go through our plans and drawings, our original submission versus our updated submission.
Our meeting notice, we did meet with the community some time ago.
We took what they said to heart.
We did our best to eliminate as many refusals as possible, but to keep the front -loading
garage and the off -street parking, which is contextual in nature to the surrounding area.
Our application for appeal, our deed to the property, showing that NHA Development LLC
is the owner of the property, and our Certificate of Tax Clearance showing that it's in good
standing with the City of Philadelphia with respect to this property.
Again, in the virtual audience is Tony Chabon, the member of NHA Development, LLC, along with the architect with this project, Logan Drey of KCA Design Associates.
so as you can um mr knockamson just one second i just wanted to interject that we um we did
receive a letter from um lou agar the chair of the 21st democratic ward in opposition um his
his stance was that there should be two homes built by right with a shared driveway and parking
in the rear um it does appear from the letter that he was he was looking at an older version of of
the proposal as well, because he references the homes being set back further than you just
indicated they now would be. So I just want to note that for the record, we did receive that.
Yes. And I just would like to say that after the vote with the community, we did, and we even
offered to move the homes forward. So again, they have known that after receiving that vote,
that we would move the homes forward to try to, you know, meet the zoning requirements the best
we can, choosing the least modification possible under the Philadelphia zoning code, which is the
legal standard here. And then the context, you know, the contextual nature of this also goes
to, you know, whether, you know, we have proven our case of undue hardship, as well as the
feasibility of building homes the way that would be required under the code. And that's why, you
we'll show during our presentation why it would be an undue burden for us to strictly conform to the
code. But this is the original notice of refusal. It's dated January 13, 2022. And all we're trying
to do is subdivide a rather large lot into three single -family homes. And we had several refusals.
first regarding the curb cuts. We had curb cuts of a bigger size than it's allowed by the
Roxborough Overlay District. We were proposing 23 feet as to one and 13 feet six inches as to
another. As you'll see from our newer refusal, we only have 12 foot curb cuts, which would be
in compliance with the Overlay District. The next Overlay District item is the habitable space is
required at the front of the first floor, whereas the front of the first floor in our three parcels
taken up by a private residence parking garage, that there's no change you'll see from that
refusal. The third refusal deals with impervious surface coverage. Again, we wanted to have the
setback, have some green space, but then some impervious space as well. The neighborhood was
disinclined uh to that design aspect of it so instead we moved the building structures in line
with the building facades so left and right of us so you'll see that we we eliminated that refusal
as well uh the fourth refusal was accessory parking for any single family use in an attached
building structure shall be prohibited unless it could be accessed by a shared driveway alley or
rear yards, whereas the proposed accessory parking is assessed from Delmar Street, a legally open
street at the front of the lot. We did keep, you know, with our revised plans, that refusal. But again,
we did keep you know as with our revised plans that refusal but again contextually it's not
uncommon on our block next door essentially uh to have such a use uh again we'll look at that
the fifth refusal the required front step back for the proposed structure shall be between
four and a half well basically there was supposed to be it can't be you know set back
and we were sending it back by you know having now the building structure flush
with the buildings to the left and right of us, we get rid of those refusals.
So based on listening to the community, to some degree, not completely, admittedly, but to some
degree, we try to get rid of all the refusals that we believe we can deal with getting rid of.
But ultimately, this comes down to this. We're allowed to have three single -family homes,
one on each of these lots. Dimensionally, we have no issues here. What we're asking for
is simply off -street parking by way of a front -loading garage, and that's not out of character to what
is required in a neighborhood, and you'll see from the letter that was sent to us by the Ridge
Park Civic Association, which I assume that the ZBA and its council reviewed, we were called greedy.
They were stating that we can have two single -family homes 23 feet wide and have a curb
cut to the right. Instead of three single family homes, single family homes, approximately 17 feet
wide each with front loading garages. And you'll see from, you know, our response by way of this
presentation, that we're not being greedy, we're being practical here. Because we, there is
conceptually about building something, but there's also the practicality of it of whether we can sell
it or not um and in their letter they reference specifically 309 311 and 313 delmar street as a
guide to what you know we should be doing that is three single family homes with a curb cut a common
driveway that lot was significantly wider than ours which is 69 feet wide right our lot is only
of 49 and let's see like almost 50 feet wide right so we're a much narrower lot than them
and they were able to build three we're only under those circumstances able to build two
where in this lot they were building uh building structures which were on lots that were 23 feet
wide which would be out of character to the neighborhood and we'll show you that that like
we actually took off of Atlas, you know, what typically is on Anasari a lot from a wit
standpoint is exactly what we're offering there. But more importantly, what you'll see is that,
and I attached the drawings, the architect who happens to be our architect for this project was
also the architect for this other project. And he's in a virtual audience, and he can answer
any questions but it's mixing apples and oranges this is a much larger lot 309 311 and 313 delmar
compared to 298 delmar and if we were trying to you know squeeze a project up like this which is
on a much wider lot it wouldn't make practical sense and from a from another point of view is
I actually looked it up on the internet actually today to see where 309, 311, and 313 Delmar Street
was in terms of selling. And according to realtor .com, 309 and 313 Delmar Street
have been listed for sale since November 5th of 2021. And there's no indication of public record
that those properties have been sold. So those properties have been on the market, those extra
large wide lots which are probably out of sorts and out of character for this neighborhood have
been on the market for over nine months which again the market has slowed down but to have
properties to be on the market for over nine months seems like this neighborhood doesn't want
you know properties that big with a single uh shared drive aisle and and during our community
meeting actually one of the community members actually stated as such indicating that they were
that they were in favor of actually having the original design we wanted because what they
stated was that Roxborough is a family -oriented community and that one of the reasons why people
move to Roxborough is because of their lush backyards and by having this single drive aisle
to go to the rear of the property
to go to the rear of the property and then to have basically a paved driveway in the rear would take
and then to have basically a paved driveway.
away from that family atmosphere because you would have concrete jungles in the back and they prefer
to actually have grass in the back and grass in the front and that's why we originally agreed you
know originally designed this project to have a little bit of grass in the front and to actually
have it so that the backyards would be fully grass but while this community wanted to have it another
way. And it hasn't sold so far, two of the three units. And then another example is 283 Delmar
Streets. So we looked up 283 Delmar Street, right? So this is what they want us to build.
They want us to build, if we only could build something as of rights, it would be three single
family homes with no parking at all associated with this property. They would have to park on
the street. 283 Delmar Street, which is across the street from us, was foreclosed upon in March of
2022. Again, my understanding is this neighborhood has significant parking issues.
And to not have parking associated with a house causes an issue with the sellability of homes.
So we don't want a home too big, which makes no sense because no one wants to buy a home that big because no one wants to pay those prices in this neighborhood.
We don't want a home in this neighborhood with no off -street parking because it seems like homes in this neighborhood, which don't have that parking, people are not as interested into moving into this neighborhood.
and typically people don't allow properties to go in foreclosure especially if it's easy to sell
like this property went into foreclosure and according to the public records this property
went to foreclosure for five hundred thousand dollars if they could sell it excuse me i i'm
sorry for interrupting you but do you have an updated rco letter i i don't i don't okay yeah
Yeah. No, I do not. And then this goes into my presentation as well. Now they say it's basically they have a policy of not supporting these front loading garages.
And I know I have appeared in front of this group before, but it's not a blanket policy. Like in two instances, at least this board has approved it. But I know one instance, 4736 Sheldon Street, under calendar number 33799, this board approved a variance for a front -loading garage setback on Sheldon Street June 20th.
2018. This RCO actually supported that project. I'm the one that presented it. It was with V2
properties. And the reason why they supported it is because they believed it was contextual
in nature, right? So they obviously don't support where it doesn't make sense, right? If you walk
by the property built or used as proposed, does it stick out like a sore thumb or is it something
that fits within the fabric in the neighborhood? We're not asking to put front -loading garages
on a block where those don't exist, right?
We're asking to put front -loading garages on a block
where they do exist, a lot of them.
So, and we'll go -
Alan, why don't you show us the rest of the block, Alan?
Okay, yeah.
So this is our zoning map.
So I just wanted to point out here,
if you see it, this side of the street,
this is our property, this side of the street,
and you can see a little better.
they're all 16 .67 16 .91 17 feet wide right what they're asking us is do 23 feet wide it's actually
24 and a half feet wide two single family structures 24 and a half feet wide where we're
allowed three single family structures so we're asking for what kind of makes sense on this block
I just want to point that out but photographs so this is the front of our property right single
family a lot we're also behind between two two -story structures so we're you know to meet
the physical and dimensional limitations of the zoning code we have to be set back right which
adds another layer of complexity that's why it's so important for us to have those front loading
garages here but and here's Delmar Street to the right of the property Delmar Street to the left
of the property you can see there's a real parking issue here I mean it's very very tight here and
you know parking is at a premium but here 288 and 290 delmar street same essentially the same
width as our property now we were proposing to set it back not that back but we were saying set
but we were saying set it back kind of give some greenery things like that but the width of the
it back kind of give some greenery things like that but the width
properties are no more than 17 feet wide 288 and 290 delmar street and then here's the rest of the
2000 block of delmar street see what we're offering is not out of character to this this neighborhood
so again we're not trying to you know to do something that doesn't make sense and that's not
And then, you know, NHA development, they're well known developers. They've developed dozens of, you know, they've developed dozens of single family homes in the Philadelphia region, well known for their quality. I always like to just show the board and the community, like the quality of work product.
But here's their kitchen. I mean, there's a bathroom. Here's a bedroom, you know, nice light and air. Example of a kitchen, another bathroom, you know, just their staircases, another bathroom. So they believe in high quality products.
and then again this is the rendering that you saw before as you can see we're set back on the third
floor to be in conformance with you know with our requirements under the code which adds a level
of complexity originally we just wanted to add a little bit of you know trees and greenery but we
get it they don't want that in terms of setting it back they wanted more you know additional like
just to walk down the block and see a row of building structures, and we accommodated that.
And by doing that, and by changing the size of our curb cuts, we went from five refusals down
to two refusals. And then these are our original plans. Again, we were set back.
Oops, let me just. No, oops, sorry.
these are original plans we were set back the original site plan this was the amended site plan
and again we got authorization from the zba to file this appeal not saying that they're granting
it but authorization to refile a new zoning permit application so again as a as in an abundance of
caution if this board is inclined to grant it i would ask by way of proviso and specifically
reference the zoning permit number for the amended refusal and then this is just our survey you know
showing how we're breaking up a lot. And then simply stated, this is just our floor plans.
You know, each of the units will have a front -loading garage, and they'll have their
living room and kitchen on the first floor. There is a lower level for an additional living room
and bathroom down there. And then the second floor is two bedrooms, one in the front of Delmar,
one in the rear, and then two baths. And then the third story is a master suite.
And then we met with the community on April 12th at 7 p .m. As you can see, this was the original
refusal. There were five of them. And then 107 neighbors were notified of the community meeting.
here to list the addresses
proof of mailing of those addresses our application for appeal
and our detail property showing the NHA development LLC purchased a property
along with our certificate of tax clearance.
One other thing I did not note
is that this board has granted
a similar variance request
and the property address is 341 Delmar Street
under MI -2020 -000750
on September 10th of 2020.
So again, this board has granted a similar request
for this type of front -loading garage and off -street parking.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Siobhan virtually raise his hand,
be sworn in, he can adopt my testimony, and then me, him, and Mr. Dry,
who's also in the virtual audience, can answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Siobhan is free to speak.
Yes, good morning, Your Honor.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
My name is Tony Shaban, S -H -A -B -A -N.
I am a member of NHA Development LLC.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Siobhan, you heard everything I stated today.
Mr. Shaban, you heard everything I stated today.
Is it true and correct?
Is it true and correct?
Correct.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
I'm sorry?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
All right.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i would ask that mr dry also virtually raise his hand just to indicate the you know again
the reasons why we're um submitting this uh proposal as opposed to an as of right scenario
was that the architect yes mr um okay mr dryer is uh free to speak excuse me
Hi, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Sure. Logan Dry, L -O -G -A -N -D -R -Y, KCA Design Associates.
All right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Yes, from a feasibility and functionality standpoint, Mr. Dry, why are we proposing to have this type of project rather than an as -of -right project?
um i mean it sort of goes to what you mentioned before and again i don't want to get you know
too far into it because you did a pretty good job explaining you know comparisons to the other del
mar properties um you know when we were looking at 309 11 and 13 compared to this property you
know those homes are sort of contextually on a little bit of an island of their own in terms of
the lot widths you know they have three streets around them um when we looked at 298 you know we
looked at the lot areas and obviously subdivided based upon a by right subdivision and that worked
out to be you know three lots that are roughly the same size as lots directly adjacent you know
it's the thinking that at one point or another there probably were three lots there so you know
the approach we took there obviously we couldn't take the same approach as the wider homes because
if we did a drive mile underneath you know the width of the ground floor and basement of two of
those homes would be extremely narrow if not unusable and again it's always just easier to
have the vehicles front load into a garage from a from a safety and usability standpoint than it is
to you know drive underneath the building and then really have to pave most if not all of the rear
yard just to get the turning radiuses and things like that to work so you know we sort of started
with context in terms of the lot size and then you know went in with some setbacks in terms of
the front setback and everything else. And, you know, based on our feedback, you know,
pulled, pulled the buildings forward, make them a little bit more contextual so that they line
up with what's there. But we still really felt that the parking made sense there based on,
you know, other homes that have it as well as just, you know, the, the adjacent properties.
Thank you. Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
And it's about, let's see, it's five bars there in front of the houses.
And then where your empty lot is right now, there was only one house with the yard, and that was it.
The guy who owned it just before it was sold, he cut his own driveway in there in the yard.
But there was only one house on that property.
So it was never three properties.
And now they're proposed eight houses right across the street from there.
So, the area is saturated with houses.
It's, you know, you're basically trying to fit 10 pounds of potatoes in a two -pound bag.
Mr. Janicek, may I ask a question of Mr. Janicek?
I think, did I hear correctly that there was a curve cut on this property at one point?
i don't know whether it was in with the city that the gentleman who lived there
he put his own driveway in okay again that's one of the issues mr chair with the you know
with the streets department there's not a clear record of like which are legal curb cuts and
which are illegal curb cuts right but there is it sounds like there is a history of having curb
cuts on this property i'm not stating it was legal early there's no curb cut there's there's
no sidewalk there's no curb there's just dirt yeah but i think what he's saying is you said
the guy had a curb cut there before where he parked his car that's all he's saying yeah and
yeah and mr chair his other testimony has to go with density and we're allowed to have three
single family homes the only variance we're asking for is a curb cut right okay for all
intents purposes mr mr janicek thank you so much for calling in we appreciate okay is there anyone
else in the virtual audience yes chair we have paul tone excuse me paul toner
thank you very much hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
paul toner t -o -n -e -r with orphanese and toner we're counsel for the ridge park civic association
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. And I also have the president of Ridge Park, Marlene Schliefer, available today to address and update the letter that was submitted to the board.
But before we call her to testify, I just wanted to just to go over some of the statements made by Mr.
Nocklinson and Mr. Dry. First of all, significant focus was made on whether 23 feet was in context
of the community, or as Mr. Nocklinson said, out of character with the neighborhood.
In terms of neighborhood testimony, the applicant has an operating neighborhood testimony as to what
is or was what is not in context with the neighborhood. In fact, the neighborhood through
the Ridge Park Civic Association very clearly is opposed to this project and has not raised any
issues with the width of the lots being in any way out of context. Also, the new RCO has also
similarly opposed this project and the issue of the 23 feet has not come up whatsoever. The only
person who is raising an issue with the 23 feet is the developer who is seeking to develop what
he wants which is the three units um without the um without the drive aisle and parking at the rear
in terms of what was requested of the applicant uh that there be two lots of the shared driveway
with the parking put in the back um mr knockison kept on using the word practical sense
importantly he didn't say that it was an engineering issue or a zoning issue or
an economic issue. There was no quantifiable testimony on the reasonable feasible project.
What was practical from a developer standpoint does not equate to heightened burden for
an unnecessary hardship and the minimum variance that will afford relief.
in terms of the neighborhood concerns with parking um mr nakamson and mr dry both acknowledge that
there is a real insignificant parking issue in this community uh there is no dispute that these
lots or these streets are overwhelmed with cars and that every developer comes in has been and
should be asked to address parking
in the best manner possible.
The best manner possible here
is to put as much parking as possible behind the homes
so that there's only one curb cut. As the board is very well aware, the inclusion of multiple
so that there is only one curb cut,
as the board is very well aware.
curb cuts, three curb cuts, is going to eliminate numerous on -street parking spaces that are
available for the public, the public that my client represents, and is here on behalf of today.
And with that, I'd like to call Mr. Schliefer just to briefly...
all right could could she have raised her hand please
hi good morning everyone hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
my name is marlene schleicher i am the president of breach park civic and i'm also the rco rep
Okay. Could you do me a favor? Spell your name, please, for the court reporter.
Sure. It's S -C -H -L -E -I -F -E -R.
All right. Do you swear if we're going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
When we met with the developer and Mr. Nachutzen, they made it clear, or tried to, that this development was contextual, which it absolutely is not.
You can see that the houses on either side are pulled up to the street and are very old homes.
I also find it interesting that Mr. Nahudson mentioned 283 Delmar, because it is part of the three homes that have parking on the rear.
They do not have to park on the street.
It was a by -right stability.
Also, although he may have sent out notices to over 100 people, we had very few in attendance
at our meeting because their Zoom link was incorrect in the notice.
What we wanted was a reasonable project with parking in the rear.
And we feel that that is absolutely reasonable.
I would be happy to send in a revised letter from the Civic, but we did not know the developers' plans were changed until last Thursday.
That was when we were told that the number of variances had gone down from five to two.
front -loaded garages are not permitted by the city zoning code or by our
nco nor do we allow for an unhabitable room on the first floor
So there's absolutely no reason why they can't build two homes, pull them up to the street, and have a drive aisle that will allow both homeowners to park in the rear.
Do you have any questions for me?
Mr. Alckmson?
Yeah, a couple things.
First of all, in terms of the policy of this RCO, again, I know from firsthand experience that at 4736 Sheldon Street, this RCO and the ZBA subsequently as well supported a zoning variance request for off -street parking in a front -loading garage when it's contextual in nature.
And that's under calendar number.
This is not contextual in nature.
Then, then, but I will, I would like to share my screen again, and let me just do the screen, oops, and again, 288 and 290 Del Mar Streets, and then the remainder of the block of the 2 ,000 block of Del Mar Street.
And all of those homes were built before the change in the zoning code.
Miss, I didn't interrupt you. So I just wanted to present this, you know, to the board and, you know, feel free to respond afterwards. But all of these homes do have off -street parking.
As far as not giving the, you know, Ms. Schaefer, like, notice of, you know, our change in plans, as, you know, the chair knows that we need to ask for authorization from the ZBA to have a change in plans.
asked for authorization from the ZBA to have a change in plans of this sort.
And we submitted this letter on May 10th, 2022, soon after we had our community meeting.
And in the letter, we specifically state what we're planning to do.
And in that letter, and I apologize if Ridge Park Civic Association didn't get it,
but we emailed that letter to them.
So they were well aware since May of 2022, what our intention was. And if, you know, then we received.
I had the letter, the authorization letter from the ZBA, you know, directly citing my letter of May 10th of 2022.
okay all right all right all right so so is there anyone else in this and by the way ma 'am
thank you for calling in we appreciate your input is there anyone else in the virtual audience that
has a comment i see no handshare planning commission good morning mr chairman and
members of the board gave effecto f -e -c -t -e -a -u with the city planning commission
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do proceed all right thank you sir uh the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the residential single family zoning at this location the ridge park rocksboro neighborhood
conservation overlay was created in 2015 and amended in 2017 at the request of the civic
associations to avoid the type of off -street parking that existed on this block prior to the
passage of the zoning overlay. The applicant has failed to show that a hardship exists that
would prevent the lot from being used in conformance with the zoning code, and so the City
Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed variances. For everyone involved, I really
want to take this under consideration i want to have an executive session meeting with the board
and really talk about it um hillary i would like to do this next wednesday is that possible
i guess that's fine mr chair next wednesday august 24th at 9 30. okay so we'll we'll vote
next wednesday and thanks for everyone for calling in mr knockerson thank you for
pulling in on vacation too thank you everyone all right have a great day have a good vacation
number two mi 2022 002 915 126 pierce street anthony lowendowski is the owner pro se
um letter of non -opposition from penn's port civic association letter of non -opposition from
Council Member Squilla, applicant submitted letters of support from seven neighbors from the 100 block
of Pierce Street. Mr. Lewandowski. Okay, am I ready? Mr. Lewandowski, please state your name
and spell for the court reporter, please. My name is Anthony Lewandowski. It's L -E -W -A -N -D -O -W -S -K -I.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions for you, Mr. Lomondowski.
Hi, good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Excuse me, Carol, can you read the refusal into the record since it's the pro se case?
Do you have it? If not, I can read it.
I have the application for a partial demolition at the rear and for the erection of an addition
at the rear to an existing attached building
for the use as a single -family household living
size and location as shown on plans.
There's one zoning refusal.
This application is being refused
for exceeding the permitted maximum lot area
in the RSA 5 zoning district.
75 % is permitted and 77 .08 is proposed.
do you agree to waive the rating of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes is he is he no he's not you're an owner per se so strike that have you emailed an 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? Yes. Okay you may proceed and begin to share your screen. Thank you. Thank you.
thank you thank you who do i need to share
the green button at the bottom green button okay
and mr chair i apologize i just continued to believe he was an attorney
gosh oh yeah
okay now start telling us what you want to do
what what what i want to do my uh my wall was collapsing and i i i had to take the wall down
because i was getting wall water in my house so so what i want to do is just replace what was
already existing okay so all right so you're not changing the lot line right initially that's where
the wall was yeah right okay so all right go through go through all your documents
uh where uh all right let me get through this
it's just
getting them up now
that's the existing house
this is my this is my house right here right okay
so the back walls the one was coming down yeah i was getting water it my house was basically
separating uh the addition well this back of the house was the walls were pulling off and i was
getting water in my house okay they threw the pipes i don't know from underground
so they fixed it i mean it has it had to be fixed
i'll continue
all right let me get the next picture
that's the inside of the house
that's the back wall
and that's where the back wall originally was too
you didn't enlarge it
it looks smaller
I don't know
it's the one on the foundation
I'm not an expert with that
What else do you need?
These are my posters.
there was the letters that we sent out regarding me that's the front of the property there yeah
oh okay yes that's the front yes okay
all right all right all right all right all right okay so
so your wall was bad you're repairing the wall and the walls are a couple percentage points
bigger than what it should be out out further where it always was is that what you're saying
yes yes yes okay all right questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you sir good morning david vecto city planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the single family zoning at this location
the requested variance would be only about a two percent deviation from the occupied area
provisions of the code this is a minor dimensional variance that will meet the spirit and intent of
the code and will not impair the use of adjacent property the city planning commission recommends
that the board grant the dimensional variance for required open area thank you david mi 2022
122 -002 -915 -126, Pierce Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Number four, MI 2022, 002 -823 -2121 Delancey Street.
Robert Careless is the attorney.
Mr. Careless is coming back in as a panelist.
letter of non -opposition from the center city residents association
letter of support from adjacent neighbor at 2119 delancey street
good morning mr chairman members of the board hi hi could you state your name please and spell
for the court reporter robert careless c -a -r -e -l -e -s -s 1650 market street philadelphia pa
All right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Would you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Sure. I'm here on behalf of the Lancy Properties LLC. The Lancy Properties LLC is owned by William
and Judy Bollinger, and Mr. Bollinger is with me today.
Okay. Our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Certainly.
Good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do on both.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of this property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Okay, great. You may proceed, and I see you've started to share your screen, so that's good.
In the interest of time, I'm just going to note for the record that we submitted 17 exhibits to the board.
I'm going to take the board through a few of these exhibits, but I'd ask that all of them be incorporated into the record today.
Thank you.
Just to orient the boards to where we are, again, this is 2121 Delancey Place.
As you can see from the bottom picture here, 2121 Delancey spans the block from Delancey back to Cyprus.
It is bounded by South 22nd Street and South 21st Street.
This is an image of the rear of the subject property with a front view of the neighboring 2126 Cypress Street.
What we are proposing here is a roof deck above an approved carport, which I will show renderings of the approved carport momentarily.
2126 is owned by mr and mrs bollinger's son douglas we are proposing to construct this deck
above uh the the carport of 2121 for the use of 2126 which again i'll explain in a moment
um we have an easement agreement in um between the two owners um that will allow 2126 to utilize
um this this roof deck along with an existing parking space in the car court
This is just a view looking east on Cypress Street for the board's orientation.
And as you can see here, Cypress Street is effectively a rear alley in this section.
Even though we have a car up on the sidewalk here, there's no on -street parking in this area
of Cypress Street. And this is an emphasis of you looking west on Cypress Street.
say mark does exhibit a7 in my packet this is a letter from dr abrams um who is mrs bollinger's
uh doctor um what's driving the request for this deck is in part mrs bollinger's unfortunate
um uh battle with myelofibrosis which in her situation is unfortunately progressive and
irreversible. As you can see, that's outlined in the letter from Dr. Abrams. Mrs. Bollinger suffers
from conditions such as anemia, substantial fatigue, shortness of breath, and at times
chest pain. It's very difficult for Mrs. Bollinger to climb stairs and also even just to walk flat
city blocks. Mrs. Bollinger, the intent is that Mrs. Bollinger will reside at 2126 when she's
Philadelphia for treatment. The intent of the terrace would be that she'd have access to natural
light and fresh air as she's battling her condition. And the idea is that the deck as constructed above
the carport would be on the same level as the main living space in 2126 that Mrs. Bollinger can just
simply walk outside and get some light and fresh air versus having to battle stairs or even walk
down and have to walk around the city. I like to show the board, these are just perspectives
and renderings. You can see I mentioned there's an enhancement to the carport that was approved
already. The intent is that we would really green up the
The intent is that we would really green up the proposed deck, if granted, which we respectfully assert would be aesthetically pleasing to the community, an enhancement that would otherwise be unused space in this property.
um you can see that the it's these are beautiful renderings by our architects peter zim and
architects and i have mr sean narkom on behalf of pz architects that will um that will speak to you
in a moment but um we would respectfully assert that these are in character with the community
um and you can see here this is just an image from the board's perspective if the deck was not
approved um this is looking across directly across the street um from the neighboring property
and again without and you can see here this is just really unusable space here
this is image looking west on cypress street
without and again this is more of an image looking west but also just an aerial view you
can see here the space here with the greenery which again as i said we believe is an enhancement
to this area of the city the community and this block in particular and then without here
um so our relief that we're requesting is twofold here um the code does not permit
roof decks above accessory structures which requires a variance request from the property
owner um roof decks are also required to be set back five feet from the building line here as you
can see the the carport is right up to the building line here we do have seven inches on
setback but we are requesting a variance from that five foot separation for the deck here
again this is not obviously a commercial roof deck or anything of the like this is a residential deck
that is above essentially a rear alley of this page of this section of the city
just to show the board that what we're requesting is not out of character with the surrounding area
this is in fact the same street just just further east you can see here that we have roof decks
that are existing above accessory structures,
these garages or carports, whatever they may be.
You can see three properties in particular
are called out here, 2103 Delancey,
2101 Delancey, and 316 South 21st Street.
And again, this is just a different perspective
from there just to show the board
that granting the variances if the board is so inclined
would not be out of character with the surrounding area.
Exhibit A -12, we did meet with Center City Residents Association on June 28th.
We have a letter of non -opposition from CCRA.
Exhibit A -13 is a letter of support, as the chairman indicated in his opening remarks,
from our neighbor at 2119 Delancey Place, Sean and Tracy Dowling.
And that is the property on the other side of 2121 Delancey.
Again, 2126 is owned by Mr. Bollinger's son, so effectively we have non -opposition support from both sides of us.
In addition to the required community notice for the RCO meeting that we sent out that's in my packet,
we did have an additional outreach effort to the immediate neighbors on behalf of Mr. Bollinger by Peter Zimmerman Architects.
And this is just an invitation to learn more about what we were proposing so that the community can understand our proposed application.
Just go back up here for one moment.
And then just just to summarize, I know I'm conscious of the board's time, so I won't go through the all the other exhibits.
But again, I requested they be part of the record.
And I'd like just to close by arguing respectfully to the board that these are minimum variances that are in order to achieve, again, the hardship that's created by Mrs. Bollinger's condition in the physical layout of the property.
um this variance if granted would not be out of continuity with the spirit and the purpose of the
zoning code um there would be no adverse impact or any impact whatsoever to public streets or
otherwise in danger the health safety and welfare of the community uh this variance would not
substantially or permanently ignore the use of adjacent properties um again our we respectfully
assert that this is an enhancement to the community and they're very aesthetically pleasing
um and as i noted we also have letters of support from properties on the other side of us
um this the variances if they're granted would not have any impact on transportation or impact
any sort of public facilities of the of the city nor would they create any environmental damage
or increase the danger of flooding or pollution and as i mentioned you know we would respectfully
assert that the hardship here is in the physical layout of the property and it would require Mrs.
Bollinger to have to climb stairs in order to access fresh light or fresh air and adequate
light as she's battling her very serious and very substantial condition. And we hope that the board
very serious and very substantial condition, and we hope that the board would take that into
would take that.
consideration as it contemplates our requested variances here. I have Mr. Sean Narcom from PZ
Architects. If I could just ask him to raise his hand and come off mute just to adopt my testimony,
Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. Go ahead. Thank you. Mr. Narcom, you're free to speak.
Good morning, everyone. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hi, this is Sean Narcom with Peter Zimmerman Architects, S -E -A -N -N -A -R -C -U -M.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Careless.
Mr. Narcom, did you hear my presentation and testimony to the board just now?
I did, yes.
And if given the opportunity, would you have adopted that testimony as if it were your own?
I would, yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I just have one other witness.
Mr. Bollinger is in the audience.
Could I just ask Mr. Bollinger to use the raise hand function and come off mute?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is William Bollinger.
It's B -O -L -L -I -N -G -E -R.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bollinger, good morning.
Did you hear my testimony and presentation of the board just now?
Yes, I did.
And Mr. Bollinger, would you adopt and affirm that testimony as if it were your own today?
Yes, I would.
I thought it was an excellent presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Bollinger.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning of this location.
The applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship exists that would require a roof deck to enable the applicant to continue to use the property.
However, a roof deck at this location also will not impair the use of adjacent properties.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the Board approve the use variance for a roof deck and the variance from the code required by setback from the front of the property line.
um hold on one minute here hold on i lost my screen one minute i'll be right with you
here we go
sorry guys
do you want me to read it for you and then i'm good i just i just lost one minute here first
where the heck i lost my screen a minute here be right with you i'm sorry
mi 2022 002 823 2121 delancey place i vote yes arlton airing my vote is yes thomas halliman my
vote is yes ishbil shahi my vote is yes thank you council thank you members of the board mr
chairman have a nice rest of your morning here number 12 mi 2022 001 686 6410 east roosevelt
boulevard sean ward is the attorney
mr ward is coming back from rcos are involved
good morning Mr Ward
morning Mr Chairman Sean Ward that's S -H -A -W -N last name Ward W -A -R -D
counsel for the applicant, Crystal Nguyen, N -G -U -Y -E -N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Ward. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, just one clarification.
It's the second amended refusal dated July 22nd or July 12th, July 12th, correct.
Yeah, I wave and stipulate.
Okay. 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 ORCO, and do you have a letter?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliant?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and start sharing your screen, please.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I submitted my typical exhibit packet for the premises known in 6410 through 18 East Roosevelt Boulevard, owned by Thomas Wong, H -O -A -N -G, and Crystal Nguyen, and it's Crystal with a K, K -R -Y -S -T -A -L, Nguyen, N -G -U -Y -E -N, owners and applicants of the property.
A1 is the notice of refusal.
The application is for the complete demolition and lot consolidation, two lots into one, for the erection of a new detached structure for uses as follows.
At the basement and second floor level, Crystal proposes business and professional and group medical offices, and the first floor would be retail sales and personal services.
We resulted in several refusals.
The uses are not permitted in the district.
to this property is zoned RSA 2. And then there's parking lot, parking refusals, including parking
lot landscaping, parking in the side yards, parking spaces, 15 required, 13 proposed.
The aisle width, 24 feet is required versus 15 feet proposed. And the front setback of the
building, 10 feet is required, whereas 6 .7 feet is proposed. Accordingly, we seek use
and dimensional variances. That should say dimensional as well. A2 is the ZBA application
of appeal. A3 is the project information form. A4 is proof of ownership. A5 is tax clearance,
which was supplemented. I had submitted an older tax clearance, and then we updated that
pursuant to Hillary's request. A6 are the site and floor plans. A7 are elevation plans and
renderings. A8 are photographs. A9 is petitions of support circulated by Dr. Nguyen. A10 is the
RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing. A11 is a RCO letter of support from a participating
RCO community on the rise. We did not get one from Take Back Your Neighborhood, who was the
coordinating RCO, and I'll address that in a moment. A -12, if submitted at District Council
at Member Driscoll's letter, I don't think he submitted one, but if he did, I would ask that
that be marked as A -12. I couldn't find any relevant zoning history. This property was
historically used as a single -family home. However, it's been vacant for quite a long time
now. It's dilapidated, but for a squatter, it has not been occupied in many, many years.
A14 is the zoning map and A15 is the aerial photograph.
For context, I'm going to go out of order of my exhibits a little bit here.
The property, as you can see, is zoned RSA2. The two red dots signify 6410 and 6418.
uh there's two lots here this is 16 4620 and 4624 4624 is occupied as a single family residence
uh the adjoining property owned by the same persons uh is currently unoccupied
at the property to our left despite being zoned rsa2 is a medical and dental office building
there's a sunoco station on a corner and then fronting on busselton avenue out here is a
a dental practice. And then on the corner is a mosque or some other religious use as far as
aerial photograph goes. You'll see the property is bounded in a triangular -shaped block bounded
by Roosevelt Boulevard, Hellerman Street, and Busselton Avenue. Again, to the left of us is a
three -story medical office building, the Sunoco station on a corner, the dental practice on
Busselton Avenue, and then the occupied single -family home, the unoccupied single -family
home, and then the Mahida mosque or some other non -residential use on the corner of Hellermann
and Busselton. So when we look at the actual property, we have photographs of the posting.
As you can see, this is a front view of the property. It's a boarded up,
vacant single -family dwelling from the rear. You can see it was the subject of
From the rear, you can see it was the subject of short dumping because it was vacant.
The property has just been secured.
The squatter has been removed.
And we are looking to demolish this building for the erection of a new structure.
Here's just an angle shot from Google Earth.
As you can see, again, here is the medical office building to the left of us.
A closer in shot.
behind us is the parking lot for the medical office building. And running from Hellerman
Street to Busselton Avenue is a common shared driveway with easements benefiting the adjoining
and abutting properties. Again, another shot of the parking lot and the existing office,
medical office building. So with regard to the plans themselves,
As you can see, the uses as proposed are not permitted because it is zoned RSA 2.
However, the dimensional variances and the parking variances are as follows.
The number of spaces, we can provide 13 all -street parking spaces at the rear of the building.
However, two of those spaces partially abut into the side yard on the left and the right of the plan as depicted.
However, the side yard setback for the building is compliant.
It's just the partial parking spaces in those setbacks.
Again, the other refusal deals with the interior parking landscaping requirement.
To provide any kind of interior parking landscaping would further reduce the number of available parking spaces in the plan.
So we seek a variance from that.
We can provide some sort of buffering or landscape vegetation along the border of the parking lot where it abuts the driveway.
As you can see in the plan here is the 20 -foot driveway, again, going from Hellerman Street to the right, out to Busselton Avenue on the left, and that serves all those abutting properties.
So the front yard setback, although it's six feet, 6 .7 feet, it does line up directly in place with the adjoining medical building to our left.
And therefore, from a streetscape perspective, it will line up along the sidewalk.
So, I'm sorry, with regard to the floor plan, the building, the building will be, wait,
let me go to the perspectives first.
The rendering show the perspective of the building from the Roosevelt Boulevard side.
Let me get this out of the way.
So, the first floor or the basement would be partially underground.
However, it's predominantly above grade, and the second floor, the first floor, is at grade level in the parking lot with the second floor office space above.
Again, similar to the building next door, given the grade, the slope of the grade, the basement levels are above grade, and then this will line up directly with our property.
The street views. This is the occupied home on the corner, followed by our our our building.
OK, and again, this is a picture of the rear of the property.
Here is the unoccupied home to to the right of our property facing from the boulevard to the left from the parking lot side.
But this is the 20 -foot -wide driveway easement that goes, again, from Hellerman Street out to Busselton Avenue on the right there.
We had a meeting with Take Back Your – well, you had two meetings.
The first meeting was an on -site meeting with Community on the Rise.
That was on Tuesday, May the 2nd.
And then after that, on Wednesday, May the 3rd, we had a site meeting with the Take Back Your Neighborhood, who is the coordinating RCO.
We mailed out the notices for that meeting on April 27th.
Again, it was held by Take Back Your Neighborhood at the site.
It went to the 13 required affected property owners, and we have our certificate of mailing.
At that time, three persons showed up for that meeting.
Two were from the dental practice that I mentioned facing Busselton Avenue, and the third was the homeowner or occupant of the single -family home at the corner of Ellermann and Roosevelt Boulevard.
Two were from the dental practice that I mentioned.
Following that, a community on the rise invited the applicant to a community meeting that they were hosting.
Dr. Nguyen and her husband, Thomas, both attended that meeting.
I had a conflict in my schedule, so they attended on their own.
They made their presentation to the community, and that community group submitted a letter of support.
They had 25 people show up at that meeting, despite the fact that only three showed up at the Take Back Your Neighborhood site meeting.
so as a result of that meeting that group voted 24 to 1 in support of this application
and so that's why we are here today with their letter as far as the zoning history goes on these
two properties again i could not find any uh any permits on file however there were violations on
the property dealing with vacant structures and property maintenance items again the property
being vacant for quite a long time. Again, we submitted the petitions of support.
We have several pages of those.
And one letter of support submitted by residents surrounding the property. So
So based upon that, let me just double check the variances.
Again, we have the interior landscaping, the location of the parking and the side yard setback partially, the three use refusals, and then there's the setbacks, the front setback 10 feet required, 6 .7 is proposed, the number of parking spaces, and the drive aisle, that's the one I did not address.
Let's go back to the plan because the parking is served solely for the use of the tenants
in the building.
We cannot accommodate a 24 foot wide drive aisle and therefore we're seeking a variance
from that.
The 20 -foot wide driveway would serve as the ingress and egress to the site, with a driveway into the rear of the property to access the off -street parking spaces.
I have present with me today Crystal Nguyen and also our architect, Matt Milan.
I would ask that they raise their hands and be unmuted and permitted to verify and adopt and answer any questions the board may have.
Ms. Nyguyen you are free to speak. Hi could you state your name. Hi could you state your name
please and spell for the court reporter. Yes Crystal Nguyen. K -R -Y -S -T -A -L -N -G -U -Y -E -N. Do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Ward are you
ready to go? Do you want the architect too? Well we'll go with Crystal first Mr. Chair. That's fine
Sure. Crystal, you've heard my representations to the board this morning.
Yes. And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes. And would you adopt them as your own testimony if called to testify before this
board today? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Questions from the board? Yes, Mr. Chairman.
counselor you have uh you have nine uh zoning refusal
maybe this site is not the right site for your project because that's a lot of zoning refusals
well given given the location of the property it is owned rsa too so uh however it's on a
predominantly commercial block in a commercial zone uh on on roosevelt boulevard so three of
those variances deal with the use of the, you know, the property directly next door is an office
building with a large parking lot in the rear. And this property certainly doesn't lend itself for,
you know, continued residential use, especially being on the busy Roosevelt Boulevard and
Busselton Avenue. The others deal with the parking. We're trying to accommodate as much
parking as possible, you know, for the use of the building. And therefore, we slightly go
slightly into the side yard setbacks uh you know by a matter of feet and um you know so so that way
we can we can accommodate at least 13 off -street parking spaces again if we were to provide the
Again, if we were to provide the interior parking lot landscaping, that again would further reduce the number of parking spaces available.
interior parking
And the front yard setback is the same distance as the existing building to our left and would be de minimis, in my opinion, given the size and location of the lot.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Ward, other than the squatter, how long has the property been vacant?
Mr. Chairman, it's hard to tell. I'm originally from Northeast Philadelphia.
I've been driving by this building for decades, and I've never seen it occupied in my lifetime.
Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
Yeah, Mr. Chairman.
Carol?
Am I muted?
No, Mr. Chairman.
he said no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have bob rudy okay
mr rudy could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes it is uh can you hear me i can okay thank you uh yes my name is robert rednitsky it's r -u -d
excuse me n -i -t -s -k -y i am the zoning chair for take back your neighborhood
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Yeah, just give me one second. I was just doing a few things here.
Yeah, so as one of your board members had mentioned, this is a fairly complicated situation.
There are a lot of refusals, and we are the lead RCO.
So we hold public meetings and all are invited to attend.
And those who choose not to attend, we can't force people to attend the meetings.
But at our meetings, we did not have any attendance of the owner, which we had questions for.
And we don't know about this neighbor that Sean is saying attended the meeting.
The neighbors that we have been in contact with are very concerned with what's going on.
And even though the property's been vacant for a long period of time, it's not the property's fault.
It's the fault of the ownership.
We are concerned about what they put into the building.
There's concerns about parking.
There's concerns about the size and volume of the building.
And there's concerns about the entrance and egress of the building.
There is an easement in the back that is in question.
We're getting information about this property from Mr. Ward on the 11th hour, which is not the way that we would make a decision.
And we're still seeking more data.
So what we're asking for, plain and simple, is we're asking for a continuance.
Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask you a question.
Did your RCO originally meet at the site and tour?
Are you talking to me, sir?
Oh, yeah. We met there, and we met with the immediate neighbors, and no other RCOs attended. Nobody else. I don't know about these 24 people that were at this other meeting, but I do know that the people that were at this meeting were the immediate neighbors that are immediately concerned.
And we were not allowed to attend this other meeting, so we don't know what occurred at this other meeting.
And we also don't understand why Mr. Ward is spending the most of his time coordinating with the other RCO and getting these letters of support and not letting us know what's going on, because we're handling the case.
All right. Thank you. Thank you for your information. Mr. Ward, do you want to respond?
Yeah. First, I would object to Robert's submission today. Pursuant to the regulations of the City Planning Commission with regard to RCOs, the RCO is to provide to the Zoning Board a complete meeting summary as provided by the commission.
No such meeting summary was ever submitted, and there was no further contact with Take Back Your Neighborhood after the site meeting.
We dealt with the four of the other participating RCO because they contacted us and they scheduled a meeting and they invited us to that meeting.
I believe that we fulfilled our obligations to the coordinating RCO by notifying them of the application and appeal.
They scheduled a site meeting, a community meeting at the site for which we bailed out proper notice and only three people showed up.
I can't control the participating RCO and how they how they garnered 25 people to show up for a meeting, whereas the take back your neighborhood meeting only generated interest by three.
whereas the Take Back Your Neighborhood meeting only generated interest by three people.
Any submission or testimony by Mr. Rudnitsky regarding other people's comments is hearsay
and should be disregarded by the board. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience has a comment?
chair we have maria last name ending in with a t okay
hi maria could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
ma 'am please unmute yourself
my name is maria m -a -r -i -a last name is theodorides t -h -e -o -d -o -r -i -d -e -s
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do sir um i have a lot of concerns about what mr ward said today about the rcos and so forth
First of all, Mr. Ward is not getting our addresses correct when he's presenting.
Secondly, some of the RCO that he said, the other, the Take Back Your Neighborhood RCO meeting in the community,
we got messages like on Friday and the meeting was on Monday or Tuesday.
One of the individuals, Dr. Meshkov -Bried, couldn't attend because she had a scheduled procedure.
We met and basically he opened the back of his van.
Mr. Rudnitsky from Take Back Your Neighborhood was there.
He opened up the back of his van and he unscrawled some plans and pretty much told us this is what it is.
The owners were not there.
And I also want to note, he said that that property was vacant for decades.
That is not true.
It was an older lady that lived there for a long time.
It's been vacant for about eight years, not decades.
But the other thing that I wanted to say was the owners were not there and they were the
ones that wanted that meeting on May 3rd.
Apparently, there was a meeting on May 2nd.
I'm in that neighborhood.
I'm in that driveway.
I don't know where they met, but they didn't meet near there.
Maybe they did a tour, but there was nobody there.
The property was secure.
So there was no way there was a meeting on May 2nd at the site.
On May 2nd, those individuals that he has said were there.
one of the addresses um the 24 25 people that were there one of the addresses is a mile plus
away um and some of the other addresses i don't think are legitimate because um he's giving
addresses that are 64 60 busington avenue or something like that they don't exist but let me
start by saying that um i'm here to address the concerns of myself and my mother georgia theodoridis
same last name we are residents um and owners on the 6400 block of roosevelt boulevard
for 50 plus years we know our neighborhood we are the residents here and um we are really concerned
because some of this proposal is off first of all the zoning posters were not placed in front
of the property or the back of the property um the properties are 6410 6418 roosevelt boulevard
and i go by there um i drive by two times a week and i walk by once or twice a week around the
front and every day around the back there were no posters if there were posters they probably posted
them um in front or back if they did they if they put them up and they took a picture they took them
back down i don't know why the city allows this without inspection none of them were at eye level
um if they put them on the boarded up property on the window um that's about 25 feet away nobody
could see it from um from the sidewalk and um when people came by to ask me about the property
three neighbors were unaware and they were surprised the neighbors were on bradford
terrace albridge street and devro and they passed by on a daily basis because they compute through
there. Mr. Chair, I'm going to object. She can speak on her own behalf, but not on behalf of
others. Okay. In other words, let me say this. You're against the project. I'm against the
project. Can I actually say, I think there should be a continuance because I don't think our
neighbors know that this project is going on because there wasn't proper zoning posting.
There was no zoning post on 6418. He doesn't have any pictures. Can I ask the question? Is there
problems with the existing office building next door? There are problems with that existing
property. And what would that be? Can I give you the complete presentation that I would like to
make? It's not going to take very long, I promise. Just tell me about the place next door. How do
you see that? I mean, what's the problem there? Property, it has parking. It's an office building
That property, it has parking. It's an office building. At this time, it's 41 % empty. The parking
And at this time,
lot fills up. What is happening there is there are 48 parking spots for the building, and there
are only six units there. These individuals want to put nine units in their new building,
and they don't have the parking space. And I do want to talk about the parking space,
because their parking spots are on the plan on may 3rd that i saw were small and the parking space
entrance is parallel to the building they will either need to trespass onto neighboring properties
to park or their or the easements or question to properties to get in and out um there's a lot of
issues because the easement that he is saying he can access sir you can i want to just um just want
to do my presentation a second I mean I think I think you've made a presentation I think your
main issue is you want to continue and we hear you and we're going to take everything into
consideration when we make a decision is there anyone else in the audience that has comments
about this I see no handshare planning commission good morning Mr. Chairman members of the board
David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
residential single -family zoning at this location. The applicant has failed to show that a hardship
exists that would prevent this lot from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
There are plenty of other shopping centers located in the sixth council district where the applicant
could locate without triggering variances. The City Planning Commission recommends the board
deny the use of dimensional variances. MI 2022, 001 -686 -6410 East Roosevelt Boulevard.
I vote yes per amended refusal 712 -22.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisors. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with provisor
thank you mr ward thank you mr chairman have a great day
sure number number number 15 mi 2022 003 578 922 38 north broad street
uh michael phillips melanie lacy
uh our rco was meeting in the council district five hosted a meeting on 8 10 22
and i believe we have another letter that came in today from an rco yeah yes mr chair this is
this is Hillary, we did receive a recommendation of non -opposition from United Neighbors Alliance
Civic Association. Okay. Morning, Mr. Phillips. Could you state your name and spell, please,
for the court reporter? Good morning. Michael Phillips with Claire Harrison, M -I -C -H -A -E -L -P -H -I -L -L -I -P -S,
1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, here on behalf of 922 North Broad Associates.
Do you share a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, 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, to all.
Okay, great. You may proceed and your screen's up. So that's good.
Thank you. Again, good morning, Chairman Bergman, members of the board, Michael Phillips again. Here on behalf of 922 North Broad Associates LLC, which is a subsidiary of HITOP Real Estate and Development, I have with me David Lance Groener, who's the principal of HITOP, as well as our project architect, Jessica Vitale and or Sergio Kosia from Kosia Moos.
I actually don't anticipate that I'll be calling them, though.
This is an already approved project that is underway for which we have zoning and building permit.
It's at the southwest corner of Broad and Girard.
Let me just orient.
So here is the zoning map.
It's zone CMX4, southwest corner of Broad and Girard.
Here's the aerial.
There was a CBS there for many years.
The CVS has been demolished by my client in November after taking this project through Civic Design Review. I received approval for a seven -story mixed -use building.
for a seven -story mixed -use building with ground floor commercial, 44 underground parking spaces,
and a multifamily residential with 196 units. We have a zoning permit is in your file at tab
three, and the building permits in your packet at exhibit four. In the process of looking for
a retail tenant to take up what was the first floor space, we've entered into negotiations
with a grocer who would like to relocate the parking from underground to the first floor
and pick up the second floor space for retail.
The reason we're here today is because above -ground parking in CMX 4
requires a special exception approval.
So we're here simply to seek the special exception to relocate the parking.
No other changes to the height, dimension, massing of the project I proposed.
Here's the aerial right here.
Literally, we are just taking the parking, shifting it up,
and shifting the grocer to the second floor.
Reason being is primarily ease of access.
Now, we have two existing curb cuts, one along Gerard, one along Gerard,
that we will continue to utilize.
There are 40 parking spaces provided, so individuals will come,
and this parking here will be all available.
We have the retail entrance here along Gerard and the retail lobby,
but you would come in get your shopping cart shopping cart will take you up on the escalator
to the second floor similarly the giant on 23rd street the whole foods and the art museum very
similar concept so you come on the first floor take the shopping cart up the second do your
shopping and then you come right back down to the ground floor for the parking again i'll just take
you some renderings you've heard this is uh thompson streets at the rear this is gerard so
we're proposing it's going to be all glass on that second floor very inviting no changes to
that residential component whatsoever this is looking at Broad and Girard again we're right
next to the subway station so the other added advantage of this is there won't be any excavating
or underpinning necessary as we're constructing this seven -story building
We, and here's just some existing photos, we went, the 5th District, 5th Council District
did organize a meeting that was well attended and United Neighbors, right here, sent in
United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association, sent in their letter indicating 15 people
in attendance and unanimous support slash non -opposition from the community. We also
have agreed and entered into a community memorandum of understanding that we did voluntarily just to
emphasize that we will be seeking minority -owned contractors on the project, also community -based
subcontractors, and we'll be providing advertising and advance notice of available employment
opportunities to the community.
Yet, I don't want to belabor this and take up too much time, as it is a special exception
that we're seeking.
There will be no adverse impacts that would not otherwise be expected from having a surface
parking lot.
This is CMX4, but we are not in core center city where the underground parking would be
needed to prevent any curb cuts.
We have these existing curb cuts.
It's a very centralized location, very pedestrian, a transit focused location. And with that, I would like to call David Lanskroner to adopt my testimony.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
David Lanskroner, L -A -N -D -S -K -R -O -N -E -R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Good to see you, Mr. Phillips.
Hi, David.
You heard my testimony a moment ago about the project and the relocation of the parking and retail space?
And is everything I stated true and accurate?
And do you agree to adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
I have no further questions.
Questions from the board?
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission good morning mr chairman david vecto city planning
Planning Commission. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. David Vecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this proposal completed civic design review in July of 2021. The city changed the zoning maps in Francisville in 2018. At that time, the commercial mixed use zoning for this parcel remained unchanged in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
Commission.
the applicant has shown that a parking garage above the ground floor will have no more of an
impact than a parking garage above the ground floor would be expected to have and so the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the special exception thank you david m i
2022 -003 -578 -922 -38 north broad street i vote yes carol tonnery my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
Thank you very much.
Have a great day.
Number 13.
MI 2022.
003345.
6995 Pitchin Street.
this is the resumption of the remand hearing for 6995 peaches street mi 2022 03345 this case was
remanded from commonwealth court through the court of common pleas for a limited hearing on whether
the proposed nine residential units is the minimum variance necessary in light of the established
geotech challenges at the property. As previously noted, testimony from the prior CBA hearing
on May 16, 2018, is incorporated into the record for this hearing. So it is unnecessary for council
to repeat or re -offer evidence and testimony previously provided. Mr. DeMarco, Mr. Toner.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Hi, Mr. Toner.
mr toner is coming back in as a panelist okay mr demarco i've already sworn mr toner today
um could you state your name spell for the court reporter
richard demarco d -e -m -a -r -c -o right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do i understand that you want to finish up your case mr demarco yeah i'm
willing to so um in speaking with my clients mr toner you've already been sworn earlier today
yes proceed uh mr chairman i spoke with my clients you heard from uh david henderson who
is the owner and developer of this property you heard from our contractor daniel palachati who
will be constructing the homes um we were able to get both of their testimony onto the record
I am willing to rest with the movement of my exhibits into evidence.
I think you got exactly what you needed as far as a good summary of why the nine units is the minimum necessary.
And of course, you know, all the the issues with inflation that we've been dealing with, the construction costs and the length of time that this property has been delayed, the holding costs, et cetera.
Obviously, I would. It's a little stale for everybody.
I want you to make sure you read the transcript so that that stuff is fresh in your memory before you vote the case.
But I'm willing to rest, Mr. Chairman. I do have objections, though, to the late submissions by the Protestants.
Also, I do want to state state for the record, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that this remand was very specifically for the purpose for the applicant to add testimony.
I went back and I reread the Commonwealth Court's remand opinion letter and the judge's remand order, and it was very specific that hardship was proven and accepted by the courts to the property, but the only issue remaining was to supplement the applicant to supplement the record with testimony that the nine units was the minimum necessary.
Sorry, this board already found that it was, but the court was concerned that there wasn't enough testimony from the applicant to support that.
And I heard you say that the Protestants had plenty of time. We know they're opposed to this development.
They filed appeal after appeal of this. There's no need for testimony that is is meant to just distract the board.
and there's evidentiary problems with a lot of the exhibits, Mr. Tony is saying,
what I'm getting at, Mr. Chairman, I'm objecting to the late exhibits,
and we really should follow the dictates of the Commonwealth Court.
The more this case is delayed, Mr. Chairman, the greater the hardship becomes.
The more this case is delayed, Mr. Chairman, the greater the hardship becomes, the more holding costs and the more difficult it will be to feasibly develop the property.
So I'll rest with that.
Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.
Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.
And I think Mr. Toner understands where we are on this about what test money we need.
All right.
I'll reserve the right for capital.
And thank you.
I'll rest with the submission of my exhibits into everything.
Thank you.
Mr. Toner, you want to give an opening statement, please?
So I just want to first address the argument made by Mr. DeMarco that only the applicant is allowed that testimony.
We're what is now the third day of the remand hearing at the third day to open up the hearing saying that a party intervener who has been a party before two Commonwealth Court remand hearings or two Commonwealth Court appeals is somehow precluded from offering testimony
and questioning or challenging the testimony exhibits entered by the applicant, really it
would be direct conflict with both the local agency law and basic concepts of due process.
We do not have extensive or voluminous testimony here today. Our exhibits are very straightforward
and they've been before the court fundamentally since May 31, 2022, when they were emailed to
to the Zoning Board as well as all parties of record.
And I'd like to begin just by going through
our exhibit packet, highlighting the most important documents
and then calling Ms. Christine Ertz
who was disclosed and identified way back in May of 2022
as our expert witness.
Okay, go ahead, Christine, Mr. Turner.
Thank you.
So, may I share my screen, Mr. Bergman?
Okay. So we have a total of 22 exhibits. The first exhibit are several MLS reports
for comparable properties that Ms. Ertz can identify. Exhibits two, three, and four are
all exhibits that were submitted in the course of the proceedings by the applicant. His plans,
his cost estimate for the homes, and his analysis of the cost of construction.
In Exhibit 3, I want to pay particular attention to the core incompetent evidence that we believe was submitted to this board.
So in Exhibit 3, they calculate what is the anticipated outsell per unit.
And to come to that calculation, they look to the sale of 6907 Hetching Street, which was a 2018 sale and a sale price of $458 ,250.
To account for the over four years of appreciation, the applicant does not look to comparable sales analysis. It does not look to any recognized appraisal methodology.
What they did was they took the consumer price index and they increased the 2018 sale of 69 to 7 by the consumer price index, the increase in the consumer price index.
Now, as we mentioned at the prior hearings and cross -examination of Mr. Henderson, the sale of real estate is not a consumer transaction that is included within the consumer price index.
And we submitted as part of our exhibit packet a summary letter from the U .S. Bureau on Consumer Statistics outlining exactly how the sale at real estate is improper.
Now, Exhibits 5 includes the reproof record that was submitted before the Commonwealth Court in the most recent appeal.
This is submitted as background information.
It's already part of the record in this case.
We also submitted a copy of our appellant's brief to the Commonwealth Court just to provide
a clear review for the Zoning Board of the arguments that were raised before the Commonwealth
Court and what was resolved.
Exhibits number eight and nine refer to, I'm sorry, eight, nine, and ten, and these are
all included within the reproduced record. These all refer to the document history of the sale
purchase prices for the properties at issue, as well as the mortgages that are recorded.
Exhibit 11 is a copy of the Commonwealth Court's order issued on February 24, 2022.
Mr. DeMarco has made some aggressive interpretations of what
Mr. DeMarco has made some aggressive interpretations of what the Commonwealth Court found.
Fundamentally, what the Commonwealth Court did in its February 24, 2022 order was it instructed the trial court to remand this case back to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with an instruction that additional testimony was needed on what was the quantifiable minimum variance necessary to afford relief.
And that is what we're here for testimony on. Did the applicant meet its burden of evidentiary
production to establish what is the quantifiable minimum variance necessary to afford relief?
Exhibit number 12 is the Redfin report for the property that's being relied upon by applicants
to set the proposed out -sale price, that being 6907 Petchon Street.
Of note, we'll actually let our real estate expert testify to that.
In terms of Exhibit 13, this is a Zillow report for 6907 Petchon Street.
As you can see, the Zillow estimate, which we're not arguing is the definitive estimate for the market value of 6907, is actually $589 ,000, which is significantly greater than that being offered by the applicant in their proposal before the board today.
And again, their proposal is that the property now has an out -sale value of $516 ,000.
Going back real quickly to Exhibit 12, what is important to note here is some of the sale history for 6907.
It was listed for sale in 2016.
2016. It sold in 2018. It's listing price of $449 ,000. Again, this property was constructed
over six years ago. It sold over five years ago.
In terms of the increase in market valuation, exhibit number 13 is important for one thing.
Zillow, while not entirely accurate for 6907 Petchen Street, does include how significantly this zip code has appreciated over the past five years in comparison to what we believe is the incompetent reference to a consumer price index, which is not relevant to a appraisement or assessment of value of real property.
Exhibit number 14 is a comparable sale that Ms. Ertz will address.
Exhibit number 15 is a real estate report card that Ms. Ertz is going to address to show how
the zip codes for this particular Ridge Park neighborhood have appreciated over the past
number of years.
Exhibit number 16 are the comparable sales that Ms. Ertz faces her expert opinion on,
Those being the comps that were submitted prior to the June 2022 hearing, the properties being 422A Seville, 420A Seville, 422B Seville, 325 Gates, 326 Wright, and 328 Wright.
And as you'll hear from Ms. Ertz, rather than having an estimated outsell price in the low 500s, it's her professional opinion as a real estate agent with numerous sales within these zip codes at issue,
that the actual market value for the units will be somewhere between $650 ,000 and $675 ,000
based upon a normal use of comparable sale data
to come up with a sales price comparison approach to valuation.
As indicated in my email to the board on Monday,
Ridge Park is happy to submit the letter from Silverwood Designs
concerning the potentiality of buy -right uses and the costs used to determine the outsell
profitability of this project. Exhibit number 18 is our printout from the memorandum at the
U .S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on the use of this consumer price index in real estate matters.
Exhibit number 19, these are the updated comparable sales that Ms. Ertz is going to
testify to today. As you can see, a comparison between Exhibit 19, which we submitted.
As you can see, a comparison between Exhibit 19, which we submitted on Sunday, with Exhibit 16 shows that many of the same properties are being referenced again.
And the particular new addition for comparable sales purposes is 6903 Petchen Street, which is pending right now, and Ms. Urchel testified to being a comparable property at a $625 ,000 price, as well as Lot 1 on Petchen, which is active and has a $879 ,900 comparable sale price.
And exhibit number 22 is a letter submitted by Ms. Ertz, and she is a licensed realtor with
Compass, which is a well -known regional and national real estate brokerage, and she has
extensive experience both in the Philadelphia market in general, as well as the Ridge Park,
Maniunk, Roxborough Markets in particular, and she has been a licensed agent since 2018.
So with that, I would like to call Ms. Ertz. May I offer objections to some of these exhibits,
Mr. Chairman? Why don't we let Ms. Ertz and you'll get a chance to summarize at the end,
is it okay? All right. Ms. Ertz, could you state your name,
please and spell for the court reporter? Chair, the only person that has their hand
raised is someone by the name of David Henderson. Oh, there she goes. He's the owner of the
property, I believe. Correct. Okay. Ms. Ertz, you're free to speak. Hi, Ms. Ertz, could you
state your name and spell for the court reporter, please? Ms. Ertz? I know she was on.
Okay. Do we see her hand raised? Yes. Oh, I have to promote her to panelists because her version
is a little outdated. Fine. Thank you. Okay. Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? Yes. Could you
state your name and spell for the court reporter, please? Yes. Christine Ertz, C -H -R -I -S -T -I -N -E,
last name E -R -T -Z. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth? Yes. Could you raise your volume just a little bit? I can try to talk louder. My
apologies. No, that's okay. Fine. Counsel? Ms. Ertz, can you briefly describe your professional
background experience with the Ridge Park real estate market? Yes. I have been selling in this
area for a little over four years now. I've sold a total of about 60 homes and in this area alone
over 25 homes have been sold by me. So that being 60 homes in the Philadelphia market in total with
25 homes? Yes. In what zip codes Ms. Hertz? 19127 and 19128. And as part of your professional
experience as a licensed realtor, are you required to take any educational classes or
updated professional training? Yes, I actually have to take 14 hours of continuing education
every two years, but I also take additional education myself. I have two certificates,
accredited buyer's representation and EPRO. And are you familiar with
with how the fair market value for properties are set in the real estate market in Philadelphia?
Yes, we do that by using comparative sales.
Okay. Mr. Bergman, I'd like to move for the admission of Ms. Ertz as an expert real estate agent in the Philadelphia market and the Ridge Park area in particular.
I see Mr. DeMarco objecting.
Let me place an objection on the record, Mr. Chairman.
what this document and what her testimony from what the offer proof appears to be is she's going
to give an opinion of value of a property, namely our property. She is not an appraiser. I heard no
voir dire that she has qualified in any way to offer an opinion of value of a property. And what
she's purporting to do is present an appraisal to the board. She's not qualified in any way
to offer an appraisal. She's talking about comparative sales. She's got two comparative
sales in her report, and they're not comparative in any way. Neither are
the comparative sales that Mr. Toner has offered to the board. They're all radical.
the comparative sales that Mr. Toner has offered to the board. They're all radically different
properties. They're cherry picked to support the highest possible value. She has not looked
at comparable properties that sold for lesser value. She's also not an expert. She's a
protestant. This is not an independent report by someone who is unbiased, who did an actual
appraisal. So the board should not accept her testimony. She could testify to her experience
as a realtor, but not as an appraiser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can respond, Mr. Bergman.
Go ahead, Mr. Turner. Yes. While the rules of evidence are not directly applicable
to zoning hearings, I would note, even under a heightened burden at the Philadelphia Court
of Commons, Ms. Ertz would certainly qualify as a competent expert in the real estate industry
in Philadelphia. The standard under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence is, does a
expert's testimony provide opinions above that of a layperson that would help guide the finder
effect? Now, Mr. DeMarco is certainly able and it's appropriate for him to cross -examine her on
what comparable sales she used. All that will go to the weighted testimony. But whether Ms. Ertz
as a professional licensed realtor
with over four years of experience
in the Philadelphia market
and 25 sales in these two zip codes in particular,
she certainly has a professional basis
to assess the comparable sale analysis
for market value of property in this case.
So I would agree that she can't be an appraisal,
but I think what she can do is testify
to what she knows what things are selling for
and leave it at that.
That's where I'd like to be.
Okay, Mr. Turner, proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
And if I could share my screen again.
Ms. Ertz, did you have a chance to review the zoning plans submitted by the applicant in this case?
I'm sorry, Mr. Turner, this is Tanya.
Ms. Ertz, can we get you to move a little closer?
It's a very low.
Thank you so kindly.
Sorry about that.
And did you have a chance to analyze the zoning plans for the number of bedrooms, the number of the square footage of each unit, and other considerations typically taken into a factor when a person is evaluating the comparable sale analysis for real estate in Philadelphia?
Yes. This appeared to be a four -bedroom, two -bath, two -half -bath, about 2 ,100 -square -foot home, not including basement.
And did you have a chance to review the cost analysis provided by applicant and his assumed value of $516 ,222 for each one of these units?
Do you agree that the estimated fair market value for each unit is $516 ,000 or $522 ,000?
Objection based on my prior objection, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, I think she should say what she knows about other properties.
I don't think she should meet appraisal, really.
mr bergman this this witness has testified that during the course of her duties as a professional
licensed realtor that she evaluates and comes up with the fair market value by running comparable
sale analysis well what i'm saying is she can talk about comparative sales analysis i just
don't think she could put a price on that what this house would be if you if not she should be
an appraiser and I don't see the appraisal. I want to direct your attention to what we've
marked as exhibit number 19. And this is the property at 325 Gate Street. Do you believe
this is a comparable sale to the property issue in this case? Yes. And why do you believe that?
It is a four -bedroom, two -bath home with one half -bath, about 2 ,500 square feet, which includes the basement.
So this bath is about, or excuse me, the home is about the same size. It has one less half -bath.
And what is the listed price, list price for 325 Gage Street?
$845 ,000 it closed at.
$845 ,000?
And when did it close?
It closed back in March.
of 2022? Yes. Moving to the second comparable sale included in exhibit number 19,
Of 2022?
420A Seville Street. Can you explain to the board why you believe 420A Seville Street is a comparable
sale? Now in this case, it has one less bedroom. So this is only a three bedroom, two and one half
bath with 2 ,200 square feet. So in this case, it's missing a bedroom. So it has one less
bedroom than the subject property, 6695 Pecheon Street. Correct. Due to the square footage,
it's a good comp though. And when did this property close? April of 2022. And what was
the settlement price? $625 ,000. So one less bedroom, or 420A Seville sells for $625 ,000.
Correct. How about 422B Seville Street? That's exactly the same as 420A,
one less bedroom, and sold in May of this year for $650 ,000.
moving to what was pre -marked as exhibit 20
can you explain to the board why you believe 6903 Petron Street is a comparable sale
square footage is very close as well beds and baths are the same missing one half bath
it is also a single family which will up its value just a slight amount
um but otherwise it's it's typically the same and it is not a new construction it is five years old
and what was the sale price for 6903 petron street objection there's no sale this is a pending
pending comp it's not a sale to be able to get through my testimony
i'm allowed to check the record this is not a cop
first of all mr toner have your witness yeah mr please i heard what mr demarco said
and i and i think what we should say just take note that that's what it's listed for
thank you well it's actually pending so it's under contract it's pending all right but it's
not only objective that's sale right okay all right okay miss ertz uh the property is 6903
patch in this list as being pending. What does pending mean? It is currently under contract.
Okay. So there's a binding contract between a buyer and seller for a particular sale price?
Objection. And what is that particular sale price?
We don't know the exact sale price, but this was listed at 625.
The price won't be made available to us for what it's under contract for until it closes.
okay and the last um comparable sale which is lot one pension can you explain to the board
why you believe this objection is not a comparable sale it's an active listing not a sale
oh just just change your wording of the question please thank you
Ms. Ertz, can you please explain why you believe the listing of lot one is comparable to what would be the listing, what you believe should be a listing price for the nine lots at issue?
This is a good comp to show what the recent new construction sale prices look like.
It's a four -bedroom house.
It does have four bathrooms with one half bath, and the square footage, 2 ,500 estimated,
most likely is going to include the basement in this case.
Ms. Ertz, in your duties as a licensed realtor, do you represent both buyers and sellers?
When you represent sellers, is part of your professional responsibility to assist in
the listing price or setting the listing price for real property? Yes. And what do you do
as a licensed realtor when you assist sellers in setting a listing price?
I generally pull comparative recent sales. I pull pending as well just to see what's currently
pending. And I also pull active just to look and see what's on the market. But I will base
a sales price off of things that have closed. And for the nine lots at 6695 Pension Street,
did you perform a similar analysis as though you were serving as a listing agent? Yes. And what did
you come up with as an appropriate listing price for each one of the nine units at 6695 Pension
Street? Since we can't be sure of the exact features and finishes of the house,
Since we can't be sure of the exact features and finishes of the house, I said the price would be approximately $625 to $675.
Object by prior objection, Mr. Chairman.
I understand his objection, Mr. Tone.
I mean, I think what you've done is you've showed a lot of places what the pending number is, what they sold for, and I think we should leave it at that.
moving on from the comparable sales did you have a chance to review
the market conditions within the ridge park neighborhood over the past five years yes
can you please identify the document which we've marked as exhibit 15
that's an mbs highway real estate report card this is accessible by many mortgage brokers
and that's where I got this one from. And can you explain to the board what this report card
summarizes? Basically, the most important thing that we're looking at here is the historical
appreciation. So if you look for the last five years, the appreciation was about 6 .14 percent,
and there is forecasted appreciation as well. Is the consumer price index referenced anywhere in
this real estate report card? No. Have you ever seen the consumer price index used to set the
value of real estate? No. And were the opinions given today all given within a degree of reasonable
and professional certainty? Yes. I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you, Mr. Toner.
You have any questions, Mr. DeMarco?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Ms. Ertz, you agree that you are not an appraisal, right?
Appraiser.
Correct, I am not.
All right, and you agree that your report is not an appraisal, right?
It is not an appraisal.
I am not an appraiser, correct.
All right, thank you.
I want to go back to, I can share my own screen or I can, if Mr. Toner wants to put it back up,
Let's put that report card back up on the screen, please.
I can do it as well if you need me to.
Look at the top corner, Ms. Ertz.
What's the medium home price in the top corner of that document?
$342 ,000.
All right.
And that's for this area, right?
That's for this area, including all of the tiny little row homes.
Right.
And my client's estimate of value is almost $200 ,000 more than the medium home price,
isn't it?
yes and it's new construction all right and you're the five -year gain on the in the other
right hand corner is 77 ,717 dollars right right yet you your opinion of value that you purported
to make in a case like in this case is far more and exponentially greater than this document
isn't that right because i did not use this document to price the homes
but this document is in evidence submitted by your attorney it shows that the the properties
in this area appreciated by an average of 77 000 over five years do i read that right
objection mr bergman relevance their own document mr bergman okay okay this is for the entire market
as the witness just testified i i i i understand i think mr demarco let's move on i think you made
your point i made my point all right fair enough all right so let's let's talk about so you're a
member of the civic association that's opposing this development right i am a member correct
right and you're opposed to this development right i never once said i was opposed to this
development it's your part of the civic association and mr toner's the attorney for
the civic association right objection your honor this is not relevant she's it she was it goes to
Okay. All right. I mean, I think he could ask the question about she's a member of the Civic Association. And when he says, did you oppose? She said, I never said that. That's, I think that's legitimate. And I think we should leave it there.
Okay, that's fine. That's fine. So do you agree, Ms. Ertz, that you should look to
comparable sales that are actually sold when you try to determine the value of a property?
As I stated before, when I'm pricing a value or when I'm pricing a property preparing to sell
my own listing, I will look at active, I will look at pending, and I will look at closed.
but I will base it mostly off of the closed sales.
but I will base it mostly off of the closed sales.
All right.
All right.
So you would agree that the closed sales
So you would agree.
are the actual evidence of what a property has sold for
and are the most indicative of value, right?
They will hold the most weight, correct.
All right.
And an active listing could sell for far less,
could be withdrawn,
could be pulled off the market,
or could be lowered.
You are correct.
Awesome.
Okay, fair enough.
And two of the items that your attorney put on the screen, one was a pending sale
and one was an active sale, right? Correct. Even without those, we show the value.
Okay. So let's talk about Gate Street. You relied on that in your determination, am I right?
The Gate Street property? Correct. It's over a mile away from the
subject property, isn't it? Okay. You don't know that? I'm not looking at a map right now,
but I can pull up a map. Hold on a minute. You testified that it was indicative of the value
of the current property, right? Yes, it is. I can get there. I can get from point A to point B
without a GPS, if that's your question. I know these streets very well. All right. But you did
not know that it was over a mile away from the subject objection objection mr bergman okay okay
mr demarco's assuming facts not a record he has no so mrs demarco said gate street is a mile away
from where this is and she and she stated she did not know that so did she look i don't i don't
what what i meant counsel i i don't i'm not mr demarco i'm not sure she said that i i think she
said she's not looking at it or whatever but i think she then went on the streets pretty well
so we'll agree it's a mile away i'll rephrase did you consider the distance of the subject property
to the comparable sale that you testified about yes i didn't pull up anything that was more than
a mile and a half or two miles away do you agree that the farther a property is away from the from
the subject property, the less probative it is of value? No. You don't agree? It's the same zip
code. So, all right. Well, let's talk about, you talked about Seville Street. Do you know how far
Seville Street is from the subject property? I'm not looking at a map right now. You didn't look
at that at all, right? Yes, I did. Okay. Do you know that that's two miles away from the subject
property? And is it Maniunk? Objection. Again, Mr. DeMarco is assuming facts, not a record. If he
has some indication of how far away it is, please show it to the witness. Otherwise, we have no
basis to understand his statement. Let's do that. Let's do that. Since Mr. Turner wants us to go
through the... So it's 420 Seville Street. Please stop sharing your screen. So since we're going
to have to spend time on this so I can show my screen, please. Thank you.
Do you see my screen, Ms. Ertz? Yes. Mr. Bergman, I'm going to object to the use of a live. Mr. Bergman,
Mr. DeMarco has been in possession with our MLS reports for each of these properties
for well over two months now.
He had the opportunity to present competing data,
competing documentation.
He doesn't have an expert.
Mr. DeMarco, I think she admitted,
or she said a couple of minutes ago,
not that she admitted,
that she took things a mile,
no more than two miles away is what she said.
So I think she sort of said that some of these places
are up to two miles away is what I heard her say.
so i don't think you really have to repeat it all right but i i heard an objection to chairman and i
what i'm what i see is i'm being prevented from cross -examining this witness by miss mr toner
well listen to me you can cross -examine her but what i i think she just already said she took
things that were a mile to two miles away i know that he said i couldn't ask her because it wasn't
in evidence but it's it's you know the two the board can take judicial notice of these things
and certainly a google maps shows that it's two miles away it does yeah i think she said that
she admitted that she took things two miles oh i didn't hear that if she did she said i took things
a mile to two miles away yes i did all right all right fair enough all right so
and the gate street property also has a total of at least three dedicated parking spaces right
yes and parking is uh is at a premium is it not in this area of the city
And parking is at a premium, is it not in this area of the city?
And the property under consideration has one dedicated parking spot, doesn't it?
So certainly more than one dedicated parking space for some of these comps that you have referred to increases the value of that property, does it not?
Yes, which is why they're $200 ,000 over my suggested sale price.
Okay. So, did you consider any comparable sales that were very close to the subject property?
Yes, if I had found them.
Okay. Well, I found them. So, let's take a look at some of them. Let's take a look at 6812 Peach and Street.
Objection, objection, Mr. Bergman. Again, Mr. DeMarco has had our MLS reports for over two months. These were not submitted. He had no competing data that was submitted in advance at today's hearing.
You know, that's, Mr. Chairman, that is a ridiculous objection when you consider that Mr. Toner provided documents for this hearing on Sunday and yesterday.
so i had only a certain amount of time to prepare you had two months right i objected
mr demarco listen up what what i number one what i really want to try to do today
is to really end this end this case for for us for the both sides we're getting we're after 12
o 'clock we have a hard stop at 12 30 we have to stop so what i i i hear what you're saying
but i think you need mr demarco just move a little bit quicker all right well i hear what
you're saying so this one here is sold for 485 i mean i mean i mean you know look mr toner likes
to drag these out by preventing me from asking the questions i can get through it very quickly
if i don't get rejection to every question mr burman i know aside from the pdf requirement
to upload it's important that these documents are exchanged beforehand so experts like ms
Ertz has a chance to... Well, you didn't.
You didn't do that.
Okay, so...
It's outrageous.
He didn't do it.
Listen to me.
Listen to me.
If you want to do this, he's going to say
this sold for $4 .85.
It sold for $4 .85.
Do you have any other...
i'm not okay
all right mr demarco i i 545 i i think what we ought to do is why don't you try to bring this
to close here i i think i think you okay okay yeah i mean i i think the fine the board gets
the point you know there are comparable sales that are i'll just sum up if i may how about
that instead of more cross -examination can i do that excuse me mr chair since since um
the witnesses is still on um before there's any summation i think we should see if mr toner has
any redirect yes i may i assume i assume that mr demarco is is done with cross at this point
well i i i've been asked to wrap up uh hillary i i wanted to continue with this exercise
I'm happy to comply with the chair's request that I that I wrap it up quickly.
I did have other questions, but if if it's OK, I'm willing to just do a summary of what my questions would be instead of completing a full cross -examination.
I'm willing to do that. What's your summary, Mr. DeMarco?
Mr. Chairman, exactly. My summary is, I think you understand the point. The witness chose comps
that were supportive of her aggressive value of the property and ignored comps that were closer
to the property and were more consistent with my client's value. And that's why she's not an
appraiser. You're supposed to look at everything. You're supposed to look at properties that are
close to the subject property. She ignored, she went to two miles away, one miles away to look
at the most expensive comp she could find. And that's demonstrated by the report card that is
submitted by the, by the Protestants that show that the median is far lower than my client's
property. Mr. DeMarco, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Turner,
do you have anything else you want to add?
mr toner
i apologize not for this witness no more you're done with mr it's correct okay what what's your next
you're done with mr it's correct okay what what's your next i just like to move our exhibits into
a record okay thank you very much um could we is it possible we could each people have a little
closing you know we want to do that mr chair i was gonna i was gonna have written closing submitted
okay fine that's fine that's that's even better that's even better okay so we're both done for
the day. So here, the record is now closed for this case, except for written closing statements
from each party, which are due by 5 p .m. on Friday, August 19th. The record will also remain
open for supplemental findings of fact and conclusion of law that the board will include
as proviso when they vote on this matter. That vote is scheduled for Wednesday, September 28th
At 9 .30 a .m.
Yeah, please repeat your deadline for the written.
The written documents are due 5 p .m. on Friday, August 19th.
And the record will remain open.
Mr. Bergman, I'd like to request at least sufficient time for the court reporter to complete the transcript.
So when we when we submit the written proposed findings, that they're based upon the actual transcript.
Mr. Toner. Yeah, this is Hillary. I don't I don't need suggested written findings and conclusions of law.
I would just like a closing summary argument for me to be by the end of the week.
I would know I think for the purposes of being thorough, this case has gone on for a long time.
And both parties have invested a significant amount of money.
And if we're going to have any kind of detailed written argument, I think to having the benefit of findings or of a transcript is appropriate.
Mr. DeMarco, what are your thoughts on that?
So did the board say they would vote on September 28th?
September 28th at 9 .30.
So I don't object to having more time to submit.
If the board's going to vote on 9 -28, I could use the additional time as well.
I just don't want to delay my client.
So if the board's going to vote on 9 -28 anyway, I'm okay with more time to submit.
If it's okay with the board, I'm willing to agree to more time for us to submit our agrees.
Hillary, what's an appropriate extension?
Well, let me ask Tanya, because if you're asking for the transcripts, that's some of why I gave it a significant time before the board was going to vote so that I'd have time to read the transcript and the board could prepare the supplemental findings.
Tanya, can you please weigh in on what you think a good deadline would be in terms of receiving the transcript and then having the final statements by both parties?
Might I suggest September 1st, Ms. Emerson?
Do we have the transcript by then?
I can request an expedited transcript.
Thank you, Ms. Lunkett.
I'm going to say just for the end of the week, we'll just say Friday, September 2nd.
And we'll, again, close the business 5 p .m.
and we will make sure we get the transcript ordered right away.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thanks to both of you, by the way.
Thank you for the...
All right.
Thank you very much.
All right for the back and forth.
I'm sorry, Chair.
If this is Tanya, may I interject?
We did have...
I didn't know if you were still planning to allow testimony from witnesses in the audience.
we need the recommendation from the planning commission as well right we'll get the planning
commission um i mean the only the only the only things we would take from the audience is the
financial issues right ellery yes i mean this really goes directly to the question is to you
know basically whether the project is feasible and looking at the numbers for the proposed number
of units if that's you know the least minimum variance or not so i don't know that that's
something the public really could testify on right and we've also taken we've taken information from
the public in the past right when we voted the first time and right originally what we said is
all that information all that information is now part of the record correct thank you thank you
just wanted to um individual with their hand raised to understand why we're not calling on
why we're not calling on them so i don't get feedback thank you very much planning commission
them so i don't get feedback thank you very much
uh good afternoon mr chairman members of the board david effecto city planning commission
but the commission gave a recommendation for this case in 2018 our testimony today is the same
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location
unstable fill under the lot presents a hardship to cover the cost of compensating for this condition
the applicant must be able to build more than the allowed single -family home to derive value from
their land. Given that the conditions have not changed, City Planning Commission recommends
approval of the use variance with a maximum of four dwelling units. Thank you. Well, I would
object if that's inconsistent with the, I don't remember that from the prior case, but just note
my objection. I would object. Yeah, I think it might have been in the prior case. Okay, thanks
everyone thank you is there anyone from the morning hearings whose case has not been heard
i see no hands chair okay thanks everybody thanks for your work today i appreciate it
thank you for your time have a good day