Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning ZBA hearings. With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid. Present Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member Cheryl L. Gaston. Present Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member Tanetta Graham. Present Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member Michael Johns. Michael should be on it very shortly. And our Board Member Taya Nguyen. Present Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Ryan McSherry, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
This is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in person, if you're called to speak, you must state and spell your name, then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in place, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter their appearance.
They become an interested party to a case.
There are three ways to enter your appearance.
You've got to identify the case property address on your Zoom webinar.
You can see a staff member or you can call the ZBA appearance line by the close of business tomorrow.
Call 267-270-5548.
Leave a message that includes your email address and the address for the property of the appeal case.
The following guidance is for our remote attendees.
When directed by the chair, you must raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized.
If you're called to testify, you must be prompted to join as a panelist.
Please accept the request and turn near camera.
The webinar Q&A is for questions about the hearing.
Do not comment on cases in the Q&A.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
For in-person attendees, please refrain from talking, eating, or drinking.
Verbal and physical restrooms are not tolerated.
Restrooms are across from the elevators.
Water fountains are just down the room to the right.
When speaking on the record, you must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and our court reporter.
In the event of an emergency, please follow the directions given over the public address system or by the staff.
The main exit is through the double doors at the rear.
The nearest stairwell is to the left of the outside doors.
In case of an evacuation, the rally point is at Love Park directly across March Street.
Please remain there so we can account for you.
Let's look at our schedule for this morning.
number two mi 2024 002932 5625 thomas street cianni oliver is the listed owner applicant
this is the third listing with no exhibits council member gauthier has requested a
continuance because the rco has not been meeting has not occurred cianni oliver
good morning mr chair this is jason hand i will be your co-host for the session
i do not see any hands raised for the matter and the individual question is not present
virtually thank you so this is the third listing so mi2024 002 932 5625 thomas avenue i vote to
dismiss. Cheryl Gaston,
my vote is to dismiss.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
My vote is to dismiss. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Number 11, MI 2024,
007-418-1512
Cambridge Street, that case is continued.
Number 13, MI
20, 25, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 4, 19, 25, West Summer Street, Somerset Street. That case is continued.
And number 14, MI 20, 25, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 66, 17, Algar Street. That case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Yeah, I do not see any further hands raised for continuances.
Okay, so we have a few cases with no exhibits.
Number four, MI 2024-004-848-1301 East Westmoreland Street.
E.B. Riaz-Alazabal is the listed applicant.
This is the second listing. We have no exhibits.
I do not see any hands raised for the matter, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. This is the second listing with no exhibits.
So MI 2024-004-848-301 East West Moreland Street, I vote to dismiss.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Iowan, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
Number seven, MI 2024, 007-406-5907 Urjic Street.
Devin Upta is the attorney.
This is the first listing.
We have no exhibits.
Mr. Chair, I promoted him here.
We'll be coming back in shortly.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
I emailed my constituents for plus in this morning for 5907 Urjic.
Okay, so this is the first listing. So MI 2024-007-406-5907 Urgex Street. This case is continued to 10-15-25 at 9.30 a.m. Thank you, counsel.
And number 15, MI2025, 00028, 4000 North Fairhill Street.
Fannie Renesso is the listed applicant.
The listed owner is Nori Deepkland.
This is a request. We have not received a written request for the withdrawal yet. Are any of the owners in the audience?
Mr. Chair, no hands are raised for the matter.
Okay, so MI 2025-00028, 4000 North Fairhill Street. That case will be continued. Mark must be heard to 10-15-25.
yeah yeah yeah sorry there yep you should have anyway okay so we're going to go to number six
am i oh i'm sorry here's our add-ons
number one mi 2024 003 740 13 24 to 26 each pet shunk avenue the vote in this matter has
been rescheduled to wednesday may 21st at 8 30 a.m number two mi 2024 007 299 609 annon street
the vote in this matter has been rescheduled to wednesday may 14th at 9 30 a.m
number three mi 2024 007 301 101 88 busselton avenue i vote no
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no
Taya there
You're on mute
I hit the button twice, sorry
My vote is no as well
Taya went, my vote is no
Thank you
Number four, MI-2025-001-558-2308-St. Albans Street.
I vote to dismiss.
Dismiss for failure to state any grounds on which the appeal could be granted.
Request to transfer this matter to the Board of License and Inspection Review is denied.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss with proviso.
Taya, my vote is no with proviso. Taya, my vote is no with proviso.
It's actually dismissed.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is dismissed with proviso.
Taya, you might have to say that again.
Taya, when my vote is to dismiss with proviso.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024-007-327-714 North 43rd Street, I vote yes.
Number five, MI 2024-007-327.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Eoin, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Number six, MI 2024-007-354-1432 South 49th Street,
The vote in this matter has been moved to Wednesday, May 14th at 9.30 a.m.
And number seven, MI 2024-006-108-1827 North 22nd Street.
This is a re-vote.
I vote yes. Proviso. Maximum three dwelling units, commercial trash pickup, interior trash storage, no household living in the basement.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ellen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you. We're going to go to our regular list. We're going to go to number six first.
MI 2024-007-373-2215, Rittenhouse Square.
Jeffrey Mallins is the owner applicant.
This is the pro se.
Good morning, Mr. Mallins.
Take a seat.
Make sure the mic is on.
Push the button and get it close to you.
Hello, hello, hello.
Very good.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court sonographer?
My name is Jeffrey Mallins, M-A-L-I-N-S.
I am the owner of 2215 Rittenhouse Square.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
This application is for the erection of a roof deck at the third floor facing Latimer Street on the existing attached building for use as a single-family household living.
A roof deck must be set back five feet from the front building line, whereas the proposed roof deck has no setback from the front line.
There is a letter of non-opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
There's also a letter from a neighbor and a petition of support signed by six neighbors.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have, sir.
Thank you.
You may proceed and share your screen.
I don't see.
There's a green button.
It should be promoted.
Okay, so you can start your presentation.
So these are the documents that I submitted.
The roof deck is on the, and I can show a photo, on top of the second floor, kind of aligned with the third floor, on the rear of our home that faces Latimer Street.
um the proposal extends all the way to the property line but the there is a five foot setback
from i mean all the way to the building face but there's a five foot setback
from the property line to the building space they're also because the houses on either side
extend forward there's really no visible sight line to the deck from the alley it's completely
um sort of enclosed and i have signatures from anyone who could see the deck um via the sight
line from their home there also are many many other decks with no setback on the alley
the part of the reason for requesting no setback is that there is an original chimney to the
building right in the middle of the deck and below is an original fireplace that we use and
we really don't want to modify the chimney but if there was a setback
the chimney but if there was a setback um the deck would be it would be cut off on this side
and we have to have access stairs on the other side so it would really be kind of a very small
area um so my request to this board is for a an exception to this um i don't because the
wall is set back from the property line and there's a parking spot it's we think it's a
minimum safety hazard because if anything falls off it won't go onto a sidewalk it won't go into
any public space it will be on our property where there's a you know a parking space which makes it
inaccessible to the public um
and then last i bring up a letter from our 93 year old neighbor helen druitt who has been here
on the block for many many decades and she says i support it you must have it
um so i no one on my block argues with helen ever um and this is on top of the second floor
this is on top this is on top the second floor sir right and then there's a deck on the third
floor there is no deck on the third floor oh i see it the neighbors have decks on the third floor
but ours is on the second floor okay good questions from the board
questions smart attorney ryan mcsherry no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
do not see any hands mr chair planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission
amyboid do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning to the existing
multi-family residential r1 the proposed roof deck is consistent with properties on this block
face of latino street and will not injure the use of adjoining properties moreover the appellant
has demonstrated that the unique roofline configuration and structures relation to the
property line causes a unique physical condition in which the property cannot meet the zoning code
the planning commission recommends that the board grant their requested variance for roof deck set
back thank you mi 2024 007 373 2215 rittenhouse square i vote yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
Teneda Graham, my vote is yes
Aowyn, my vote is yes
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes
Thank you
You have your vote
Thank you very much
Number 10
MI 2024
007-415-706
Chestnut Street
there's a letter of non-opposition from council member squilla
there's unanimous non-opposition from washington square west
could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
you got to turn on hi good morning andrea solomon a-n-d-r-e-a-s-a-l-o-m-o-n do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do um could you
identify your client and the relationship to the property absolutely um my client is d-y-p-a
holdings llc with me today is dale you the owner and the co-founder of the philadelphia chinese
academy who's the operating of the property okay our vice chair has a few questions good morning
counselor do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing we did thank you you may proceed thank you i just need
We need a moment to join as panelists.
Am I able to share my screen?
Oh, yes.
i can't so just i i understand that um we're going to hear the case then hold
because there needs to be an amended refusal yes we were advised this morning that there
needs to be an amended um amendment um there are no uh refusals that are expected from the changes
we thought it would be in the proviso um so so we'll talk further about that with hillary but
So, we'll talk further about that with Hillary, but all the changes have been reviewed and approved by the community.
um all the
But, you know, we would wind up continuing for a vote at a later date, and it would be a week or two, right?
So, why don't you proceed?
so as uh chairman bergman mentioned uh we did receive a letter of support or of non-opposition
from the council member's office and a letter of non-opposition from the washington square west
association um the com the committee did have a few concerns about the hours of operation
of the roof deck, and so we worked with them to incorporate a proviso that the hours of operation
of the roof deck will be limited. This application is for a special exception, the standards are
lower, for two roof decks for use of the child care center, one on the second floor and one on
fifth floor we also received 30 or so signatures of near neighbors and support
and these are a few reviews of the school it's a great community asset and for the washington square
area the montessori school teaching method is built on principles of community and the environment
The Philadelphia Chinese Academy provides instruction using the Montessori method while embracing Chinese culture and Mandarin language instruction through guided play, the use of music to engage the senses.
And they do a lot of incorporating the outdoors to incorporate botany and hands-on activities as an integral part of their curriculum.
The proposed roof decks will enable the Philadelphia Chinese Academy to blend the indoor and outdoor with their classrooms and provide children with the essential outdoor space for learning and exploration.
So here are the plans.
The proposed roof deck is set back on both street frontages.
um the architect michelle kleschick is with us virtually as well to answer any questions if you
have them um as i mentioned uh we did submit a proviso and revised plans this is to add a small
27.5 square foot bathroom for the children on the roof deck um this is in response to a lot of the
comments from the teachers and the parents their toddlers and they they need the bathroom in the
play area so they're not running up and down the stairs um here are a few renderings that
of the proposed uh roof deck and this is uh the second floor it's um
incorporated into the classrooms and really will be an extension of the classrooms
um with that uh dale is here and she can answer any questions to elaborate on the school or their
operations and as i mentioned michelle is here as well why don't we do this why don't you have
your client adopt your testimony and then if anyone needs to have questions from the architect
we'll call them okay okay thank you good morning i could you get close to the mic okay i think it's
on could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer sure my name is dale you
it's spelled d as in david a l e last name is you spelled y-o-u do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel dale you heard my testimony
today and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge it is and do you adopt it as your
own yes i do all right questions from the board i have a question are there any other uh roof decks
on the adjacent building? Are there roofs being used that you know of?
There are no roof decks, but both are a little bit taller than both adjacent buildings are
taller than ours. Here's a you can see them here. This is a zone for demolition and a
taller building will be in its place. Other questions from the board?
I wanted to see where these decks are going to be.
decks are going to be you said there's going to be one on the second floor and then there's one
You said there's going to be one on the second floor and then there's one on the fifth floor.
on the fifth floor and you did show some renderings but like why don't you show your
renderings you get it yes are you are you able to see it hopefully in a minute okay
while we wait for daryl to get access what is the height of the railing on the fifth floor
That's one of the things I was interested in.
Can we bring Michelle on as well?
I think she
has raised her hand so she can be promoted.
They'll be coming back in shortly.
Usually with sex,
it's only supposed to be like four and a half feet.
And I'm not sure whether with children, what age children are these?
They are younger.
One to six.
One to six.
Oh, well, let's get the architect on.
Let's see what the architect is.
Hello.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Michelle Kleshek, M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E, Kleshek, K-L-E-S-C-H-I-C-K.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Did you hear the question?
I did.
Okay, why don't you proceed?
So on the sides, there is a note there near the bottom wall of the screen there, a 42-inch parapet along the neighboring wall with some screening above it to make sure the kids have no option of being able to climb up on it and jump off it or anything.
and then so that screening will be how high up it's uh yeah so about two feet above it
because the roof is we are playing we're planning on using the roof as it slopes like we're not
building a structure over top of it per se so there will be some slope to it so it's about
two feet above that um and then the front and the back would have screening at about five feet to
sure they're not getting out in the mechanical areas too close to the edges of the building okay
all right thank you all the questions
how about exhaust vents through the roof because i see the mechanicals are all of the
like anything that emits steam going to be relegated to the areas outside of the sort
of fenced programmed portion of the roof deck in in the setback the mechanicals in this in the
front of the property is that what you're concerned about i'm asking about anything that would pierce
that that has theme because they're not always necessarily co-located near the existing mechanical
equipment um and i see lots of circles on this plan so i'm just trying to determine
in are any of the gray circles exhaust events no the gray circles are uh planters planters okay
yeah to try also to help keep the kids from getting too close to the edges okay great and
and that includes that's why there's such a deep setback from the two from the two street frontages
and then my last question is i'm assuming for these uh for the greenhouse and for the pavilion
and that the pergola and the roof of the greenhouse
are not higher than the pilot houses
or the elevator penthouse
in terms of max height?
Yeah, there's heights on them.
They'd be about eight and a half feet for the pavilion
and about nine feet for the greenhouse.
There's heights for those,
but I don't see the height for the pilot house
or the penthouse, which is why I asked.
Oh, there's an elevation somewhere on that sheet
that has the overall heights.
hey any other questions from the board
questions from our attorney ryan mcshere
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair i have a hand up from paul bonnie i will promote them and they'll be coming back in shortly
good morning counsel
good morning mr chair members could you please state your name and spell for the
quartz stenographer tall bonnie b-o-n-i do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed counsel thank you uh good morning i uh represent
the society hill civic association which is listed as an affected rco and i wanted to indicate uh
and I wanted to indicate for the record and for the board that we have no objection
for the record and for the board that uh we have no objection
to this project. Thank you very much. Thank you, counsel. We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Planning Commission. We're going to hold this for a vote and maybe two weeks, right?
Do you want to take your position today? We'll hold as well. Thank you.
Okay, so we're going to do this 521 at 930 a.m. It's closed except for the revised plans and also we're planning to vote. Other than that, everything else is closed. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Number one, MI 2023-002-415-1941, East Tioga Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Debbie Cummins, thank you.
That's a panelist short, Mr. Chair.
michael johns i'm here uh okay good morning michael again okay i shouldn't say morning again
morning mr chairman members of the board morning mr clinton could you please state your name and
spell for the court stenographer sure henry clinton h-e-n-r-y clinton c-l-i-n-t-o-n
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do uh could you identify your client in relationship to the property
Sure. My client is Leo Pasholi, P-A-S-H-O-L-L-I, and he is the principal of the owner of the property.
And our vice shares a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, Mr. Shahid.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have, and I think the community group sent in a letter recently, I hope. So yes to that.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman?
It is, sir.
All right.
Good morning again, everyone.
Just a little bit bigger.
That's all.
Better?
Yeah, we'll get through that.
That's good.
Good morning again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm here on behalf of Leo Pacioli, the owner of 1941 East Tioga Street. This request is for a legalization of a two family dwelling on a block that has several eight or nine multifamily properties on the block.
Table of Contents, A1 through A11.
Refusal, this is an RSA 5 zoning district.
Despite the existence of multifamily on the block, we still obviously got a refusal because
we also are proposing a two-family dwelling.
I understand, I was at the RCO meeting and I understand the vote was 10 to 2.
I don't know if Harry Gate's letter got to the board yet.
I didn't get one, but that's my understanding that there's one on its way or has come.
All right. So we we have not observed it yet. So, Henry, if you have a copy, could you send it to us?
Right. I don't. Mr. Chairman, I don't have it yet.
This is just you're saying it was 10 to 2 in favor.
That's the verbal that I got. All right. Thank you.
So from my client. OK, so this is an aerial photograph.
The subject property is four from the corner.
It's right here where my cursor is.
And I've placed red dots on the properties that are multifamily, and they're all two-family dwellings on the block.
And there's one that's been in place, a two-family dwelling, since 1947, three doors away.
This is just a view from the other angle, from a higher angle.
This is the front of the property.
There's already two mailboxes there.
and 1947, as I said, three doors down
is the one that's been there since 1947.
Interior of the property.
This is the rear yard.
Again, a close-up of the zoning posters
as well as the two mailboxes.
The plans, basically, this is the first floor,
560 square feet come in through the side to come in through the front door living dining area
you have the dimensions of the room uh bet one bathroom one bed so there are two
You have the dimensions of the room, one bathroom, one bed.
So there are two flats, one bedroom on the first floor, one bedroom on the second floor.
This is the second floor, again, living area in the front, closet, stairway to get up from the first floor, and one bedroom in the rear.
application, project information form,
tax clearance,
There's a notice we sent out letters to 187 individuals.
So before I get to the zoning records, just a little bit of background.
So this matter was originally scheduled in front of the board in November of 2023.
At that time, Harrogate was not inclined to support my client's application.
They wanted to hear from, I guess, more people on the block because the meeting then was not well attended.
They also wanted to see how my client's use of the property was going to progress throughout the year.
meeting where they're going to get complaints, where people upset, and having heard none,
we tried to schedule another meeting. We eventually had a meeting last week
where the community basically turned around their view of the project and have voted to support it.
I have the zoning records here indicating that the following properties,
according to the public records, are either two-family or a store and one family.
And there's one on the 1935 zoning for three unrelated people in a single-family home.
I inserted that.
I know that's not really technically multifamily, but I just wanted to show the board that there are multiple uses of properties on the block.
And these are the backup records indicating what I just said in that outline.
This is a store, 1935.
I should blow these up a little bit.
This is the one that I said
there's three persons occupying the property.
This is from
Three persons.
Tioga. This is dating from 1990.
This was a deli and one family.
Indicating an active rental license for one unit above the store.
1911 East Tioga.
This is from 86.
Indicating a one family dwelling and a law office.
I don't really think that law office is there.
I didn't see it, but I'm just pulling up what was on public records.
1923 East Tioga.
This is a very dated zoning record from 1950, indicating two-family.
And I, you know, with all candor to the board, I couldn't confirm that it's still two-family.
I didn't want to knock on the door, but I'm only giving you, again, what the public records indicate.
This is the one at 1947, Tioga.
And from 1949, that is a two-family, and that is a two-family.
I verified that.
And they do have an active rental license.
That's how I verified it, besides walking by it.
1903, East Tioga.
This is a two-family dwelling.
Again, these are dated.
I'm not trying to suggest to the board that they are current.
This is from 1938, but I only can show the board what public records indicate.
1949, East Tioga.
this is a mixed commercial on the first floor and residential on the second that is in play.
And there are my zoning records. So I'm asking the board to look kindly upon this application
and legalize what is a two-family dwelling. My client's on the line. He will testify as to
why he doesn't have photographs of what it looked like when he acquired the property,
because typically when I come before the board,
I would have photographs showing what the property looked like when he bought it.
So it can be verified that in fact, it was set up as a duplex.
He had to pull only one permit, which was an easy, easy permit for exterior stucco.
He basically replaced things in the house, nothing structural.
He'll testify to no changes in window or door sizes, exterior.
And he put in new heating units in the basement.
And he put in new heating units in the basement.
so that is
So that is the presentation.
And if my client can raise his hand, I'll have him.
Why don't you bring him on?
Mr. Picholi, can you raise your hand, please?
They have been promoted. They should be coming back in shortly.
Mr. Picholi?
It takes him a while to get in.
Okay, sorry.
leo can you raise your hand yes all right sir could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer it's uh leo pascholi l-e-o last name pascholi p-a-s-h-o-l-l-i
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Bisholi, were you on the call when I presented your project?
Yes, I was.
And were my statements accurate about when you purchased a property and you did not take photographs of the existing utilities in the basement?
And why was that?
Just busy constantly.
And, you know, I just never, I never thought that I needed to take any pictures.
The whole time, honestly, I thought that it was a duplex legally.
And you did appear in front of Harrogate in 2023, and they rejected your project, meaning they did not vote in favor of it, correct?
And since that time, we've appeared at least twice, I believe, in front of the community group.
At least I have. You may have gone there more than me.
And over the intervening year and a half, why has the neighborhood reversed their feeling about this?
well they at this point they know me a lot better i live in the neighborhood i live in the same zip
code i'm about three blocks away from the property you know they know me a lot better they know that
i take care of my property so i'm not uh as they call a slum lord okay i take care of all my
properties and i don't uh you know i just i try to make the neighborhood a better place to live
all right uh and if you had the opportunity to testify would you adopt my testimony as your own
and that's true and correct yes thank you mr basholly questions from the board question where
where is your trash uh tenants going to store the trash uh that's a very good question i actually
just purchased uh if you could uh see in the front there the pad i just purchased a uh it's not a
trash bin i guess it's a trash shed which i will be bolting right at the front of the property there
with uh you know trash cans what about uh this is this is where the this the uh
tenants will store their trash on an ongoing basis or just on trash day it's a shed so they
could do that it's it's an enclosed shed so they can store it at all times okay
these buildings this this apartment i'm sorry to interrupt this apartment are not
huge apartments but at the same time they're not small they're made mainly for one person so they're
not you know you could have two people living there so i don't know i don't make a lot of trash
so it's not i don't think it's necessary to have any big containers or dumpsters there
does that first unit have access to the yard yes they do and does it have access to the basement
as well yes yes other questions uh how do you get to the second floor apartment when you go
through that door the door in the picture okay there's a door to the left and there's a door
straight ahead so there's a literally a four by four hallway shared common space and then you
would go upstairs or to the left of the first unit okay and is that one here anywhere in what
do you bring back the uh okay miss garson here's the side the front door would be here here's the
side that we have come into the first and then uh there's a stairwell to go up to the second
okay all right thank you any questions from the board questions are okay well yes i do have one
so in 2023 when you appeared in front of the community group you didn't have pictures to show
them then either of what no we did have this gas and we did have pictures i did the basically a
similar presentation. Oh, excuse me, maybe you mean original
pictures? I'm sorry. Yes, that's what I mean. Correct. You did
that's what i mean correct you did not ah okay all right sorry about that
not. Okay.
questions from our attorney uh no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
do not see any hands mr chair planning commission
amy wood with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change in
zoning to the existing RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is evidence that the conversion to multifamily was done without the benefit of permits.
We note that there are three mailboxes visible on the house while two units are sought.
This is mostly a single-family block, and there are no unique physical conditions or
circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the
zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends the board to deny the requested variance for multifamily.
Thank you.
MI-2023-002-415-1941 East
Toyota Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tinella Graham, my vote is yes.
Eowyn, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
All right, number three, MI-2024-003-268-3501-G Street.
lori han maslin is the attorney um there was a there's no letter or summary that we have
at this point of uh from the rco there was a meeting on october 17 2024 before the kensington
independent civic association
i do have a copy of that letter and i did submit it either yesterday or monday that we
why don't we do this why don't you identify yourself first fair enough okay uh laurie l-o-r-i
on h-a-h-n maslin m-a-s-l-i-n no hyphen do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client the relationship to this property
Sure. My client is Abril, A-B-R-I-L-L-E, Patio, P-A-T-I-L-L-O. She is the sole member and owner of Brilliance Realty LLC, which is the owner of the property.
The vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the written or the refuse or stipulate to his accuracy?
I agree, yes.
Have you emailed in all the required documents?
to the best of my knowledge i have except for current photographs of the inside of the property
so we're going to probably need you to email them in but we can go through the actual
presentation and i also learned today mr shaheed no taxes taxes you have a tax tax clearances in
there as well um and uh for ms patio um and uh i learned this morning ms patio took a look at the
drawings that were sent to me by the uh architect richard nevis he is on and available this morning
um were the incorrect were not the revised plans they were the original plans he had not forwarded
the revised uh and he will he will testify that the only change is on a stairway egress okay
please proceed mr chair this is ian hegarty i will be sharing screen for uh council council
Council, if you need me to move forward or backward, just say so, and I'll change the screen for you.
Thank you.
Excellent.
You are the best because I am computer challenged.
I will admit to that wholly.
As you can see, we have submitted the original refusal.
I'm not sure what the next document is, but we did post the property as required.
There are a series of pictures of the posting.
There's the project information form, and these are the photos.
You'll see this is a corner property that looks out onto the corner of Tioga and G Street.
I posted it on three sides so we could properly see it, so it would be seen by the neighborhood.
And as you can see, this neighborhood and this area is quite commercial as well as residential.
this particular property uh when it was purchased by my client was an active open operating bar
and restaurant with a liquor license licensed legally by the pennsylvania liquor control board
it has been if uh planning can probably review and i did not include because it was this thick
i did not want you to have to go through it but um the zoning throughout the years this has been
a restaurant since I think 1934 and was first zoned as a restaurant and bar in 1949.
and was first zoned as a restaurant and bar in 1949. So it has been consistently used as that.
When Ms. Patio bought the property, it was open and active. They wanted to be out so
bad that they closed probably a month or two before closing on the transaction.
And what Ms. Patio would like to do is open the original bar space and up on the second floor. When
she viewed the building they were illegally using the second floor and the kitchen was up there and
they were serving up there as well and if you can move forward to find the original plans and that's
the close-up of the zoning there you go next one there you go what you'll see is that on the first
floor there's bar and seating and continued bar and seating and where the stairway is is that is
what is going to be moved and we'll, we'll put in the, um, revised plans. Um, yeah, we have them.
Um, and I will submit them through the system. Um, and then up on the second floor, uh, which
is to the right, I believe is you'll see a bar serving area and then you'll see towards the
rear of the kitchen. Um, and we moved the stairway because, uh, yeah, uh, when we went to planning
and zoning. They didn't want anybody going through or past the kitchen in order to get out. So we're
changing the egress to make it appropriate from the second floor. And again, you will see this
is primarily to be a restaurant. It's a continued use. And when Mr. Nevis originally applied for
this, essentially he asked for zoning for two floors of a restaurant. This has always been
a bar and restaurant on the first floor, and it's really expanding it up to the second floor
to enable it to be more
of a restaurant
Ms. Petillo
is intending on doing a full menu
tell them the kind
of food
American food, Jamaican
food, and Spanish food
Why don't we square her in
Okay, fair enough
Is that turned on?
Please state your name
Upper Opetillo? Spell it? Yeah. A-B-R-I-L-L-E-P-A-T-I-L-L-O.
You swear referring to telling the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes. Please proceed, counseling. Thank you. Ms. Patillo, you just heard me
make a statement as to the type of food. Can you tell the panel what kind of food you're
intending on doing? We have a lot of variety of food because we're in like a neighborhood where
everybody's different from spanish food to american food to jamaican food just a lot of
different options for our area um and then i know we didn't speak about the basement the basement
as of now will be like our stock area storage yes right now i have a big um i want the pictures is
here i'm so mad they're not being here but it's like a walk-in refrigerator that basement area
has a cold box down there that has been approved it's in a licensed area um and storage area for
from the um board of liquor control um so that is it has always been licensed um and it has always
been part of that first floor bar um and what we're really looking to do is extend this up
to the second floor so she has more seating and we literally don't have nowhere to put the kitchen
at downstairs on the first floor if you see it's really really teeny and upstairs was a kitchen
area but it just wasn't approved so when we when i boarded i didn't have no clue that it wasn't even
a two-floor bar and the liquor license is is for a two-floor bar so i'm just totally confused on
what happened but we don't have a room to put it downstairs we definitely need the upstairs to be
for more seating and to be able to have a full kitchen.
Let me understand. Do we have tax compliance? Do you have a form for tax compliance?
I submitted a form for Ms. Abriel for tax compliance.
Yes. It is in my computer.
You submitted it to who? There it is.
Okay. Yeah.
Yeah, my apologies. And I did, I don't know if it's showing up or not yet.
I could have sworn I did it on Monday. I do have a copy of the letter. So what Ms. Patio is trying
to do is trying to bring back a neighborhood commercial business into an area that has
businesses on the four corners. Just continue the use. You will see that the meeting was noticed.
You will see that the meeting was noticed.
It was done back in early November of 2024, I believe, or late October of 2024.
It was done back in...
And due to a comedy of errors, administrative errors, I was not the one who originally applied
for the zoning appeal.
And so all the documents were going to someone else as opposed to me.
So this had been continued once due to surgery for me and then once because nobody was noticed and it wasn't properly posted.
So we made sure that was done and we're given a short date.
And I can tell you, and I will submit this through the system, the Kensington Independent Civic Association, which is the ROC, did state applicant attend in the required meeting in the community.
It was agreed the applicant's request was approved with the following provisions.
and those are installations of cameras and lightings trash secured uh management will
keep the property free of trash and vagrants to the best of their ability and sunday to thursday
they will close at 12 a.m um and impact services had a representative the meeting is willing to
work with applicant with city programs for the cameras and lights and i will submit that to you
yeah so you know what i i do think though before we vote on it we should at least see what it looks
like inside absolutely so so so so i do have mr nevis on i believe he is available and he can
discuss yeah i mean he can tell us what it looks like but i i do think we need to at least see so
what i would do is all that that's all everything that's inside that this is what is inside miss
Patio had to wind up calling a locksmith
to break in. The locks were just...
It's been two years. I lost the keys.
I couldn't find them. We didn't do no work.
I literally just got a locksmith yesterday
and went in there and took all those pictures.
$25 to print them out.
There's literally no way to get upstairs
unless you walk through the bar.
Here's...
I'm going to let the board have some questions,
but what I'm going to do is
we're not going to vote today.
We'll vote next week.
and i want copies of the inside that everybody could see okay so what you're basically doing
is the first floor and the basement was used for the bar before and now you want to spread
instead of third floor correct okay questions for the board then i guess we just got to see
if the um provisos are enforceable that was the trash could be important and the times
yeah cool what the trash and the times times if they're asking for me yeah yeah they are legally
um permitted to um stay open until 2 a.m um miss patil why she would like to like to be able to do
that um she does understand the concerns of the neighbors during the week um and i think she's
going to be willing to work with them to keep noise down because that's why we need to figure
out that they're forcible because the liquor license come with certain hours um that you can
operate right and but we review that with our attorney and make sure we align that and as i
was going to say um the previous owner um the previous bar it was just a raucous bar that was
you know things were not you know it was not a great place let's let's look questions for the
board. Yes. Question. How many seats do you plan to have on the first floor? How many seats on the
second floor? We could count them as literally 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 seats will be on the
first floor against the wall. And then as you can see, it'll be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, about nine seats
against the bar and then we have two seats in the back by the bedroom and then upstairs is tables so
people can actually have a seat and have a good dinner we have one two three four five tables and
we have a small bar area and also two bathrooms up there with the kitchen okay and the venting
for the kitchen is through the roof yes in the back where the kitchen is yes it's nowhere near
the bar or the seating area. It's all the way on the other side of the building. All right and the
layout for the kitchen you've discussed with the health department? Yes everything is laid out and
noted. You can see literally what everything is going to be and where what everything is literally
on the pictures. Okay. Our three compartment sinks, our refrigerators, our stool top, everything is
literally listed on that first picture to the but this was a plan that you went through the
health department to make sure that the kitchen is laid out properly um i'm not sure that we can
ask mr richard but he's definitely a licensed architect so he kind of knows how um the health
how um the health department wants things done because this is not his first encounter with a
department wants things done because this is not his first encounter with
bar so he did it to his knowledge of you know everything that he's seen and everything that
he knows but i'm not sure if he if it went to the health department as of yet you got to get a
license from the health department yeah i know that he just was saying that is this like how
the health department will want it and from my knowledge it is because mr navius that this is
not his first bar like he he taught me a lot i'm gonna be honest so right i will believe so i i i
did code enforcement work for the city for a while with the health department yeah so um there are
certain layouts for um uh kitchens and that's what i was really asking about like you know the hand
sinks the three bay sink that's it's all here you can literally see the two compartments sink the
hand wash sink everything is there okay and miss gaston what we will do is she's been stalled
for so long with this zoning that she hasn't proceeded with those portions so once she is
zoning and and permitting and and the construction starts to get done that's one of the steps
is going to be to apply to the health department you know provide the plans to the health department
if any changes need to be made then they would be made at that point with the architect with
miss patel based on what what the health department would require because obviously
okay okay question other questions for the board what is going to be the use that's in the open
lounge area on the basement because it sounds like we're trying to shift primary activities
to the second the first and the second floor instead of the basement in the first floor
so what are you going to do with that space that you're reclaiming in the basement it's just going
to be like for storage okay so just expanded storage yes we have closets down there the
store liquor and supplies we have a mop sink down there so you know when we need to clean we can have
our mop sink somewhere safe and we just have a the storage off slash office and then we also have
a utility area i think what they're concerned about abriel is it says open lounge area that's
not going to be for customers oh no no no no no that's just an open just an open floor i think
he might have just it was like an area but we're definitely not going to be sitting or serving any
liquor in a basement that's just definitely for storage the stillings is way too low we can't even
barely walk and then on the first floor i know you just said that there's 15 seats but that is a
banquette booth seating that's against the wall so that is actually capacity for like 42 persons
on the first floor correct yeah they're they're basically like booths but it just look like seats
but it's basically like a bench and then what you see in front of it is a table all right no no i
can read the plan i just said 15 seats and that's that's 42 seats i think you meant 15 tables 15
tables yes i'm sorry okay and then um for the bathrooms at the rear i see that they have the
five foot turning radius for wheelchairs and i just is the first floor fully accessible yes we
have a ramp outside there's a ramp outside okay just just so you know that the three foot two
in between the chairs once people are sitting in them um that's going to be a tight alleyway
for any person with a wheelchair to get through so it just might be something that you want to
look at are you saying like between the bar and the tables between the seats at the bar and the
seats at the table right now they're depicted and they're not like where they would be if a person
was sitting on them so like that you know depending on how far back a person pulls their seat or if
you allow people to stand at the bar that is a three foot wide walkway so it's it's tight so
it's no seats on this side of the booth so literally it's a bench and it's a table it's
no i understand you i'm just letting you know that there's a three foot clearance thank you
that like with movable furniture which means that if a person move the furniture back too far
it might not be clear so that might be something more if we have to because we have a lot of room
beyond the bar we definitely will push it back more if we have to other questions uh yeah the
takeout question how does that work do they have to go all the way up to the second floor to the
kitchen area or how would you work in case to take out? No, they will order downstairs and
the servers will bring it down and they'll take it out. We have two doors. So one is on G Street
and one is on Tioga. So it will work kind of like that. They wouldn't have to go upstairs to order
and do nothing if they leave it right out. So you're saying one of the doors will be designated
for takeout? I'm not going to say one of the doors will be designated, but definitely takeout
will be done downstairs. They will not have to walk upstairs to the kitchen if they're not
going upstairs, but like the
bar in the OJ area. Thank you.
Welcome. Questions from our
attorney? No,
attorney no chair other than just i agree that we we should hold this uh just the board can
Chair, other than just I agree that we should
hold this.
receive its requested materials yep questions or comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any hands with the jet planning commission do you want to wait for the photos
or no i'm fine to testify thank you um amy war with the planning commission the comprehensive
plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from residential single family rsa
to commercial mixed use cmx2 that would allow a sit-down restaurant buy rate and a takeout
restaurant with a special exception additionally the property has a documented history of restaurant
use since at least 1934 the planning commission recommends the board grant the requested variance
for a takeout restaurant i'm sorry i misspoke um the planning commission recommends the board
grant the requested variance for sit-down restaurant and for takeout restaurant but
with proviso takeout accessory to sit down restaurant okay um we're going to hold this
till next week uh it's going to be closed other than the photos that you send us and maybe if
listen to me listen and maybe at the same time could you send us photos of the outside that
would show the two doors she just talked about so get that down to us as soon as possible i and i
believe the posting photos show that but i will get better photos sure and we're going to vote on
this 6 6 14 at 9 30 a.m it's closed other than the issues we just spoke about 6 14 or 5 4 5 14
and i will ask for you i got june on my mind yeah it's summertime we're about to lose our
funding for this bar okay sure um what i was going to say is i'm going to ask um i can give
you i can scan uh i just had a death in in the immediate family so i'm not going to be in my
office for the next several days it's okay but i'll get them um to you no later than monday okay
okay sure that's fine and we would also like to submit the updated plans that move the stairwell
please do that okay thank you excuse me keisha can help you mr chair i i also want to note that the
the record should still be open for the uh i do have a note from hillary regarding the the tax
compliance form we got it well no she's apparently the the one we received is is is is incorrect the
property is still not so there's right 2024 that's why i asked for before there's an issue back in
in 2024 right okay um apparently there are okay please i i we got so you know where we stand yes
and please get it done get all of that done thank you thank you for your time and we appreciate your
time in person I like in person all right thank you all right number five MI 2024 007372 4722
Wellington Street Vern Anastasio is the attorney there's a letter of non-opposition from Takuni
Civic Association with the proviso
i'll be coming back in as a panel shortly mr chair thank you
morning mr chair good morning council could you please state your name and spell for the son
sure vern anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o you swear or firm to tell the truth
told truth nothing but the truth i do um could you identify your client the relationship to
this property uh yes i represent mr claudio bilas who is the owner of the property sure our
vice chair has a few questions good morning counselor do you agree to wait to read another
refusal or stipulate to his accuracy good morning yes i do have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
i have thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you
4722 wellington we're going to start with the taconi civic association letter to
the zoning board uh they we had the meeting on the 25th of march
in person and uh as the taconi organization states the property uh our our proposal was
for a two-family dwelling the property has been a two-family dwelling for some time
uh and sometime uh based on the uh information we received and submitted to the board moving
it into evidence with the history of the property is 1967 was when it looks like this property was
at least identified as a two-family dwelling in the Philadelphia Zoning Archives, it was already
in 1967 an existing two-family dwelling based on the materials. So this two-family dwelling is a lot
This two-family dwelling is a lot older than me, and we're just looking to legalize it again.
older than me.
So with that, here's the zoning map.
I'm going to go to the top of the exhibit packet.
I have a 56-page exhibit packet that I'm going to move into evidence at the end of my presentation.
The property is zoned RSA3.
It generated a refusal.
And here's the existing layout.
Here's the front steps where my cursor is.
I'm sorry.
Here's the front steps where my cursor is.
And there it is right here.
Here's the first unit is the living room, large kitchen, and you've got a bedroom on each side.
And the same thing with the second floor.
Bedroom on each side.
And the side stairs is how you enter.
I'm going to zoom in a little bit so you can see that the basement is just mechanicals.
The height will remain on the first floor as is.
So I'm going to pull out the properties in disrepair, so there are no real good photos to share other than, you know, in its current condition.
So we'll give you that.
As you can see back here, two gas meters.
you'll also see on the side of the property two electric meters
previous there's an entrance here and the taconi folks have asked that we keep the trash on the
side here this is a breezeway and then the adjacent property is a parking lot for several cars and
then adjacent to that parking pad is another multi-family dwelling all on this side of the street
as you can see there there historically has been two mailboxes
Here's the letter that went out to all relevant households, inviting them to today's hearing, in addition to the community meeting.
114 individual households were mailed through the Vista Secured Company.
Here's the history that we were talking about previously.
1967, present use to family dwelling.
Lock itself is not very dense.
Across the street, there's another multifamily dwelling,
a garage, and someone's side yard.
It does not face any residential homes other than that.
There's also proof of tax paid.
And a deed that indicates that my client purchased this property a year ago because of the support of the community, because of its long history as a two-family dwelling, because of the adjacent property being a parking pad and next to that is a multifamily, I'm respectfully requesting the granting of the variance.
As a public policy matter, as we all know, the mayor has asked for 30,000 affordable housing products and quality ones at that.
This kills two birds with one stone here.
In Taconi, in this particular neighborhood, a four-bedroom, two-bath home, 1,500 square feet, is currently being sold at market for $310,000 in Taconi.
These units will rent about, by the way, that $310,000 equates to about $2,200 a month in a mortgage payment currently.
These two-bedroom units will rent for about $1,200 a month.
will rent for about $1,200 a month. So it's $1,000 less, making it far more affordable
So it's $1,000.
and eradicating blight at the same time. This long blighted property will finally be revitalized. So
in granting this variance, this board will be helping the administration achieve two
very important goals. And with that, I would like to have Mr. Biles raise his virtual hand.
Claudio
Billis
Billis
counsel
I'm sorry but I did not see that
individual in the virtual audience
okay thank you
as an officer the court will accept your testimony
questions from the board
yes can you go back to the plans
yes sir
So while I appreciate the goal to support the mayor's initiative to develop affordable housing, I'm concerned with the layout of that first floor unit in terms of really it being livable for a two-bedroom.
there's no place that you really show where you can have a table and eat
uh and i'm assuming that because you've got the breezeway you can access the rear yard
from the ground floor unit from the side okay correct um this is the living space i'll blow
it up for you a little bit no i can read it oh okay i'm some i'm looking at it's you know where
do you eat? You have to sit on your sofa and eat your dinner? Well, if you ask my 21-year-old
son, yeah, that's exactly where, but I'm being funny. I question the livability of the unit
and the square foot for a two-bedroom unit on the first floor. At least on the second floor,
you did provide or they did provide a space where you could have a table um yeah so so that's so
that's the concern the other concern is having to go from through the living room to go to a bathroom
on the opposite side of the of the unit but that being said is here yeah from the from the bedroom
on the other side and likewise on the second floor but at least the second floor is a little
more livable than that first floor unit so those are my comments and um now trash where's the trash
stored the um the situation asked that the trash containers be placed on the side in the rear uh
and that the the homeowners put the trash back each unit will have its own container
With respect of the first floor livability, we're certainly not opposed to eliminating one of the bedrooms.
I mean, I don't necessarily know how we would put that on the record other than by saying it here under oath.
But if that's what the board is looking for to make it, give it more common space living, we're certainly okay with that.
all right those are those are my comments i have a question about the washer dryer i'm assuming
that the closet on each plan um there's one on the first floor next between the kitchen and
the living room there's another one in the bedroom in the second floor plan are those
meant to be stacked washer dryer units let me go to the basement before I answer that question
because I don't know this uh uh these this doesn't look like washer dryer and neither does that
that looks like furnace so uh to the extent that these units will have a washer dryer
that's where obviously a closet space would be where they went but I I can't I didn't draw these
as you know. So I can't and it's not identified on the plan. It's not. So then my question also
then becomes where are the second floor utility hookups? Because right now it looks like only
the first floor unit has access to the basement, which would make it really difficult for the
second floor unit to access their both their electric panel and meter, as well as any of
Is there other utility hookups?
I will double down on what board member John said
about the livability of the first floor
because that one of those bedrooms
doesn't even have a closet.
And then a question I have, which I understand you're not the architect, but just putting it on record, is that the scale of the second floor bathroom looks off.
And then a question I have,
which I understand you're not the architect,
but just putting it on record.
It looks different than the first floor, which shows a standard tub.
And the second floor looks like it's supposed to be a standard bathroom, but the whole thing got squished.
And I just know with two bedroom units, those are generally considered for families.
And if it's going to be a single bathroom in a family unit, I typically want a tub in case there's a small child.
So it looks like that would have to be a stand-in shower and not a tub.
I'll speak to as many of the issues you brought out as I can.
I took notes, Ms. Wynn.
First, the utilities.
All the utilities, I was told, will be in the basement, and there will be a panel in the units,
so you know which is not uncommon uh there'll be an electric panel in the units and that's really
all they would need uh typically uh so that's the the second issue which is i think really in the
major one important one is that that second bedroom on the first floor again we are not
opposed to eliminating it uh in order to make the space more livable uh and we can certainly
I mean, I will say, is the owner planning to live at the location in one of the units?
I'm sorry, say it again.
Is the owner planning to live on the property in one of the units?
The owner's child, he's purchased this and would like to renovate it, and one of the units will be for his son.
I just know typically, if you're going to have a duplex, when one of the units has exclusive access to the basement, but major systems equipment for the other unit is in the basement, that is generally not a great rental setup.
And so, like, you know, to have some access in case there's, you know, an issue with any of your, you know, MEPs or your HVAC, to have to go through the other unit means you're now having to coordinate with the owner, you know, whoever's renting on the first floor below you to get your own house fixed.
And I know that causes just a lot of maintenance and property management issues.
Yeah, the process would be that the tenant who had an issue with a utility or if the owner has the issue with the utility, the property management team will have their, you know, HVAC guy or girl or woman come out and fix it and coordinate with that tenant.
Of course, the landlord and the property management team have complete access to the property in both units.
Other questions from the board?
And not to pile on, but I agree about this first floor setup. I really am concerned about the idea that you have to go from this one bedroom through the living room to use the bathroom there on that floor.
I don't, I don't think that that's a good setup either. I mean, not only do you not have any place to kind of sit and eat or whatever, but you also, there's no, there's no closet. There's no bathroom near there.
This is the, I'm talking about this bathroom, the bedroom here in the back. The one where the window is, the one at the top.
This is being eliminated.
I'm sorry.
That's being eliminated.
We've already landed on that.
I hear you loud and clear.
Questions from our attorney?
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
You have not seen any hands raised, Mr. Chair?
If we chose the vote, we can improvise the one bedroom on the first floor.
Thank you.
I'm okay with that.
All right.
know what I guess to counsel here. Well, I'm a counsel too, Mr. Chair. I didn't know who you're
asking, but okay, cool. Amy Ward with the Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no
change in zoning to the existing residential single-family RSA 5 at this location. While
there is a documented history of two-family use, the property is in shell condition and this use
is no longer current. There are no unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code therefore the planning commission
recommends the board deny the proposed variance for two-family residential use and for no off-street
parking thank you mr chair i just i'm sorry to interrupt just want to make a correction the
planning commission is incorrect it's not zone rsa five so rsa three thank you okay um mi2024
007-372-4722 Wellington Street.
4722 Wellington Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
I vote yes with proviso.
Trash door towards the rear on the side of the building.
One bedroom on first floor only.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Vanetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Everyone, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you all.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
All right.
So number eight, MI 2024-007-407-881-Winwood Road.
Devin Upta is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from the Neighbors of Overbrook Association.
Vote was 10 in support, 2 non-opposition.
Let me come back in as a panel shortly, Mr. Chair.
Council?
Good morning.
Good morning, Council.
Good morning.
can you hear me yes uh you if i remember correctly i swore you in once this morning am i correct
uh i believe so yeah could you uh state your name just for the record
yes devin ukda last name uqdah all right could you also identify your client in relationship
to the property yes my client is the trustee it's just the property is owned by a trust
she's the trustee uh Fatima are you an audience all right and our vice chair has a few questions
good morning counsel do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy
yes I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed for this case
five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed
are you able to see my screen we can okay i'll just make sure my client
okay so all right perfect um so the address of property is 881 winwood road philadelphia pa
um this is the letter of refusal um so the property the basically letter refusal says that
it's a single is a it's going to basically we're trying to add their ability to use
uh business and professional services and on the side of on the side of the property
there will be no structural changes or any like major renovations going on it's just that due to
being a residential they you know you need to change the license you need to go through zoning
approval for it from the operated business out of the residential property because currently zoned
as RSA3. This is the deed of the property. As I stated, it is currently in trust, the
property is currently in trust, and the trustee is here to adopt my statements. So currently,
the property is located here.
It's a corner property.
These are all residential.
It's Arm 1.
So there's a picture a little zoomed out.
Again, most of the properties
on the block are RSA 3.
All the properties on the block are RSA 3.
Over here, the properties are Arm 1 and Arm 2.
There's also, at the other end of the block,
there's commercial spaces as well.
This is like a major street.
again this is a another area of the property um so it's in between 63rd and 64th on winwood
so this is the property um as it's currently as it currently looks um this is the property
here on the corner on the which i was into on the side of it here is where the business will run out
of um so these are some of the rm1 properties that i saw again this is a close-up view of the
door where the business will run out of devon could you find a way to make that a little
larger it's kind of hard to see yeah let me see is that better a little better yeah okay
Okay. So you're saying on the side there where the entry will be for the for the business.
so you're saying on the side here where the entries will be for the
So basically, the owner is is resides at the property and they want to run their business like from their home instead of using office space.
So they will use this entry to do consulting.
There will be no like like signage or anything like that posted, but just that they're able to actually list it as their business address.
So now, so I can scroll down.
So here's the inside of the property.
The property is already renovated because it's livable.
So there's going to be no actual renovations.
So the office space, they already work from the area.
It's just to legalize that they can work from home inside the unit.
We had the RCO meeting.
We got the letter of support from the community.
There are no outstanding taxes.
So, Devin, one more thing here.
So, above where the office will be, you're saying it's a single-family home?
So, yeah, so it's currently occupied now, yes.
Could you show us the office space?
i don't have any pictures of the office space because it's like currently occupied but
um my client can testify i'm stating that there will be no renovations it's just like
a desk and stuff down there
um again we met with the community we were able to get the we have a letter of support from the
community. They have no outstanding tax or taxes or violations or anything on the property. It's
pretty well kept. And aside from that, that's it. We're just asking for your support and
changing so they can run their business from home legally. And I can call the trustee who
should be on the Zoom to adopt my statements. Her name is Fatima, if you're able to see her.
why don't we bring her on i'm here i could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer yes fatima abdullah f-a-t-i-m-a-h uh last name abdullah a-b-d-u-l-l-a-h
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed counsel oh fatima have you heard my statements yes okay do you adopt
my statements and testimony yes okay thank you just a quick question Devin is is uh the people
who are going to live in their house going to run the business yes okay questions from the board but
Devin this is kind of hard not even to see the office you know I mean like you you you're looking
to put an office there,
but we don't know
what the office even looks like.
Well, I guess, Commissioner,
they currently work from home,
so it is like occupied.
There will be no renovations.
So we were able to express
the community that
they're not going to do
any renovations.
There'll be no permits
or anything like that.
Let me get some questions
from the rest of the board.
Questions from the board.
You said they currently
work from home.
So is this now going to be
a separate commercial office space?
so they're just going to use that as their actual office so if they work from home they're
home they're working and i guess they also lease a space but they want to cancel their lease and
just use this as their only office location no i understand that but like is there still going to
be residential use yes yes yes yes above the office space so they're converting the first
floor but you're saying no construction well it's not it's not yes pardon me i'm sorry one more time
i didn't say anything used no it's actually the basement am i correct
uh it's not necessarily a basement because it's above ground yeah i agree i agree yeah it's the
yeah but it's the first level of the structure right yes yes yes and and you're saying that
they're already using it as an office no they're not using that as an office i'm saying if they
work from home they use the upstairs residential portion but they have an actual office space the
goal would be to cancel the office space they have outside of their home and to just use this space
to move the space that's already in the property they currently own yes because it has the capacity
to do yes got it okay what's the business
is this i think this may be um well fatima you're on the call
so you'll be seeing a therapist you'll be seeing clients
So you'll be seeing a therapist, you'll be seeing clients.
I'm not the therapist.
The therapist be seeing clients?
How many clients will the therapist be seeing at the same, at a time?
Oh, one at a time.
Like how many people, I'm sorry, how many clinicians will be in the office at a time?
Oh, one clinician.
The one clinician, and I'm assuming like one to two clients, are they all scheduled, pre-scheduled appointments?
I am not certain of that. And she currently services clients at another location.
So I'm assuming whatever her client load, her personal client load is there, she would bring to here.
She just wouldn't be seeing them at that space or remotely. She would be seeing them in her physical space.
but it's one-to-one therapy sessions.
It's not like group sessions or anything like that.
But I don't know her current load.
So the owner is not doing this.
You'll be leasing the space to a therapist.
The trust.
The trust will be leasing the space to the therapist?
Because you said the owner will be living in it.
The owner currently lives there.
Correct.
The property is owned by a trust.
The owner currently lives there,
but she will now be using the space below it to do therapy.
So she's the therapist. Yes. This is the trustee. So it's in a trust.
Gotcha.
Do we know what the sound attenuation is between the first and the second
floors?
Not offhand. No.
And they're currently two completely separate legal units.
Yes. No door.
from the office space into the residential portion?
They have separate entrances?
Yes, there are separate entrances.
So that picture that I was showing,
I can bring it back up of the left side of property
is where it is.
Also, I do have a picture that I can add
and at the end of the day
of what the office space looks like.
So I can, you can see like some of the drywall and stuff.
That's it's like, it's just like open space pretty much.
But that's helpful.
That would be helpful, yes.
One second.
Hold on.
While I pull it up, I guess, were there any other questions I can answer?
I think the only other question I had is since you had no interior pictures, are all of the utilities legally separated?
So basically, this is the one that we use as the actual office.
So if you were to walk into that door, I'm sorry, can you see this?
We see it.
If you were to walk into the door from the outside and then go into where the office area, you would pass about a few feet and then into the office area, this is what it looks like.
So as you see now, I mean, it's just space that's kind of like unused.
The goal is just to use this area as the actual office.
So it's already constructed.
It's just not in use, I guess.
So when she works from home, she's using her, like, room and stuff like that.
Is there any windows?
From the angle you have, it is very hard to figure out what part of the building this is and how this relates to any major entrance.
So this is across from the major entrance when you walk in.
The side entrance.
So not the main entrance.
This is the side entrance.
The main entrance up top is residential.
So that part is not, I guess, that's not what the refuser is related to.
is it's the side entrance that we're going to use for the office space do you know how many rooms
are on the in that commercial space that come if i enter through the side door how many different
rooms are there on that level and does it have a separate bathroom or a kitchenette like what what
are what's the setup or the layout there's no kitchen we don't have any photos of it it's the
problem so there's there is no uh there's no kitchenette there's a bathroom so it's never
it was used as a residential there's a bathroom now you can have a kitchenette not kitchen is
not a kitchenette so most offices do have a kitchenette here here's here's the thing devon
we we have to see what that first floor looks like you have to have photos of the whole first
floor and i think we're going to have to do this as a result of hearing okay i mean and and i
And I notice you, the next case, is that similar?
notice you the next case is that similar the
The trust owns the next case that we're going to hear to?
That's 809 North 63rd, right?
So this case that you have here, this is going to have to be a resumptive hearing.
And you're going to have to come back with some photos and drawings to at least let us know what it looks like.
And I and I appreciate the last photo you showed, but all you do is you see a door open and you can't tell where it is or anything like that.
So what I want you to do, it's going to be a resumptive hearing and you're going to have to come back with photos and the drawing of how it looks and then really show how it's not connected to upstairs or how it's connected or whatever.
OK. OK, Commissioner, would it be possible to request a quick date?
i don't i don't know that i can give you a quick date what what i'm going to do is i'm going to
give you the date that we have listed that we have coming you can contact the office to see
if it's possible to do it another time so here's where we are mi2024-007-407-881
winwood road this is going to be a resumptive hearing and the date that we're showing is
8-19-25. You can call the office to see if it's
possible. We can do that another time, okay? Okay.
Now, hold on. So the next, explain to me before we even get
into it, what's the next case? It's pretty much
same? It's similar. So I'll get additional pictures of the office
space and could I just request the same date for the two spaces? So what you're
saying, you don't have photos for the second one? I have minimum. I don't have drawings for it,
just minimum. I didn't get drawings for it because there'd be no renovations.
All right. So, all right. So, okay.
So that number nine is MI 2024 007 414 809 North 63rd street.
That'll be a resumptive hearing on 8 19 25.
If you can call the office at nine 30,
if you can call the office and find a different date, that's fine,
but that's where we are now.
And you know what you're going to need when you come back in.
And if you have any questions at all, call the office,
they'll help okay all right thank you all right thank both you all right number 12
mi 2024 007 426 2813 north 2nd street henry clinton is the attorney
we do not have at this point uh an rco letter but there was uh there was a meeting was held
April 30th by the 7th Ward RCO.
Yeah, they will be coming back in as a
panelist.
Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Mr. Clinton, you've already been sworn, just for the record, could you state your name?
Sure, Henry Clinton. All right, and could you identify
your client, the relationship to the property? Sure, my client is John Downing,
D-O-W-N-I-N-G
and his wife Judith
and one or both are on the call.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading
of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits
that's needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you, Counsel. Please proceed
and share your screen.
Thank you, Ms. Sheehan.
Henry, could you start the meeting off by telling us what happened at the meeting?
Sure. The meeting was conducted by Angel Cruz, former state rep up in that neighborhood at 3500 Block B Street.
We sent out the letters. We appeared. There was one other RCO there.
State Representative Guerrell was there, G-I-R-A-L, as well as Mr. Cruz.
And that's all the people that attended the meeting.
I've communicated to Mr. Cruz about the process, which he knows about, and he was supposed to send a letter in.
But evidently, I haven't received it, and I know you haven't received it.
Please proceed, sir.
So, Table of Contents A1 through A10, this is a relocation of lot lines case.
We're not asking for any structure or building on it.
It's simply breaking up one large piece of ground that goes from 2nd Street to Pailthorpe Street into two separate parcels.
The refusal, RSA 5, the refusal concerns lot size and width and also lot coverage.
But when I show you the aerial photograph and the subdivision plan, it'll bring it more into focus as to why the refusals were generated.
all right so pale forp is where my cursor is
All right, so Pailthorpe is where my cursor is, 2nd Street, my cursor.
So this is one contiguous lot, and the request is to break it up into one parcel on 2nd Street, which contains a single-family home, and one parcel on 2nd Street, which contains a garage.
Just another view, closer.
Again, Pailthorpe appears to my right, 2nd Street to my left.
And this is a single-family house with an existing yard between the property and the garage.
A view of the house, three-story house on 2nd Street, and a view of the one-story concrete garage on Pale Forb Street.
Zoning notices posted.
Plans.
So on the left-hand side, again, this is the existing lot, goes all the way through from
2nd to Palfor. On the right-hand side is the breakdown. It's going to be Parcel B and Parcel
C. Parcel C will be the garage. Parcel B will be the remaining house. And again, there's a rear yard
of about eight feet wide or so in the back that will remain.
So we're not really doing any construction, any work.
There's no proposal for a single family home or multifamily.
It's just take the existing lot as it appears,
split it into two, single family and a garage.
To my understanding is that the gentleman
that is occupying the garage, I'll go back to that,
wants to purchase the garage.
And that's the reason for the subdivision. And if the board grants it, then we'd have to get addresses, a new address for the garage on on Palforpe Street.
And that's that's basically it. I don't want to overdo it, but it's very direct presentation.
The rest of the documents, there's a balance due.
It's due December 25th, so he's basically current right now.
Zoning map, again, showing the through lot from one street to the other.
RSA 5 zoning district.
The deed indicating ownership.
Gentleman has owned the property, Mr. Downing, since 2006.
notices that went out to everyone in the neighborhood within 250 feet of the subject
property mailed out the mailings and that's the presentation so we're not affecting any light or
air all the status quo remains but for the fact that there's going to be a a line of demarcation
between the house and the garage.
And I can ask Mr. Downing
or Mrs. Downing to unmute herself
and I'll ask the client
to adopt my testimony.
Mrs. Downing, can you unmute yourself?
I think she has to help her husband.
I did.
Could you please state?
State your name.
All right.
State your name.
Tom Downing.
So he had a stroke,
so I speak for him.
some, John Downing, J-O-N-D-O-W-N-I-N-G, and I'm Judith Downing, J-U-D-I-T-H-D-O-W-N-I-N-G.
I could, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Downing and Mrs. Downing, you were on the Zoom call when I presented your project
to subdivide your existing property into two lots.
And if you had the opportunity to testify, Mr. Downing, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you very much, Mr. Downing.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no means at this time, too.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no changes in the property.
Motor repair and garage work on this property for the garage,
dating back to at least the 1950s.
the planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for rear or depth
occupied area and subdivision on the basis of use mr chairman can i address that you can yeah i think
the garage owner understands that he's going to have to come back and get the proper zoning
we're just asking they be separated um and that would be the step number two we wanted to do one
Um, and that would be the step number two.
We wanted to do one step at a time.
step at a time.
He'd have to come back for the use of the property.
Correct.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 007, 426, 2813 North 2nd Street.
I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanita Graham, my vote is yes.
I win.
My vote is yes.
That's enough. We have the numbers here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Have a great day.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 9.30 a.m.
case has not been called?
I do not see any hands.
Thank you, everybody. See everybody at 2 p.m.
Understood.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the ZBA hearings this afternoon.
With me is our vice chair, Ismael Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
So here is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
There is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in person, if you are called to speak, you must state and spell your name, then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
any person may enter an appearance to become an interested party there are three ways to become
involved you can identify the case property address on your zoom webinar you can see a staff
member or you can call zba appearance line by the close of business call 267-270-5548 leave a
message that includes your email the address of the property in question the following guidance
is for our remote attendees.
When directed by the chair,
you must raise your virtual hand
in order to be recognized.
If you're called to testify,
you'll be prompted to join as a panelist.
Please accept the request
and turn on your camera.
The webinar question and answer
is for questions about the hearing.
Do not comment in cases in the Q&A.
And finally, if you're participating by phone,
press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute.
For in-person attendees,
Please refrain from talking, eating, or drinking during the hearing.
Verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated.
Restrooms are across from the elevators.
A water fountain is just around the room to the right.
When speaking on the record, you must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and the court reporter.
In the event of an emergency, please follow the directions given over the public address system or by the staff.
The main exit is through the double doors at the rear of the room.
The nearest stairwell is to the left outside the doors.
In case of an evacuation, the rally point is at Love Park, directly across from Art Street.
Please remain here so we can account for you.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number one, MI 2024-005-134-5816 Catherine Street.
This is the third listing.
We have no exhibits.
There is a request of continuance from Councilmember Gauthier's office because of a lack of an RCO meeting.
Monica Coates is the listed applicant and the third-party professional.
Vax Enterprises, LLC, is the listed owner.
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host for this afternoon.
I see no hands at this time.
Thank you. So, MI 2024-005-134-5816, Catherine Street, third listing, no one's appeared. I vote to dismiss.
Michael Jones.
Gerald Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Michael Jones, my vote is to dismiss.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Ty Owen, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is to dismiss.
Number three, MI 2024-006-123-1329 Princeton Avenue.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
I understand there may be a request for continuance.
Is Mr. Anastasio in the audience?
Mr. Anastasio has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Anastasio has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good morning, counsel. You've already been sworn today. Just state your name for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Vern Anastasio, again, here for Princeton.
Mr. Anastasio, could you give us an update on this case?
Mr. Chair, we're working with the RCO to try and come to an accord. As such, I do need one
additional continuance. Thank you. One minute, please.
Okay, so MI 2024-006-123-1329 Princeton Avenue. This case is continued to 8-6-25 at 2 p.m.
Thank you. Thank you. And number seven.
And my 20, 24, 0, 0, 6, 8, 2, 3, 53, 29, North 13th Street, Natasha Watson is the listed
applicant.
Ivory and Elizabeth Jones are the listed owners.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
We also, Mr. Chair, last time someone named Renetta Wallace appeared and indicated that she was the property owner, so I don't know if she is possibly here as well, but we are missing.
Natasha Watson, could you come up, please?
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Mike, could you please sit real close to the mic?
Could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Natasha Watson, N-A-T-A-S-H-A-W-A-T-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Ms. Watson, we don't have all of your documents.
I did bring everything with me because when I got the message back, it just said only part of it was accepted.
Okay, so Ms. Watson, what we're going to have to do is we're going to continue this. We can't accept documents now because we have to examine them, and that's why we asked for them five days in advance. So I'm going to continue the case, and should you have any thoughts in the future about what you need, please call the office, and they'll give you everything and work with you to get your documents together, okay?
everything was uploaded, and I did get the confirmation that it was saved. I don't know
what happened. Yeah, but we don't, am I correct? Yeah, no, unfortunately, the only thing we have
is the refusal, and I think the application for appeal, and the letter you sent to the neighbors.
There's several other things that we are missing. If you're having technical issues uploading those
things, please contact the office, because they can help you, and alternatively, they could be
submitted in advance via email if for some reason the system is not working for
you. But I believe Ms. Dandy can speak with you afterwards and I'll give you some
assistance as well. Thank you. So MI2024
006823, 5329 North 13th
Street. The case is continued to 8625 at 2
Let's go to our add-on list.
so mi20240052621311 to 13 north 27th street
i vote yes with proviso revised plans one page stamped by zba on may 7th 2025 maximum four
dwelling units
cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso and just for a point ishmael shaheed
Michael Johns at Tenetogram will have to certify they watched the hearing so when they test Michael Johns I certify that I watched the hearing and my vote is yes.
michael johns i uh certify that i watched the hearing um and my vote is yes with proviso
let me tie in my vote is yes with proviso ishmael shaheed i'm uh certified that i watched the video
of the hearing on march the 5th 2025 and my vote is yes with proviso
Sure. Okay, thank you. That's okay. Thank you. So number two, MI 2024-002-120-963 North Lawrence
Street. The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, May 14th at 2 p.m.
Number three, MI 2025, 000394, 2026 South 5th Street, I vote no.
Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Ioann, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Number four, MI 2024-006-037-2851 Salmon Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Her refusal dated 1-14-25.
Revised plans, one-paged, stamped by ZBA on May 7, 2025.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Panetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Iowan, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Number five, Ishmael Shahid will handle this.
MI-2024-006213, 3135 South Juniper Street.
My vote is yes to request for reconsideration and rehearing.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes for hearing and reconsideration.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
number six mi 2024 000 593 29 east mount erie avenue ta 27907 this is a re-vote
I vote yes
with proviso per refusal
dated 8-22-24
my vote is yes with proviso
Cheryl Gaston my vote is yes
with proviso
Tannetta Graham my vote is yes with proviso
I am with my vote is yes with proviso
We're going to go to number six first. Here's our regular list. MI 2024-006-753-1207-09-South 46th Street. Steve Masters is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing. Mr. Masters, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S, here with the law firm of JustLaws.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
So this is a resumptive hearing. Mr. Masters, would you please report for us where we stand?
Yes, I actually have to call up my exhibits on my computer for a second.
But we have, there were four new revised exhibits that we presented to the board last Friday.
One of them is the tax clearance.
One of them is the photos for the resumption hearing.
One of them is a sealed plan from the survey district for the lot subdivision.
And the fourth one is the revised refusal.
So I apologize. I didn't know I was going to get called that quickly.
I have to log in, so that's the delay.
So that's the delay.
dbo computer okay
Yeah, I have to log in is the problem in order to share my screen.
It looks like it's happening.
I need to be a promoted panel.
Here we go.
Mr. Masters, when you see the invitation
to be joined as a panelist,
please accept it.
I believe I am joined now.
Let's see.
The first is on page three of our new Exhibit Binder.
The revised refusal from LNI indicates that we are, in addition to creating two lots from
one existing lot, we are also erecting rear additions to the attached buildings size and
location as shown. It doesn't change the refusal, which is the same grounds, which is that the
width of the lots are too small. The next one is our survey on page 14.
This is the LOTS Subdivision Survey Map plans, and it is signed by the 7th Survey District
project on August 8th, 2024. Our third new exhibit is page 42, the zoning poster, uh,
the zoning notice poster and the posting of the refusal and the date is May 7, 2025 for
hearing and then our last uh and new exhibit is the tax clearance on page 45
issued april 25th 2025 to williams 911 upland street llc which is the property owner
and my my remembrance to the rco gave you unanimous support yes member gathier is in favor
and also the applicant provided a petition of support of 16 signatures from the neighbors
is that correct that is correct questions or comments from the board
questions or comments from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments
from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Nicholas Sladoff with their hand up.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
Sladoff, please unmute yourself.
is there anyone else in the virtual audience i see no further heads chair he is not unmuted
no he's not unmuted as of yet
planning commission good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
do you could you spell your name for the stenographer please yes sir p e t e r b as in boy
do you could you spell your name for the stenographer please yes sir p e
I'll see you next time.
a as in apple r as in roger n as in nancy a as in apple r as in roger d as in dog right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do chair please proceed
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 single single family residential zoning
at this location. The proposed minimum lot width is minor and in keeping with the purpose and
spirit of the zoning code. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the
proposed dimensional variance for minimum lot width. Thank you. MI 2024-006-753-1207-209
South 46th Street. I vote yes with proviso. Her refusal dated 5-6-25. Michael Johns, my vote is
yes, with proviso. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
My vote is yes, with proviso.
My vote is yes, with proviso.
My vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you, sir. Mr.
so mi2025 000447 4921 haverford avenue um would you please state your name and spell for the
sonographer? Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your
client, a relationship to the property? Yes. For 4921 Haverford Avenue, my client is SNC
Legacies LLC, the owner of the property. And coming up to the left of me,
Ms. Camille Parcell, who's the owner of that entity.
Okay, and I understand that we have a letter of support from Mill Creek Advisory Council,
a letter of non-opposition of account to Member Gauthier,
and a letter of support from Rebuilding Together Philadelphia,
and also a petition with 30 signatures on it.
That is correct.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing wait we have thank you sir council please proceed and share
your screen thank you all right we're here to present uh 49 21 havertford avenue uh we have
11 exhibits in our packet we're going to start with exhibit number one which is the notice of
refusal this is an rsa 5 property we're looking to do two family household dwelling as you'll
see in our presentation packet it makes sense given the history of the property and you know
this around the area here's our letter of support from the mill creek advisory council that the
chair stated as well as rebuilding together and then there was a letter of non-opposition from
the council member as well our petition of 30 signatures is also included here as an exhibit
so why don't we start our presentation okay uh yeah so in terms of our presentation so this was
advertised to us as a two-family dwelling as you can see here from zillow
maps of the area you can kind of see where we are in the neighborhood
we're right off of haverford avenue um i think this is really our exhibit a this we purchased
this as a burnt out shell previously it was used as a two-family dwelling with a front entrance for
each of the units and this is um haverford avenue to the rear of the property so we go street to
street from fairmont from haverford to fairmont avenue and then this is the property in in 18
just to show you that this was an active two-family dwelling in 2018 and then these are orange notice
posters, Haverford Avenue to the right of the property and to the left of the property, Fairmont
Avenue to the right of the property and to the left of the property. Our plans and drawing very
simplistic but makes the point. If you look at the floor plans for unit number one, we get in
on the right-hand side. We have a dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and one bedroom. There is no
living in the basement. Unit number two, you go to the door on the left, you go up a flight of steps
And again, an open floor plan of one bedroom, one bath.
RCO meeting notice that we had on March 10th, along with proof of mail, email that notice, as well as mailing in that notice.
You know, our application for appeal that we filed with the ZBA.
The, you know, our application for appeal that we filed with the ZBA, and then the deed to the property showing the SNC at Legacies LLC is the current owner of the property. And then finally is our certificate of tax clearance. With that being said, I would ask that Ms. Parcell get sworn in and I have a few questions for her.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer and try to sit close to the microphone, please.
afternoon everyone camille your soul camille c-a-m-i-l-l-e here soul he light full e-a-r-s-a-l-o
you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth yeah please proceed counsel
uh yes camille you heard everything i had to state today about your zoning matter
is it true and correct including the fact that it was built out as two units um it was advertised
to you as a two-family dwelling, and do you adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Helen, could you tell us how she's going to handle the trash in the building?
Well, there's two options.
We go to the community like a picture of what the property looked like in 2018.
It looked like there was a trash area in the front between the two front doors.
She would put a trash enclosure there.
That's pretty, but efficient.
um that's option number one option number two if the board feels so inclined to put a proviso
about trash being stored inside you know that's the prerogative of the cba all right thank you
questions from the board looking at the layout i always have an issue with having to go through
a bedroom to get to to a backyard um so is that the only way to get to the backyard and that first
and the ground floor unit is through the bedroom.
Camille, I think we're taking a pre-existing floor plan here,
board member Johns.
And we don't have much luxury in terms of making changes
given the size and the width and the dynamics of this building structure.
so is that the only way to get to the backyard um good afternoon board member johns that as of
the previous um floor plan layout yes but it can be um a door added to the side i'm not sure if the
plan showed where it was an existing window if that is something that we could be approved
approved in the review of my um final plan so there's a there's a there's a breezeway
that where you can i mean if if you're able to do that that is a much better
livable unit to access the rear yard through uh you know that side because having to go through
a bedroom you're having a barbecue trash is out there the dog is out there everybody's coming
through your bedroom. That's just a horrible condition in terms of livability, but I understand
it's laid out. So, but that's my comment. All right. Any other questions? Questions for our
attorney? Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the
present audience here? I see no hands at this time, Chair. Planning Commission.
good afternoon chair the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5
residential single-family attached zoning at this location there is no remaining unique
circumstances or physical condition of this property that would prevent it from being used
in conformance with the zoning code therefore the planning commission recommends the board
deny the proposed variance for two-family residential use hillary if we were to do this
can we provide so that side door
where was the
side door because I thought there was two front doors
there's a window on the side of the house
and she's saying she'll take out the window
and put a doorway there
so there's already two front entrance
this is already separate entrances right
you're keeping the separate entrances
so the first floor unit would go out the side
to use put the trash in the rear
or use the backyard i mean it might make more sense to just provide the where the
the trash is i'm not sure about i think it's not this is not for trash it's for the use of the
backyard for the use of the backyard so i don't know on the record you're saying you're going to
do that uh you're um camille you're under oath um and and you agree that you will during the
construction phase of this of this project. And my
understanding is this is the side, this is the window we're
talking about right here, right? I could work with my
architects to redesign the bathroom layout where that side
where that side door can be usable from the comedy area yeah and just let the record reflect
door can be usable from the common area.
Yeah, and just let the record
and i'm pointing to the floor plans that exhibit okay thank you that's a much better living
condition all right thank you so mi2025 000447 4941 havinford avenue then i vote yes michael john
My vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tia Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Number nine, MI2025-000448, 4749 West Highland Avenue,
letter of support from the Chestnut Hill Community Association
with unenforceable proviso.
So there's also a petition of support with 11 signatures, approximately six from that immediate block.
Mr. Nockamson, could you just state your name for the record?
Alan Nockamson.
Right. And can you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Highland Avenue Associate, the owner of the property.
And to the left of me is Jim DePetras, one of its members.
Okay, so why don't you start? Well, please follow up.
Counselor, do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed.
All right, thank you.
All right, so this exhibit packet includes 13 exhibits.
I will first go to the notice of refusal.
So this is an RSA 3 property.
We're looking to have three-family dwelling here.
This property has been a three-family dwelling since 1942, and as the chairman stated, we
do have a letter of support from the coordinating RCO, as well as a petition of nearby neighbors.
As I indicated, this property has an extreme history of three-family dwelling.
They just let the rental license lapse.
And so that's why we have to legalize this.
But you can see there was a rental license here for some time.
And then you can see through the zoning permit that this has been a three-family dwelling since 1942, and through this document as well.
It's also assessed this way as a multifamily structure, as you can see here from this exhibit, regarding the building description.
Maps of the area. We're a corner property, which tends to be multi-unit in nature. We're rather large as well.
Our lot area is 6,733 square feet.
Photographs of the property.
So this is from West Highland Street.
This is how you get into the ground floor unit.
And then this is from Shawnee Street, the intersecting street.
It's not the best picture in the world, but here's the second way to get in.
And that goes to the upper level units, both on the second floor.
Posting photos for today's hearing.
west highland street to the right of the property to the left of the property
shawnee street to the right of the property and to the left of the property interior photos again
this is just a legalization of this three-family dwelling it has been like that for 80 something
years um meters showing obviously multi-meters here again just a legalization of this property
because we let the rental license lapse uh pretty straightforward here this is um let me just make
sure i can't see uh this is that front door you saw in the middle this gets you to unit number
one which is a two bedroom uh one bath you have a living room right here a little i guess secondary
play area dining room and kitchen actually three bedrooms three bedrooms here um as well as
another a bathroom right here this is unit number one there's no living in the basement it's just
mechanicals down there in storage uh instead of going for unit number one you go to units two and
three you go up a flight of steps on shawnee street and then they are mirror images of each
each other they're one bedroom one baths you can see there's windows in each of the living areas
so there's a lot of light in there as well but you got a dining room kitchen living room one bedroom
know no roof deck this is just a legalization meeting notice uh we met on april 15th with
the community i have proof of email of that notice as well as mailing of that notice
i also have the application for appeal that i filed with the zba along with the notice of refusal
and the project information form the deed to the property showing the highland avenue associates
owns the property they've owned it for some time and it's unfortunate they let the rental license
for some time. And it's unfortunate they let the rental license lapse, but they're trying to
slaps, but they're trying to clean that up.
clean that up a little bit. And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance. With that being
said, I'm going to unshare my screen. I'm going to ask that Jim be sworn in and I'll have a few
questions for him. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
James DePetris. D-E-P-E-T-R-I-S. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel yeah jim you heard everything i had to state today
about your zoning matter is it true and correct including the fact that this has been a three
family dwelling as long as you have owned it yes and do you adopt that testimony as your own yes
thank you questions from the board yeah how do you manage trash for um the unit the three units
it's it's actually now professionally managed the property so i believe he has commercial
trash pickup there currently so there's is it stored in any other areas outside or inside
right now uh where where is it do you know where the trash is stored
it's stored in the basement okay thank you that's what i thought but i didn't want to say
Are there any questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
We did have a question.
Is there
universal access to the basement?
I couldn't tell from the
point.
Does everyone have access
to the basement, all the tenants and occupants?
Do they all have access to the basement?
He said yes.
And then a question
because I know
just looking at the photo you had
it looks like everyone has access
to the rear and the side yard
as well
all tenants
he said yes
questions for our attorney
just briefly are there any parking
spaces at the property
there are not so yes
there should have been another refusal
okay yeah so I just wanted to note that for the record
There should be a refusal for parking. It's included.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the present audience here?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up.
He's been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
It's been a little slow business for you today.
That's not a bad thing.
Would you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Certainly. Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, sir.
The Councilwoman is not opposed to granting the variance.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
the the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa three single family zoning at
this location this property has a documented history of three-family use the planning commission
recommends the board grant the requested variance for multi-family thank you mi2025 000 448 47 to
49 west highland avenue i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Eowyn, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
And our last Mr. Nockamson case, MI 2025, this is number 10, MI 2025, 000449517 Bainbridge
Street.
Mr. Nockamson, just for the record, state your name.
Alan Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson, could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Azam Halak, who's one of the owners of the property.
He's to my left now.
Thank you.
There's support from the Queens Village Neighbors Association with a proviso and also a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Our vice chair has a few words.
Council, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to Azam?
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this
case five days in advance it is here i have thank you counsel please proceed thank you
here to present 517 bainbridge street this is two building structures one facing bainbridge
another facing cater street as you can see from the illustration
this exhibit packet has 11 exhibits. We'll start with the notice of refusal.
This exhibit packet has 11 exhibits. We'll start with the notice of refusal. So this is a CMX2 property, and as I stated, there's two building structures on here. Building structure A is on Bainbridge. It is currently a four-story structure. We're looking to redo the whole building, but specifically the four-story.
uh work on that a little bit more intensely and adding a roof deck access structure building b
we're looking to take a two-story structure with a with uh with a garage add a second story
and have vacant commercial space in there so we have two refusals the first refusal is the
accessory parking which is existing you'll see from the photos the second refusal has to do
the height but they're having to using the height of the actual roof deck access structure as our
height we would still exceed the 38 feet allowed of height from the roof line but it's not out of
character and you'll see from the photographs from um properties nearby so as the chairman stated we
have a letter of support from the community group um nearby properties with off-street parking so
showing not out of character plus we're not taking any parking away from the street on cater but
531 Bainbridge, 519 Bainbridge, 709 and 711 South 6th Street, 716 South 6th Street, 721 and 23 South 6th Street, 732 and 34 South 6th Street.
And then on our block on Cater Street, 520 Cater Street, 514 South Street, which is across the street really from us on Cater.
That's another property that goes street to street, which has an apartment building, but their parking is coming off of Cater Street.
515 Cater Street, which is next door to us.
Then is it out of character to have properties that have a roof line exceeding 38 feet high?
514-18 South Street, which is across the street from us on Cater Street, is similar in height as us.
And here's the photos, the site plan for that.
As well as 519-25 Bainbridge, which is right next to us, to the left of us on Bainbridge, has a similar roof line to us.
what we're proposing maps of the area we're also surrounded by a lot of cmx3 which would
not have these height limitations uh that we're facing um uh and would allow for parking as well
so if we were like two doors down you know we wouldn't be here in some respects uh five you
know the google maps photographs of the property so this is a very like not i think a very pretty
like structure look that you would see in in the you know in this part of town and you can see that
this had a commercial component which we're going to make a lot nicer uh as you'll see from the
renderings um but you know it's really a four-story structure you can't really see this part of it but
you know set back like with a mansard roof this is the property on cater street this is the existing
uh garage again not taking any parking away and you can see this is the other
standalone garage to the left of us and then this is the hearing poster showing from the
bainbridge street side as well as the cater street size side that we posted for today's hearing
and then this is bainbridge street to the right of the property
and to the left of the property as you can see some of these buildings then do go higher
setback and then this is cater street so most importantly you can see there's no parking
allowed on the street so having that off-street parking spot which we're repurposing a garage
anyway um makes sense under circumstances plus you can see the height of the buildings on cater
street not out character to go above 38 feet in height and then even here these are the apartment
that's the apartment building on south street um address but this is on cater street much higher
than 38 street uh 38 feet high and then this is the one as well uh to the right of us um which
also is much higher uh than the 38 feet allowed this is the existing courtyard so um hasam is
going to live in one of the there are basically two single family structures with with you know
commercial component one of them he's living in the single family structure um on uh on cater
street him and his wife uh with a garage and then maybe or maybe not the commercial space may be
used by their daughter for you know some type of craft crafting of some sort um with a commercial
business but anyway it's really important to him that the courtyard is pretty so this is what it
looks like now right and then you'll see from the drawings um about like what that's going to look
like as well here's the massing um it's i i also have um matt uh from gnome architecture if he wants
to interject with questions if there are any answers that we need from an architectural
standpoint. But these are just the renderings. These are the materials that are being used
But these are just the renderings. These are the materials that are being used to kind of mix well with what that building structure is currently on Bainbridge Street, as well within the neighborhood as well.
to kind of mix well.
And then the same thing from the Cater Street perspective, kind of mixing well, but also from a massing point of view, you can see our massing kind of runs in line with the massing in the neighborhood.
This is why you, Hazem, you drew this, right?
We have an architect.
okay okay i thought i thought i talked to matt and i was like you should have taken it right
i i asked matt i said i i asked i asked matt from no more architecture i was like who drew this
it's pretty though yeah but but he's really into landscaping and and the in the courtyard area so
i thought you drew i was like wow um but it's very pretty and it's it's repurposing a lot what's
already there. And then this is just a site plan here. And then you can see from here from the
elevations of what we're doing for each property. Again, Cater Street, we're adding two stories with
a roof deck access structure. And the reason why we're getting the extreme height under the code
is because our roof deck access structure is not five feet off from the rear, but we're not really
causing any issues with light and air because of this common courtyard area. So that's because
we're both, you know, we're both properties kind of mimicking each other. And then the
surrounding properties are of the same height anyway. And then these are just our floor plans
for Bainbridge Street. Again, Bainbridge Street has a commercial component right here, first floor
and lower level. You go up a flight of steps, you have an open floor plan of a kitchen, dining room,
two bedrooms two bathrooms washer and dryer and then there's a primary suite and then there's a
roof deck that's building a building b which is on cater street we're adding two stories here
repurposing the garage area that's right there currently you go up a flight of steps and you
have a floor open floor plan of a living room dining room and kitchen you have two bedrooms
two bats and then you have a primary suite on the fourth level as well as a roof deck area
met with the community proof of mailing and emailing of that community notice
our application for appeal that we filed on their behalf to the zba along with the notice of refusal
and the project information form the deed to the property they own it in their personal names
they're not developers but this is a you know property that we want to revitalize and they
want to live in one of the properties or building structures, and we'll see what happens to the other
one that they fix up. And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance. That being said,
I would stop sharing my screen. I would ask that my client be sworn in. Hi, sir. Could you please
state your name and spell for the stenographer? Hazem, H-A-D-E-M-A-R-E. That's name Halak, H-A-L-L-A-K.
excuse me can i ask witness to get closer we'll do it mr kelly we'll take care of it do me a favor
just get a little bit closer to the mic or pull the mic towards you do it again first name is
hazen h-a-z-e-m as in mary last name is halak h-a-l-l-a-k do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel uh yes uh you heard
everything i had to state today about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes and do you
adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you and how in the garage is already there it is yes yes
mr chair it is all right questions from the board
yes what's happening on the in the first unit on that first floor that was sort of open before you
got to the primary living room it didn't look like there was anything programmatically designated
on the plan is that just general open space uh let me just go back to the floor plans
and building a or building b i think it was building a because it was the first one that
you that was like a little porch there was that no that building a has a commercial space so
basically you get into the common uh door and to left you come into the but i just want to make
sure i stay in it right building is the one off the yeah yeah so this is the commercial space
right here okay where's the entrance for the residence so you have a common doorway right
here a little gatsubule area make a left for commercial go up a lot of steps for residential
okay and then building b is entering only on catered street that that is correct okay
And that's right here.
and that's right here i just needed to clarify that questions from our attorney
I just needed to clarify that.
Questions from our attorney.
I have one quick question, Chair.
So the RCO wanted a proviso for no limited lodging.
Are your client okay with that?
I mean, I don't know how enforceable it is, because if we wanted limited lodging, we would have to come back to the board.
Right, I didn't understand that myself.
Just to clarify on that, so short-term rentals can either be visitor or limited lodging.
Limited lodging is an accessory use.
so you wouldn't have to come back visitor accommodations would require a variant
no you're right so yeah so that's that's they ask for no short-term rentals but we can't really say
no to use that's not before the board but an accessory use that would not come before the
board we can man we can limit that has um do you have any issue like having a restriction
on your property absolutely no we're not gonna vent it and i'm gonna you know it's it's ours
Well, we'll have that for another day about renting, but limited lodging means that you can rent it day by day, and that's what they want to restrict you on. You're okay with that?
Oh, yeah, absolutely. Of course.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the present audience?
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
the planning the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the zoning at this location from the
current cmx2 commercial mixed use the proposal for parking access from cater street isn't it
is as an existing condition for building b the proposed height crease increase for building a
facing baybridge street is de minimis however the appellant has not demonstrated that there
are unique physical conditions or circumstances that would prevent building b from conforming
the required height the planning commission recommends the board grant the requested
variance for height on building a and parking for building b but deny the requested variance
for height on building b and i just briefly sure uh so the the property that's next to us on bain
bridge also goes completely street to street on cater street which has the same similar roof line
so again if it's appropriate on for the bainbridge side it would be appropriate on the cater street
side. Also, there's an apartment building across the street, which also has that same type of
massing. And so for those reasons, I think it is in character with the neighborhood. Thank you.
So MI 2025, 000449517 Bainbridge Street, I vote yes, with proviso, no limited lodging.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Samantha Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Eowyn, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Shemel Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
And thank you for accommodating my schedule.
Thank you.
Number five.
On my 2024-006-733-4045 to 61 Main Street.
Adam Blaver is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
um so um
mr labor i uh i i labor i try to uh give a little background but i mean there's numerous letters we
have here uh the councilman jones has written a letter talking about walking the site um
um many many special services the development corporation parcel city light church parkway
on and on there is also uh i count at least four letters of opposition
so that's just a little bit of a background of uh the interest that's in in this uh matter um
and so this is this is what we'd like to do today we'd like you to finish your presentation
and then we're going to go to questions from the board and the council and then we're going to have
as you know mr hunter as you're aware send in a recording we will listen to the recording
we will take other public testimony and we'll also go to the planning commission
So do you agree with that?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I'm prepared to proceed as the board has suggested.
I would like to address the board decision regarding Mr. Hunter's testimony in due course.
So why don't you go through first, and then before we get to that, I'll give you an opportunity.
i'll give you an opportunity and um if we do have his testimony you will have a chance to respond
And if we do have.
to it okay so why don't we go thank you um for the record uh adam laver of a blank room on behalf
of 40 45 did i swear you in i don't believe that you did oh my goodness so why don't you just state
your name is spelled for the stenographer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Adam Laver, L-A-V-E-S-V-E-T-R-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm and tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. Thank you very much. Blancrom represents 4045 Main Street, LLC,
equitable owner of the subject property. Chairman Bergman, as you mentioned, this is a resumption
hearing, but we go back seven weeks, actually, which is difficult, no doubt, for all of us.
The 4045 Main Street LLC is the equitable owner of the subject property. As a refresher up on the
screen is a conceptual rendering of what has been discussed at length with the board, just to have
that for the board and for the public as I'm speaking. The equitable ownership is an urban
conversions entity. Andrew Zakroff, who is a vice president of acquisitions and development, is with
us virtually in the virtual hearing room. Also rejoining us this afternoon are cousins Robert
and David Littlewood, fifth generation members of the family business G.J. Littlewood and Sons,
the owners of the property and when we last appeared before the board members you'll recall
that we presented an overview of significant challenges at the subject property we presented
proposed plans that we believe will positively transform and reinvigorate this area of main
street in line with the council members vision and we had also respectfully suggested in line
with the parker administration's goal of bringing housing to philadelphia we presented a substantive
analysis of the grounds for seeking relief before this board which i shall not repeat
also returning to the virtual hearing room out of respect for for the board and all parties involved
are several members of the project team which include mbe and wbe philadelphia-based partners
and uh trying to advance the screen there we go this is the subject property as it exists today
and board members you'll recall that hurricane ida had left the gj littlewood and sons uh dye
factory which had existed since the civil war deserted uh unfortunately it's located at the
very edge of the money on historic district that chores lane to the left in the foreground.
And this, I think all parties, even the minority that is in disagreement with what we're proposing,
but all parties recognize the need for reactivation.
The coordinating RCO money on neighborhood council noted, quote, this is a challenging
property and the property faces a hardship and that it cannot be developed as other
properties can outside of the floodplain, even including the immediately adjacent property just
beyond On Shores Lane, which is not in the floodplain. Very significant distinction,
not to mention the rock outcrops that create a steep slope. And you see the steepness of the
site even in this photograph. This site requires a developer with experience, with vision,
urban conversions, I would respectfully suggest, is that developer. And it is a local developer.
It's not just a Philadelphia developer, but as we stated in the record, one that is experienced
in Maniunk and the surrounding area. We stand before you today after multiple public meetings
in which interested parties have had the opportunity to add their voices. Philadelphia
historical commission meetings and their surrounding community meetings around that
architectural meetings the hardship committee which resulted in full approvals and consideration
not to mention civic design review of course the plans before the board have been refined
and updated over the course of many months resulting in a reduction in density increase
in proposed accessory parking refinement of the proposed massing based on rco and cdr
and philadelphia historical commission feedback there's a setback on the proposed seventh floor
variety of surfaces and heights district council member jones has personally reviewed the proposal
District Council Member Jones has personally reviewed the proposal, has been out to the site, and notes that this would further his, quote, vision for revitalized Main Street, end quote, noting, quote, the scope and scale of the proposed development is appropriate in light of several site constraints.
has been out of this
Here is another conceptual rendering that shows the proposed seven-story flood-resilient, state-of-the-art, responsibly-built residential building designed by Philadelphia architectural firm CBP Architects to include, as you'll recall, 163 residential dwelling units, accessory parking for 161 automobiles on floors one through two.
Remember on floor one with the flooding, the flood concerns, it is not a place for human habitation. This is responsible development. We want to be the model, actually, for development along the water.
Or do we want to make a policy position and say, we're going to have vacant swaths of land throughout our city? People love to be by the water. It can be responsibly done. It's done in so many other world-class cities. Philadelphia deserves no less.
When we last met seven weeks ago, we heard expert testimony from Eric Layden of CBP Architects, Robert Wright of Bowman Engineering Traffic Planners, and Kevin Flynn, AKRP Flood Resiliency Experts.
Why do we have this robust team of experts?
Because the project, the site, really requires it.
It needs it.
This is not overkill.
It is because we're taking this seriously.
so we are grateful for the chance to be before you today in this resumption hearing the subject
property is severely challenged in multiple respects urban urban conversion seeks guidance
in best practices that exceed various code requirements benjamin cromey managing planner
of ch planning if you could please promote him to panelists benjamin cromey cromie land planner
who has appeared before this board previously has reviewed the proposed development and has
submitted a professional planning report. I would like to ask Mr. Cromey to please
raise your virtual hands, sir, to be recognized by Chairman Bergman and to present highlights
as quickly as possible of your analysis, please.
Benjamin Cromey is coming back in as a panelist now. Thank you. Thank you.
Hello, this is Benjamin Cromey. Sir, could you please state your name again and then spell for
the stenographer, please. Yes, Benjamin Cromey, B-E-N-J-A-M-I-N-C-R-O-M, as in Mike, I-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you, Chairman Bergman. Good afternoon, Mr. Cromey. Thank you for
being available this afternoon. In the interest of time, you have submitted a comprehensive
of land planning analysis. You've appeared before this board. Would you please, sir,
speak to the highlights, the executive summary, if you will, of your findings having reviewed this
property? Well, in the report that I submitted, I did directly address each of the criteria for
approval. I'm not going to go through every single one right now, just so I hit the highlights.
As we've discussed, the denial of the requested variance relief would result in unnecessary hardship.
The I-2, as of right, uses are wholly incompatible with the historic district.
They're not viable due to being in the floodplain.
It's obsolete as an industrial building.
Um, uh, and there are much more competitive, uh, buildings, uh, sites, uh, throughout the MSA, uh, uh, they, uh, also the required truck access loading and unloading would be, uh, would not be compatible with the neighborhood.
So in addition to that point, as also we've discussed, there are unique physical circumstances, which would be the being in the floodplain and the rocky outcropping in the back of the proposed structure, which constitutes steep slopes.
And that would make the units there in the back of the second floor subterranean.
As a result, the initial level of rear-facing units that would be viable would start at the third floor.
So this is a, you know, it's a, like we said, problematic site. And so that would be an inefficient building. But we argue that the variance represented, the variance will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief, given the floodplain, light topography, the demand for one-to-one parking, the highest and best use for the rear and second floor is parking, resulting in a two-story podium of
So this is, you know, it's a, like we said, problematic site.
and so
either structural steel or concrete. To be economically viable with a two-story podium
made from either material, the proposed building would require five additional wood constructed
stories. A height variance is necessary for any future development. Our team could not find any
existing examples in the region of a building featuring a two-story podium beneath anything
less than five stories this supports the idea that there is a regional standard for podium
construction and a degree of consistency throughout and a building with fewer floors
would not be sufficient to meet the practical and structural needs of the site and I looking over
the other points I would say I would argue that the height variances will not be detrimental to
the neighborhood or adjacent properties. The height and scale are consistent with numerous
other high density and multifamily developments in the neighborhood and in keeping with the historic
shape and massing within Manioc. It'll be in harmony and in spirit of the zoning code. And I
would also like to underscore the fact that this project is very much in keeping with Philadelphia
2035, which has an explicit goal to rehabilitate abandoned industrial infrastructure for new uses
and reuse industrial buildings to create new neighborhood anchors. And this is a perfect
example of such a project, very much in keeping with the city plan. So with that, I will
conclude these are the highlights of my report and i can thank thank you very much for uh doing that
so succinctly uh please stand by uh for questions uh if they come up later on but i'd like to
request mr chairman that dr peter angelides a-n-g-e-l-i-d-e-s be promoted as a panelist
Dr. Angelides is a principal founding partner of eConsult Solutions, Incorporated.
He has appeared before this board before, and it is an expert in documenting the financial
and economic impact of the proposed project.
There he is.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Dr. Angelides, please unmute.
I see your box on the screen.
There you are.
Hi, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Okay, yes.
Hi, my name is Peter Angelides, P-E-T-E-R-A-N-G-E-L-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good evening, Dr. Angelides.
I believe you're abroad, and we thank you for being able, making yourself willing to participate even while you are abroad.
You've presented a written submission to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Would you be kind enough to please provide a quick overview of the highlights of your findings?
I'm happy to.
So my analysis was a study of the economic benefits of constructing and operating this project.
So in other words, what are the economic and financial outcomes that arise from having this project built?
And I did it in two parts.
The first part was to look at what the impacts of the construction of the building would be.
And then the next part is, well, what about once it's built and occupied by people and operating, what are those impacts?
And there are several different types of impacts.
In addition to that, there are other non-financial impacts that are still real and important that I'll talk about as well.
So very briefly, this project, total construction costs are approximately $45 million. And that money gets spent on the project, and then it gets spent on people and materials, and then that money gets...
It gets spent on people and materials, and then that money gets spent again and again and again in the economy.
And within the city, that $45 million expenditure to build the project results in a total of about $65 million in direct and induced economic benefits to the city.
That results in 305 full-time equivalent jobs, 305 jobs, not permanent jobs as a one-year full-time equivalent, but 305 jobs, which is about $16.7 million in wages to construction workers and other people working on the project.
And that's all during the construction phase. And that construction phase also, because there's economic activity going on, there are sales taxes and income taxes from the people working on the project.
And overall to the city, it's approximately $755,000 in income sales and business tax revenue to the city and another $427,000 in realty transfer tax and development impact taxes.
So that's a total of about $1.2 million of tax revenue to the city's general fund. And that's one time during the construction. Once the building opens up, there's additional impact, a slightly different kind.
Obviously, the construction part is done, but you have ongoing impacts.
You have about a million and a half dollars of direct, indirect and induced economic impacts in the overall economy from the operation of the building, the utilities, the people who work there.
That leads to about 700, sorry, not 700, seven full time jobs for the people who work there, the maintenance staff, the door people and whatnot.
And that's about $200,000 in annual wages for the people who work at the building.
In addition, there are significant tax benefits to the city from this building.
First is property tax.
Now it's eligible for an abatement.
So in the first year of operation, there are essentially no additional property taxes compared to what you have today.
But over the course of 10 years, the abatement burns off. And the first 10 years results in about $4.2 million of property taxes to the city. And in that case, I mean, the city and the school district combined. And then after 10 years, it's about $756,000 annually every year for perpetuity.
In addition to property taxes, which are paid directly by the owner to the city, there are wage and income tax receipts from residents.
So people are living in the building. They're city residents. Therefore, they owe city wage tax or its equivalent if you're not a wage earner, but a business owner.
And the total of that is about five hundred and seventeen thousand in wage taxes to the city annually.
And then there's also wage and income tax from the operations of the people who work in the building.
That's another $12,000.
So there are substantial tax benefits, direct to the city tax benefits from the building once it's open and operated.
In addition to the financial and economic benefits that I mentioned, the quantifiable ones, there are other unquantifiable economic benefits.
for example there are a whole bunch more people living in the neighborhood more than 200 people
additional people living in the neighborhood which means you have that many more people who
can go to the neighborhood businesses and buy a slice of pizza or get their clothes cleaned or
anything like that they're also near step to stop so this supports the public transit network it's
really transit oriented developed in the sense it's near the transit network it increases the
overall housing stock of the city. Again, in keeping with the mayor's goal of increasing
the number of housing units in the city, that is exactly what this is doing, increasing the
housing stock and quite significantly. And in general, it brings an overall improvement to
the appearance of Lower Main Street, which means it's just a nicer place. And that benefits not
just the property itself, but all the nearby properties benefit from having an improved
structure on the property. That concludes my very, very high-level summary.
Thank you, Dr. Angelides. That was a great segue when you mentioned the appearance of
Lower Main Street and improvements to Lower Main Street. You can just stand by because we're going
to go through this very quickly. But I have up on the screen, Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
a letter of support from the Mount Young Special Services District,
which represents over 230 stakeholders.
And you'll see in the letter that this important community organization, quote, sees this use as presenting a positive impact for the business corridor as more residents move in and ultimately use the services provided in our business district.
And you'll see in the letter that this important...
end quote. Furthermore, quote, the proposed new improvements will especially benefit
lower Main Street, which has not experienced the level of investment and attention as the
commercial core of Manioc's Main Street, end quote. So when we think of Main Street, we think of that
core. This is the fringe, pardon the expression, but it's the outskirt. But it's the same river,
it's the same Philadelphia, it's the same Manioc. There's good essence there that can be
reactivated. And that's why we really hope to have the opportunity to partner with council
member Curtis Jones and others to realize this vision after so long. In this important letter,
you'll note that there's no objection to the massing or scale, that the proposed development
would be, quote, a great connection between the Wissahickon transfer station, the movie theater
property and the Maniunk Business Corridor, end quote. Really helping in so many different ways
to achieve the objectives of the one Philadelphia, make public transit strong,
bring residents to support businesses that have been hurt by the pandemic.
It's synergistic, I would suggest. Next, we have a letter of support from the Maniunk
Development Corporation, noting that the proposed new improvements will especially benefit Lower
Main Street, which is in such need of vision and direction. This next exhibit is really quite
important, and it's been revised, Ms. Emerson, from initial submissions, and I'll be sure to
get this to council and to the board for records. We had previously submitted a map indicating
support, and the support has only grown in time. But what's really important and instructive to
note is we have the subject property indicated by the red or magenta star over the blue property,
really right in the center of the page. And you see surrounding it, and we've submitted this to
the board in yellow are the written letters of support from the most impacted stakeholders
in yellow. And then a much lesser component is verbal support. We recognize that the board
needs to weigh the evidence and that the written support is most meaningful. Furthermore, we've
indicated here with the red lines, supporters within 250 feet. And then in blue, supporters
within 500 feet. We've had the opportunity to review some of the other exhibits that have been
submitted by other parties. We'll get to that in due course if there are those who choose to speak.
From my review as an officer of the court, I do not see this type of vested interest, actually, in those who unfortunately don't share our vision.
But as we go through further support and wrap up our testimony, please remember this exhibit because I've presented many cases before this board.
And I think this is quite unusual in the amount of near-interested party support and a desire to actually see improvement at the site.
Immediately next door to the subject property is the Starfinder organization.
I believe my 14-year-old son has played soccer there from time to time.
It's an important community institution and an important community institution for the city of Philadelphia.
They are noting in their letter no objection to the massing.
City Light Church, representing 400-plus individuals, supports the revitalization of the site and the betterment of the community.
uh 11 shores lane which is the property uh just behind uh that has been referenced uh by many
along the way they support this project that's the site that i said is quite different
they support this project that's the site that i said is quite different and distinguishable from
this site because it doesn't have the uh same constraints but they would like to see their
neighboring site revitalized and uh i'm not going to go through line by line the pages of support
letters from vested property owners all along and in close proximity here is one from the owner of
4100 main street the presence of a new development will stimulate additional commerce in the area
which is crucial for the vitality of our local businesses pages and pages have been submitted
into the record that were shown on that first visual map and then after all the letters of
support. There is a petition of support as well. I'd like to move to a letter of support from
someone that this board knows well. Mr. Bill O'Brien, who is a Maniunk stakeholder who
works in the immediate vicinity at 4322 Main Street. He may be with us online, I'm not quite
sure, but he notes, as a very active participant in the Manion community for 40 years, it is my
informed opinion that the multifamily use is the best use for the parcel and will be most welcome
addition to the Main Street business corridor. He goes on to note that South Main Street, Selma,
I hadn't known that acronym.
Ridge Avenue to Shores Lane is characterized by vacant lots, empty buildings, and office
fitness and industrial uses.
It is, as we stated seven weeks ago, unfortunately, in many respects, stagnating.
This is a chance to be a part of efforts to change that.
I don't mean to suggest that there's nothing good.
Quite to the contrary, there's a lot of good that needs to be given a lift up.
Mr. O'Brien goes on to state, any argument, any argument that the proposed height of the property's proposed development is an anomaly is without merit.
Furthermore, the neighborhood's topography diminishes the impact of the proposed building's height on the nearest residential neighborhood to the east at Crescent Street.
So we have the expert testimony and analysis.
We now also have from those who are most immediately impacted who are recognizing the same types of challenges that we've respectfully brought before this board.
And Mr. O'Brien goes on to end in relevant part that the proposed development is consistent with and complementary to a vibrant manioc.
And he goes on to share some important documentation, which is in the record, which I won't get into.
But I think it's appropriate that the last word of this formal testimony goes to the Littlewood family.
Their labor and love for Maniunk is deep.
And they submitted a letter to all of you.
And Robert Littlewood, with whom I've met on several occasions, and who's quite passionate about his family's business, their legacy, his neighbors in Maniunk, and wants to see the best for the area, noted in relevant part.
I want to clarify what truly happens when Mount Young faces these extreme weather events.
He's referring to the flooding and different versions that have been presented to the board
of what occurs in the flooding.
And he tells it as it was, as he experienced, quote, we begin preparations about three days
in advance, closely monitoring its path and adjusting accordingly.
fortunately these storms take time to form and develop end quote he goes on to note quote after
ida the second worst storm in philadelphia's history city crews worked tirelessly restoring
traffic flow to main street within just three days end quote so why do i state this and why does he
so why do I state this and why does he? The city has risen to the occasion. The businesses work
together. He is sharing with you that this is done in three days, not some other version
of the end of the world of weeks, months, et cetera. He notes that the plans proposed will
significantly improve the property's resilience to future flooding, ensuring that it remains a
valuable part of Mani Young's future. And he concludes, throughout our long history, the
Littlewood family has always believed in Mani Young's potential. I truly believe that this
redevelopment project will revitalize the lower end of Main Street and serve as a catalyst for
renewed energy and prosperity. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, the authorization of
variance relief will not alter the character of the neighborhood or district or be detrimental
to the public welfare. The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the
district council members' enthusiastic support for the revised plans, in addition to other
expressions of support. And this all speaks to the granting of relief being of benefit to the
public and within the spirit of the code. The proposed variance would represent the minimum
variants to afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulations
at issue to permit a reasonable use, a possible viable use of a quite burdened property. The grant
of variance relief will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed
development employs best practices in floodplain development construction and management. That is,
as you'll recall from seven weeks ago, why we reached out proactively to the city's floodplain
manager to seek her guidance, even before we sought private guidance in best practices that
were out there for floodplain development construction and management, which we believe
this project embodies in a way that will really be a model, we hope, in our city and beyond.
The CBP, formerly Cecil Baker Partners, CBP design plan represents the highest and best use
for this site in line with the finest locations in our city. The proposed development appropriately
respects the changing neighborhood with a mix of long existing uses and new projects dotting the
neighborhood we showed you some of that in uh our exhibits uh in march march 19th when we last met
this will not adversely affect transportation or unduly uh burden water sewer school park or other
public facilities we've discussed the tie-in with septa we had uh bowman consulting present
testimony on their traffic analysis and the minimal impact we are proactively addressing
environmental concerns and we have submitted revised proviso plans to the board which
council has had the opportunity to review i know that there are several uh nearby neighbors who
are interested to speak but at this point i'll pause and take further direction mr chairman
from the board so so hillary one of the things that i thought about is that why don't we address
the john hunter issue now with the reason being if he raises issues that the board have it interested
that they'll be able to talk to adam about so why don't you give me your your plans when john
Hunter's short comments, his vocal comments. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman
and members of the board, as well as Ms. Emerson. We take this very seriously, and
I want to be as respectful as possible. As I noted, due to the rescheduling of this resumption
hearing. One of our expert witnesses is abroad. However, he rearranged his schedule to participate
live and virtually. You just heard Dr. Angelides do that. Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
I must respectfully object to playing John Hunter's pre-recording during this hearing.
Less than 24 hours before the start of this afternoon's hearing, I received John Hunter's
purported testimony in this matter on behalf of mount young neighborhood council mnc
I would submit that it is replete with hearsay and factual inaccuracies, misstatements of fact, for which Mr. Hunter cannot be, apparently not be, cross-examined.
i would submit that it is replete with hearsay and factual in
We object to the introduction of an audio recording as purported testimony.
As a matter of practice in law, administrative hearing testimony must be given under oath and live during hearing.
If Mr. Hunter has chosen not to participate live in today's hearing, that is his choice.
As with other interested parties who submit written positions to the board, we acknowledge, however, that Mr. Hunter's written statement, which I did read, may be appropriately considered by this zoning board, along with all the other written statements that are submitted.
It's puzzling to me, members of the board, that if Mr. Hunter chooses not to participate in today's hybrid format hearing, that other members of MNC 11 member executive board, including MNC's president, Kevin Smith, are unable to present live, whether virtually or next to me in front of you, MNC's position in this matter and to be subject to standard respectful rules of cross-examination.
That being stated, I want to be responsive, Mr. Chairman, to what you stated. I have read the statement. I would, if Mr. Hunter were here, question the comparison to 11 Shores Lane.
It is not an apples to apples comparison. That property is not in the floodplain. It is not a minor difference. There are other challenges with our property, such as the rocky outcrop and various gradations in the topography under the subject property.
It's interesting in Mr. Hunter's statement that there was a discussion,
there was mention of public parking as a topic of discussion for the first floor.
Neither I nor my client nor any of our experts remember that having been raised.
And it's quite interesting that it is being raised because it's being raised along with skepticism on a plan for moving cars during a flood event.
And I would respectfully submit that if that is a concern, and I think it is a legitimate concern, which we are addressing, that it would be much more possible to have a plan in place for moving residents cars to another location, residents who are being managed by urban conversions, which is a known entity, rather than in and out parking or other types of things.
where quite frankly you don't know how to contact uh the um the owners or users of the car
mention was also made regarding uh this is hearsay why don't we do this instead of
going over that each point now what what i'm going to say i understand your points but we're
going to play it and then i'm going to give you a chance to um respond and um what i would even do
is give you a chance to respond in writing so what what i'd like to do right now hillary is play that
and that way we'll hear it then we're going to move on with uh you know questions mr laver
and we'll we'll try to get it done okay so ian i think is in the back ready to play it so we're
going to play it now i think it's 18 minutes so it is 18 minutes this is this is quite unprecedented
uh well um this is a project i think both sides have a lot of interest and we're going to try to
to what we can think is fair.
So why don't we play it?
My name is John Hunter,
J-O-H-N-H-U-N-T-E-R.
This is a recording of my testimony
that has been approved by the zoning board.
Unfortunately, I will be out of the country
and in transit and unable to attend the meeting
either in person or via Zoom.
In the absence of swearing in by Chair Berman, I affirm that I will be providing testimony
which is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I am the Zoning Chair of Manningham Neighbourhood Council.
I have listened to the testimony of Mr. Labour and Mr. Layton on March 19th and read the
Mr. Laver and Mr. Layton on March 19th and read the exhibit submitted at that time, but
obviously the subsequent resumption hearing information I've not heard.
I can confirm that, as Mr. Laver explained, the sequence of events that Kevin Smith and
I, as president of Manningham neighborhood council, met with the urban conversions design
team in December of 2023. That meeting was the fourth meeting that we'd had with different
developers who were interested in the site and developing it. So we were familiar with
some of the concerns, some of the development team's ideas from other developers, and the
site. But we were given a detailed tour through the interior of the building. And then after
that we were shown a scheme that we had no idea it would be shown, which was a pretty
detailed scheme of a seven-story building with, we were told, 200 units and 100 car spaces
occupying the majority of the site, but certainly from east to west along Main Street and the front
facade at the back of the sidewalk. There was the intent to retain two elements of the original
building along Main Street at the first floor level, but the rest of the site would be completely
flattened and raised, which was pretty surprising to us in terms of the breadth of the change.
Our response, as it was, without prior warning, was that at seven stories high, the building was
far too high for its location in Maniunk in the historic district, and that it needed
to be much lower, and that the parking provision at one space for two units was, given our
experience of Maniunk and the residential developments, that a one-to-one parking was
much more likely to be marketable and receive approval. We made some other
comments about the scheme obviously but again they were just from our initial
reaction including that because the site had a steep slope from Main Street
along the western edge up to along Schur's Lane that two levels of parking
might be beneficial as we talked about that with other developers and that one
of the levels of parking could be public parking off Main Street to compensate
for the fact that commercial space along Main Street couldn't be provided because
of the flooding and that the second level of parking could be for the residential units and
at that level um the rear of the side on the northwest corner is just above the floodplain
and out of the floodplain and so accessing residential parking and maybe residential
entrance at that side of this of the building would provide continuous uninterrupted access
to a residential component, rather being subject to the flooding events
that we knew would come sometime in the future.
At the second meeting, which was about a month later,
a revised scheme was shown to us.
It was, again, still seven storeys high.
The height hadn't changed.
But the provision of parking had been increased
and the number of units reduced,
used close to what eventually has been proposed on March 19th, which is 163 units, I think,
and 161 parking spaces. The parking spaces, 99 of the parking spaces, were still in the
floodplain on the first floor and were arranged all along the first floor frontage along Main
Street, except for the middle section between two parts of the existing building, where
a new entrance and a new parking garage entrance would be located.
Our comments on the second scheme were again about the height of the building still being
seven storeys high, which we thought was unacceptable, that the continuous elevation along Main Street
was rather relentless and the building would benefit from
uh rather relentless and the building would benefit from at least in form being broken up into
probably three different elements and that maybe there could be a recess in the facade
which would occur between the two existing elements of the retained facade in the middle
of the elevation um we didn't get a positive response to those comments and it was that scheme
after that meeting that went forward to the zoning application and the historical commission
application for approval to demolish the existing buildings and approve the scheme.
We attended the meetings related to that historical commission approval, including
the financial hardship committee and the two architectural committee meetings that preceded
the historical commission meeting. The first architectural committee vote was to deny the
scheme with recommendations to change the mass and the relationship to the existing
facade that was being retained. There was a reference to it being treated like wallpaper
rather than a remnant of the existing building. And at the second meeting, there had been
some changes the changes were principally on the main street's facade although the amenity
deck at the western end had been lowered by one floor the rest of the changes were really
setbacks in the facade and they were either horizontal for instance above the existing
retained wall or vertical to sort of to try and break up the facade but all of those elements
were and the setbacks were within five feet of the facade, the first five feet only. So
it was relatively cosmetic and when you've got a building that's 82 feet high, it didn't seem
appropriate. But the development team chose to proceed even with that second denial and to,
they received approval from the full historical commission to demolish the
buildings and to approve the scheme as presented. That scheme is the one that
was presented on March the 19th, the one with the yellow toned areas
showing the setbacks that were introduced date back from that meeting
back in May-June last year, which is almost a year ago.
Subsequently, we attended further meetings. There were two CDR Civic Design Review meetings that
I was a member of the committee to review the scheme. There was a MNC zoning committee meeting
with the development team and the final public meeting that preceded the CBA
hearing. In all of those meetings there were no substantial changes made to the
scheme. The scheme really is the one that was submitted to the Historical
Commission. Turning to the site, we accept and acknowledge that because of
the flooding events and repeated flooding events along Main Street, the
first floor of the proposed building up to a height of about 12 feet cannot be used for anything
other than probably parking in some form. However, we don't accept that the whole length
of the site has to be taken up by either parking or the entrances to the parking and to the
residential units. In a way, the parking in the residential units in the floodplain is
a holdover from the original proposal, where the parking was only at the first floor level
rather than at two levels. If that idea had been reassessed, as I mentioned earlier, it
could be that the parking could be at the level towards the rear of the site, which
is out of and above the floodplain. The property is zoned I2 as has been previously mentioned,
primarily because of its continuous use as Littlewood Stye works. The surrounding properties
tend to be zoned ICMX except to the west which is CMX 2.5 because of the beginning
of the commercial corridor along Main Street in Maniac. We are aware that
So Lower Main Street really should be rezoned and considered as a master plan.
Lower Main Street really should be rezoned and
We've been asking for that for a long time, and that really has reflected the sense of neglect and being run down that has been mentioned in several of the comments from people supporting the scheme.
scheme. If the scheme were rezoned, the Planning Commission have indicated that it would be
rezoned as CMX 2.5, even though, because of the flooding, the commercial requirement at
the first floor couldn't be provided. So it's unfortunate, but that is in a way a benefit
for the development because it doesn't have to provide that continuous strip of 30-foot
deep commercial accommodation along Main Street. It also has the advantage of having an increase
in height over the surrounding overlay limit of 38 feet because of flooding and has a height
of 50 feet. Both of those are advantageous to the development even though on the surface
they're problematic because of flooding. Turning to the building proposal, the building itself,
as I said previously, the building has always been proposed as seven stories, but in actual
fact the building is measured from the sidewalk on Main Street 82 feet high and that by normal
residential development would be considered an eight-story high building. So it really
is a significantly high building. It's also over 70 feet wide and it's from the stretching
from the western end at Schur's Lane almost to the other end of the property at the football
academy, the soccer academy, it's almost 400 feet long. 400 feet is enormous. It's the
equivalent of a 38-story building on its side. That would be the same as the PSFS building
in Centre City. That is 38 feet, 38 stories high, sorry, not 38 feet. 38 feet is the height
limit. So this is an enormous building for somewhere in Centre City. It is even more
of an enormous bulk of a building in Maniank on Main Street. Main Street has some historic
buildings, notable historic buildings, which are no more than four stories high. The buildings
that Mr. Laver in his testimony were referring to were mill buildings that were on Venice
Island and facing the canal or the river. They were narrow buildings, and they were very
specific about their use with large windows for light and to for ventilation they're not suitable
for adaptation and those buildings have disappeared the ones that remain on main street are no more
than four stories high so this building equates to being almost twice the height of any historic
building on main street i wanted to turn finally i think to hardship and trying to understand
what the hardship is for the various refusals but in particular for the height refusal
ch planners in their report on in exhibit 21 of the package refer to the
seven-story building as being the minimum relief required by the code. They assert that.
Mr. Laver's description is more restrained in the appeal document where he refers to the minimal
mile relief. The height at 82 feet, as has been shown, is 32 feet higher than as allowed by the
code with the flooding element. The adjacent properties where behind this property, where
there is no flooding, their height limit is 38 feet. So the difference between 38 feet and 82
feet is significant and considerable.
There is no justification for explaining why this is.
When we first were presented with the scheme and the first question we asked was, why is
this building seven stories high, we had received a one-word answer and that was economics.
But I want to compare this scheme with the scheme immediately.
But I want to compare this scheme with the scheme immediately adjacent at 11 Shores Lane.
That scheme came before the zoning board in the fall of 2023, and it was an ICMX property.
The variance sought was for use to change the ICMX use to residential use, multifamily apartments on three levels over the first floor of parking.
And that scheme was denied in the first presentation, but with the addition of a small commercial space, six months later, was approved by this zoning board.
And that scheme is 38 feet high. It falls within the zoning limit.
it's a long thin building central corridor apartments on either side facing north and south
in a very similar way that 4045's arrangement along main street is with the central corridor
and apartments north and south although it does have a return at the end an L
to have additional apartments going towards the railway line but in principle the two schemes
are similar, certainly in the arrangement of the residential units. The difference is
obviously that 11 Shores Lane is not in the floodplain and it's a relatively flat side
and 4045 has to deal with flooding but as I mentioned it has the benefit of not providing
any commercial space and it has the additional 12 feet because of the being in the floodplain
that 11 Shores Lane doesn't have.
But the developer for 11 Shores Lane is a local developer.
He's done recent developments.
He's not a charity.
He's proceeding with this scheme
and has started demolition in order to do the construction.
And as I said, it's 38 feet high, and he is proceeding with it.
The scheme immediately adjacent, even with the flooding issues,
is 44 feet higher than that building.
And there is nowhere that I can find in the testimony to date
that justifies why there's that disparity in the height of the buildings.
As Mr. Labour has pointed out,
we did characterize the scheme as being complicated,
and it is complicated.
We understand that, and he surrounded himself
by a specialised team of consultants.
But there is seems to be no justification for a scheme that is exceeds the zoning code by so much, particularly with reference to height.
And it's for that reason that we oppose the granting of this variance and hope that this will be carried through by the zoning board.
thank you so so mr labor um if you would could you give me a five minute response
of what you heard just your general facts and then what i want to do is you could also provide
for us if you want to go each individual thing that he said on in a document all right so why
don't you just give me your general overview of what he said and i i'm well aware that you object
his testimony certainly mr chairman and then and just to say you know i'm trying to get through
a lot of this today hopefully we can get to the point in the next half hour finished this
i'm on board i understand i understand um i would i would i would ask mr chairman that you
incorporate the few comments that i made uh before the recorded testimony we absolutely
have that. And I would only add to that in the interests of time that we have an exhibit that
we shared with you at the March hearing that showed a north-south building section of the
11 Shores Lane right next to our proposed development. And you could see in that exhibit
the rock outcrop and the obvious differences. 11 Shores Lane is the one next to the railroad,
right yes okay that's right right and uh additionally um mr hunter makes uh i'll just
bring this up quickly maybe it will maybe it will help to uh see here that's the wrong
um mr hunter made reference to the uh prior developers it was a hearsay reference to prior
developers. I think he said that there were three developers who came before them and none of it
worked out. Yeah, I got that part. He was telling a story of everything, buddy. He talked to about
this, not this project about this area. And although it's hearsay, I would actually say
Right. Not this project about this area. And although it's hearsay, I would actually say, yes, Mr. Hunter, you're correct. All other efforts to develop here have failed. They have not been viable.
Our project that we're proposing now is challenging but viable.
It's challenging and it's viable, just like a few blocks from where we sit, people didn't think that a new tower could be built over the septa train tracks at 2301 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, and we all see that that's possible.
This is possible, too.
I won't take up further time.
Questions, questions for Mr. Labor, from the board.
So, Mr. Labor, just to clear up what Mr. Hunter stated about the PSF building, let's make sure we get that clear on the record. That's a 491-feet building, right? So the difference, just make sure we clear that up.
Forgive me if I let out an audible sound as I heard that again. I listened to that, Mr. Shahid, and I truly don't understand the point that he is trying to make. It's not comparable, and it's not relevant.
And then the other side of it is I do understand that some of the properties along the Main Street corridor are much lower, but part of the reason, if I recall correctly from your last presentation, is you left the building so you could do additional parking to slow down on some of the traffic study that will be coming along the Main Street corridor. Am I right?
Precisely, Mr. Vice Chairman.
We looked at the needs of the community, the desires of the community for achieving as
close to one-to-one parking as possible, going above and beyond code requirements.
But we wanted to be good neighbors.
We wanted to be welcomed in.
We also spoke with blood resiliency experts and quickly realized that we were not going to go underground.
Basement level just does not make sense.
So we have to build up here.
Also, what is viable at a first level?
Housing is not.
That's dangerous.
And Maniank has challenges with commercial.
So wouldn't it be better to provide the parking in a responsible way, to raise the project up in height, and to provide residents to patronize these wonderful local businesses that are looking to subsist?
Other questions from the board?
Yes. So in real succinct and layman's terms, with this design in the building, what would happen in the case of a flood? What would happen to that first level if there's a flood?
Yes. Thank you, Ms. Graham. At the highest elevation on the property, which is adjacent to 11 Shores Lane, going up Shores Lane, we have emergency egress, which you'll recall from the plans.
That will be available for the cars to exit safely and with warning to get out and to go up out of Floodsway to go to higher ground. Urban Conversions is going to be hands-on and is committed to working with our flood resiliency expert and following the plans that he proposes.
Other questions from the board?
What was the final parking?
Shell. The the final is close to one to one, but we have 163 residential dwelling units proposed 161 accessory parking spaces proposed.
Thank you.
One other question I had.
I know when you brought this up the last time,
we were talking about the parking
when you would enter in the parking.
I wanted to hold my question until the report was done.
So when you come out of the parking lot,
the left-hand turn,
are you all looking to block that
or prevent that from happening
to slow down some of the turns coming out of that,
out of the garage?
Will it be right turns only?
Have you looked at that already?
It has been looked at.
To my knowledge, at this point in time, the experts, both City of Philadelphia Streets
Department and Bowman, have not made a clear recommendation on that.
But we would follow any guidance like that.
Not only is it in the interests of Maniunk and health safety and welfare, which is very
appropriate for the board to look at, but it's in urban conversion's interest to make
But it's in urban conversion's interest to make sure that their residents are getting in and out.
sure that they're...
But to pointedly answer your question, there's been no recommendation to limit in that way at this point in time.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Mr. Labor, just to clarify, you said there will be a new set of revised plans coming because there have been change.
I beg your pardon, Ms. Emerson. The revised proviso plans that were submitted
approximately five days before the March 19th hearing are the current plans.
Yeah. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to verify that. Thank you.
Questions or comments from the audience? Sure. Come on.
Yeah, sure. Just make sure the mic's on and try to get it as close as possible.
Can you hear me?
Most certainly.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Abby Sullivan, A-B-B-Y-S-U-L-L-I-V-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Abby, could you identify yourself so everybody knows?
I work in the Office of Sustainability.
I'm the Chief Resilience Officer.
Please proceed.
Hello, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
I was going to say my name is Abby Sullivan.
I'm the Chief Resilience Officer, and I lead the city's Climate Resilience Division.
On my team, we have a program for flood resilience and compliance strategy.
So I'm speaking on behalf of the Office of Sustainability, but also the city's Flood
Risk Management Task Force.
That's a group of over 15, or sorry, it's 14 departments, including the Water Department,
Streets Department, Planning, Office of Emergency Management, Risk Management.
so we have all agreed um you know with the viewpoints that i am going to state here
i am here to comment in support of a refusal for the residential variance at this site we are not
against development in the floodplain but we want to see smart development and we oppose zoning
variances that convert industrial to residential we feel particularly strongly about this in areas
OF THE CITY WITH KNOWN HIGH FLOOD RISK MANYUNK IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS MANYUNK HAS SOME OF THE
HIGHEST NUMBERS OF WHAT WE CALL REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES IT KIND OF STAGGERS BACK AND FORTH
BETWEEN EASTWICK AND MANYUNK BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO PLACES WHERE WE CONTINUOUSLY SEE THE HIGHEST
NUMBERS OF REPETITIVE LOSS CLAIMS WE SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT WITH THE APPROPRIATE
CAUTIONS. THE ZONING BOARD HAS THE POWER TO GRANT VARIANCE AND HAS THE GUIDANCE TO DO SO IN SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTING AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. I JUST DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW A DEVELOPER CAN
BUY A PARCEL AND A PROPERTY KNOWING THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROPERTY, KNOWING THE ZONING, AND THEN
CLAIM THAT IT'S AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO BUILD THAT WAY. THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT YOU
get a variance. I just want to turn quickly to Hurricane Ida. I think we can all picture that
in our heads. You can imagine those floodwaters when you've seen the drone footage going over
Maniunk. I respectfully disagree with, I believe it's the property owner who says, you know, it's
three days, three days of impact. That's what we see. We get preparation. We can get people out
ahead of time. I think the two people in our collar counties that drowned in Ida would disagree.
I think the many people... Objection for the record. Yeah, I mean, so you're saying other
counties that drowned? I'm saying flooding impacts have... Yeah, but what I'm saying,
there was no one drowned down there. Am I correct? No, but there were 29 residents that
were rescued by boat in Philadelphia. We've had that testimony before. Go ahead.
And over 1,100 residents were evacuated. Two shelters had to be open for displaced residents. And that one single event was estimated to have over $1.3 billion in damages. Major impacts to businesses, to families, people's cars.
The $1.3 billion wasn't just in the city here?
No, that's just in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia had $1.3 billion?
Yes, that was what was estimated.
In Maniunk, there were condos that went two and a half months without elevators after Ida.
So I just respectfully disagree that, you know, it's just a few days of impact and then we move on.
I want to talk about something just slightly technical, but I'm going to try to say it in layman's terms.
Hurricane Ida was not even a 100-year event.
That is sort of the level of risk that we all say we can live with.
That is sort of the level of risk that we all say we can live with, that's what we're going to plan to, a 100-year event.
That's what we're going to plan to.
It's very rare, 1% chance every year that we could see an event that big.
The Water Department did an assessment of Hurricane Ida, the flows on the Schuylkill River.
That's how we determine what those 100-year events are.
Using FEMA's own flow data that's outdated, it's over 20 years old, Ida is considered a 65-year event.
So that's not even the 100-year event, right?
That means that Ida, over a 25-year period, that same magnitude storm would have a 32% chance of occurring.
But the thing is, that's using outdated data.
That's from 2002 was the last that those flows were recorded for that assessment.
If we look at the last 30 years of flow data on this Google, Ida is actually characterized as a 30-year event.
These are statistics. I know it's hard to wrap your head around, but the idea is that these huge storms are becoming more frequent and they're, you know, the damage is greater, the elevate, you know, the depth of the floodwaters is greater.
So, a 30-year event, that's our risk today, Ida, has a 57% chance of occurring over a 25-year period. So, if this building is going to be up for 25 years, that's more than a 50% chance that we're going to see that type of flood again.
And if you use climate projections, so we use the best projections we can from the global climate models, using a high emission scenario, so assuming we don't curb our emissions and our greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere, that becomes a six-year event by the end of the century, Ida.
So that has a 99% chance of occurring over that 25-year period.
Since Hurricane Ida hit, in Maniunk alone, we have allowed 347 new units to be built in the floodplain. That's about 795 people, because there's 2.29 people per unit on average.
In the floodplain?
In the floodplain.
I don't see that. Where was that at?
We pulled it from permitting data.
So now let's talk about this project. I really do appreciate the efforts that they did to make the design flood resilient. I think that's fantastic. But I think philosophically, we do not want to see more residents added in these high risk, dangerous areas that are just becoming more and more dangerous with climate change.
according to akrf who was the firm that they worked with to do this flood resilient design
they led a flood mitigation study for east falls and manny young cdc according to their modeling
this site is not just in the 100 year floodplain it's in the 10 chance floodplain so it's hard to
imagine but a 10 chance flood is one that's much smaller right a rain event that's smaller has a
10% chance of happening in any year. So this site today has a 10% chance of flooding in any given
year. That doesn't mean the Ida flood. It wouldn't be quite the magnitude, but water is getting to
the site. So this is adding 163 units, so over 370 people into the floodplain. And I just would
also argue that all the great benefits that were talked about, you know, some of them are site
specific, wanting to revitalize that part of Maniunk. But some of them, all of these economic
benefits, if you built that same, you know, that same unit out of the floodplain in a safe location,
those benefits hold true. So I guess my point is, you know, our office, we are a mayor's office,
We very much support the home initiative. We are pro-housing. We want to see more housing.
But I think, you know, if you actually look at a quote from the mayor, and I don't want to get wrong, she states.
Objection here, sir. So, please, I'll listen to the mayor's quote.
she says our historic two billion dollar housing opportunities made easy plan will ensure
philadelphians have access to affordable available and safe housing in communities for all across our
great city so i again i appreciate the effort to attempt to make this site safe but even if people
if the housing units are elevated i think there's still significant risk um to life and property so
So if I, I don't want to summarize your words, but what you're basically saying, you appreciate what they've tried to do to mitigate this. And they brought a lot of experts in and things.
you appreciate what they've tried to do to mitigate this and they've brought a lot of
experts in and things like that. But your position is you don't think more people should move into
the area? Yeah, we are opposed to variances that bring more residents into the floodplain. Adam?
Good afternoon, Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for joining us today. Excuse me, Mr. Laver,
are you planning to cross Ms. Sullivan? Okay, then we just need to call a city attorney. Mr.
reuter is here if we could promote him to panelists um because um ms sullivan speaking
on behalf of the city she needs to be represented so yeah mr reuter is here he's here yes he is
here we just need to promote him to panelists mr reuter yeah he has been promoted to panelists
he should be coming back in shortly
Good afternoon, Leonard Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. I also apologize for not being dressed appropriately.
I actually was observing today's hearing, wasn't expecting to appear.
Yeah, and also, you know, apologies to Ms. Sullivan.
I had not been previously notified until this afternoon, pretty much just before the hearing, that she would be presenting a statement.
I would just say at the outset, and again, I would defer to the board on this, that I think the statements made by the Office of Sustainability could simply be considered public comment or comment from the city as opposed to testimony per se, because she's not here on behalf of a party involved in the case.
the city's not a party uh in this matter per se um however uh you know again i'm i'm just here
i'll defer to whatever the board decides uh to do here i'm just here to um
well you know represent the the city's interest in terms of like
whatever mr labor is going to go yeah i don't think mr labor is he's getting ready to start
I don't expect he would be too long, so why don't we let him start, and Leonard, you could be ready to go.
Okie dokie.
Good afternoon, Mr. Reuter. Thanks for being here.
Ms. Sullivan, you've reviewed the submission that has been on record with the zoning board, correct?
But you were not at the March 19th hearing, correct?
And could you just make sure you're clear? Yep. Yep. Yep. Thank you.
Did you personally have the chance to read through the AKRF report?
I did not read the full report, but I did review the presentation slides from that March 19th
presentation. That's unfortunate. It's quite a detailed report with our findings. We'd be
happy to share a copy with you. We'd be happy to work with you. I'd like to point out, Mr.
Chairman and members of the board, that we are not seeking variance relief from floodplain
regulations. In fact, we are going above and beyond in that regard. I, you know, my style is
not to engage in extensive cross-examination, but I would like the opportunity to call back Kevin
Flynn to briefly rebut the statements of the chief resilience officer.
Okay. Abby, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. And we're going to have some,
and I'm sure you're done and Leonard's done. Yes. Okay. Leonard. That wasn't bad, Mr. Reuter.
It was fine. I'm still watching, but not on camera. Thank you, Abby. Okay. So how many more
after him how many more people would you have you're done i i could own i can give you a list
of the people who i believe are here to offer some public uh commentary but um i think that uh
kevin flynn will probably be all of two minutes okay good mr flynn mr flynn kindly raise your
virtual hand to be recognized by chairman bergman he's already been uh promoted to
panelist he'll be rejoining mr flynn could you please uh state your name and spell for the
sonographer he'll be back in control mr chair sure there he is mr flynn please unmute
now i don't see him good afternoon can you honor mr flynn could you please state your name and
Good afternoon.
Mr. Flynn, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
spell before this
Yes, it's Kevin Flynn, A-E-V-I-N-F-L-Y-N-N.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Flynn.
You've been present to hear the testimony statement of Ms. Salvin, correct?
Yes, I have.
And Ms. Sullivan raised several points. Did any of this come up at the meeting that you had with the city's floodplain manager?
No, did not. The focus of the meeting was compliance with the floodplain regulations and zoning regulations.
So this is a surprise to you as our contact with the city's floodplain office, correct?
Yes. And in the interest of time, let me just ask you what your reactions are, if any, to Ms. Sullivan's testimony statement.
I'd like to say that we're being very realistic with the future risk.
Ms. Sullivan mentioned the 10-year floodplain, we've analyzed really all the flood events over the past 30 years and provided information to the design team that it's more than a 10% chance that those Main Street elevations could be induced with flooding in a flood event.
We're reporting, and it's been in our presentation materials, just looking at the past 30 years of flood events, there's potentially a 30% chance in any given year that those entrances could be inundated with floodwaters.
And we're providing this information very directly to the design team to help them design in a way that is as resistant to flooding as possible.
And one thing about this site that's been spoken about before is the changing grade along Shur's Lane, which allows the design team to include three additional points of egress along Shur's that are at much higher elevations.
And we've analyzed flood probabilities for those entrances as well to help the design team make the best decisions possible to keep future residents as safe as possible in this location.
And Mr. Flynn, you've also reviewed cleanup efforts and post-flood management. Could you speak to that? Because Ms. Sullivan presented a different understanding of past events, and I think that would be helpful to clarify from your perspective, sir.
Sure. The development team, they're taking flood response and emergency action planning for the building very seriously.
We're assisting in that by reviewing past storm information and looking in a lot of detail about timing and response time and potential response time to future events.
with Ida being the, it was the worst event that we've seen this century in terms of really the
rate of rise of the river. So really looking at the timing of that flood event and how it impacted
the site and would impact the future site to inform future planning for flood response for
the site and really to develop a flood response plan for the building with the goal of making
timely operational decisions. Thank you, Mr. Flint. In the interest of time, we can move on,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sullivan. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have Bob Williams with his hand raised. I will promote them.
Who is it? They should be back shortly. Bob McWilliams.
mr mcwilliams yes hi mr mcwilliams could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes my name is bob mcwilliams b-o-b m-c-w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s i'm a resident at 186
levering street in mania yep okay do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. I do. So, Mr. McWilliams, we've had a tremendous amount of testimony
today, both sides of this issue. Are you in favor of this project or against?
I'm in favor, and I just want to say that my wife and I live in Maniunk. We regularly frequent
We regularly frequent the restaurants and the businesses on Main Street.
the restaurants and the businesses on Main Street.
I go by this property probably four or five times a week as I go to the gym and do other things.
And I support Councilman Jones' attempt to revitalize that section of the street.
I think this is a good project.
I think, you know, you've heard a lot of testimony.
I don't have any title to my name other than resident.
Well, that's a defined title.
So I want to thank you for taking time to call us, but we have other people and I want to try to get other people's viewpoints, but thank you very much for your, for your time.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, Gwen McCauley, Executive Director of Mani Young Development Corporation and Mani Young Special Services District is available.
Ms. McCauley?
Is she, is she calling in, Ms. Labor?
with the telephone number ending in seven four zero three ending in seven four zero three is
my understanding there she is miss mccauley kindly uh i'm you could you please state your
name and spell for the stenographer please unmute ma'am and wait to be sworn in
is there there we go she's hello i'm here hi could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer sure it's gwen mccauley gwen g-w-e-n mccauley m-c-c-a-u-l-e-y
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do and just for so for a point of information we've had a tremendous amount of testimony about
this. I guess our question is, are you for this or against the project? So, there were two letters
of support given from both the Manionic Development Corp. and Manionic Special Services
District to support the project. I will tell you that Manionic Development Corporation's
support came with the caveat that they would support, that urban conversions would support
building on the river side of the properties that they own on the river side.
You know, I think I'm in support personally of development on the non-river side of the
lower main.
Something has to happen down there.
It's dark.
It is dangerous.
I think there's huge economic value for new residents moving to the corner of Shares Lane.
I am aware that the rear of their property is an egress that is outside the floodplain.
I've been here and through several floods, including Ida.
And while I think three days is, you know, ambitious, I do think that we recover after these flood events.
I think I respect the work of Mr. Flynn.
And, you know, we have done a flood study in combination with East Falls and looking for best ways to use our flood areas.
I think that there's concern from the neighborhood over the height of the project.
So, O'Brien had pointed out that Bridge 5 has sat there for many years, and it has many levels to it, and it hasn't really changed the scope of the district.
So I would, you know, I would say that the two organizations have put support behind it.
And personally, I would like to see some development down on that end of the road.
I think there needs to be a connection.
All right. Thank you very much. We have several other people.
How many more hands do we have up?
We have four more hands, Cher.
William O'Brien has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon.
Could you please just state your name and spell it for this sonography?
William O'Brien, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-O-B-R-I-E-N.
I'll be very brief.
I just want to point out, too.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Do you square or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. O'Brien, so you know, we do have your letter of support. And I guess the main question
And Mr. O'Brien, so you know, we do have your letter of support and I guess.
is, are you either for this or against it? And obviously you're for it. Am I right?
I'm for it. I just want to point out briefly two inconsistencies that the Manioc Neighborhood
Council, their objection is with these two inconsistencies. 3750 to 78 Main Street was a
very similar situation. It was an industrial property in the floodplain. The Neighborhood
Council, the Whiz-Hick and Interested Citizens Association, and the Whiz-Hick and Neighborhood
Civic Association joined, all three groups joined in unanimous support for a seven-story residential
structure there. It's been there for 24 years. It's an important part of the community.
The other inconsistency is 3811 Main Street is a floodplain site that is approved with a variance for residential units.
It was done so with the support of the Neighborhood Council because there was a means of ecress that the owner got from a neighboring property.
um this application doesn't need that uh easement from a neighboring property because it already
includes a safe means of egress uh to shores lane that is not in the floodplain so for the
neighborhood council to support 3811 main street which has a safe means of egress by way of easement
but then to object here where there is a safe means of egress is it just seems very inconsistent
Mr. O'Brien, thank you for taking the time.
We appreciate it.
Next hand, please.
Kevin Smith has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Kevin Smith, S-M-I-T-H.
Mr. Smith, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you in favor of this project or against?
um i'm against the project and as the president of manioc number of council i also have oral
testimony uh directly addressing many of the things mr smith mr mr smith we we we took 18
minutes of testimony from your your expert on zoning i i i really i'm going to have to object
if you tell me you're against if you're against no i have i have specific information specific
rebuttals to statements made by adam laver and claims made by them and including bill o'brien
who gave you a very misleading statement just now uh mr smith it is not fair that i not be allowed
to mr smith i'm not going to allow the test money we took 18 minutes of your zoning person and we're
going to leave it at that next hand please we have a phone number ending in 3155 they have been
unmuted and allowed to speak hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
hello yes my name is alan southergill a-l-a-n-s-o-u-t-h-e-r-g-i-l-l you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do alan are you a neighbor
i live at 106 dawson street i'm the homeowner okay so alan we've had a tremendous amount of
testimony about this are you in favor of this practice or against i am against okay um what i
would direct what i would request is that some information be brought in from pendot and the
Streets Department, because where I live, at the end of Crescent, going up Dawson Street to Ridge,
this area has been deemed problematic. We are redirecting traffic to try to alleviate what is
happening on Ridge Avenue. Adding 162 residences, plus or minus whatever number of cars, would come
up shores, come across Crescent, come back up to Ridge, and that's a problem. So I think a study
should be done with what's happening from the new hub for SEPTA. Okay. The intersection of Maine
and Ridge. So that's the brand new hub. That's the brand new hub down the end of the street,
am I correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you very much. So this area is becoming a traffic
issue not just shores and the waterfront but the actual impact of traffic thank you and i would
also mention quick
so we have i'd see what their hand up they have been unmuted and allowed
One quick point, if I may, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, the neighbor who just spoke lives about a half mile away, and we would like to clarify for the record that we are doing a transit study.
Okay, thank you.
Next hand.
John Godsey, please unmute yourself.
Hi, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is John Godsey. I'm the owner of 3759 Main Street.
Hold it, Mr. Godsey. Spell your last name.
That's G-O-D-S-E-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please state your comments. Are you for this project or against?
100% for the project.
All right. Mr. Gotsi, I know where your place is down the street. We appreciate very much you taking the time, but we have several other hands.
Thank you.
Next hand, please.
There are no more hands at this time, Sheriff.
Okay. Hillary, will you get a position of Planning Commission?
Yes, I believe Planning is ready to present their position.
Planning Commission.
if the hearing is going to be re uh extended to another session we would like to hold our test
now okay
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the can you get on the record please
i swore i'm in before yeah yes yeah i swore you in before right correct sure yeah sorry
that's okay thank you chair the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the i2 medium
industrial zoning at this location the comprehensive plan recommends no zoning change to the
sorry however this was due to the inactive industrial usage of the property at the time
the city planning commission adopted the lower northwest district plan since then the industrial
uses here have ended similarly the character of main street has changed over time and the
industrial uses are more rare as a land use has primarily shifted to a mix of commercial
and residential uses this project has gone through extensive historical commission review
and through the civic design review process twice although the proposed development is partially
located in a flood plain area they have met the city's regulatory requirements for building in
the flood plain they have also included an evacuation route providing egress for vehicles
in a location unsure's lane that is outside of the flood plain additionally roof deck setback
and steep slope impact is minimal due to the disturbed areas appearing to be made ash piles
from prior industrial uses and they have met the requirements for steep slope variances
in 14 303 8 i however the additional height would not fit the character of the surrounding area and
there is not sufficient evidence to support the additional 30 feet requested finally the proposal
only includes a single off-street loading space the appellant requested a waiver for the reduction
of the number of off-street loading spaces which the planning staff denied the city planning
commission recommends that the board deny the proposed variances for off-street loading and
additional height, but grant other proposed variances. Thank you. If I may, just a question.
Good afternoon, sir. Were you present at the March 19th hearing in which testimony and
reports were put into the record in this matter? No, I was not. And did you have, thank you,
did you have the opportunity to review any of the reports that have been submitted?
No, I am here representing the Planning Commission's staff's recommendation.
Understood. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We still need to adopt and affirm at the appropriate time.
Is your client here?
Why don't we do, can you do that?
Oh, we'll take one moment.
Yeah, good. Thank you.
Mr. Zakroff, would you, there you are, his hand is raised.
Andrew Zakroff.
Mr. Zakroff has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Zakroff. Would you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Andrew Zakroff, A-N-D-R-E-W-Z-A-K-R-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Andrew. Thank you for being here.
Am I correct that you have been present during both the March 19th, 2025 hearing in this matter, as well as this afternoon's hearing?
2025 uh hearing in this matter as well as this afternoon's hearing yes and have you been able to
clearly hear uh the testimony and uh discussion uh over these two hearings yes and would you
adopt and affirm the testimony that i've offered as your own i do thank you mr zakroff thank you
We're going to vote on this, Hillary, next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
And thank you for everyone else who took the time to testify today.
We appreciate it.
Very grateful for your pay.
Hillary, do we want to handle that one case now and then we'll take a quick break?
Yes, please, Mr.
All right.
So we have a timing issue with the case on the 330 list.
And we're going to hear that now.
And then we'll come back and take a little five-minute break.
So MI 2024-007-443-2104 South 7th Street, Zen Jin is the attorney.
Zen Jin is coming back as a plan list now, Chair.
good afternoon
hi counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
uh yes zenjin z-h-e-n last name j-i-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do um could you identify your client in relationship to the property
Yes, my client is 2531DK Realty.
I'll see they're the owner of the property.
Okay, and I'll note that we have the East Point Breeze Neighbors RCO vote with seven in support, two in opposition, one abstained.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case?
Five things in advance of this hearing.
we have thank you council please proceed and share your screen
thank you i'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted as exhibits
can the board see uh my information on their screen we can thank you yes thank you
this application is for the use of this property at uh 2104 south 17th street it is zone cmx2
my client is proposing a use of the property as a three residential unit. The property is
originally and currently zoned for two units, two residential unit and a required commercial unit
on the first floor. However, the property has been vacant for some time. It is in the process
of being worked on. Part of the reason we received the support of East Point Breeze Neighbors is
because of the way the property is situated and its location in the corridor, making it
not the most effective building when it comes to a commercial use. So here's the photo of the front
of the property. And as you can see, the property is really a roll home style property. Not only
that, it has an elevated first floor, making it basically unable to comply with any kind of ADA
requirements for commercial space. The property itself is also neighbored on both sides by what
are multifamily residential units. It's kind of located on the offside of a street. Both West
Pashionk and Snyder are more commercial in nature, but this property actually faces 17th Street away
from the main commercial corridor. This is some other pictures, including the posting. This is
the rear side alley that is available to the property in the back basement. This is partially
framed out first floor, the existing second floor. The property does need renovation, and that is
part of the plan with the property is to fix it up. The original plans, and you can see members
aboard from the plans here that my client before making an application actually was trying to
figure out a whether an office space or something could be worked out for the commercial compliance
the the issue here is that this property is really not that wide and there are existing
steps leading up to the upper floors that really eats up about half of the space that's available
really eats up about half of the space that's available in the front, making it basically a
in the front, making it
super long, and even if we were to take the back area, super long and narrow space, that doesn't
make a lot of sense for even an office space use. Whereas if it's laid out as more of a
one-bedroom apartment use, similar to the second floor, but with the lost space,
there would be no front bedroom. It would just be living room, dining, and one bedroom in the back.
That would make almost more sense with the layout for this property. With the elevator front,
it also really cannot be used for any kind of storefront and really restricts commercial use
intent in the CMX2 district. Because of the existing residentials next door,
and because of the way the property is laid out, when we present it to the community,
we generally received favorable feedback in that they feel that this property does make more sense
as a residential property. I believe that actually that comment was also mentioned
in the letter from the community. The community did point out that generally speaking,
except circumstances like this, they would not normally prefer to have conversions. But in this
situation, this is a rather unique building. And there are some physical restrictions that lead to
support in this case. And that's really the reason we're asking for a waiver of the commercial space
requirement. The lot size requirement that kicked in is partly because at CMX2 with two units,
the lot size was perfectly fine. But when we asked for the third unit to convert the commercial
unit, that triggered the additional refusal on the refusal letter itself for the lot size for
three units, but I think they're related in the sense that it is because we cannot use the first
floor effectively as a commercial that that particular refusal is triggered in the first
place. So given the circumstances, we would request the board's favorable review in our
request to permit this building to be used fully as a residential property. Then did you go to the
rco meeting did i go to the rco meeting yeah yes yeah okay and and it was in your favor correct
yes so the rco issued their letter i i was at the meeting um i i didn't i wasn't privy to the vote
that came after i left the meeting itself uh so as you can see most of the members were in support
there there were two people who was in opposition and one abstained the the rco pointed out that
you know there's there's very little foot traffic there it's not a real commercial area through
the the two corner properties of course because they're next to Snyder and Pash Young they have
commercial but we are actually stuck as a property in the middle of a short block and on both sides
of our property are also residential properties do you want to bring your client on sure I leave
Ms. Lee should be here.
Can you, Ms. Lee, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
It's Ms. or Mr. Lee.
It's allowed to speak.
Thank you.
Hi, Ms. Lee.
This is Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee.
Hi, Mr. Lee, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, my name is Kawhi Lee.
First name is Felkawai, K-A-W-A-I, and last name is Lee, L-I.
Do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Why don't you proceed, counsel?
Thank you.
Mr. Lee, did you hear my presentation and also see my presentation before the ZBA?
I did.
Can you verify what I have represented to the zoning board is true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own?
I do. It is true and correct.
Thank you.
Zen, was there ever a commercial business in there?
From the history of the property, I am not.
If the board can bear with me one second.
I don't believe, when my client acquired the property, it was already kind of, Mr. Lee, are you aware if there was an existing commercial space in, use in there when you acquired the property?
Kawhi Lee, please raise your hand.
Kawhi Lee has been unmuted.
uh no we were all unaware when we bought purchased a property it was already vacant
it was unlivable okay so it was a vacant property was the first floor
it was unlivable okay so it was a vacant property was the first floor structurally
set up as some kind of commercial space to your knowledge not that i was aware of thank you okay
questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx2 commercial
mixed-use zoning at this location however this property has no documented history of commercial
use on the ground floor and the physical circumstances of this property are not conductive
conducive to ground floor commercial use the planning commission recommends the board grant
the requested variance for no ground floor commercial and grant a requested variance
for dwelling units, but with a proviso
for maximum two units.
Thank you. MI 2024
007 443
South 17th Street, I vote yes.
Michael
Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes.
Siowen, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break,
and before I break, let me just say
The next case is going to be number two, 2307 Nordane Street.
Vernon Anastasio is the attorney.
We'll be back in five minutes.
MI 2024-005-489-2307 Nordane Street.
Vernon Anastasio is the attorney.
Vernon Anastasio will be coming back in as a panelist here.
Hello, Mr. Chair, again.
How are you, Vern?
You've already been sworn.
I'm sorry we kept you a little waiting a little longer here.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
For the record, Vern Anastasio on behalf of Marisa Porges and Scott Moore, the owners of the subject property.
Right. And we have a letter of non-opposition received from the Center City Residents Association.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
see uh well uh to the extent that it exists uh i stipulate that it's accurate i do not believe
it should even exist and we'll get into that it's the zoning board it's the zoning board
uh i know i know but i gotta put it on the record come on i got it i got it have you
emailed in all the required documents you got hillary holding her head i want you to know right
I'm sorry, Hill.
Have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thanks. I'll be as quick as I can, I promise.
Okay, so we're talking about 2307 on Dane Street, beautiful little townhome in Center City West.
and uh it's a very it's a little peculiar uh because what we're trying to do is legalize
something that's already been legalized um 10 or so years ago over the course of 10 years
the owner at the time put an addition on the property they went through this process the
zoning board approved it they built the addition they had a series of visits with lni they got all
their proper permits. Everything was built with the benefit of the permit. However,
the previous owner did everything right except schedule the final visit from an L&I inspector
to close everything out. And therefore, it all fell apart as if nothing was ever done correctly.
As you can see here in the notes to you all, the ZBA granted a variance in 2011 for the exact same scope of work that we are presenting today.
The plans that you will see were stamped by the board, by L&I, approved all nine yards.
Unfortunately, my clients hired my firm to present today, this evening.
They did not bring us on at the beginning of this process.
Had they done so, we would not be here.
We would not be here. I would have met with Mr. Reuter, Ms. Baldwin. Three of us would have
I would have met with Mr. Reuter.
administratively gotten this taken care of. Unfortunately, they're not from Philly. They
don't know the Philly way. They just didn't know any better. So here we are. We need to once again
approve something that's already been approved. And that's why we're here. This is the rear wall
uh was uh extended up obviously there was a uh there was a an addition put on and um it needs
to be reviewed again so this is the interior layout of the property itself living room and
kitchen bed two bedrooms on the second floor sitting room in a primary on the third but i
I think page six was probably going to benefit you more to understand what was done in the past.
Here's the existing single-family home.
They proposed at the time a new deck, access stair enclosure, what we call a pilot house,
a roof terrace over the one-story addition, a two-story addition in the rear here, adjacent to the yard.
and then of course there's the alley so all of this was approved over 10 years ago by this board
by ellen i built inspected several times throughout the process they did not close it out
with a final inspection so everything went to heck and that's why we're here today let's take a look
at the...
Do you have pictures of the back of it?
Sure, I got pictures of everything.
We'll get you to that in a minute.
Is that the rear world
they're talking the rear wall yeah this is the rear wall i don't know if it's exactly what
they're talking about but my clients purchased the property less than two years ago during the
process of closing they learned that it was never closed out all the proper uh paperwork and
documents so the deck the roof deck access the rear wall you know all the overhang in the front
all you know the uh everything had to be reviewed again which has been done since in the last 10
years since they bought it no nothing's been done uh okay and in the last two years the permit
expired in 14 right uh no sir no there was these permits uh that could be yes i think uh what
happened was they revoked the permit or it died because it was uh deemed abandoned based on atlas
right okay so that's that's what happened there i think page 76 also you can take a look at we
met with the community
my clients met with the community I should say
and of course they had
no opposition I also spoke to the
council president earlier today
he did say he was going to send Amir
to the hearing I'm not sure
Amir stayed on
it is kind of late
but they my understanding
is they were supporting the RCO
why don't you bring your client on and have your testimony
thank you Scott
Scott, can you raise your virtual hand or Marissa?
Hello?
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir.
So my name is Amir Day.
That's A, H as in Harry, M as in Mary, I as in Igloo.
Hello?
Can I hear me all right?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Amir.
Yes, I'm here just to state that the council president doesn't need support of this property.
thank you very much we appreciate it thanks amir burn let's get your owner on yep scott scott moore
hello can you hear me yes we can scott could you turn your video on please so we could see you
uh yes sorry one second um oh sure i thought i was on video
I can as a panelist name, chair.
What's that?
Oh, yes.
he's coming in a panelist okay great hi okay there we go all right hi scott scott could you
state your name and spell for the stenographer scott moore s-c-o-t-t-m-o-o-r-e right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel
Thank you.
Scott, you heard my presentation today?
I did.
True and accurate?
It is.
Adopted as your own?
Thank you.
I have nothing else.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no answer this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
madison matera m-a-d-i-s-o-n m-a-t-e-r-a do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
residential single family attached zoning at this location there is no unique physical condition or
circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning
code the existing non-conforming addition lacks the required setback is is and is inappropriate
to the location given local conditions therefore the city planning commission recommends the board
deny the requested variances for a non-conforming rear wall setback thank you mr chair i just uh i
appreciate that the planning commission uh this particular staff for weighing in when i spoke to
the the planning commission prior however it was very clear that uh is there a unique physical
condition to this property that makes compliance impossible the answer is yes that addition was
built approved by this board did my client create that unique physical condition the answer is no
as such the logical conclusion is the variance we we ask respectfully to be granted
I understand. MI 2024, 005-489-2307 Nardane Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes.
Kiowin, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Have a good evening, everyone.
Okay, good. Number four, MI 2024, 006181, 6649 Tulip Street, Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Taccone Civic Association and a letter of support from Councilmember Driscoll.
Rachel Pritzker is coming back in as a panelist here.
Good afternoon.
Good evening, Councillor.
Evening, sorry.
Would you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Did you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is 1892 Broadway Associates, which is the owner of the property.
Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good evening, counsel.
Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen
thank you
can you see my screen we can okay this is 66 49 tulip street
this is the refusal this property is an existing um large old school um that was formerly used
as a catholic school for many many many years um it is zoned rsa 5 despite it being a large
structure and a school we are proposing two uses in this massive property one is for a child care
Center, and the other is for Group Practitioner, which is going to be counseling services for
children in this existing structure. We just have the letter here because we did leave to amend
to update the refusal. And again, the two uses, Child Care Center and Group Practitioner.
These are only refusals that we have, and they're generated based on the RSA-5 zoning.
I'm just going to bring up photos of the property and the deed.
So as you can see on your screen, this is a large street-to-street property in the middle of the block, zoned RSA 5.
So as you can see on your screen, this is a large street-to-street property in the middle
of the block, zoned RSA 5.
Again, as mentioned before, it was formerly a school, this large parcel here, never a single-family home.
Aerial photo of the property.
The property is 65,479,000 square feet, according to propertyaffil.gov.
The structure is 17,825 square feet, and despite being RSA 5, it's a massive lot with dimensional square footage that far exceeds any single family home and obviously given the existing structure.
Again, we're using two new uses for the property, professional services, group practitioner, and child care center, both which require relief from this board.
the zoning post of the property you can also see kind of up close of this existing structure.
Zoning posters and exterior photos just so you can see the interior of the structure as well.
we're going to be repurposing the property for these two uses.
If it was RSA 5 and we had to follow the zoning code, we'd have to demolish the structure,
subdivide the lots, and try to build single-family homes here, which would not be the least
modification of the code possible to warrant relief. And for a big building like this,
Using an old school building for a daycare center or for group practitioner for counseling services for children is not out of the ordinary and will be a minimal modification of the code and the building to continue use in this existing structure.
More interior photos. It's just a very big building. I think we get the point.
This is the code sections. As you can see, RSA 5, child care center and group practitioner are not permitted by right.
We met with the community group back in person on March 25th, which was the Taconi Civic Association.
We presented the project to them. We submitted the proper mailers and notifications.
And as mentioned, this is the meeting summary.
We have three people who showed up to the meeting and submitted a letter of support.
As mentioned, also, we have a letter of support from Councilman Driscoll's office as well.
So just provided some floor plans as well, just to get a sense of the size and scale
of the property.
That's just the memo of law.
So if I could bring on my client, the owner, David Hittery, just to adopt my testimony, if he's still on, and then happy to take any questions.
David Hittery, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
He has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
David, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, sir. My name is David Hidary, D-A-V-I-D-H-I-D-A-R-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
David, have you heard my testimony today? Do you believe it's true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Can you go back to the plans for a second? I'm trying to understand accessibility.
Sure. I just need to share my screen again.
So the floor plans, here we go.
so the basement is where the lower level if you will is where we're going to have
personal services which is going to be counseling for children and then
the child care center is on the above floors so it's two different uses
The child care center is on the above floors, so it's two different uses.
So about the accessibility, wheelchair accessibility, how are they planning to address that?
I know it's not specifically zoning. I don't see an elevator. Are they planning to do an elevator?
David, are you able to respond related to accessibility or if you're going to put an elevator in the building?
um no i don't believe that uh installing an elevator is part of the plans at this time
is there access david from the ground level to grade
what the board on the first floor yes on the first floor yes there is okay
so there's a zero step clearance somewhere you're saying or or ramps yes okay i just don't see is
Is it shown on a site plan anymore?
You have a site plan?
I don't have a site plan because it's an existing structure.
These are all part of the plans.
To bring this old school building up to code after the fact,
we'll have to include things like that, ADA accessibility,
probably some upgrades to bathrooms.
So that'll all be to get a CO after obtaining a zoning permit.
Thank you. Other questions? Will the child care center and the medical practice utilize
the same entrance? David, are you able to answer the question? No, they don't utilize
the same entrance. The daycare is in what we call the annex building, and the medical
practitioner is what we call the main schoolhouse so if rachel can pull up um you know those images
that she had before um you can see that there's you know two different and there's actually
multiple entrances to each facility one on keystone one on tulip um so they all have their
own entrances and lobbies etc is the parking that door the parking is the same but that door
that rachel just showed a moment ago is the main entrance one of two main entrances that's the
keystone entrance for the main school
the daycare entrance would be directly to uh the left which is not shown in this image but it's
right on your left hand side yeah i believe this daycare actually came to us earlier this year
am i you are correct and we actually had to revise the application um that's when we did
the leave to amend yes good memory you're correct and then i thought when they testified when they
came before the drop off and pickup location for the daycare was happening in the common parking
lot like it was sort of like a designated loading zone is that still the case there's one parking
lot um which is in the center of like right in front of the main building um david are you able
to respond really if you can see here there's one parking lot you see on the screen yeah there's
one parking lot yeah I feel like there was a photo of like just it was almost like it was off the
drive aisle and the cars were just going to pull over and the kids were going to get out but I just
I guess my main question it doesn't really matter where it was in January what where is the current
daycare loading and drop-off zone and how does that relate to parking our walkways related to
the medical facility both their employees and their patrons or their patients
so the plan for the daycare as i understand it is that they're they're not going to be utilizing
any parking save for their employees right because people are just going to be dropping
off their kids so it's like you said they can either uh come and and stay on the street itself
and just you know there can be individual employees outside ready to come and pick up the
kids and bring them inside or they can pull in there's a drive-in and a drive out if you
see um there's like kind of like a center arrow pointing to the left just below it you can see
kind of visually that there's a drive-in and a drive out um so people can also come and drop
off their kids that way.
I guess it's, you know, up to the daycare
how they're going to set that up.
Any other questions?
Questions or comments from our attorney,
Questions or comments from our attorney,
Hilary Emerson?
Hilary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no answer, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning
at this location.
The proposed personal services in Child Care Center
are complementary uses that one would expect
to find in an active school.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed use variances for a child care center and personal services.
MI 2024-006.
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify for the record that the refusal was amended to the uses for a child care center and group medical, dental, and health practitioners.
So we're going to do per amended refusal.
Correct.
I just wanted to clarify that for the record because planning may not have seen the amended refusal.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hillary.
Okay, so MI 2024-006-181-6649 Tulip Street, I vote yes with proviso for amended refusal dated 1-28-25.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
are you there
my vote is yes
okay thank you
thank you counsel
number 11
MI 2025
000455
Mulberry Street
Jeffrey Stacy is the attorney
there's a letter of support from
Frankfort Neighborhood Advisory
Committee and a letter of non-opposition
from council member Lozada. Jeffrey Stacey has come back in as a panelist chair.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Hi, good evening, council. Could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer? Yes, Jeffrey Stacey, J-E-F-F-R-E-Y-S-T-A-C-E-Y. Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your
client the relationship to the property? Client is Mastery Charter School Smedley Elementary and
it's an equitable owner by virtue of a license agreement from the school district of Philadelphia
who is the actual owner. Okay our vice chair has just a few questions. Good evening counsel do you
agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that's needed to and required to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen
and then can you able to see my screen so when you're done this you'll just stay on
because we have a second one for you too right yes okay thank you we see it uh great thank you
So as stated, at 5199 Mulberry Street is the Mastery Charter School, Smedley Elementary.
And the proposal is for some signage above the front entrance here, as well as some signage on the left-hand side of this building frontage.
Just by way of background, the school serves students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade, about 760 students.
We have 10 exhibits in our package that we submitted.
The first is their refusal, dated December 11th.
The school is located in the RSA 5 zoning district, and signage is prohibited in that district.
um we filed our application for appeal on january the 10th which is provided here as
well as the project information form as i said at the top my client's ownership interest in
this property is equitable it has a license agreement from the school district of philadelphia
And this will also apply to the next case as well. The School District of Philadelphia, I believe in around 2010, began the Renaissance Schools Program, where it sought proposals from charter school operators to take existing school district schools and, quote, turn them around.
So Mastery Charter Schools applied and was awarded the contract for this.
and was awarded the contract for the Smedley Elementary Schools.
So we have a copy of the license agreement.
Under that agreement, we need the school district's permission.
That's been provided in the packet as well, and that's shown here.
And then lastly, March 27th, 2025, all of the projects that Mastery Charter Schools is performing
at its various campuses were recognized by the school district as donations to the school district
because they are the owners of the property. So as set forth here, the work that has been done
and will continue to be done through this particular application is valued at about
$3.6 million at this Medley Elementary School. And the school district had also made a statement
that, you know, these building enhancements, including the signage, will enhance the inclusive,
engaging, and supportive school environments for all Philadelphia public school students
in alignment with the school district's mission.
We have our tax compliance certificate.
And then to give you an idea of the actual proposal, we have some elevations here.
So where my mouse is hovering is that front entrance, which I believe is on Bridge Street,
and then some signage over here on the left-hand side of the facade where the mastery name will be displayed.
Moving forward to photos, this is just simply a map view of the site.
Here's an aerial view. Where Bridge Street is is the entrance where the projecting sign will go
over the front entrance and where my mouse is hovering that sign on the left side of the facade.
Another shot of the entrance.
These are some shots of the side of the building. We posted the notices. There are shots in the
packet from several points throughout the last three and a half weeks or so since they were
posted the um rco meeting was held april the 10th um where is our approval letter uh and that was
the the frankfurt cdc or formerly the cdc the frankfurt nac now who on april 11th confirmed
that on april the 10th they had approved uh the project that we were proposing uh in that area
In addition, Councilperson Lozada has expressed her support.
And unless there are any questions, I'd like to invite Omar Robinson, who can adopt my testimony.
Jeffrey, just for point of information, could you show the front sign over the door?
I mean, maybe a close up of that.
That's what it looks like.
Yeah. You mean the front entrance?
Yeah, sure. Yep.
The existing or proposed?
oh well the proposed sure
right here could you make that a little wider no hard to say but
and that's science projecting right that's correct okay bring bring your um line on please
good afternoon can you hear me i can mr robinson could you please state your name and spell for
the court sonographer yes my name is omar robinson o-m-a-r robinson r-o-b-i-n-s-o-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel omar did you hear the statements i made to the zoning board
this afternoon yes and was everything true and correct to the best of your knowledge
information and belief yes it was and would you adopt those statements as your own testament
yes i would uh mr chairman i don't have anything further questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands share planning commission madison matera planning commission staff
the planning commission recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing
rsa 5 residential single family the property is a school and the proposal is to replace
The property is a school, and the proposal is to replace an existing sign with a new sign.
an existing sign with a new sign
See you next time.
The Planning Commission recommends the board grant the requested variance for projecting signs.
Thank you. MI 2025-000455-5199 Mulberry Street, I vote yes.
Dallas, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ioan, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. Here's the next one. So MI2025, 000456, 3715 to 33 North 19th Street. Yeah, you were in the counsel. We know who your client is.
There's Proviso here.
Okay. Do we have a letter from an RCO here? Am I missing it?
we do have a letter from the 13th ward yes there's a letter of unanimous support
okay good thank you all right please start counsel
okay um so the the property at 3715-33 north 19th uh is uh operated or is occupied by
mastery charter school grover cleveland elementary um it serves students in grades
kindergarten through eighth grade about 750 of them there is a proposal by the mastery charter
schools to erect some signage on this building as well a canopy sign and a wall sign both accessories
to the existing use we have an exhibit package with 10 exhibits
which includes the refusal
which was dated December 11, 2024
our application for appeal
with our project information form
and tax compliance certificate
and what is being proposed here
well strike that
the ownership arrangement is similar to that
at Smedley Elementary School
they occupy via license agreement and the improvements as proposed as well as additional
ones that have occurred have been recognized as a donation by the school district of philadelphia
what is being proposed here
let me go to the revised plans um so this this project required uh the the team to get to make
a presentation to the Science and Streetery Commission, or committee rather, of the Art
Commission. I believe that occurred in August. They had some feedback, which included removal
of some redundant words and some comments about various sizing of lettering. That feedback was
incorporated into a revised submission that was submitted to L&I, I believe in November,
And you can see that here. I'll zoom in a bit. So what we have is, you know, essentially a marquee over the entrance on 19th Street, along with a sign that goes sort of straight up.
And as opposed to Smedley, which sort of spelled out mastery, this would have the Mastery Charter School logo on the top.
as i mentioned there was a visit to the science and streetery committee and in our packet we have
the document from the art commission that decided you know this should be approved upon
receipt of approval by this board
we have various photos including a map view an aerial view
This is the entrance as it currently exists now on 19th Street.
It's kind of nondescript, doesn't really alert, you know, passers-by to, you know, where exactly the entrance is.
There's additional photos contained in the packet as well.
We posted our notices on April the 15th, and they've been up continuously ever since that time.
There was a meeting with the 13th Democratic Ward on April the 24th, and here is our notice for that.
And the RCO provided us with a letter saying that they support the project at Mastery.
saying that they support the project at mastery.
Unless there's any questions,
I'd like to bring Mr. Robinson back on
to adopt my testimony.
Why don't you bring Mr. Robinson back on?
Good afternoon.
It's been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Robinson.
You don't have to be sworn.
You've already sworn in.
Just state your name for the record.
Omar Robinson.
Please proceed, counsel.
Just briefly, with this one, Mr. Stacey, can you please resubmit the revised plans and
the proviso form as separate documents?
It was a little unclear from the packet which plans were the revised plans.
I believe it was four pages based on how many were submitted originally to L&I, but if you
could resubmit and then on the proviso form, please indicate what the changes were.
It just said changes according to recommendations from the ARC Commission, but we need the changes specifically noted on the proviso form so that L&I is aware of what's been changed.
Okay, so just a question on that.
So the things that we're calling the revised plan tier, those were presented to L&I prior to the issuance of the refusal.
so they were revised following the visit to the science and streetery committee so is it is it
the board's position that we would still need to provide the plans form or can we
jettison that from the package um so was there so were these revised plans sent to l and i before
or after the refusal was issued before okay then they probably they probably have them i'd have to
go and if you can send me exactly what it is that are the most updated plans and i can just compare
them with what l and i has and then we can vote it next week with or without the revised plans i just
don't um yeah it would just i just need a few minutes to compare them but i do need to see what
you're considering the most recent plans in order to compare them to what l and i originally reviewed
okay yeah i mean i do know that these were submitted november the 15th
um the art commission letter was november the 26th and the refusal was dated december the 11th
okay i will i will just double check um because because there was an indication that there were
changes made in response to the art commission so let me just make sure everything is um i wasn't
i read it as there were changes made you know since the refusal was issued but now i need to
take a look at it and make sure we don't miss anything so understood okay but we can vote on
it next we can vote on it next week and then it'll either be with or without the revised plans
but just if you can send me what are the most recent plans and i'll just take a few minutes
to compare them and then we can vote on the matter next week okay okay questions or comments
from the virtual audience here we have charles richardson who's been unmuted and allowed to speak
good evening mr chair well richardson yeah you again amazed me that you're still around but uh
state your name and and you don't have to spell it because you've already been sworn
certainly charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall
So the councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance for this for the sign.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The property is a school and the proposal is to replace an existing sign with a new projecting sign.
The Planning Commission recommends the board grant the requested variance for projecting signs.
Okay. So, counsel, we're going to vote on this next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
And this case is closed as we stand, right, Hillary?
It's closed, and we will have the vote for you at 2 o'clock, okay?
Thank you.
Thank you, and thank you for your presentations.
Number 13, MI 2025, 000457, 1434 to 36 Federal Street.
1434 to 36 Federal Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Good afternoon, or good evening, Mr. Chairman.
So, Henry, you've already been sworn, if I remember correctly, right?
Correct.
Could you just state your name for the record?
Sure. Henry Clinton.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. Client is Tim DiPretoro, capital D-I, capital P-R-E-T-O-R-O.
the vice chair has a few questions our vice chair has a few questions good evening counsel do you
agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of
this hearing i have thank you counsel please proceed thank you mr sheen
is that visible mr chairman it's up now yes great uh good evening everyone uh i'm here on
behalf of Tim DiPertoro, who is the principal of 1434 Federal Street. This is an adaptation of an
old machine shop on Federal Street, just west of Broad Street. It's already approved for eight
units and commercial on the first and basement levels. We're asking for a shrinking of the
commercial space because there's no frontage for the commercial in the rear half of the building
and to replace the shrinkage of the commercial with two additional residential units.
These are my table of contents, A1 through A10.
Refusal.
This is a CMX2 zoning district, you know, commercial mixed use,
but it's never been used as a commercial space.
It's off of Broad Street, as I said, on Federal.
And it's been a machine shop actually since 1955.
It's the Ernest Hill Machine Shop.
They did fabrication of sheet metal, laser cutting, jet cutting for both the automotive and aerospace industries.
They closed shop, I believe, within the last three years or so, and they've relocated.
So it's a three story. Let me go to that.
It's a three story building, 1434 to 36 Federal Street.
It has a side alley, which I'll show you.
We're not changing the building.
We're keeping the building as is.
We're just repurposing the inside.
I'll go backwards.
We did meet with the Southport Street Neighborhood Association,
both their committee and a full neighborhood meeting.
They were in support of the proposal.
This is their letter of support.
They were just asked for two things,
a tree to be planted on the front of the property,
which we will do if we get okay from the streets department and fairmount park commission
and they also asked that a trash room and a bicycle room be installed on the first floor
which we did we did that inside the building so it really didn't adjust the footprint and we don't
have any plans to be stamped we're still going forward with the existing plans because as i said
footprint is the same just walking through some of the photographs so the idea is the first floor
the front half of the building. It's a deep building, about 100 feet deep. The front half
of the building will be commercial. As I said, it was never commercial. It was always
basically light manufacturing. And the back half will be two bi-level units.
And this is a picture of the property directly across the street. You can see there's commercial
space on the first floor and residential above. We're going to mimic that, certainly not the
architectural look or the four stories. We're only going to keep three stories.
This is a project down the street.
Again, it's residential.
This is east of our property, and I'll show you that with the aerial view.
Interior of the property, again, an old manufacturing facility.
There's an elevator existing.
We're not going to keep the elevator.
It's only three floors.
Again, another picture of the property across the street.
This is the posting of the zoning signs.
And we'll get into the plan.
So the architect on the job, Jeff Pond, he is on the call if we have any particular questions.
But this gives you a little idea of where we are.
So this is Federal Street.
As I move my cursor to the right, there's Broad Street.
And then 15th is to the left.
So we're a little bit off the beaten track of Broad Street.
So there's some more photographs.
There's commercial to the right and commercial to the left.
And this is the alleyway where you can get access to the middle of the building.
All right, so this is what's approved right now.
It's approved for, as of right, commercial in the cellar and commercial on the first floor.
Commercial in the cellar and commercial in the first floor.
What we're going to do.
What we're going to do, the proposal today is to cut the commercial basically in half.
And then the back end, the cellar and the first floor will have a unit by level.
Unit A in the cellar and first floor, unit B, cellar and first floor.
The second and third floor, each will have four units.
That will remain the same because this has already been approved.
The only change that we're making is basically swapping out some of the commercial on the
cellar and first floor.
So this floor plan is the floor plan that's already approved, and it's part of our package.
Units one to four on the second floor, five to eight on the second.
So this is the revised plan.
Again, not that I need anything stamped if the board looks kindly upon this, but simply
because the community group, and I think rightly so, asked for a trash room.
the first floor and some bicycle parking on the first floor. So the idea will be is the commercial
will be on the front. You will enter through the front door and to access the residential,
you'll walk down the wide alleyway, enter here, and then go upstairs as you need to the apartments
and also to access unit B in the front half, which is a bi-level first floor and basement.
and then to access Unit A, you would go around the back and get into A
and have the steps go down to the basement.
The floor plans, the second and third, as I said, it's already an approved situation,
so it's a redundancy to go over them again.
Unless, you know, certainly if the board asks questions,
I can talk about the square footage or anything that you would like.
the the if you look at the uh windows on the building you can see that the the basement is
quite a bit out i mean the the cellary area is quite a bit out of the the ground level the grade
so even though we have bedrooms in the basement the windows are about four feet above above grade
And the architect's on the call if anyone has questions about that.
These are the plans that we sit in at the community.
I just put them in here because it's the same as before.
These are the approved plans that I talked to you about at the outset.
It's really too many plans here to go through.
It's just the architectural, frankly.
This is the side of the building, so this would be the alleyway.
When you walk down the alleyway, this is how you enter through the alleyway into the residential portion where you're going to have, as I said, the bike room to the right, trash room to the left.
Then you go in and access the bi-levels to the left, as well as the units above.
Again, we're keeping the facade.
I mean, that was important to the folks at South Broad Civic.
And it was important to us, too, really.
We really didn't want to change it.
So it has that old industrial-slash-manufacturing flavor, but it's being repurposed for residential use.
To the left is the rear of the property.
Here, where you can see the windows I talked about, they're basically almost out of the ground and certainly above grade.
Cross-section of the apartment complex.
Application for appeal.
tax clearance, zero balance, zoning map. Again, Broad Street is to my right.
To the left is 15th Street. It's all CMX2. Deed indicating ownership.
Our notice letter to the community about the zoning hearing today, as well as the
community group meeting, which we had, mailed out 103 pieces certified, or certificate of mailing,
rather. So we have a situation where we have an existing building never used for commercial,
even though it's zone CMX2. We're suggesting that the commercial area in the rear of the
building is really not going to be functional. Every commercial space in that building has
frontage on Federal Street, and we would like to mimic that. We're a little bit off of Broad
Street, and even if we were on Broad Street, I think my client would be making the same request
that the commercial is not going to work if it's that deep or if it's in the back of the building.
And my client will testify that he spoke to his realtor about that, and he can speak more to that
when I get him on the line. So we're asking the board to approve two residential when we swap
out the commercial in the rear of the building. We're not affecting any properties light or air.
We're not affecting any properties, light or air.
We're basically in conformance.
We're basically in conformance with the code.
We have the support of the community, and we're not impacting any light or air.
With that, I'm going to ask my client to-
Before you bring them on, I mean, I have to ask this question.
I mean, eight would be by right?
Eight is by right, correct.
And how did we get to 10?
What we did is, I'll go back to the plan.
so right now this is this is a buy right project all commercial for 100 feet on the bait in the
cellar and the first floor right there's four units on the second and then four on the third
so that's the commercial and the eight and what we're doing is cutting the commercial in half
and putting a unit a a buy level on the first floor and basement and then b on the first floor
and basement because we want to keep the commercial
on the front and not have people walk down an alleyway
to get the commercial. Without frontage, we're really not in good shape having commercial
on the back.
But I mean, I still think the question is you
could have done the building with eight, right? I mean, the second
and third floor, you could have made the apartments a different size, right?
well yeah i guess you could always i'm not i'm just saying like sure it reads well here like
by right you could do it eight by right and you're what makes you bad what makes your office 10
so i guess the question is is there a reason why you you went up to 10 right so yeah maybe i wasn't
clear. So we already are approved for these two commercial floors and eight residential units.
So when we talked to realtors and my client did, they basically said the commercial space in the
back, you're not going to be able to rent it. So then he decided, okay, then let me put two more
residential units in, in the back half of the commercial and keep the front half. We'll keep
the first floor and the basement right okay all right so that basically would
other questions from the so so that would be 10 units plus commercial correct yes miss graham
other questions from the board uh is there uh uh can you show the configuration of the
bi-level units with the basement living i mean yeah yes
So we'd come down the alley, go into the hallway, and there's unit B, and then you'd go down the alley and in the back, and there's unit A.
And A would have, just like B, cellar and first floor.
Any other questions?
So when you say down the alley, that's the property line, right?
Yes, Mr. Johns, right here.
So you come down, okay.
You come down here, right.
Come down, you go up the steps, you go down the steps,
then you go around the back and up the steps into the apartment in the back.
Correct.
Okay, which is bi-level with the bedrooms in the basement.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Henry, do you want to bring your client on?
Mr. D. Pretoro, are you still on the call?
Mr. D. Pretoro has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Can you hear me?
Thank you, board, for being here this late.
Hold on, Tim.
You have to be sworn in.
Hi, sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Tim DiPerturo, last name D-I-P-R-E-T-O-R-O.
Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. DiPertura, were you on the call when I presented your project?
And you heard my comments about the commercial space having frontage on Federal Street.
Did you speak to any realtor or professional concerning the ability to lease commercial space behind the space that we're requesting?
Yes. And, you know, the conversation and the thing was in today's commercial leasing market, visibility and street presence are critical factors in attracting and retaining tenants.
and, you know, the conversation and the...
and spaces two and three are the distinct disadvantage being in the middle and at the
rear of the property and you know due to their lack of frontage exposure and absence of walk-up
traffic making them particularly difficult to lease you know and not being on broad street
you know added to that and with that was was where uh you know he basically said these are
to be very very challenging to rent and and that's hence where the idea came up to replace the two
rear and middle commercial spaces with residential dwelling
and did you speak to a realtor about trying to rent the rear area in this commercial uh first
floor and cellar yes that's what i have you know just stated to you okay so that information is
is based on what a realtor told you yeah yes okay uh if you had the opportunity to testify
would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct yes okay all right all right
questions from our attorney uh just a i was just a little bit confused by the refusal because it
references that a commercial use will remain is this vacant commercial space at present or is
there a proposed commercial use at this time no it's it's totally vacant it's um not being used
the machine shop vacated i mean and the photographs so you so so there's not a use you there's not a
commercial use being requested with this i just usually the refusal will say it's vacant commercial
space use registration required prior to occupancy but this one didn't say that so that's why
i just wanted to clarify that that's that's what's happening in this case is the space
is vacant and at it at some point you know you you would submit a application for a use
in that front portion correct correct okay all right thank you questions or comments from the
virtual audience.
Planning Commission.
I see no hands, Chair.
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff.
The Planning Commission recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing CMX2 commercial mixed use.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the requested variance for unit count and multifamily.
Can I respond?
You can, sir.
So my client reached out to a realtor that he has used in an attempt to analyze whether or not this deep commercial space is going to be rentable.
The entrance to that space would have to be down an alley into the rear part of the building.
I mean, there's many situations where store owners are lopping off the back half of their building, converting it to residential.
I mean, it's happening in Chestnut Hill and it's happening in other areas where the commercial space is just too deep.
This is a hundred foot deep property and it just doesn't make economic sense for the client to move forward with having empty commercial space on an off corridor street.
Okay. Thank you. Henry, we're going to hold this until next Wednesday. We're going to vote for
on it at two o'clock. We just want to have a little conversation about it.
Understood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Appreciate it. And Henry, before you go, I'm getting ready to open up for the 330 list.
So I don't waste your time. The number one on the list, we believe is yours,
but we thought there was going to be an amended refusal.
Correct. And so did I. It just hasn't been issued yet. So I'm going to have to ask.
So what I'll do when I call that today, I'll continue it. OK, thank you very much.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. All right. Have a great night. All right.
So we're going to go right into number one. Is there anyone whose 2 p.m. case has not been called?
I see no hands, chair. OK, so we're going to go right into the 330 list.
Good evening. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the RSA, the zoning board hearing for this for tonight.
With me as our vice chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Shel L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Teneda Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Michael Johns.
Chairman. Board member Taya Nguyen. Present, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Also, here is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Chairman.
Board member Ty Owen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all.
A recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
There is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in person, if you're called to speak, you must state and spell your name and then wait to be sworn in.
Once you're sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter their appearance to become an interested party to a case.
there are three ways to enter your appearance. You can identify the case property address on
your Zoom webinar. You can see a staff member or you can call ZBA appearance line by the close of
business tomorrow. Call 267-270-5548. Leave a message that includes your email address
and the address of the property of the appeal case. The following guidance is for our remote
attendees first when directed by the chair you must raise your virtual hand in order to be
recognized second if you're called to testify you will be prompted to join as a panelist please
accept the request and turn your camera third the webinar q a is for questions about the hearing
do not comment on cases in the q a and fourth if you're participating by phone
press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute um we also have uh directions for
attendees in person there is no one in the room so we're going to go right into our our list right
so i mean right that's i mean i'm not just joking i mean okay all right all right so
So MI 2024-006-715-8200 to 08 Castor Avenue.
This case is continued to 10-15-25 at 3-30.
number three mi 2024 007 462 6215 north 13th street this case has been continued
until 10-15-25 at 3-30.
Case number four, MI 2024-007-465-6217 North 13th Street.
Case is continued to 10-15-25.
And number six, MI 2024-007-674-4927 5th Street.
This case has continued to 10-15-25.
We're going to go to the one case that we have, MI-2024-007-485-2146 North Franklin Street.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
Meredith Ferliger is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
chairman members of the board good evening council could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer sure meredith ferlinger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r right do you swear or firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do would you identify your client the relationship
to this property? My client is 2114 North 8th LLC, the owner of the property. That LLC is
represented today by Dennis Schifrin. There's a letter of support from APMRCO. Vote was five
in support, four in opposition. Four choose not to vote. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good evening, counsel. Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all of the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did, with the exception of proof of tax compliance, which was sent in this morning.
Thank you. Please proceed. And you've already shared your screens between you and us.
This is the last case, I think.
Save the best for last.
no we've never seen you here this time of night personally uh you are i it's been a long time i
had one at seven o'clock probably 10 years ago so it's been a long time that's a pretty good run
The request before the board today concerns 2146 North Franklin Street, and we submit
the request before the board today concerns 21 46
that it is a de minimis request, so I will be brief.
You have an exhibit packet in front of you that contains 15 exhibits.
To briefly summarize the basis for today's request, this application requests a variance
for the addition of a third residential unit, which would be permitted if the lot were less
than 10% bigger than it is. Despite some unusual disruptions during the RCO meeting that were
entirely unrelated to this project, the application did ultimately receive support from the local RCO
APM. Let me first orient you to the location of this property. The deed and the recently submitted
tax clearance are included at Exhibits 2 and 3, and for Board Council I did submit the tax
clearance through the portal, so if you don't see it yet, it is there. As you can see on the aerial
images that I have up on the screen at Exhibit 11, this property sits roughly mid-block between
West Susquehanna Avenue and Diamond Street. As you'll see in the photographs a little bit later
on the aerials are slightly out of date as there has been further development on this block since
even these aerials were taken however they are still helpful to provide the context of the block
which you'll notice has been significantly developed in recent years
from the east view you'll see that the lot that is the subject of the application
is one of the few remaining vacant parcels on this block.
Consistent with the zoning map that's up on your screen at Exhibit 6,
this is a nearly exclusively multifamily block that is zoned RM1.
We have also included photographs at Exhibit 12 that provide a more current look of this block,
again, given the volume of current development that has occurred here.
From the first image, you'll notice that the property is surrounded by newer multifamily developments of predominantly two- and three-family density.
There is not necessarily a uniform aesthetic character of the newer construction, which is shown in the next image here, directly across the street from the subject property.
after that the next image is pointed towards the right of the property looking down towards
West Susquehanna Avenue and then in this next image this one is the same side but looking down
towards Diamond Street and again this predominantly shows the three-story character of this block
despite the fact that these structures themselves vary a little bit in look
i've also included another image showing across the street towards diamond street where again
you can glimpse the significant construction that has occurred and this is showing the
location of the property here this is the one showing directly across the street
photos of the zoning posters which were timely posted are also included in the exhibit packet
The proposal for 2146 North Franklin Street is shown on the zoning site plans at Exhibit 7
and includes one new three-story structure. The building will contain three dwelling units.
As you can see on the elevation, the structure is elevated so that the lower level is roughly
four and a half feet above grade, similar to other newer developments on this block
and possible due to the heightened grade of many of the properties on this block.
Turning to the floor plans at Exhibit 8,
the proposal includes three units, each a one-bedroom, one- or two-bathroom unit.
Each unit has high ceilings of nine feet.
The units are diversely sized.
Unit A comprises the first floor and lower level and is just over 1,200 square feet.
Unit B is on the second floor and is 560 square feet.
Unit 3 is on the third floor and measures 650 square feet.
There is also a roof deck.
Each unit has its own washer and dryer, and trash will be stored interior to each unit.
Dennis, my client, and his maintenance staff are responsible for all of his property's trash maintenance, which includes putting out and cleaning up trash after collection.
Dennis, my client, and his maintenance staff are responsible for all of his properties.
He does also own other properties in this immediate area and can answer any questions the board has about his management of properties in this immediate area.
Just by way of example of what this may look like, at Exhibit 9, we've included a photograph of another recent development that my client is in the process of constructing, just to give you a sense of the aesthetic intent for this property as well, since the zoning plans are simply two-dimensional.
now regarding the refusal the application was refused for the proposed density as two units
would be permitted on the lot by right where three units are proposed as i mentioned earlier
this block is nearly exclusively multifamily unfortunately the lot is 991 square feet
which is a measly 89 square feet deficient to allow that third unit by right
Furthermore, this property is within the fifth overlay, which prohibits the use of bonuses for additional density.
The board may consider that a bill to reconsider or remove that restriction was just introduced last week in council at the request of the current administration,
who was quite vocally in support of encouraging additional density, particularly on a lot like
this, which is already flanked by similar multifamily development. Furthermore, this is
not a unique request, as the board just heard and granted a very similar request at 2104 North
Franklin Street, just a few properties away, similarly requesting that third unit. That
permit is up on your screen shown at Exhibit 10. Similarly, the board heard and granted another
case on this block at 2100 Franklin Street, that one for seven units. While the applicant submits
that a hardship exists given the unique character of the lot and the dense multifamily character of
this area, the applicant also submits that the board is not required to find hardship in a case
where the request is de minimis, as it is here at only an 89-square-foot deficiency.
That means the lot is short less than 10%.
Given the current economic conditions, particularly in light of the multifamily market in this
immediate neighborhood, erecting a structure for just two units is not feasible.
As I mentioned, my client does own many other properties in this neighborhood and can speak
more thoroughly to the current conditions of the market and neighborhood if the board desires
further context. However, since it is a de minimis request, we will not elaborate unless desired.
Finally, we submit the number of proposed units is the least minimum in light of all the
aforementioned reasons, as well as in consideration of the proposed interior layout of the structure.
This proposal represents the antithesis of overcrowding, given the conditions of this block
that are ripe for added density without the risk of overcrowding. Absent the overlay, this density
would be by right and is consistent with density often supported around the city on lots of equal
dimensions. We submit that the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air, the structure is designed to the maximum extent to be visually
consistent with the block, which is somewhat difficult given that there is no unique character
of this block and the aesthetic conditions of the structures. As always, we have included
more detailed analysis in the memo of law that's submitted to the board at Exhibit 13,
and I'm happy to touch on any point in more detail.
I would ask if the administrator could find Dennis Schifrin and unmute him.
Dennis Schifrin has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Are you able to hear me?
I can.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Dennis Schifrin, first name D-E-N-N-I-S,
last name shifrin s-h-i-f-r-i-n swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you dennis have you heard all the testimony and
evidence that i had all that i offered in front of the board this evening i have and would you
i have and would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as
agree that that testimony was true and accurate and
We'll be right back.
if you had given it yourself i would agree and yes i would adopt it as my own thank you we're
happy to answer any questions questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney
i just wanted to note for miss furliger we did receive the tax information thank you very much
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1 residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
Planning Commission recommends the board grant the requested variance for three dwelling units.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2024-007-485-2146 North Franklin Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ioann, my vote is yes.
Noshahi, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you so much, and good night.
Good night.
Is there anyone in the 330 list whose case has not been called?
all right so i want to thank you i want to thank everybody but we really did finish that large case
today and there was times i was pulling my hair out trying to figure if we want to get it done
but we did get it done and i appreciate everybody in that i appreciate the people here who
stay every week late with us and we we appreciate what you do and i see you in the back there bill
and I was so we do appreciate what you do and our planning person thank you today we appreciate it
you're working out well so thanks everybody do we what next Tuesday do we meet next Tuesday no oh