Thank you.
how many people jason
sir we have 30 um we have 35 people entering the room right now so if you wish to begin you
may do so at this time sir thank you good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be
chairing this meeting this morning for the Zoning Board. With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member, James Snell. 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.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and Kathleen Grady, our deputy director of planning and zoning.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting Kathleen.Grady at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before
testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All testimony or comments should be directed to our executive director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule for today.
Number three, MI 2023-003-996-5400 Valley Street.
That case is continued.
Number five.
M.I. 2024-001-941-5315-17 Chancellor Street. That case has been continued.
Number 17, MI 2024-002-285-923 Christian Street.
That case is continued.
And number 19, MI 2024-002-293-6201 North 15th Street.
that case has been continued. Are there any other requests for continuances?
Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host for today.
We have a phone number ending in 2812. Caller with the phone number ending in 2812. Please
unmute yourself and wait for the chair. Could you state your name, please?
Paula, with the phone number ending in 2812, please unmute yourself.
Okay. Do we have any other hands?
Chair, we have Attorney Devin Upton with their hand up.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
good morning counsel
counsel good morning chair good morning could you could you state your name and spell for the
court stenographer yes devon d-e-t-i-n last name hooked up d-e-t-e-h right do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir you have mi 2022 003 966 59
You have MI-2022-003-966-5900 Pulaski Avenue.
This is the fourth listing.
Please give us an update as to where you stand.
Yes, Chair.
This is a case I took over from a partner.
I'm having some communication issues with the client, but it should be resolved by our next hearing.
So MI-2022-003-966-5900 Pulaski Avenue.
Case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
Thank you, Counsel.
chair i have another case as well which one's that uh 2900 snyder avenue
let's see i think it's down towards the bottom here
what number is that hillary
let's see i'm checking mr chair did see it earlier
um that is number seven mr chair okay thank you hillary
Okay. So MI 2024-001-949-2900-Snyder Avenue. This is the first listing. Could you give us an update?
Yes, Chair. For this one, we've already had the community meeting. We have the letter of support.
I'm actually prepared to present, but my client is out of town. He's in Lebanon.
If possible, could I have it continue to live with the earliest possible date?
we will see what we will see what the office can do so MI 2024 001 949 2900 Snyder Avenue case
is continued thank you thank you is there any other requests for continuance
chair we have a Jessica Nelson with her head up
Jessica help Nelson please unmute yourself we'll wait for the chair
good morning could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
good morning it's jessica nelson j-e-s-s-i-c-a last name n-e-l-s-o-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Could you please tell us what's, what's case here?
Regarding a zoning permit, 2024-002543, address 2314 North Broad Street.
That's number six, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much.
So this is your first listing.
Would you please give us an update of where you stand?
I need more time.
You need more time. Yes. Okay. All right. So, MI 2024-001-947-2314 North Broad Street.
Cases continued. Mark, must be heard. Thank you very much for calling in. We appreciate it.
Thank you. Is there anyone else? Chair, we have a Nicole Holland with their hand up.
Nicole Holland, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, Nicole Holland, N-I-C-O-L-E-H-O-L-L-A-N-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you tell me what case you're involved with the address?
The address is 1532 South 31st Street, 19146.
that's number 13 mr chair
um are you prepared to go in with this case yes okay so you had your hand up i mean what what
what is what is the point you have i mean because we'll get to this case oh okay i didn't know how
it worked i didn't know that's okay that's okay you'll hear us call your case okay okay got it
thank you all right thank you any other hands
i see no further hands at this time chair so number four mi2023-006-845-2128 chelton avenue
Ariel Ohanan is the listed applicant.
No exhibits.
This is the second listing.
We see any hands.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
So this is the second listing.
Mark must be heard.
So MI 2023-006-845-2128, Shelton Avenue.
21-28 Shelton Avenue. I vote to dismiss. Michael Johns. My vote is to dismiss.
I vote to dismiss.
Michael Johns, my vote is to...
Cheryl Gaston. My vote is to dismiss. Taya Wendt. My vote is to dismiss.
Tana Graham. My vote is to dismiss. James Snell. My vote is to dismiss.
Yes, Mr. Shahid. My vote is to dismiss. Thank you. Number eight. MI 2024-002-002-3612
north 5th street michael and g cho are the listed owners applicants no exhibits this is the first
listing michael cho if you're in the virtual audience please raise your virtual hand
chair it looks like we have a caller calling in from a samsung phone okay caller on the samsung
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name?
Good morning. Could you please state your name?
Caller, please unmute yourself.
star six are on mute
oh uh no response
mr child i don't think there's been any response they may be having some uh
technical difficulties you can uh so this we have no exhibits this is the first listing
So MI 2024-002-002-3612 North Fish Street, this case is continued.
Thank you.
We're going to move to our add-on list.
MI 2023-005-625-912 South Front Street.
I vote yes, with proviso. Maximum six units.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you. Number two, MI 2024, 004-658-424-East-Woodland.
My vote is appeal denied.
Michael Johns, appeal denied. I agree.
Cheryl Gaston, appeal denied.
Tanetta Graham, appeal denied.
James Snell, appeal denied.
If not, I hear, appeal denied.
Thank you. And number three,
MI 2024-004-827-3402
Sampson Street. The vote on this will be held for two weeks. Hillary, what's our date two weeks from
today? September 11th. For September 11th, vote will be at 9 30 a.m. Thank you. And we're going
to start here with number 9, MI 2024, 002-011-2170 North Franklin Street. With that case, we will
Also here, MI 2024, 002-074-2172 Franklin Street.
Both cases are Mr. Joseph Consul.
There's a letter of no position from APM because of a lack of vote.
Mr. Consul.
Chair, Mr. Consul is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning.
Chair, good morning, Mr. Counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
It's Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, Consul, that's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth to nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Consul, as you know, we have several cases with you. We're going to go through all of them right in a row, okay?
Mr. Consul, as you know, we have several cases with you. We're going to go through all of them.
Right.
All right.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Yes, good morning. Have you agreed a way to read another refusal to relate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed them all the required documents on the service that is needed and required to proceed with this case?
I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed.
I'm recusing from this case.
Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Okay, good morning, board.
I'm here on behalf of Chevetta Property Group, LLC.
My client should be represented today by Mr. Michael Tomasetti, one of the owners of Chiveta Property Group, LLC.
On May 13th, 2024, Chiveta entered into a development agreement, which is on the screen with the Philadelphia Land Bank, to develop a total of 67 properties in the same neighborhood.
These are to be developed as single-family homes under the Turn the Key program, which is a workforce housing program that provides Philadelphia residents the ability to purchase properties for $280,000 or less.
Additionally, there's grants to these buyers that make the purchase process easier and restrictions that go on each deed that protects the affordability and intent of the program for 15 years into the future for each specific property, depending on when they're first sold.
Of the, of the tranche of properties that were from this particular redevelopment agreement, we're here today on 10 of those properties. And I believe we're, we're starting with, was it Franklin?
Frank 2170 North Franklin and hold on 2172 North Franklin.
Okay. So 2170 and 2172 North Franklin are both zoned CMX2. And like all of the properties that we're here for this morning, we are seeking to build single family homes on these lots.
so these are 10 empty lots that we're applying to build single-family homes on.
The CMX2 variances, which these both are, are required because of the restriction against
doing a completely single-family residential property. There would be a requirement that
there would be 30 feet of commercial space on the ground floor of these properties. And for
For all of these properties, we believe both the intent of the city in these development
agreements and the character of the neighborhood does not warrant the need for commercial space
on the first floor of these properties.
So starting with 2170, I've submitted my packet, which includes the letter from APM.
Again, as board chair noted there, they took a position of no position. There was a few folks at the meetings and, you know, we discussed everything, the pros and the cons. The letter notes a couple of the neighbors concerns, which I can or have briefly touched on.
They question the affordability. We believe that given today's market, this workforce housing program that the city has is a significantly positive program in terms of affordability.
There was a question in the letter regarding the deed restriction on future homeowners. And what this program does is prevents anyone flipping the property for a profit within the first 15 years.
So either the owners or their family even are allowed to continuously own the property for that amount of time, after which the restrictions on the deed fall off and they can use the property however they see fit.
But if they sell the property within that time, within those first 15 years, the restrictions stay on the deed, which allows the city to keep ties and to continue its affordability program for that particular property for that number of years.
There was a concern about owners potentially renting the properties.
We've confirmed that the city flags these properties and does not allow them to receive rental licenses during that period.
So, again, it keeps the properties within the single-family home, you know, owner-occupied type properties that the city is seeking.
you know, owner occupied type properties that the city is seeking with this particular program that they're that they're rolling out.
So for and that's just to kind of give you a global overview and I won't go through it with each of the other properties, but we have proof of our mailers.
We have proof of the meeting. This meeting was held at 8 p.m. in person.
We also included for each of our properties photos of the vacant lot showing proof of our posters.
And we included in each of these properties the basic layout.
So actually for 2170 and 2172, these lots are being split up into two single-family homes that are three bedrooms, two baths each.
The model for all of the properties that we're here today for is three beds, two baths, single-family homes with a nice backyard.
We've included the Chiveta Property Group LLC, Certificate of Tax Clearance, as well as the Project Information Form.
For 2172, we've included, again, it's identical to what we just presented, Modo Design Shop, as we had discussed at the meeting, and it really wasn't a concern, but they really take strives to, when they build these properties, to fix them with the character of the neighborhood.
So if there's certain roof lines or cornices that need to be met, the moto takes pains to do that.
And so that's something that they're proud of and I'm mentioning.
Again, here's 2172 showing the lot that will be built upon with Chivetta.
Again, no specific concerns from the RCO about this property.
I addressed the global concerns more so about the program itself. There wasn't any concern about not using this property as a commercial space on the first floor. There didn't appear to be any sort of appetite for that.
So for 2170 and 2172, I could have my client, Michael Tomasetti, I believe he's on, under his phone, his dial-in, the last three is 3084, could raise his hand and adopt my testimony.
Michael Tomasetti, please raise your virtual hand.
Chair, I see the phone number,
but the caller isn't raising their hand.
Okay. Thank you.
Is there a way to raise your hand on that you can say out loud so he can try and do it like if he's dialing in?
Tomasetti?
Mr. Tomasetti?
and star nine to raise your hand,
star six to unmute.
Thank you.
Mr. Tomasetti?
Chair, he may be having some technical difficulty.
His hand still isn't raised.
Mr. Consul, you are an officer of the court.
We will accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair i see no hands at this time planning commission
good morning mr chair dan powers with the philadelphia city planning commission
d-a-n-p-o-w-e-r-s you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed i'm going to enter testimony for both 2170
north franklin street and 2172 north franklin street if that's all right thank you yes please
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx2 zoning at this location the proposed
use will have no detrimental impacts of the adjacent properties the city planning commission
recommends that the board grant the variance for single-family residents. Thank you very much. So
number nine, MI 2024-002-011-2170 North Franklin, and number 11, MI 2024-002-0770.
And number 11, MI2024-002-074-2172, North Franklin, I vote yes to both.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes for both.
Iowen, I vote yes to both.
Tanetta Graham, yes to both.
James Snell, yes to both.
Yes, Marsha, I hear my vote is yes to both.
Thank you. And number 10, which we will also hear at the same time, 16 and 21.
So number 10 is MI2024-002-012-928-Edgely.
We go to number 16, MI2024-002-228-924-Edgely.
And what's the next one?
16 here.
Hold on.
I'll be right with you.
And number 2021, MI 2024-002-235-936, Edgley. Mr. Consul represents all. Please proceed, sir.
Good morning, Joseph Consul.
I recuse myself from these cases also.
All right. Thank you.
Good morning, Joseph Consul. On behalf of Chivetta Property Group, LLC, I have already spoken of the May 13, 2024 agreement with the Philadelphia Land Bank to develop these properties as single-family homes.
These three properties on Edgley are all part of that same May 13th, 2024 agreement.
And similar to the properties we just spoke of, the properties on Edgley will be developed as single-family homes.
However, the difference for these Edgley properties is that these are all zoned I-2, medium-light industrial.
So unlike the other properties we spoke of and those that we will speak of, there is a different set of refusals for these properties in that I-2 zoning prohibits single-family household living.
It doesn't prohibit household living, but single-family homes are prohibited in I-2 zoning districts.
So here's the refusal for 928, which was the first on the chairs list. And there's two refusals. One is for the single family use being prohibited. And one is because the backyard depth is proposed to be seven feet instead of the eight feet required. And again, my clients matching the size and backyard length of the other properties on Edgley here.
Again, we've included the letter dated August 6th from 8 p.m.
I've addressed their concerns regarding affordability, regarding the potential to rent these properties,
and regarding the restriction on selling the properties and how that may impact the initial purchasers and their families.
Our proof of mailing.
proof of the photos, showing the vacant lots that will be developed upon. This is 928.
And then we included, again, the sketches from Modo Design Shop showing the three-bedroom,
two-bath homes that will be developed here. You know, even though that part matches,
you'll notice slight changes in the designs based on how the properties are situated on the block
and things like that. And their tax clearance certificate. That was for 928. I'll move on to
the second on the chairs list, which was 924. Again, this was I2 zoning. This one, there's only
one variance. The backyard is in fact eight feet for this property. This property is seeking
of variance because single family household living is not allowed in the i2 zoning district
there's our letter approved mailing
photo of the exterior of the property again because 924 and 928 are next to each other
it's a large vacant lot that we've posted for these properties
and our drawings and the tax clearance certificate and then finally was 936 edgley
And then finally, it was 936, Edgley, a refusal.
This, again, we believe has two refusals, not believe,
but one is for single-family living
and the other is for rear yard depth.
I believe that that's a seven foot versus an eight foot,
though that isn't indicated on our refusal here.
Letter from the RCO.
Group of mailing.
This lot is not contiguous with the ones we just spoke of, so there's different photos
showing the posting on the vacant lot, and the drawings showing the design for the property
by moto as well as the tax clearance certificate with that i'll rest on these three edgely properties
uh i don't know if mike has found the star nine he texted me and said that he couldn't it wasn't
please bring him on uh mike if you're able to is star nine working
Mike Gaston, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell it?
My name is Michael Tomasetti, T-O-M-A-S-E-T-T-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Mr. Consul.
Good morning, Mr. Tomasetti. Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your properties on Edgley Street, specifically 924, 928, 936?
Yes, I did, Joe.
Do you agree with what I said and adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board here.
Just one. Did I see trash enclosures on these?
plans. No, there are no trash and closures. These are single-family homes.
I'm sorry. That's okay. All right. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Ambers?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
chair i see no hands at this time planning thank you planning commission
good morning dan powers with the planning commission
i'd like to testify for 928 edgley 924 edgley and 936 edgley at the same time if that's all right
please the comprehensive plan recommends changing the zoning at this location from i2 to rm1
forgive me, at these locations, the proposed use will have no detrimental impact to the adjacent
properties. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance
for single-family residents. Thank you. So number 10, MI 2024-002-012-928-Edgley,
And number 16, MI2024-002-228-924, Edgley.
And number 21, MI2024-002-325-936, Edgley.
I vote yes to all three.
Joe Gaston, I vote yes for all three.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes for all three.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes for all three.
James Snell, my vote is yes to all three.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number 12, MI 2024-002075-912 West Susquehanna Avenue.
Mr. Consul.
All right.
So 912 West Susquehanna Avenue, Joseph Consul for Chevetta Property Group, 912 West Susquehanna was entered, was, is part of the development agreement between the Philadelphia Land Bank and Chevetta Property Group, LLC, dated May 13th, 2024.
The property is zoned CMX2. The intent of the development is to develop this property as a single family home. There is one refusal in CMX2. There is a requirement for 30 feet of commercial space on the first floor of the property. The clients are seeking to build a single family.
Space on the first floor of the property. The clients are seeking to build a single-family home and require a variance in order to do so.
We met with APM on this property. I have previously discussed and addressed the concerns.
Letter.
Proof of mailing.
Proof of posting on the vacant lot for 912 West Susquehanna.
We've also included the project information form, as well as the layout showing a three-bedroom, two-bath home.
This property, we did not immediately get a tax clearance, but here's proof of a $0 tax balance.
With that, I'll call, if he's available, Mr. Mike Tomasetti to raise his virtual hand.
Mr. Tomasetti, just state your name.
Mr. Tomasetti, please unmute yourself.
Michael Tomasetti.
That's it. Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Tomasetti.
Did you hear my testimony just now about 912 West Susquehanna Avenue,
and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do, Joe. Thank you.
Nothing further.
Questions from the Board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
just a quick clarification um mr consul the the testimony you gave um regarding the the rco letter
um for the franklin street cases you wish to incorporate that into um your testimony for
all 10 cases is that correct yes i would like to do that i was i was trying to do that without
uh turning the same ground over and over again but if that's that that's fine i just wanted to
clarify that for the record so it was clear for the stenographer that that that applied to all
of these cases thank you it does yes that was blanket testimony as there was no comments
regarding any specific properties uh from the rco here we're just out of curiosity don't we
have one that's not apm uh we we do have one yeah that's true we have one we'll do that one last
that's not apm but yeah that does apply to that testimony applies to all the apm cases all right
thank you very much the first nine are what's the nine it's the nine apm one hillary and i apologize
all right questions or comments oh hold on one second that one is uh it's the very end um
that's the marshall street case okay that was that's a 37th ward rco okay
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no heads there planning commission
good morning dan powers with the city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends note uh excuse me the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the cmx2 zoning at this location the proposed use will have no detrimental impacts to the adjacent
properties the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance for single
family residence. Thank you. MI 2024-002-075-912 West Susquehanna Avenue, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Iowyn, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
thank you so number 14 and we will hear number 20 along with it so number 14 is mi2024
002 25 2201 north a street and number 20
MI 2024-002-315-2101 North 8th Street.
Mr. Consul, please just state your name and please present.
All right, Joseph Consul here on 2201 North 8th and 2101 North 8th Street.
Again, these properties are part of the same development agreement between the Philadelphia Land Bank and Chivetta Property Group.
LLC. Starting with 2101 North 8th Street, this property is zoned CMX2. In order to develop as a single-family home, we require a variance to not use the first 30 feet as commercial space.
We met with APM on this property. We have addressed all of the concerns earlier in this meeting. Here's proof of the mailing.
Proof of the posting, floor plans,
Floor plans, three bedrooms, two baths, and the tax clearance certificate.
We're moving on to 2201 North 8th Street.
Again, this property is owned CMX2,
so we require variants to use the first floor as all residential
without the 30 feet of commercial space that's required by the code.
Again, our letter from APM regarding this property.
Proof of mailing, our proof of posting, floor plans, and the tax clearance certificate.
Having already discussed our reasons for the variance, I'd like to call Mr. Mike Tomasetti to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Tomasetti, just state your name, please.
Michael Tomasetti.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Tomasetti, did you hear my testimony just now regarding 2201 and 2101 North 8th Street, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do, Joe. Thank you.
Questions from the board.
I have a question. Just curious.
Are there different renderings for each section
or are you trying to stick with like the same model in terms of the rendering?
Mr. Tom said he can address that.
I mentioned it briefly earlier, but he can explain it better
regarding the exterior of the properties.
So depending on what lies next to us in that neighborhood is what we develop to.
So if it's a two-story property, we develop two-story homes.
If they're front porch homes, the rendering may look the same,
but we adhere to the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
That's a great question, though. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone by the name of Jihad Ali.
Jihad Ali, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
All right, thank you.
Morning, Mr. Ali.
Please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer.
Good morning, Chairman.
My name is Jihad Ali, J-I-H-A-D-A-L-I.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
All firm.
Please proceed.
yes good morning commissioner i just wanted to ask uh if he could show that drawing again i also had
a question about the the rendering it seemed like it was the same uh project it just went so fast i
couldn't really see it is there is there any rendering of the outside of the building
yes i have a exterior rendering i believe for both of them i was not including that
in what I was showing today for expediency, here's 2101 exterior, and there's 2201 exterior
renderings.
If you'd like me to stay on one or the other, Mr. Alley, I'm happy to.
Just let me know.
No, counsel, thank you.
I just wanted to see the difference in a two-story and a three-story.
so this looks like these are the three stories do you are there any two stories
i thought we had one in this in this trench i'm not certain because i did review all all these
and i don't recall one um one one showing up that was a three-story but these are all these all
match and i have seen their two-story designs as well i don't know if any are in this batch
of properties off the top of my head all right thank you thank you for sharing sure
Sure. Questions or comments from the Planning Commission?
Planning Commission.
One moment, please, sir.
Sure. Take your time.
14 and 20. 2201 North Aves.
okay the comprehensive excuse me dan powers with the planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the cmx2 zoning at this location the proposed use will have no detrimental
impacts to the adjacent properties the city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the variance for single family residents both places am i correct correct sir okay thank
you. So MI 2024-002-25-2201.
0-0-2-2-5-2-2-0-1 North A Street, and number 20, MI 2024, 0-0-2-3-1-5-2-1-0-1 North A Street.
I vote yes to both.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes to both.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes to both.
Tyia Nguyen, my vote is yes to both.
James Snell, my vote is yes to both.
James Snell, my vote is yes to both.
Number 22, MI 2024, 002-327-2121 North 10th Street.
Mr. Consul.
All right.
Joseph Consul on 2121 North 10th Street.
Property is part of the same development agreement between the Land Bank and
of Edda Property Group, LLC, whom I represent, and whom I'm here today representing.
2121 North 10th.
Sorry, I'm not getting my full presentation here.
Apologize for the delay.
north 10th all right so 2121 north 10th let's see i just have that is that let me find the refusal
real quick all right we have a refusal for 2121 north 10th street this property is zoned industrial
2, which prohibits single-family home usage on the property.
We met on this property with APM.
I have addressed their concerns previously, and I'd like to incorporate that into my testimony regarding this property.
Here's pictures of the posters for 2121 North 10th Street.
the development plans this is another three-story three-bedroom two-bathroom home
just because it was asked previously here's the detailed exterior photo or exterior renderings
of the property, the tax clearance
certificate, and
I think that ought to be it.
I could have Mr. Tomasetti adopt my testimony that we're seeking to build a single family
home on 21 North 10th Street.
Mr. Tomasetti, just state your name.
Michael Tomasetti.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Tomasetti, did you hear my testimony just now regarding 2121 North 10th Street, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do, Joe. Thank you.
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 answer to sign, Chair.
Planning, Commission?
Good morning, Dan Powers with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends changing the zoning at this location from I-2 to RM-1.
The proposed use will have no detrimental impacts to the adjacent properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance for single-family residents.
Thank you. MI 2024-002-327-2121, North 10th Street, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Snell Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
And number 23, MI 2024-002-337-2214 North Marshall Street, Mr. Consul.
And this also has unanimous support from the 37th Ward RCO.
Good morning, Ward. Good morning.
I'm here on behalf of Chevetta Property Group, LLC.
And while this property is part of the same May 2024 agreement between the Philadelphia Land Bank and Chevetta Property Group to develop 2214 North Martian Street as a single family home,
this property was held, was reviewed by a different RCO. So the request is the same.
The property is zoned CMX2. And the reason we're here is because my client wishes to build an
and the reason we're here is because my client wishes to build an entire single family home
entire single family home.
without the required 30 feet of commercial space on the first floor we met with the 37th ward rco
and we had a unanimous support all 14 attendees supported our project that meeting was in june
here's the proof of mailing
Here is photos of the vacant lot with the signs,
our project information form,
some photos, the three-bed, two-bath layout that is uniform for all the projects that were
presented today. And again, the tax clearance was not available. We have a zero dollar tax balance
that we're providing in lieu uh and here are the detailed external plans for this property wait
that's the wrong one marshall street marshall street yeah let's see if i got those on hand and
And do, let's see if, there we go, 2214 North Marshall Street, external showing the build between the properties that you see in the photo on the bottom left.
I'll have Mr. Tomasetti adopt my testimony, if he's available.
Mr. Tomasetti.
Mr. Tomasetti, please unmute yourself.
Michael Tomasetti. Please proceed, counsel. Mr. Tomasetti, did you hear my testimony
just now regarding 2214 North Marshall Street and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do, Joe. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney? Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at the side, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning. Dan Powers with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX2 zoning at this location.
The proposed use will have no detrimental impacts to the adjacent properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance for single-family residents.
MI 2024-002-337-2214-North Marshall Street, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Appreciate your time.
Okay. We're going to move to number two. MI 2022, 006705 2000, Larry Street. Alan Notkinson is the attorney. I believe there is. Hillary, we have a letter for this?
Yes, we do, Mr. Chair. Give me one second.
um oh no actually i'm sorry no this one we do not it was a different one that we received all right
thank you very much we do not have a letter for this one mr knockamson he's coming back in as a
panelist now chair good morning mr chair members of the board alan knockamson for the applekins
Sylvia Kaba. Could you, just for the record, could you spell your name, Mr.
Nockamson? Allen, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N. Do you swear or affirm that
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Our vice chair has a few
questions, sir. Thank you.
i do and you know then 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 council
please proceed and share your screen all right thank you
Again, good morning. My name is Alan Nockmson of Nockmson PC.
With me is Anthony Cava, Ms. Cava's husband, who's going to testify with regards to my presentation.
I would ask that the Board hold a vote. We intend to re-present this matter.
a vote we intend to represent this matter based on requested changes from the community we intend
to present this matter to the community in october so we would ask that the board hold this vote
i don't know if the this our coordinating rco's representative is in the virtual audience i would
just ask that he would tell us when the community meeting is and then we can schedule the resumption
hearing as well. We're here to present 2000 Larry Street. It's in the southwest section of
the city. During my presentation, I'm going to show you the notice of refusal for this RSA5
property, the correspondence, which we haven't received from the 40th Ward's Republicans,
but we do have letters to support from nearby neighbors. This property has a long history
of mixed use, which is now the proposed use of the property based on recommendations or
suggestions by the community, which we'll represent to the community after this hearing.
Maps of the area, we're a corner property on the corner of Larry and Kid Sensing.
And, you know, you'll see maps from a Zoni perspective, as well as a Google Maps perspective.
Photographs of the property in the surrounding area, which will include photographs of what
the property looked like when my clients purchased the property. Interior photos of the property.
Currently, the entire building structure is used as an administrative office for a personal care
company that does in-house care to elderly individuals nearby. During the presentation
too, I'll elaborate, but my client employs many people in the neighborhood. They have three
full-time employees in the property. But there's over 100 employees who are employed by this
company who come in probably once a week to pick up their paycheck. But 70% of those employees
live in the neighborhood. So this is a good base for the neighborhood and a good employer for the
neighborhood. We'll review our plans and drawings. My team put together just simple floor plans just
to show you like what we're proposing now, which is a change in what the current conditions are.
Like, again, we currently use the entire property for our administrative offices. It was asked of
us to allow for residential use above. So we're cutting down our commercial space at the behest
of the community. Our RCO meeting notice, we have met with the community, I believe at least once,
maybe twice, but we'll be meeting with them again after the hearing. Our applications for appeal
that we filed on our client's behalf, the deed to the property showing that Ms. Kaba is the owner
of the property, and our certificate of tax clearance. Again, at the conclusion of my
presentation, I would ask that her husband, Tony Kaba, virtually raise his hand. I'll have a few
questions for him, and then we'd be more than happy to take any questions from the board.
And then, you know, at a resumption hearing, you know, I would, you know, let the board know, like, how the community responded to this updated proposal.
So our notice refusal is this. This is an RSA 5 property. It's a corner property.
And what we were looking to do in the, you know, originally was just to legalize the administrative offices of this personal care provider.
And, you know, we had two refusals. First, you know, business and professional office use is not allowed in RSA-5 properties. And then there was signage on there as well, which we took down at the behest of the community as well, which was also, you know, required for us to, you know, to get those approvals.
Again, this property has a long history of of having mixed use and just commercial use in general.
So we, you know, and my client has a good relationship with the with the with the neighborhood.
So we're still working through this, but we do have a letter of support from nearby neighbors.
and then again going to the property history again we just got this through atlas but you
can see here there's different instances of um you know here one is in 1953 you had one
residential unit in the candy store in 1949 there's a reference to being a service station
in a garage of some sort. So again, even though this is an RSA 5 property, it has a long history
of non-straight residential use here. And then in the maps of the area, here is ConsenSync,
and here's Lowry Street. We're surrounded by a lot of ICMX properties. So again, it's not
we're surrounded by a lot of icmx properties so again it's not a character and we're next to cmx
too not of character to have you know this use based on the property history but also not of
character based on the fact that we're surrounded by a lot of non-residential properties and then
you can just see this from a google maps perspective as well again we're near public
transportation as well. It's a light use of the property in that my client has three full-time
employees there, which I believe includes his wife, where I guess the wife is the owner, but
she works there with two other people. And then they have about 100 employees that are employed
throughout the area. And the only thing they're doing is picking up their paycheck. So photographs
rest of the property. This was what the property looked like when we started. There was an ATM
machine in the front. The reason is, is because most of our employees pick up their paychecks
and there was a way for them to just put their paychecks, I believe, in there or maybe get cash.
I don't know, but it was an active nuisance. My client didn't understand that until they met with
the community, and they removed that. In addition to that, you know, they got rid of the, or they
reduced the wattage on their signage in their window, and then they cut a lot of the signage
out from their property as well. So, but this is Lowry Street from Consensing Area or Sides,
and then these are like the zoning hearing notice posters. What you'll see here is an updated
red box here, that's actually a registered free library box where people can can exchange books
for, you know, from the free library. So, again, this is something my clients are very community
oriented and they're looking, you know, to, you know, again, they employ 70 individuals from this
community in general. So they're they're trying to do whatever it takes to be considered a good
neighbor so but this is the zoning hearing notice posters from both public streets and this is
larry street to right property as you can see this is the icmx properties which are across the street
from us and then against larry street to left the property again more of this icmx use
and then contensing avenue again you can kind of see it here this non-residential use and
consenting to the left of the property. Again, same thing. And then this is what the property
looked like when my client purchased the property. It was in great disrepair. My client put a lot of
heart and money into this property. So those were the existing conditions when my client
purchased the property inside and out. And then this is what the property looks like now. It's
just a nice, clean administrative office that has three full-time employees.
Again, a light use of the property. The people that come by are their employees who work off-site
who are just merely picking up a paycheck, or maybe there's an interview here and there where
my clients are interviewing new employees. And then this is our plans and drawings. So if you
look at it, first floor, here's the reception area. And here's that open area here that we have.
And then there's an office, a bathroom. And then in the lower level area, it's just more openness
where filing takes place and stuff like that. What my client proposes, and if this board feels
so inclined to grant this revision to the project is that, you know, by way of proviso,
we would say that first floor and lower level would be the business and office use, and
then the second floor would be a single-family unit, where, again, you see a bedroom, bathroom,
open floor plan with a living room there as well.
We did meet with the community on April 15th at 6.30 p.m., but we've had many communications
with community leaders about how to make this work for both sides.
We emailed that notice beforehand, showing proof of mailing of that notice to 59 addresses.
These were the addresses we mailed it to, proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our applications for appeal, I believe actually my client had a different counsel at the time,
along with the notice of refusal in the project information form,
the deed to the property showing that Ms. Cava owns the property, and then the certificate of
the deeds of the property showing that Ms. Cava owns the property,
and then
tax clearance. I'm going to stop sharing my screen. I would ask that either Mrs. Cava or
Mr. Cava virtually raise their hands. I have asked them to be sworn in, and then I have a few
questions for them. Chair, we have Anthony Cava. He has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Kaba, please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Mr. Kaba, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Kaba?
Hi, Mr. Kaba, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Anthony Kabba, spelled A-N-T-H-O-N-Y, last name K-A-B-B-A.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Tony, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
True and correct, yes.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do. Thank you. Questions from the board.
I have a question. The side door that was shown
on the diagram, is that the way that you would enter into the upper unit
or is that part of the basement storage entrance?
Let me take a look. My understanding
And is that the second floor unit, the residential units on the second floor and there's a common entrance on Larry Street.
But let me take a look and see what you're referencing. So let me just share my screen again.
so you you mentioned this door here i believe that's has the only access this door has to
is to lower level to the first so that would be in the commercial space but
there's a common entryway on the first floor well it's not even the first floor i would say
just the way how the building is sloped um but this would be the main area for the business
there'll be a vestibule area. You go to the right. You go into the commercial space. You go up a
flight of steps. You go into the residential space. Did that answer your question, Ms. Graham?
Yeah. No, I was just wondering if you're going to have the employees coming back and forth to pick
up their checks and if they were using that entrance or is that just going to the lower
level? It's hard to tell. Mr. Tony, what usually happens with that door? Who uses that door? I
don't know the answer to that so when they when they come we come out and give them the chair
okay so that really is mainly for people who are stopping by we put it on that door because
the instruction says start to place on the door close to the streets close to the streets
where people can see it no we know why we post why you posted the orange notice poster there
But I'm saying, what's the functionality of that door? So you're stating under oath that the functionality of that door, how you how you use that property is basically that's how the that's where the employees come to visit the commercial space and that's where they pick up their checks.
That's where we come out to our employee.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
You broke up.
that's where we will use to meet the employee
so I think you're saying
we have double gates on that side
there is another door on that side
if you go like towards the middle
oh so there's a second door as well
on that side
I think we'll wait for the resumption here
and we'll do a better job of getting
you see the second door
and between the other car
yeah but that is not
oh I see right here
it's blocked by that car right here okay all right we'll do a better job of getting a better
angle of that so there's two doors actually for that lower level then and this um question
this so these the parking on the side that's that's uh all this part of this property or how does that
work i think that's on street parking i don't think that's off street
I think that's on street parking.
I don't think that's off street.
That's a curb cut.
So next to the.
The entrance door that we just talked about.
Is that part of the property or is that the property next door that they own and they're parking on?
All right. Mr. Kahn, but do you, do you actually park on, on, on the sidewalk there?
Because my understanding, this is a corner property, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, that's the corner of the party.
Then the guy who fixed the car also gives us space that we park.
So there is a curb cut there?
It's a parking lot.
Yeah, it's a parking lot.
Oh, parking lot for the next door neighbor.
I got it.
So he gives you the ability to access that driveway to temporarily park your vehicles.
Does that make sense, Mr. Johns?
It does and it doesn't. So my question is, you've got two doors that are entering, look like they're entering onto that parking lot.
And so I'm not sure. I guess there's a side yard. I don't see a site plan or anything.
Yeah. So we took over this case from someone else. So obviously, I'll do a better job of getting this, you know, definition.
So I'll get, you know, for the resumption here, I'll definitely be able to have a better, do a better job of that.
Right. OK, because it's a little unclear as to whether or not those doors enter onto that parking lot, which.
Well, Alan, I thought he said that there's somebody there that repairs cars and let him use a spot.
Is that what he said? I think, Mr.
Kama, just confirm what I my understanding.
There is someone who has a driveway next door who has a property next door that goes into a parking lot and he allows.
And I guess it goes through Mr.
that that side area and we're allowed to he allows us to temporarily park her car there
or or employee's car is that correct miss uh tony that's sure the guy owned a car shop and
allow us to park there next door a car shop yes a car shop which is not affiliated with our
property no but we have a driveway but the you're you're but yeah so i guess i guess for your next
time around you need to make sure we've got plans that kind of our site plan that kind of clearly
identifies what the parcel is um the other the other only other question that i really have or
issue that i have is with the signage and i don't know that we're here for signage but it seems like
a lot well it is signage yeah and you're completely okay yeah and you're mr johns you're completely
right. It was a lot. And our office has been working with
our client and the community to remove that, to make it more
respectful. And so we have, that was one
of the asks from the community. They asked us to
first to remove the ATM, then to
remove a lot of the signage there because they thought it was a little bit much too.
That's horrible. Yeah, so we are
working with our client in the community and um that's part of why we were hired okay all right
thank you okay my questions are um one when did you say or did you say uh when was this property
purchased um it was purchased in 2018 according to my notes okay and then it was renovated and
would have used for this use?
There was aesthetic work done to the property
after my client purchased it.
And then, yes, he used the property
not realizing that he needed to get
a zoning permit here for that use.
But I was done without getting permits initially.
And then you said that there are three employees
that are in the property and they're doing whatever i guess this is back of house like
activities for a business what business is it because you said something about
there's a hundred employees that are nursing age yeah they're they're they're taking care of a lot
of elderly people in the in the neighborhood in the surrounding area they're they're they're in
they're in home uh providers so someone who's taking care of someone's mother or someone's
grandmother or so you know but they're not doing any work on the premises like the only
the purpose of this office is to have an administrative office and a hub for people
for the employees to come pick up essentially their paychecks and you know once in a while
someone gets interviewed but it's a very light use of this property okay and then the the whole
But it's a very light use of this property.
Okay, and then the whole process of providing these in-home nursing services, they're done someplace else?
They're done in the home of the client, the patient.
There has to be some coordination process, correct?
I mean, how is that being done through this office or is there some other office or how is this?
Honestly, I think, again, I can have Tony speak to that, but my understanding is that they get a phone call, go to this, go to this house, perform services at this house.
And then that's the extent of it. And the only time these employees ever show up to the hub, to the building, is to pick up their paycheck.
but uh tony is is is my understanding correct of of this process um and my name is sylvia
can i say something sure what no why don't why don't we swear around first okay so why don't
you state your name and spell for the court stenographer my name is sylvia my is s-y-l-b-i-a
and my last name is
K-A-B-B-A.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, my lord.
Please proceed, counsel.
Sylvia, you're the owner of record
with regards to this property, right?
Yes, please.
Okay, and you're the one
who works there as the operator
of this business, right?
Yes, please.
You said yes, right?
You were going to interject something about the operations of the business?
Like you said, this is an administrative office where me and two other employees work here.
So I come here not five days a week.
The two employees are here five days a week between nine to four.
the purpose of this office only we have over 100 employees so most our trainings are done online
applications are done online everything else except we have less than um as of today we have
less than 20 people that comes here between monday and tuesday just to pick up their checks
and leave. So they spend less than a minute here
because they just pick it up. Most of them, we just give it to them
and they leave. Because of some reason, they don't have
direct deposits, even though we encourage them to do
so. Others have direct deposits, so they really don't have to
come to the office. The nurses, we go out
and assess. We go out and
and supervise essentially the um employees they don't have to come to the office because we go
out and do all those administrative work and trainings most of our trainings are done online
okay all right and then uh can we go back to the uh picture about the awning sign yes please
And this is one of the signs that you're asking for permission for.
Yeah, so I think it would be good to know which signs that are still at the location and which ones aren't.
So, Sylvia, is this sign still at the location?
Oops, I keep going the wrong way.
Is this sign on the side still on the location?
They asked us to remove the other ones, and we did.
These ones, they didn't ask us to remove them.
That's why we left them there.
But the ones they asked us to remove, we did remove them.
Okay, because these are updated photos.
So there were a lot more signage on other photographs, right?
Okay. And then this awning, you know, since it has writing on it, is considered to be a sign.
Yes, and I think that's what we're trying to legalize is those two.
But there are a lot more signage before that we removed.
Okay. Well, it says here it's about the proposed flat wall sign.
I don't see where.
I think this may be.
I'm assuming and presuming, and maybe I shouldn't, that the flat wall sign we're talking about is this one that's on the side of the building here.
That the flat wall sign we're talking about is this one that's on the side of the building here.
We'll get greater definition about understanding.
I think we need to make sure that we are getting the refusals and permissions that are needed for all the signage, which would include that whole army.
other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
um just briefly um mr napson you mentioned that you were requesting a resumption hearing
um and i think based on based on the way the refusal is written it looks like it's a business
and professional office for the whole structure and it only references the one accessory wall
sign which would be the sign that's on the side of the building not the awning sign um so i i think
if you want to legalize that sign and also clarify that there would be single family above which
would also generate a refusal for multiple principal uses on a lot i think that you really
should amend the refusal in this case and make sure that it's um that it lists everything that
that your client is proposing. And that's fine. I think we previously spoke to you about
doing this by way of proviso, but if you want us to send and do this by way of an authorization
letter, we'd be more than happy to comply with that. So is that what you're asking us to send
an authorization letter to the ZBA asking for permission to amend our zoning appeal by way of
another refusal um yes i think that would be best in this case especially if there's additional
signage that you're also seeking to legalize because based on what it what what the refusal
says it's only the one sign and not the awning sign no and i appreciate that i mean again our
office did not handle the initial application process so we want to make sure that every all
of our eyes are dotted and teaser crossed so when the board does vote it's based on the current
conditions to the property and the proposed uh use of the property absolutely thank you so is
that so is the owning is the owning sign legal the one on the front i don't think so i don't know
i don't think it can be if it's rsa5 no and it may also trigger um a art commission uh review
as well because with awnings that have writing on it they want to uh confirm uh how much writing
can be on it and what kind of fabric is used for the awning so and i don't see any of that in this
so questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have craig meladosian craig meladosian please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Craig, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Craig, C-R-A-I-G, last name Melidosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair Bergman.
Please proceed and try to tell us where you stand with this.
All right. We were approached regarding having a resumption hearing.
All of the testimony that's been delivered today is not necessarily testimony that I am, I'll say, fully familiar with.
There were two different requests or applications made to Elton and I regarding this.
In my opinion, both of them were intentionally inaccurate, and one of them was finally withdrawn by this current council.
The prior council has moved on, and I'll leave it at that.
I would simply ask that photographs of the current situation be taken and that council or their expediter, preferably council, go back to L&I and submit everything that is there.
We had an original, I've had several hours, multiple hours of meetings with the development team, both via Zoom and phone.
this, and I would like to structure an agreement with them that includes residential. We had a
community meeting on 4-15-2024. It was well attended, and at that time, there was zero
It was well-attended, and at that time, there was zero support for this project, and five of the six RCOs that participated in it were also not supportive.
I'd like to point out our concern with the team is that they do not seem to abide by this city.
Greg, you're breaking up, Greg.
You're breaking up, Greg.
Greg, you're breaking up, you're breaking up.
The entire, what I will send me, I'd like to also see an amended application that includes all signage as well as the residential unit upstairs.
They indicated that they have letters of support.
However, I can attest that the neighbors raised such a ruckus with L&I that a cease and desist was issued.
There is a small, I'll call it breezeway, that allows access to the ground floor entrance on the north elevation of the building,
as well as a ramp leading to an entrance on what would be the first floor.
The other area that you see is parking belonging to CAS auto repair and is not part of this process.
If they need parking, we would like to see a letter of support from CAS.
So we think this needs to come back.
We think the application needs to be fine-tuned to indicate what is being done there, how it's being there.
the story seems to have mutated over time. Our feeling is we absolutely want the residential
unit, most likely a one-bedroom, one-bath on what would be the second floor of the building.
We would probably also ask that consideration be given to a time-limiting proviso
of no more than three to five years. So if the current applicant does not turn out to be a good
neighbor, that facility can be retained to its full residential use. We understand that the RSA-5
may not be fully appropriate, probably should be RM-1 based on what goes on around it. We also
think the time extension would give the applicant plenty of time to find suitable commercial space
in the area. And we look forward to the appeal being cleaned up and a new meeting with the
community and a resumption hearing. Thank you. Mr. Dawkinson, do you have any questions?
No. I would just say this. We took over this matter. We've been trying to clean this up.
We've had, as Craig stated, probably hours upon hours of discussions with him about this project.
Everything has been asked of us to introduce a residential component.
We have getting rid of the ATM, getting rid of additional signage.
We embrace the fact that we want to do this the right way in terms of amending our zoning appeal and having a new refusal.
So we embrace everything that he just stated.
So we look forward to meeting with him and cleaning this thing up and representing this to the board.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission, maybe you want to hold the vote on this so you know what you're voting for?
Yes, sir. We'd like to hold our recommendation.
Thank you very much. So we'll have a resumptive hearing and we'll figure out where we stand at that time.
OK. All right. Can we have like a well, I guess we have some homework to do.
So I think I think before you worry about the date, why don't we get some things done? OK.
All right. Thank you. Very. Thank you. Number 13.
Number 13, MI 2024, 002-205, 1532 South 31st Street.
Nicole Holland is the pro se applicant.
We do not have an RCO, but there was a meeting with the neighbors on August 22nd, 2024.
Nicole Holland is coming back in as a panelist now, Cher.
Hi, Ms. Holland. I think we spoke earlier today and I think I swore you in. Am I correct?
Yes, you did. Okay, could you do me a favor? Could you turn your video on?
mm-hmm okay thank you our vice chair has a few questions for you okay
Okay, thank you. Our vice
good morning miss halen 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 i did i have thank you please
proceed and share your screen i'm sorry can you repeat that put your documents up share your
screen got it okay okay so um okay i'll show everything so these are the the community the
the public hearing postings that were on the property.
This is the public meeting notice
that's posted on the orange posters,
the letter of refusal.
I also supplied all of the addresses
that the mailings went out to,
the project information form,
um the appeal application and hold on i'll show you the rest um i also submitted the full deed
to the property here is the post office certification of the mailing i'm sorry
that's all of the stamps so i sent out approximately 190 letters to all the surrounding
properties uh this is the letter of tax clearance and the last item uh yesterday i was asked for
interior photos of the property so um i'll quickly scroll through these so these
so it's a new construction property um and i think this is the last item that you need
unless there's something i'm missing that you need me to show
what happened when you went to the rco meeting
um so they asked a series of questions uh to see if they would be comfortable um i answered the
i can go over the questions that they asked with you um ultimately they came into the meeting
saying that they had reservations about short-term rentals um so they proceeded to ask me a series
of questions which again i can provide the answers to you ultimately have you heard yeah have you
heard where they stand on the on the project yes so um i think there were there were only about four
or five people on the call but they ultimately sent a letter of non-support when i did ask them
if i could get information on why it was um why it was a letter of non-support i wasn't given
information because i felt pretty strong that the answers i gave supported the fact that i i wouldn't
be an absentee property owner. I spend 50% of my time in Philadelphia between there and I work in
Manhattan. I have security cameras on the property. I have two separate cleaning companies that would
go and make sure everything is in order. So I was unclear as to why they sent the letter of
non-support. The meeting went well, but again, they came into it saying that they had reservations
about short-term rentals um there's only a handful of them in the in in the area
but yes that meeting was last week okay hilary hilary we don't have a copy of that
no we don't excuse me we do not have a copy of the letter miss holland are you able to pull up
a copy of the letter please yes i believe so hold on one second um i just need to go here
here. Sorry, give me one second. Sorry for emails. Give me one moment. They did send
it to me. Here we go. Here you go.
So, yeah, again, the meeting went well, but I was trying to understand why the letter
of non-support came. Again, I have security cameras. I'm at the house weekly. I'm not
an absentee owner. I'm 50% in Philly, 50% in New York, taking care of an elderly parent.
uh taking care of an elderly parent so um and i have previously run short-term rentals no
So and I have previously.
incidents whatsoever i have a screening process i have a cleaning crew uh so uh those were the
main questions that they asked around the cleanliness uh being absentee and also monitoring
of the property
just out of curiosity hillary that that letter looks like it's from tasker
marsh neighborhood association we have listed gracebury community council
they probably met together i know sometimes they and miss holland maybe
could speak to that sometimes they they meet together and they might pass off who sends the
letter to the other rco yes it was everyone so i believe one person was from tasker morris and one
was from philly thrive and the other was from gray's ferry so they were they were all on
thank you um and just to confirm i'm an individual owner i'm not a part of a corporation or any
large venture capital company. So I'm just an individual owner looking to get
the zoning variance for the short-term rental.
Questions or comments from the board? Are you utilizing like Airbnb or something like that?
I'm trying to figure out the platform. Most likely it would be Airbnb. So I'm just making
sure I go about it 100% legally to get the zoning variance. But most likely that would be the
platform um it may be on vrbo as well but again i'm one of the bedrooms and bathrooms will be
locked at the property because i also live there part-time so again i'm not an absentee owner who
has an airbnb and isn't checking on it and i have systems in place to make sure where
there's no garbage on the sidewalk the interior stays clean um
so my question it it's not it's not furnished um i didn't have that so it is currently furnished
um i didn't have any pictures that i took myself to be able to provide but yeah it's it's it is
fully furnished there's a living room set dining room set the bedrooms all have beds
uh the bathrooms are all furnished so the these are just um listing photos the the property is
currently furnished it's fully furnished and then uh how many bedrooms from the desk
um in total there's four bedrooms three baths but for the listing it will be three bedrooms
two baths because my area will be locked off. Okay. And then you're going to, you said you
live there and you're going to do short term rentals. So how would this, how would this work?
Is that? Yeah. So right now when I go, so I have to be in Manhattan Tuesday, Wednesday,
and Thursday to be in office. The rest of the time I'm in Philadelphia, but when the rentals
start i have to base it on if and when the property gets rented so for example if the
property gets rented from a friday to a sunday i would go on a sunday make sure everything is in
order come back to the city for tuesday when i have to be um at work so depending on when the
unit gets booked i would be in the unit around that uh and that's why my specific area is remaining
locked okay great thank you thank you the question other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
um my only excuse me my only comment would be if you could forward a copy of the letter to us for
our records from the letter from the rco that would be great thank you okay i'll send it uh
um right after the meeting what should your comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair commission
mr powers you are muted please unmute my apologies good morning dan powers with the city planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5 zoning at this
location there is no unique physical condition or circumstances that will present prevent this
property from being used in conformance with the zoning code the city planning commission recommends
that the board deny the use variants for visitor accommodations in my 2024 002 205 15 30
MI 2024, 002, 205, 1532, South 31st Street, I vote yes, but proviso, temporary variance that expires 8-28-26.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
hi owen my name my vote is yes with proviso james snell my vote is yes with proviso
you thank you yeah i just have one question so um with the expiration in august of 26 do i reapply
how does yes you reapply okay so that i would just need to reapply every two years is that it
at least for the first two years okay got it and will i get a notice via email sorry that's
my last question that you that you have the vote um you will get a notice from our office
okay got it all right thank you all right thank you just just to clarify you will you will get a
notice of decision that will have your expiration date is your responsibility to, to track the
expiration of your zoning and reapply with enough time to extend it. Okay. Got it. Thank you very
much. Okay. Thank you. Number 15, MI 2024-002-226-3961 Baltimore Avenue. Tara Kayo is the attorney
FOR THE OWNER, NON OPPOSITION FROM SPOOCE HILL COMMUNITY, AND ALSO COUNCILMEMBER GATHIER AGREES WITH THE RCO.
TERRA CAO, PLEASE RAISE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND.
TERRA CAO IS COMING BACK IN AS A PANELIST NOW, CHAIR.
good morning counsel
um good morning hi could you please hi could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer well my name is tara ko first name t-a-r-a last name k-a-o
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
The property owner is Assessible Property Investment LLC, and Cecilia Cow is the owner of the LLC, and she is with us today.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the read number of views or stipulate to exact receipt?
I agree.
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 i do i did thank you council please proceed and share
This application is for a change of use from office space to visitor accommodations.
We met with RCOs and neighbors and received non-apposition from them.
The applicant purchased a property on December 2023, and the property is zoned on CMX2.
Ms. Cecilia Cao is an experienced villager in Philadelphia and has strong ties to the neighborhood, specifically the UPenn area.
She studied there and lived there for many years.
The owner proposes change of use of the first floor from office space to visitor accommodations, which is a short-term rental to a person or group.
Currently is being used as the architect's office occupied by, sorry, something opened up on my screen.
I apologize. Something opened up on my screen and blocked my view.
The owner proposed to change the use of the first floor from office space to visitor accommodations.
currently is being used as an architect's office occupied by the previous owner however the
previous owner will vacate the property very soon the applicant plans to renovate the first floor
to a new apartment with two bedrooms and two bathrooms which is about 1250 square feet
furthermore as experienced real estate agent she will personally manage real rental property
and she will improve and enhance the facade in the front of building which has already
which has already obtained approval from the Historic Commission.
obtained approval from the historic commission the property is on
The property is unusual as it has over a 15-feet setback
and the front of the building is sloped, limiting its potential uses.
The property is zone CMX2 and the visitor accommodation is prohibited.
Therefore, variance is required.
I can give you, just to show you what the property looks like.
So, as I mentioned, there's a slope in front and it's set back pretty far from the street.
Being part of the university city community for so long and having knowledge of the rental market
in that area, she recognized the need for a short-term visitor accommodations.
She noticed there were a lot of visiting scholars, visitors, students, parents, and even patients
of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania who are seeking a short-term place to stay in the
neighborhood. She believes this unit can fulfill this need and serve the community. Such visitor
accommodations also support the many local businesses and restaurants. Further, it is very
difficult to maintain the first floor as office space right now. There are no other office use
in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, other uses permitted under the CMX2 poses other challenges
to the owner. Even if she is permitted to change to, for example, a sit-down restaurant or similar
businesses, she will have difficulties being ADA compliant because of the slope site and the over
15 feet front setback. Additionally, a lot of businesses would not want to open a storefront
with such a large setback that will miss the foot traffic.
She will face hardship if she can only use a property
as office space or is limited to only the permitted uses.
The first floor will likely be left vacant for a long time.
In fact, the adjacent property is also zoned CMX2,
and we believe it is a technical school
that is permanently closed and currently vacant.
Additionally, a change of use to visitor accommodation
issue will not negatively infect the neighborhood it will not harm the neighbors use of their
properties increase traffic congestion or place undue hardship or burden on public facilities
there will be no significant change in occupation of the property as i stated earlier we met with
the rcos and neighbors and they do not oppose a change in use the rco letter specifically
specifically points out the unusual setback of this property from the street and the shifting
nature of this area's residential use has compelling reasons. And here's that letter.
The proposed use of visitor accommodation makes sense for the neighborhood. The neighborhood has
multiple universities and medical facilities and is continuing to change and develop attracting
visitors to the area. The owner is committed to maintaining the residential character of the
neighborhood and will keep the property well maintained and will manage the property professionally.
authorization of a variance is necessary to enable reasonable use of the property
as the owner will face hardship continued to use as office space
um i would like to call my client the property owner cecilia cow i have a couple questions what
was the property was the property posted oh yeah yeah i'm sorry i mean let me give you the
i have some pictures that were kind of better when i submit it okay
okay all right thank you thank you for the question
um here is uh the change of facade from the left is what it currently looks like and the right is
the proposed change and um here's floor plans um and i let me show you the interior right now is
the architect office so it's pretty open right now and then she's gonna put in two bedrooms and
two bathrooms um at this time i'd like to call my client the property owner cecilia count
and i have a question a couple questions for her cecilia cow please raise your virtual hand
cecilia cow please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
why could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
uh my name is cecily gow spelled as c-e-c-i-l-y last name is c-a-o
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed council thank you um miss cow can you did you hear my testimony and
presentation to the board yes i did do you agree and adopt it as your own yes i do
Do you agree and adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
That is all I have at this time.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
We need to talk about clothing.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
any commission good morning dan powers with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in the cmx2 zoning at this location there is no unique physical condition or
circumstance of this property that would keep it from being used in conformance with the zoning
code the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed variance for visitor
accommodations at this location. Thank you. MI 2024-002-226-3961 Baltimore Avenue. I vote yes.
Proviso. Temporary variance expires 8-28-26. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Number 18.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Number 18, MI 2024-002-291-2424 West Thompson Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Ishmael Shahid has recused himself from this project.
There's a letter of support from Brewery Town,
Sharjwood Community Civic Association.
14 in support, three abstained.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Counsel.
Could you just state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yep, it's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, on behalf of Mr. Barry Shore, the owner of the subject property.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
I'm recusing myself from this one, chair.
Counselor, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case based on the balance of this area?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, this is the subject property right here on the corner.
It has been a long-neglected abandoned property,
just like the one next to it on the corner.
And its history is of multifamily use.
In the past, it's been a commercial first floor
and a four-family dwelling,
most recently a four-family dwelling above.
But that is the subject property.
My client purchased it with the plan
to put in a three-family dwelling.
uh all three units this is a 58 page exhibit binder by the way i'm moving into evidence
all three units are ample in size three bedroom units it zones cmx2
and the three units is prohibited in the in the district
here's the interior layout as proposed your front door your large living kitchen area a hallway
my size bathroom and two bedrooms this one's a two-bedroom unit
Above, second floor, we have ample-sized kitchen with dining space, a large living area, full bath, and three-bedroom unit, one in the front and two in the rear.
And then the third floor unit is identical to the second floor unit with just a slightly larger living space.
Each of the three units will have access. Here's an artist's rendering of the property.
You'll see a door that goes up to the second and third floor.
You'll see a door that goes up to the second and third floor, another door that goes into the first floor.
Each of the three units will have shared access to the rear yard for trash storage.
There'll be a trash corral for that purpose.
There's other multifamilies right on the block.
As you can see here, there's a three-family dwelling right across the street.
this is how the property was left
as you can see it it was a it was a victim of vandalism break-ins
this is the community letter that was mailed
two pages here are all the addresses that were mailed to
total 170 individual households
there is the poster and the proof of said posting
here's the long history of the property again going back we had a tailor shop and a four-family
dwelling all of this is being moved into evidence here's an aerial view of the corner property
and the zoning map as well i believe um actually i'm going to do this
we met with the rco and their support was unanimous no one opposed 14 folks supported
So with that, because of the history of the property, because we're offering three quality size new construction units for housing that will be approachable, as opposed to one very large property, and because commercial use is obsolete in this particular area, we respectfully request the granting of the variance.
And I ask that Mr. Barry Shore raise his virtual hand.
Mr. Shore, could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
Barry Shore, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Shore, please unmute yourself.
Hi, my name is Barry Shore.
Hi, could you spell your name for the stenographer?
B-A-R-R-Y, last name is S-H-O-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shore, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board.
Question.
You have a ramp going into that first floor.
Is it as you're proposing that first floor to be handicap accessible or that was an artist flourish?
It may in fact be if if in fact the tenant ends up being in need of ADA compliance, my client is willing to put it in there.
The questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Good morning.
Dan Powers with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends changing the zoning at this location from CMX 2 to RSA 5.
The maximum of two dwelling units are permitted for lots less than 1,440 feet in CMX 2 districts.
not providing a commercial ground floor conforms with the comprehensive plan recommendation
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance
emitting ground floor commercial with the proviso limiting the unit count to two
council you want to respond it's a three-story structure mr chair on a corner in order to
bring it down to two units we'd have to actually make the property the smallest property on the
block. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise, if it were three-story, these would be five-bedroom
units. Again, unmarketable, make no sense, and inconsistent with all the other multifamilies on
the block. What we're offering is one unit per floor, two and three-bedroom units, exactly what
the neighbors are looking for. Okay, so MI 2024-002-291.
Okay, so MI 2024-002-291-2424 West Thompson Street. I vote yes with Proviso. Maximum three units.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Gerald Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Taneta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tyia Nguyen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed
Thank you counsel
Thank you
Just to clarify Mr. Shaheed is recused from this matter
Sorry about that
Okay that's okay
Thank you
He had it
The counsel had his voice
Thank you very much
Is there anyone in the virtual audience
Whose 930 case has not been called
I see no hands chair
Alright thanks everyone
got a lot of cases on that 10 in a row was okay so see everybody 2 p.m thank you yes sir thank you
thank you chair
good afternoon everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this afternoon's eba hearings
our vice chair ismail shaheed should be on shortly board member james snell present mr chairman
Our board member, Shel 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 Wynn.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and Kathleen Grady, our deputy director for planning and zoning.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
When you participate, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting Kathleen.Grady at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
200 appearance statement call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property
question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments and testimony she directed to our Executive Director, Kathleen Gray.
Let's look at our schedule for this, Hampton.
Number two, MI 2024, 000901, 2337 South 13th Street.
That case is continued.
Number seven.
MI 2024, 003, 871, 3214 West York Street.
case is continued attorney moving party and number 10
mi 2024 003 927 5344 ray street that case has been continued are there any other requests for
continuances good afternoon chair this is jevette benton i'll be your co-host for this afternoon
We have Alan Nockamson with their hand up.
Mr. Nockamson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Nockamson, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Alan Nockamson.
And Mr. Nockamson, is it 27th Street?
No, it's 2337 South 13th Street, Mr. Chair.
You indicated we requested continuance, but we actually asked it as moving party.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay, thank you.
So MI 2024-000-901-2337 South 13th Street, cases continued, attorney moving party.
Thank you, Mr. Nockerson.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances?
i see no hands it's just a moment chair we have a phone number ending at three five five two
caller please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
hi could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes adrian fernandez my last name is spelled f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes what case adrian um 20
What case, Adrienne?
2122 West Estelf Street, and I am requesting a continuance.
We received an email, all the affected RCOs received an email from the applicant's attorney, Vern Anastasio, and also from Allegheny West Foundation, who's going to hold the meeting.
And the meeting will be on September 17th.
So we're not prepared today.
So just so you know, I was just getting I was just getting your that's twenty one, twenty two West Astor Astor Street.
Astor Street, yeah. Yeah. So I was just getting ready to call Mr. Anastasio up.
So why don't I call him Vern, Mr. Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio has been allowed to speak, sir.
Mr. Anastasio, you've already you've already been sworn to just state your name.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Vern Anastasio.
Could you give me your update for 21-22?
Yep. I represent BK Partners with this project, and we are returning to the RCO, as I believe Adrian testified.
And therefore, I would request a continuance.
Okay, thank you. Adrienne, you're okay with that, right?
Okay, thank you. So, MI2023, 006953, 2122 West Astow Street, the case is continued. Mr. Anastasio, would you please stay on?
Number three, MI 2024-001-169-10914, Nagina Court.
Mr. Anastasio, you're the attorney.
This is the third listing.
Could you give us an update?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
We are working through this application to tweak it per the feedback from the RCO.
I do ask for one final continuance.
Attorney moving party, please.
Thank you. MI 2024-001-169-10914, Nandina Court, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party. Thank you, sir.
I'm going to go to our add-on list here.
Number one, MI 2024-001-985-3327-35B Street.
Resumptive hearing in this matter will be scheduled once the applicant obtains an amended refusal from L&I that includes both uses that are being requested.
Number two, MI 2024-003-578-1401-North Delaware Avenue.
Head vote, yes, with provisos.
Per amended refusal dated 5-28-24, revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA on August 28, 2024,
temporary variance that will expire 9-1-29, and the temporary parcel address for this property
is 1448 Beach Street, T-177676.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tyia Nguyen, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, but proviso.
Number three, MI 2023-001-286-152-58 West Logan Street.
That case will be voted on in a short period of time when Mr. Ishmael Shahid is here.
Let's start with number eight.
MI 2024-003-915, 4040 Walnut Street.
Ronald Patterson is the attorney.
There, Mr. Patterson is coming back in as a panelist now.
good afternoon good afternoon mr patterson could you state your name is spelled for the court
sonographer good afternoon ronald patterson r-o-n-a-l-d p-a-t-t-e-r-s-o-n with claire
harrison law firm philadelphia pennsylvania you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do could you identify your client and relationship to the property
Sure. My client, the owner of the property is Simon Associates, LP. It's an entity owned by Campus Apartments.
Sure. My client, the owner of the property is Simon Associates, LP. It's an entity.
You stipulate to the reading of the refusal, and are you agreeing with the accuracy of the refusal?
Yes, I am.
Okay. And all your documents have been in within five days prior?
Yes, they were, Mr. Chairman.
Please share your screen and begin.
Thank you.
okay there's a letter of non-opposition from spruce hill spruce hill community association
okay thank you you can view my aerial photograph we can sir yep okay thank you uh so um to begin
with in uh 2023 uh we obtained a by right zoning permit for this property it consists of 4040
through 4050 walnut street this is 41st street this is wall street there was existing parking
out here this building that i have the green x through was demolished as part of that application
and that's the current condition uh and with the uh the demolition there was
It's a request and a zoning permit issued by Wright to construct an 11 story structure, having ground floor commercial with a ground level parking garage enclosed, having 22 spaces and floors number two was opposed for office and floors three through 12 was approved for 134 single family residential dwelling units.
And I'd like to show you that rendering.
So this is the approved plan and the building that was proposed.
So for reasons that I'll ask Mr. John Chopp, C-H-O-P-P, who will be my first witness to
elaborate on, the project start has been delayed.
and hence during that delay campus wanted to have an interim use in which the interim use proposed
here today is for a non-accessory parking lot at the corner which would include the paved area and
the gravel area that i showed you here in the earlier photograph uh it's basically a small
expansion of the existing lot with a reconfiguration so because the zoning permit was issued as a
matter of right there needs to be a means to obtain a zoning permit without terminating this
existing permit for uh the multi-use project and fortunately uh this application is being
a special exception application is before the zoning board which has the right and the power
to craft the temporary approval and that's why we're here today so this property is located in
cmx3 a commercial zoning district that allows the surface parking lot by special exception approval
and we propose again the expansion reconfiguration of parking
plot that would therefore create 33 33 spaces we did our best to create uh buffer areas around
the parking lot along here exists a brick masonry fence we're proposing a seven foot wide
A green area here, a five-foot wide green area here with hedges that I've noted in dark.
Some hedges over here that shield this HVAC area from 4040 Walnut, and the rest of the
dotted area is green space.
We did meet with the Spruce Hill Zoic Association.
They support the application.
We also submitted the plans, of course, to the streets department, which approved the
location of the the curb cut here uh the uh maneuvers in and out of the property as well as
the parking lot configuration so with that said i'd like to promote john chop as a witness here
good afternoon sir could you please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Jonathan Chopp, J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N-C-H-O-P-P is the last name, and I'm with Campus Apartments.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, Councilman.
Thank you.
john could you please tell the board uh your position with campus apartments
John, could you please tell the board your position with Campus Apartments?
i'm vice president of development and you've heard my presentation so far and would you
I'm vice...
agree it's true and correct and would adopt it as if it were your own yes great thank you so i
referenced the 2023 zoning permit by right approval project and that there was a delay
in a project could you elaborate on that uh yes we're just um pausing the uh development
larger development at this time due to general economic conditions um not unique to us i don't
think and in the meantime or in the interim we'd like to be able to use the lot for um parking
okay and frankly clean it up a bit um as to what you're seeing now in the pictures on the screen
From what you're seeing on the screen. Yep. And.
John, we mentioned interim parking. That's that's what we're here for today, correct?
Correct. For parking for campus apartments, personnel.
So that we're in the neighborhood currently. And so currently, where do they park?
um in various locations in in the area probably here there maybe even on the street but mostly
in other areas and other private lots too yep yeah so this would consolidate them and also free
up some on street parking spaces would that be fair to say correct and and um you're asking for
we're asking for a temporary use would for example three years be sufficient timing so we can restart
i think that would be sufficient so we're not coming back in front of the board okay and
you and i appear before spruce hill and they support the project
as i mentioned that is correct okay um i have no further questions for mr chop
the board has any did he adopt your testimony mr patterson yes he did okay thank you
questions from the board i just have a closing statement if you don't mind okay go ahead okay
thank you as soon as i turn this up here so accordingly based on what we presented i believe
that the interim use will cause a great no adverse impacts as evidenced by the design
the uses and spruce hills position on behalf of the neighborhood that no impacts would occur
because they support special exception and that the impacts will have no greater than impacts
will be expected by a permitted use recognizing that half parcel has already is being used as a
surface parking lot and also concluding that this is a temporary interim use thank you questions on
the board questions any questions questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
A couple of things. Mr. Patterson, thank you for clarifying. You were asking for temporary
in about three years. That was one of my questions. The lot that you're using for the
parking, is that based on the unity of use agreement from the prior permit?
Yes, you're correct. So the zoning permit also had a unity of use that
consolidated three parcels one where i'm showing my cursor the the xed out building which was
demolished and the parking lot uh to be uh considered as one zoning lot for the purposes
of the zoning code so yes it's uh still unified okay so my my concern is that it's not listed
on the current refusal so if you would be okay holding it for a week i just want to go back to
lni um because i i feel like that should be listed on on this refusal as well just to be clear
um yeah so i just wanted to check on that okay because i did it there's my application so i did
see that in your application that you yeah you were very clear you didn't want you know you're
not getting rid of the other um the other permit although i don't know if this would toll you know
the three years for the other permit that you have you know that it's good for yeah um so just
keep yeah keep that in mind but let me i will just check because if um if this it may have been that
the unity of use was omitted from the refusal and i just want to make sure that that's indicated on
there because usually ellen i wants those listed on the refusal if if there is no fair enough i
I think that's a good clarification.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
I see.
good afternoon amy boyd with the planning commission amy boyd
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed the planning commission recommends no change to the existing commercial
mixed-use CMX-3 zoning at this location. The appellant has shown that the requested special
exemption would not cause such eventual impacts beyond what would not really be expected.
The appellant has paid fee in lieu of landscaping. The City Planning Commission recommends that the
board grant the requested special exemption for non-accessory parking.
If I may, we did not agree to pay.
What's that?
Apologies.
That's okay.
Just to clarify.
We're going to vote on this two weeks, right, Hillary?
Is that correct?
Oh, yes, that's right, Mr. Chair.
We do not have hearings next week.
So, yes, we'll vote on this in two weeks.
Two weeks at the 2 p.m. meeting.
I just, two things, Mr. Chair.
The payment in lieu, we didn't feel the need to pay because we're providing more interior landscaping that's there now
And adding additional landscaping would remove a substantial number of parking spaces, defeating the whole purpose of this application.
It's really only temporary. And lastly, I appreciate the accommodation today.
I have a personal matter to attend to. Thank you very much.
OK, let's go to number four. MI 2024 001 511 1601 North 27th Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Mr. Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Mr. Nockamson, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Good afternoon.
Alan Nockamson.
and could you identify your client or relationship to the property yeah my client's 1601-05 north
27th street llc and in the virtual audience is donovan clark its member you should play to the
reading of the refusals and you agree with the accuracy of the refusals i do share your screen
Please start, sir.
Let's get a full screen mode, and there we go.
All right.
So I'm here to present 1601 North 27th Street.
With me is Donovan Clark, the member of the corporate entity that owns the property, as well as Ryan Solmeo of Harman Deutsch, who's going to be walking us through the plans and drawings.
We met multiple times with the community.
This is one of these projects where it's a process, and because of us working with the community, I think we have a better product because of that.
So first, we'll review the notice of refusal. Then we have a letter of support from the Brewery Town Charge with Community Civic Alliance. So during the initial meeting, they brought up a number of concerns with our project, and we'll go through that. And we made a decent amount of changes to it, addressing their concerns. And at the final community meeting, we received almost unanimous support. I think the vote was like 13 to 2.
If this board feels inclined to grant this zoning variance appeal, we do have revised plans based on what we presented to the community, which they supported, and that's Exhibit 3.
We also separately met with members of the community nearby, and we solicited their support, which is shown by way of that petition of, I think it's like two or three pages of signatures.
Then what we're asking for in terms of variances is not have character to what this board has granted in the past.
We have a slight height variance, but there's reasons why we want to give nice height clearance for the for the occupants of these properties.
And just from a design aspect, you know, the architect will explain why that kind of mimics what's in the neighborhood as well.
And we also have a variance for density.
These are three RSA 5 lots that we're looking to combine as RSA 5 lots.
We can't have multifamily.
We are requesting five units, but it's not out of character for the board under similar circumstances to grant.
But it's not out of character for the board under similar circumstances to grant an equal amount of units.
There is an example that's in our packet of materials.
We also do an aerial view of this, of the property in the surrounding area.
We are three vacant lots, essentially at the corner of 27th and Oxford, and you'll see that.
And it's been vacant for some time.
You know, it's very important for the community to, like, for us to respect that corner.
We'll liven it up, not only with the building structure, but with trees and lighting, which we're proposing to do.
Then we'll go through maps of the area.
We're not that far off from Cecil B. Moore.
Commercial corridor, which has ample public transportation.
Photographs of the property and surrounding area.
Our plans and drawings.
And like I said, we have Ryan in the virtual audience who's going to walk us through that.
Our RCO meeting notice for our last meeting with the community, as well as proof of mailing of that notice, our deed to the property showing that my client's 1601-05 North 27th Street LLC is the owner of the property, and finally, certificates of tax clearance for each of those properties that are the subject of this appeal.
So our nosy refusal is this. We own 1601-03-05, North 27th Street, basically the corner of 27th and Oxford.
We're looking to consolidate these lots, put a four-story apartment building with nice height clearance, and also to have, you know, five dwelling units there.
By us combining these lots, we make functional floor plans on really like small RSA 5 lots.
But when you combine it together, it makes a really nice layout for a five-unit apartment building.
Originally, we also asked for accessory private roof decks and pilot houses.
That was one of the refusals.
That was one of the requests that was asked of us to eliminate the roof decks and to the pilot houses to, you know, as respect in the neighborhood where you don't really see a lot of roof decks.
And so that's one that's why we have revised plans.
But our refusals are as follows. Part of the height refusal that you see as the first matter in the notice refusal had to do with the size of the roof of the pilot houses in relation to the square footage of the building footprint.
So we have lessened that refusal by ridding ourselves of the pilot houses.
The second refusal had to do with the roof decks and the roof deck access structures.
We eliminated that refusal by eliminating that as part of our project.
We do still have the refusal for density.
We are asking for five units.
I mean, this is, you know, I have Donovan Clark on, you know, in the virtual audience.
You know, this is what's going to need to happen for this project to proceed forward, you know, because of, you know, interest rates still high because of construction costs really high.
And in order to keep this property looking nice and and, you know, having rates, rental rates that are reasonable under the circumstances, we really do need five units.
And, you know, it would be hard and, you know, for this property to get developed any other way.
And then the final refusal has to do with rear yard depth of six feet where nine feet is required.
Again, not something that's out of character in a way.
And, you know, given the configuration of the property as well as the building structure, we think that that's reasonable under the circumstances.
um if you look at the letter of support uh from the brewery town chargewood uh community group
you know they gave they you know they had they have they have a two-step process they have a
zoning meeting that we're not invited to as an applicant but they review the project they also
have a community meeting which is you know a public rco meeting where we give notice to the
community if you look at the we had a meeting in may and we had a meeting in august so they had
You know, also a zoning community meeting in May and the community meeting in May and then another zoning committee meeting in August and a community meeting in August when with the original proposal, their zoning committee voted unanimously in support of this project.
So conceptually, even under the the older version of the project, they thought that this was a reasonable use of the property that that they as as an organization that represents Brewery Town Shardswood could support.
But when we met with the with the community group, there were people in the neighborhood who were close by who did not appreciate the decks.
And, you know, they wanted more definition in terms of what we're doing with the trees.
And, you know, they wanted more definition in terms of what we're doing with the trees and what we're doing, the lighting.
And they and they, you know, at that moment, they voted against the project.
We then addressed their concerns. There was another zoning committee meeting.
Again, we're not involved in that. But again, unanimously, the community group voted as a zoning committee,
Like as professionals that handle matters in Brewery Town Shortswood voted unanimously in support of these revised plans.
We then presented those revised plans to the community on August 15th.
Thirteen people voted in support of that project.
Two people opposed.
So twice, the professionals within the Brewery Town Shortswood community group voted unanimously in support of this project.
And the revised version, I think, is a much better version. And that's part of the process of like going through and discussing with nearby neighbors. They voted almost unanimously to support themselves, 13 to 2.
So and that's all laid out in the in the letter that the Brewery Town Shards with Community Civic Association sent to this board.
But, you know, in this letter, they talk about like they appreciated, you know, the community appreciated the changes we made specifically about the roof deck, roof decks and the roof deck access structures, a.k.a. the the pilot houses.
And how what we did was they still wanted outdoor space for the tenants, but they what what the resolution was, was to have a balconies on the second and third floor.
So then they would have that access, but not to have that height with the extra roof decks that, you know, the brewery townshards with the community did not appreciate.
They also wanted more, like I said, definition about the tree plantings. And we showed them that under the law, we're allowed two. It's questionable whether we can do three, but we're going to push as hard as we can to do what's legal and allowable.
And then the final thing is, we affirmed that we would do commercial trash pickup as part of this project. So if this board is inclined to grant this variance request, there would be two provisos. One, the revised plans that I'm going to present to this board, and two is commercial trash pickup.
so as part of our presentation we you know for the second time in front of the group we showed
these revised plans these are same exact plans we're showing the board today three items that
we changed from the original plan submitted to lni we removed the roof deck and pilot houses
we added a balcony and it says on the third floor but um there's also on the second floor
we added a balcony. And then we reduced the building height to 42 feet, six inches.
And these are our revised plans. And that's part of our architectural package. And I'll have Ryan
go through that when we're talking about the general plans. And then the petition that we
circulated throughout the community, you can see that we did a decent amount of legwork
and pounding the pavement, and there's similar variances.
So 1616-18 North 27th Street, which is across the street from us,
also has a five-unit dwelling, and then this board granted that appeal
for that request in August of 2022, so basically two years ago,
under calendar number MI-2022-002551, also an RSA 5 property.
And then this board also granted a height variance. Again, we're at the corner of 27th and Oxford at 2623 Oxford Street under calendar number 35077 in 2019, where they granted a height variance where the height of the building was 41 feet, 5 inches.
I pulled the notice of refusal so the board can see what the height was for this building.
And then the aerial view of the property, as you can see, there's a parking lot across the street.
But this property, you know, my client purchased it only at the end of 2023, so less than a year ago.
You know, it definitely is an opportunity for, you know, redefining that corner at 27th and Oxford.
These are three smaller RSA 5 properties with not much depth where you're not going to be able to have functional floor plans.
Really, what makes sense is to combine this into one lot to have five residential dwelling units.
And then you can see here, and while there's a lot of yellow here, you can see that we're surrounded by orange, which is multifamily allowances.
And then you can see here we're on Cecil B. Moore, where there's an evening on 29th Street.
We're on Cecil B. Moore, where there's, and even on 29th Street, there's ample public transportation.
And the photographs of the property, this is the front of the property from 27th Street,
side of the property, and then the hearing notice posters as well for both corners.
And this is 27th Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property,
West Oxford Street to the right of the property.
Wex West Oxford Street till after the property and then our plans and drawings, this is where I would ask Ryan to these are his presentation materials so Ryan, if you can virtually raise your hand to be sworn in.
Ryan Solomio, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Ryan. Yes.
hi could you state your name it's spelled for the stenographer ryan solimeo r-y-a-n s-o-l-i-m-e-o
do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel all right ryan um so this is uh page one of your presentation materials
that you uh gave to us that we submitted to the board um is label site context uh can you just
explain the first page of these materials? Sure. I think this is kind of covered by your earlier
stuff, but this is, you know, just some mapping and some site photos to give context to the site.
Great. Thank you. And then we're going to go to page two, which is the civil plan.
What is this? This is the civil site plan for the lot line consolidation.
Okay. And to the right is what the existing conditions are in terms of, from a legal standpoint, we have three lots here at the corner of 27th and Oxford, and the proposal is to consolidate that into one lot. Is that correct?
And then this is the floor plans from first floor plan to the basement plan and the second floor plan. Can you please explain these floor plans to the board?
Yeah, so what we have is two first-floor basement bi-level units.
They're each about a little over 1,200 square feet and are two-bed, two-bathroom units.
We also have trash storage at the top of this sheet.
You can see there's ample trash storage, which will be accessed in the rear yard space for all tenants.
on the second floor and in pink on the right there is a flat that is also about 1225 square feet
also two bed two baths with the balcony as you touched on before to give that
to give that unit some outdoor space so this this unit's on its own floor yeah and it's access
through oxford street you walk through a separate entrance going up a flight of steps and just to
reiterate the the the bi-level units that are on the first floor have separate access from the
streets each one correct yes the first four units are designed to um come in off their home their
own access um the and then there's actually two means of egress for each of the upper units
so there is a door on west oxford street at the bottom and also one of the doors on 27th street
that's highlighted in yellow also would get them upstairs to those units all right great
and then when we go on the third floor so what are we looking at here so the third floor um
is also two two bi-level units um the fourth and fifth unit they are also like a little over
1,250 square foot each two beds two and a half bathrooms and on the third floor these each have
the balcony off the dining spaces there. Gotcha. And then you go up an internal flight of steps
to two bedrooms. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. And then we eliminated the roof deck. We are
keeping the HVAC units up there, but we eliminated the roof deck and there's access to those
mechanicals through a roof hatch. Is that correct? Correct. There will be access through the interior
of the upper units that will access that um for any kind of service that might need to happen on
those units all right and then why don't you explain these elevations like what are the
materials that are proposed for this project so it's a mix of brick and metal panels we have a
little bit of some offset materials there um so you need nice sturdy materials
In terms of the height variance, how did you design
In terms of the height variance, how did you design around that height variance request?
So what we did was we tried to make the building appear from the outside the same as any kind of by right building.
So typically a by right building would be 38 feet to the roof plus the 42 inch parapet, which would bring the, you know, from the street, that building looks like 41 foot six inches.
So what we did is we kind of utilized that plate as our benchmark and kept our parapet height at that number and then was able to fit the four stories within, you know, with just a minimal parapet.
And the purpose of asking for that additional height is to provide more height in the units themselves. Is that right?
Exactly. Yeah, it allows us to keep like a nice clear floor to ceiling height.
And it's so small, but what's the height of the floor to ceilings in the units themselves?
They're generally about nine. They're just about nine feet clear.
And then what are we looking at here in the zoning site plan?
this this is the this is the revised one um so this is removing
yes sorry um so we removed the pilot houses that were originally in those bubbled areas
gotcha so right here is like from a view from the from the from the roof itself
here and then this is a side elevation showing that those pilot houses have been removed
All right. Well, thank you so much, Ryan. I'm sure the board may have some questions, so please stay on. Members of the board, this is our RCO meeting notice. We met with the community last on August 15th, as stated, at 630 p.m.
We sent that notice out two weeks beforehand, August 1st.
We emailed that notice as well to the community group, as well as relevant parties.
And in that email, we included not only the notice, but proof of mailing of that notice to 124 addresses.
These are the addresses that we mailed that notice to.
This is proof of mailing of that notice.
and then finally or not finally but further along this is the application for appeal that we filed
on behalf of our client which includes a notice of which includes the notice of refusal as well
as the project information form we also included the deed to the property showing that my client
owns the property has done so since October of 2023 and then finally the certificate of tax
clearance, showing that no money is owed with regards
to real estate taxes. So I'm going to unshare my screen.
I would ask that Mr. Clark virtually raise his
hand and be sworn in as well.
Donovan Clark, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Donovan Clark, D-O-N-O-V-A-N-C-L-A-R-K-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yeah, Mr. Clark, you heard everything I had to state today about your azimuth matter.
Yes, I did.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
yeah specifically regarding the five units um you know this in your opinion is the least modification
possible uh for this project uh to be um effectuated yes it is all right thank you
questions from the board um i have a question uh did that design include basement living for those
It does include basement living.
And the other question is, what is the hardship?
Is he saying that he can't sell three barright single family units in that area?
The hardship, and I would ask Ryan to speak to that, is the size of the lots are very shallow.
So there is no way to actually build a functional single family home on there.
So, Ryan, can you, is that correct?
That's the hardship from a technical standpoint regarding the size and configuration of the current lots?
Clark, are we talking?
I'm asking Ryan, the architect.
Oh, I don't know if we lost them. Yeah, but there he is. I'll speak again, sir.
I don't know if we lost him.
Hi, sorry. Yes, the lots are 35, but deep, which is a kind of unusual shorter block or.
For current for us to build a single family on.
So, I think it would be rather difficult, if impossible, to have functional floor plans
for these non-conforming lots.
Would that be accurate, Ryan?
Ryan's still there.
He is.
He's just muted.
Dr. Sola Mayo, please unmute yourself.
Questions from the board.
Yeah, I saw on the same line as board member Graham.
I guess the concern that I have is the basement living
and the depth that that space is below grade.
And what is the floor level below grade?
the basement i can pull that up i'm sorry i think we're eight foot clear at the basement level
no no so we would need all the building code for egress light and air and everything
um to make these fully code compliant units so your so your your basement floor level is eight
foot below the pavement below grade it is yes so it's fully subversed below grade
that it is yeah that that i do have a concern with um just looking at just your your elevation
and the section that the window is completely below grade uh is is a concern uh for me um i
I know code, notwithstanding the code, that's just a general concern that both the bedroom
and living, all the bedrooms are completely below grade with grates over the window wells.
So that's a concern for me.
Other than that, I think the units are laid out very well.
Additional questions from the board?
questions more attorney hillary emerson
um i just wanted to note um that if there are balconies proposed with the third floor as well
as the second floor we do need that noted on the proviso form so we would need an updated
proviso form yeah i'll send one afterwards um thank you of course questions or comments
from the virtual audience.
no hands at the side, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
2014, the zoning map was amended
from CMX 2 to RSA
5 at this location in accordance
with the comprehensive plan.
The lot is shallow and the previous structure's
rear yard setbacks were also less
than the proposed 9 feet.
The proposed density is in scale with
the surrounding properties in the neighborhood for unit count. However, the proposed height is
not characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood or the least minimum variance. The city planning
commission recommends that the zoning board grant the requested variance for five family and rear
yard setback and deny the requested variance for height. Mr. Chair, can I just respond? Sure.
So typically, I know it's a hard thing to ask for for height, and I get that. It is in character. There is 2623 West Oxford Street, which is around the corner from us, where this board did grant a height variance.
We also were very mindful in our design of the project to dealing with the parapets. So from the outside world, I know technically we're beyond the height limitation, but from the outside world, we did design in a way where from the outside world, it would look exactly the same of the 38 feet.
And, you know, we wanted to provide nice ceilings like height for the units themselves. And that was the rationale behind it. But if the board feels so inclined to drop the height, the Planning Commission does recommend the grantee of the variance in that the five units are in character to their surrounding area. Thank you.
Mr. Noxon, because of what I'd like to do is let the board really look at this.
look at this. So we're going to hold this for two weeks. We'll vote on it at the 2 p.m. on
So we're going to hold this for two weeks.
We'll vote on it.
Wednesday. It's two weeks from now. And we'll have your vote at two o'clock. Okay.
All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Number five.
M.I. 2024-003-848-2327-83, Cotman Avenue.
There's a letter of unanimous support from the Community on the Rise
and a recommendation of unanimous support from Ron Hurst Civic Association.
Alfred Fiscaldo is the attorney.
Alfred Fiscaldo is coming back in as a
panelist now chair
good afternoon counsel could you state your name
and spell for the court stenographer
my name is Alfred Fiscaldo F as in Frank
U S as in Sam C A L
D as in David O Fiscaldo Law Group representing the applicant
MHP Roosevelt Mall LLC the tenant at the property
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and the accuracy of the refusal?
Have you had all of your documents in within five days prior?
I have.
Please proceed, counsel, and share your screen.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, can you see my screen?
We can.
Great.
Thank you.
Again, thank you for your time.
This is an application for an AFC urgent care facility to be located at the Roosevelt Mall
in an inline space at the mall, which is located at 2327 to 83 Cotman Avenue.
This would be space number 60 at the mall.
Here are a list of my exhibits, which include the notice of refusal of permit,
the application of appeal, the project information form, pictures of the posting and of the property,
and aerial, interior and exterior renderings and a sample floor plan, letters of non-opposition
from the Ron Hurst Civic Association, which was unanimous, also a letter of support from
the community on the rise, Civic Association, which was unanimous, the tax clearance certificate
at Exhibit 8, our witness list at Exhibit 9, and redacted lease at Exhibit 10.
With me today in the audience is Matthew Mayorino.
He's the managing member of MHP Roosevelt Mall LLC.
That entity is a franchisee of AFC Urgent Cares, which operates 375 facilities across 31 states in the United States.
Here's a copy of the refusal.
The property is located in the CA2 zoning district, which permits medical dental health practitioner group use by right.
that's the use category into which an urgent care falls. However, because it is such a broad
category in the Northeast Overlay District, which also applies to the property,
that use category is not permitted. So we're seeking a use variance to permit
the urgent care at this location. Here's a copy of the application.
pictures of posting along cotman which is to the south pictures of posting along
bustleton which is to the east pictures of posting along bligh avenue which is on north
side of the mall and pictures of posting on roosevelt boulevard which is the east side of
the mall. Oops. Pardon me. And here's an, here's an area of the property, which again
shows Bly to the north, Busselton to the east, or west, I'm sorry, Cobbman to the south,
and Roosevelt Mall to the east. My cursor, just don't worry everyone, this is the Macy's
And here at this location, in an L-shaped building at the southwest corner of the mall is where this location would be placed.
Here's a rendering of AFC Urgent Care inline space next to the Chipotle here at the mall.
Here is the renderings of what the typical interior looks like.
Plans haven't been done for this specific location, but they're all generally the same.
very nicely fit out on the inside here's the treatment areas typical treatment areas on the
inside of the facilities and here's a sample floor plan for the property or for the facility
with exam rooms the top of the page waiting room to the bottom left-hand corner physician's offices
waiting room to the bottom left-hand corner,
physician's offices, procedure rooms,
procedures.
x-ray facility in the bottom right-hand corner.
As I said, AFCs have 375 facilities across the United States.
It's the largest urgent care health system in the United States.
They typically, or they do provide a physician on duty
at the facility every minute that they're open.
They offer digital x-ray and certified x-ray technicians
at every facility, every minute that they're open.
They treat breaks and fractures and upper respiratory ailments
in lieu of visits to the ER.
They treat lacerations, skin infections.
They welcome patients six months and older,
and their hours are typically Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.,
Saturday, Sundays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
They don't prescribe narcotics, nor do they provide methadone,
and it's a no-safe injection site.
As I noted before, there are two letters in support or non-opposition from the relevant civic associations.
They're included at tab 7.
This is the Gronhurst letter.
And here's the letter from the community on the rise.
Also, here is the tax plan certificate and a copy of the redacted lease.
This application does comply with the code provisions relating to the granular variance by this board, as this use has not substantially increased congestion in the public streets, doesn't injure the use of adjacent properties or impair the adequate supply of light and air, doesn't adversely affect transportation or burden water or other public facilities,
noted by the support from the uh civic associations um happy to have mr mayorino uh promoted to a
panelist so that he can uh can testify in this hearing that could you raise your hand
marino has been unmuted and allowed to speak sir could you please state your name is spelled
for the stenographer uh matthew mayorino m-a-t-t-h-e-w m-a-i-o-r-i-n-o we're referring
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel thank you uh
mr mayorino you are the managing member of uh mhp roosevelt mall llc the tenant at this location
yes and you will be operating the afc urgent care location yes and were you present for
the testimony that i provided to the board this afternoon yes and was it true and correct yes it
was and do you adopt it as your own yes i do uh i have no other no other questions uh or testimony
other than to offer the exhibits and evidence mr chair questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just to clarify mr rescaldo um this is for store number 60 is that correct that's correct
okay um thank you if the board's inclined to grant they may want to include a proviso um to that
effect clarifying what part of this address so this property is is included thank you
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing auto-oriented commercial CA2 zoning at this location.
This is an auto-oriented commercial strip with a large lot and no near neighbors.
The proposed use is in spirit with the zoning code and is not likely to have detrimental impacts onto the surrounding neighborhood.
planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for group medical
practitioner thank you mi 2024 003 848 2327 83 cotton avenue i vote yes with proviso use limited
to store number 60. john's my vote is yes with proviso
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
with proviso
Tionetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso
Thank you, number six
Thank you, Council
Excuse me, Mr. Chair
Can we jump to number 12 next
the reconsideration hearing
Mr. Leonard Palmer
is here for that hearing
Thank you.
Number 12, MI 2024.
Number 12, MI 2024-004-597-1709-Christian Street.
Reverend Anastasio is the attorney.
This is a reconsideration hearing.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Counsel, you've already been sworn. Just for the record, state your name.
Vern Anastasio on behalf of Elise Carroll, the owner of Subject Property.
So this is a reconsideration here, and my understanding is the evidence and testimony presented prior in this meeting in the matter is incorporated into the record for this hearing.
The scope of this hearing is limited to the applicant providing updated information about the proposed layout of the property and the South of South Neighbor Association making a statement regarding its position on this matter.
Public testimony will be limited to comments on that information presented at today's hearing.
Mr. Anastasio, please proceed.
Thank you.
A 1709 Christian Street is a long, long occupied three family dwelling that my client was attempting to get legalized.
This board at the time took it into executive succession and did, in fact, vote to deny it as the layout stood.
uh so with that the issue i believe was the basement and so what we've done just bear with
me for a moment these are the photos i'm going to get to the revised plans there they go
what we've done is we removed the basement bedroom
and just basically have it for storage or recreation.
It is attached to the first floor unit,
but the first floor unit now will have one bedroom on the first floor only.
The second floor unit will remain the same as we initially provided,
as will the third floor.
This will eliminate the bedroom in the basement.
which I believe was the point of contention for the second RCO, which is north of Washington.
And with that, I'm going to have my client raise her virtual hand.
Elise Carroll, to adopt my presentation as her own testimony.
Elyse Carroll has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name as fellow for the court stenographer?
Yes, it's Elyse Carroll, E-L-Y-S-E-K-A-R-O-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Carroll, you've heard my presentation to the board today, removing the basement living space and bedrooms.
Yes. And do you, is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. You adopted as your own testimony. Yes. And again, you are just legalizing existing
conditions long held. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I want to remind the board
1708, 1710, 1712, all multifamily, three, two, four bedroom properties in the right there
Within 20 feet of this particular property, 1712 is a brand new three-family that was approved by this board just about a year ago.
So with that, because we've removed the basement bedrooms, because we've kept the bedrooms above the grade level and have the first floor unit ostensibly on the entire first floor,
We ask that the reconsideration result in the granting of the variants given the new interior layout.
And with that, I also want to call Mr. Murray, who is from the South of South Neighbors Association, the coordinating RCO in question.
Mr. Murray.
Mr. Murray, if you are in the virtual audience, please raise your hand and wait to be sworn
Mr. Murrow, if you are in the virtual order,
They have been allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Murray, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Murray Spencer, M-U-R-R-A-Y, S-P-E-N-C-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
mr spencer could you please provide the zoning board with an updated position
from the south of south neighbors association the south of south labor association supports
this application revision as we support the original application yes thank you thank you
is there anything to add mr spencer uh no i'm a near neighbor it's a great house uh no issues
with the multifamily. I've been here for 48 years, and it's been a great property the whole time I've
been here. Thank you. Mr. Chair, to bring this property into compliance after half a century
is just impracticable. So I believe by removing the bedroom basement, we addressed the concern
that the second RCO had, and we still maintain the integrity of the building. With that, I close.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience relative to only information that was presented today?
Chair, I have a hand up from Madeline Shacomba. I have allowed them to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Madeline, M-A-D-E-L-I-N-E, Shacomba, S-H-I-K-O-N-B-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I am the president of the North and Washington Avenue Coalition.
We were the ones who presented the opposition to the use of the basement.
We are a co-coordinating RCO with SOSNA.
There are two of us, okay?
and we objected to it because he wanted to use the basement as living quarters.
And the previous notice of refusal, this had been refused to them twice to use that basement
and he put it in as living quarters and we opposed it
because we felt that it should be used what it was existed for, which was the storage unit.
And since he has decided to do that, we have no more objection to it.
But I would like for you to know in the future that we represent the children, the graduate hospital area, along with SOSNA.
We are equal in status.
Thank you, Brie.
I appreciate it.
Madeline, thank you very much for calling.
We appreciate it, and we hear what you've said.
I want to take this to a vote.
um it'll be myself Mr. Snell and Mr. Palmer so Mr. Chair I just wanted to check were there
any questions from the board members the Mr. Snell and Mr. Palmer any questions from the
questions no no no questions no chair but Ishmael is back oh Ishmael's back thank you
um and um and Mr. Chair I just wanted to to note you know because this is a change of use and
we can't you know stamp plans and we don't stamp floor plans normally you know the board could
include a proviso if it was inclined to grant that there would be um if it was if this is
storage only then no household living in the basement thank you so mi 2024 004 597
1709 christian street i vote yes with proviso no household living in basement
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Walt.
Thank you, and thank you, Leonard.
Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
Thank you.
Okay, so we're back to number nine.
Is that right, Hillary?
And we'll take care of issues before we leave.
No, number six, I see.
Okay. MI 2024-003-857-4355 North Penn Street. Alok Sokolov is the attorney.
Here, they will be rejoining as a panelist shortly.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Oleg Sokolov here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Cruz.
Mr. Sokolov, could you spell your name for the court sonographer, please?
Sokolov, could you spell your name for the court sonographer, please?
Sure. Oleg Oleg.
Sure. Oleg, O-L-E-G, Sokolov, S-O-K-O-L-O-B.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your clients again, please?
My client who's on the line today is Mr. Jeffrey Cruz. He's the subject owner of the property.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
good afternoon sir uh have you do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate
to exactly good afternoon mr shaheed 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 the impairment
uh i i did email them not five days i had a little bit of a technical issue with the size
of the exhibit so they were emailed i believe sometime on sunday so four days or three days
or something. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is the board able to see my screen? We can,
sir. Okay, thank you. So just to give a little bit of a background, this is a single family
property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cruz. They purchased this property in 2021 with an unclear
intention at the time, but eventually decided to start doing some renovation work on the property,
as you'll see, in hopes of potentially moving into it themselves or potentially making it an
income-producing unit. They still had not decided, but the bit of a background for the board to
consider is they hired a general contractor who, unfortunately, as happens way too often,
took a little bit of advantage of non-real estate professionals and began doing work without
pulling permits. This eventually resulted in the issuance of a number of violations on the property
in February, late February, early March of this year. Thankfully, Mr. Cruz properly undertook
advice from architects and myself to understand what needs to be done in order to correct some
of those conditions and we are here as a result of that undertaking with really only one primary
refusal in terms of zoning having been issued so our hope is that if the board is inclined to
to grant this variance the the appropriate building permits to remedy the violations
can be put in as the refusal is for an existing condition that was built by this
contractor and is existent at the property. So to that end, I'll take you through it.
So as I described, it's an erection of a two-story addition. As you'll see, the addition
itself is not the subject matter of the refusal. And the only portion that's subject matter of
the refusal is a second floor deck that was constructed behind this addition. So this is
a very uh long lot but the property itself originally was very very um not very deep at all
and the addition was built and then a deck was built on the back of that addition but as the
board well knows second floor decks are not permitted especially i don't think they're
permitted anywhere let alone in an rsa five so that that is the singular refusal that we're here
before the board seeking. So, as I said, purchased in 2021, this is the deck in question. I will
elaborate on why I don't think this is impactful in the neighborhood in any way. The site,
The subject property sits next to ICMX zone property, which I believe is a roofing warehouse or building material warehouse.
And then here's, once again, a better look at the deck.
The property directly adjacent to the backyard of the subject property is also completely open green space.
So this is a view from the deck.
And then this here behind the fence is that warehouse that I was describing.
So as you'll see, as soon as Mr. Cruz received the violations, all work has stopped.
All work has ceased at the property since the violation was issued.
And the undertaking of this zoning permit has been commenced.
So these are all existing condition sites.
the addition itself is built this is a view from the front porch of the property what you'll see is
that the property if i can go here is actually already somewhat raised
That the property, if I can go here, is actually already somewhat raised.
So that porch is actually off of this level, that second level there, which is significantly above the street level because the property itself, as you can see here, already starts above grade.
This is the front portion of the property.
This is the warehouse space.
So the property basically has has a residential neighbor on one side and then an industrial zone neighbor on the other side.
If you walk out of the front door of the property and turn right, this is the wall that you would see.
So, you know, the hope was to give a little bit more outdoor space to the property,
since even sitting on the front porch or being out on the steps of the property just puts you looking into a brick wall to your right.
An example of a similar, not exactly similar, but also a second floor deck that's located nearby.
And this is just a view of the basement, which houses just mechanicals and water boiler and stuff.
So this is an existing view of the property.
What you'll see is, you know, Mr. Cruz undertook to make it look in conformity with the neighboring properties.
there are about three houses right next to one another that are the same size and then
further down the block headed towards the 4400 block the houses get a little larger and a little
deeper photos of the zoning posters
and then this is prior to this is a view of the property prior to any undertaking of any
renovations so you can see it's in quite dilapidated condition and this was a you know
a really an active love to restore it to hopefully use it themselves a view down penn street to the
right a view down penn street to the left and this is what i was describing so this is the
subject property here or a previous picture of it. And then these two houses are basically
congruent to the subject property, which you can see they're all raised up and their first floor
begins, you know, I wouldn't say a full floor above grade, but at least four feet or so above
grade. And then the remainder of the block is a typical single family house, which one starts
closer to the sidewalk itself. The first floor of that property is either at grade or maybe just a
a few steps above grade, like you would see here.
And those properties extend their full
and sometimes more than their full,
a lot of depth into the lot.
So this is a site plan for the property.
The gray area here was the existing structure.
This first white box labeled number three is the addition that was built.
And then you can see that the minimum yard setback is still in effect and proper.
And then this here, number four, this area that I'm now highlighting, that is the deck in question.
And then a side elevation.
So once again, this portion is the addition.
And then this is the proposed deck.
So, you'll see that the area itself is a mix of residential and industrial commercial uses.
So, as I was describing, this is the subject property and then the entirety of this neighbor
is a, I believe, again, a roofing supply warehouse.
So, you know, not really impacting this neighbor in any way.
And then what I'd like to share with the board at the end of this is Mr. Cruz did, in fact, speak to his closest neighbor on the other side, who did sign a letter of support for this application.
So we are hoping that the board takes that into consideration in granting this as well.
Our application for appeal.
Our project information form.
We met with the community on August 8th.
It was, you know, everyone seemed to be very supportive of the application and everyone understood that it's an existing condition and that, you know, it was a very unfortunate situation that Mr. and Mrs. Cruz got a little taken advantage of by a contractor who will certainly not be the contractor doing any future work on this property once the appropriate permits are pulled and hopefully the appropriate permits are pulled with the allowance for the existing deck.
the allowance for the existing deck. We notice 76 nearby neighbors.
We notice 76.
Once again, there's pictures of the zoning posters in the window.
The tax clearance certificate. And then a letter of, I'm not sure how to call it because they
right we are approving their request but i i would imagine that's somewhat analogous to a letter of
support from the frankfurt neighbors advisory committee um with that if i may i'd like to
bring on mr cruz just to adopt my testimony mr cruz please state your name as spelled for the
stenographer mr cruz please raise your virtual hand
we see him
Mr. Cruz
his hand was just up chair but it disappeared
there he is his hand is back up again
Mr. Cruz please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair
Mr. Cruz could you say your name and spell
for the courts
Jeffrey Cruz
J-E-F-F-R-E-Y-C-R-U-Z
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes I do
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cruz, have you been on this call listening to my testimony today?
I have, yes.
And is everything I said true and correct?
And would you adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Cruz.
Nothing further from me, Mr. Chair, would be happy to answer any questions from the board.
Sure, questions from the board.
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
oh i apologize before before that if i may just put on the screen my apologies mr chair
um so as i stated your neighbor yeah here are two letters of support one's a little further down but
this is the the neighbor the nearest residential neighbor thank you thank you hillary emerson
no questions at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at the side chair planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing single-family residential RSA 5
location. The appellant has shown that there are unique
physical circumstances or conditions that would prevent
the property from being used in performance with the zoning code
and that the proposal is in spirit with the code and will not
injure the use of surrounding properties. The pending commission
recommends that the board grant the variance for
roof deck above rear yard. Thank you.
MI 2024-003-857
4355 north penn street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes
tanetta graham my vote is yes hi owen my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you council thank you very much members of the board i hope
everyone has a nice uh holiday coming up and i'll see you in a few weeks all right thank you take
care number nine number nine mi 2024-003-919-729 north 39th street alan knockamson is the attorney
um there's a recommendation of support from the matchwood civic association
mr knockamson please raise your virtual hand
here i see his hand but he's not raising his hand i don't know if he stepped away or not
okay let's let's come back to it then
number 11 mi 2024 003 971 100 to 32 chestnut street rachel pritzker is the attorney
unanimous
non-opposition from
the Washington Square West Civic Association
a letter of non-opposition from
Councilmember Squillin
Chair Rachel Pritzker is coming back in
as a panelist now
Good afternoon
Good afternoon Council
Alan we'll get right back to you
Alan, we'll get right back to you, okay?
Rachel?
Hi. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court stenographer?
Yep. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My client is JP Chestnut LLC, with the owner being John Betts. They're the tenant for this property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, it's a referral, and yes.
Understood. Have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case, properties, in advance of this hearing?
yes thank you council please proceed and share your screen thank you can we promote um brian
uh log a laug as well just these are architectures for efficiency purposes
they have been allowed to speak all right sir could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer he's coming back in as a panelist here okay
for him to get sworn in and then i'll begin sir could you please state your name and spell for
this phonographer sure it's brian laug b-r-i-a-n last name l-a-u-g you swear or firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel great so um as you can see
on my screen this is 1000-32 chestnut street this is where thomas jefferson university is
again we represent the owner john betts of the tenant space his entity jp chestnut llc
we have a property that's owned cmx5 it's at the corner of 11th and chestnut and is currently a
vacant, prominent commercial corner that houses Jefferson University, Thomas Jefferson University.
The proposal is for the use of the existing ground floor space as eating and drinking
establishment, sit-down restaurant in an existing building.
This generated a special exception or referral just for the proposed use of eating and drinking
establishment, sit-down restaurant, which requires a special exception, an adjustment
from the Chestnut and Walnut Street zoning control districts.
There are no signs on this current application.
Just going to jump to the aerial zoning map.
As you can see, the partial zone CMX5.
The applicant is leasing 4,065 square feet of an existing space at the property.
This is an aerial view.
So zoning posters gives you a better sense of the location.
For an eating and drinking establishment, a sit-down restaurant, again, which is prohibited by the Walnut Chestnut Street zoning control overlay.
This presents a hardship.
It's a CMX 5 building.
Most uses are permitted, especially sit-down restaurant, by right in CMX-5, except given this outdated overlay.
The use will comply with all the dimensional standards and will not impose any detrimental impacts like congestion on the streets,
as there's adequate locations for delivery and public transportation, which we can go through on the floor plan.
It will also not overcrowd the land as it's an existing building that's vacant on the ground floor.
It also will not impair light and air or burden the surrounding properties, water, sewer, public facilities, or injure or impair any public health or safety.
It will only add eyes to the street, provide a public amenity, and include lighting, which will increase public safety.
Also consistent with the city's 2035 comprehensive plan, as it provides an in-character commercial use in an existing commercial mixed-use corridor.
This project also supports union construction, job growth, and is an important medical institution at Thomas Jefferson University.
As mentioned, before Brian goes through the floor plans, I'm just going to go through.
We had a community meeting with the Washington Square West Civic Organization, as mentioned.
We sent out the mailers as required, and we had 12 votes in non-opposition.
We also have a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Mark Swilla's office as well.
I'm going to have Brian share the screen and go through the floor plans.
uh brian share the screen and go through the floor plans and then i will bring on my client as well
okay can you guys see my screen we can okay so quickly as she said this is on the ground floor
of the jefferson gibbons building hospital so it has two points of entry for customers one is is
through the main entrance of the hospital. You would enter into the facility at this location
before the security desk. So there's no reason for any people to go through security. And then people
within the hospital can access it this way. It also has another entryway. Sorry, this is the
match line here. A separate vestibule that comes off of the street entrance. So patrons can come
in this way as well. And in addition to that, there's a separate overhead door here that will
allow for deliveries and so forth into the coffee shop here into the back of house. So go back to
the first floor. So again, as you enter, this is the seating area out in here. This is the
express line here for the coffee. There's two restrooms that we're adding and then just the
general back-of-house support for the coffee shop itself. Thank you.
Chairman, are there any questions for the architect before I ask my client to come on?
I don't believe I heard it yet, but if we have to, we'll bring back. Why don't you bring your client
on okay um by the way a starbucks am i correct yes this is a starbucks okay
it's going to be the largest starbucks um in center city in philadelphia so very exciting
investment for our city is there a john betts that can be promoted please john betts if you're
the virtual audience please raise your hand john betts please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
sir could you please state your name and spell for the course sonography
yes sir john betts j-o-h-n-b-e-t-z do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth is
nothing but the truth i do sir to you counsel thank you uh john can you um did you hear my
testimony today in front of the board do you believe it to be true and accurate and do you
adopt it as your own yes i do um if there's anything else you uh would like to say john
now would be the time thank you rachel um as the owner of this starbucks i am extremely excited
about this investment into the city of philadelphia as well as the jobs this will create
this project will be utilizing union labor for the construction of the store and this
store represents my seventh hospital location and we're excited as Rachel alluded to we're just
over 4,000 square feet and it will officially be the largest Starbucks in the state of Pennsylvania
thank you questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney Hillary Emerson
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, Rachel, is there a specific, like, suite number or anything that pertains to this use or this lease? I didn't note one in the exhibits.
Yeah. John, do you know what the suite number might be? I can pull up the lease, which was submitted to the board, but it is.
Mr. Betts, can you raise your hand again?
Mr. Betts?
You've got to mute yourself.
Yeah, I have it listed as 1000-32 Chestnut Street.
So I guess what we're saying is first floor entrance?
Yes, sir.
Hillary, are you okay with first floor entrance?
Well, if it's just on the first floor, we can just say first floor.
Is it all on the first floor, Rachel?
Every part of it?
All right, so we can just say use limited to first floor.
Hillary, it's the former TD Bank, if you're familiar with that area of the city.
Yes, unfortunately, that won't help very much with L&I in terms of locating where the use is.
I think first floor is sufficient.
is is sufficient yeah it basically says 111 south 11th aka uh 1000 to 32 chestnut street
It basically says 111 South 11th, a.k.a.
so yeah questions it's fine thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands here planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the city planning commission rec oh sorry
The comprehensive plan recommends, though,
change the existing CMX 5 zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that the requested special exemption
would not cause detrimental impacts beyond what would reasonably be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board
grant the requested special exemption for sit-down, eating, and drinking establishment.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 003-971, 1032 Chestnut Street,
I vote yes, would provide a use limited to first floor.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Sennetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Iowan, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number nine, MI 2024-003-919-739-North 32nd Street, Mr. Nockmson.
Good afternoon, Alan Nockmson.
Mr. Nockmson, could you identify your client or relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is CGT Group LLC, and in the virtual audience is one of his representatives, Ghazi Ida Sabin.
Blake Sher has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his 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 council please proceed and share your screen
all right so i'm here to present 729 uh north uh 39th street this is a this property is in the
mantua section of philadelphia is between 30 uh it's uh it's uh between all uh excuse me olive
and Aspen Streets. During my presentation, we'll first review the notice of refusal,
then the letter of support from the Mantra Civic Association. Then it's not out of character to have
similarly situated properties. We're seeking to put a triplex here, and there are many instances
on the 700 block of North 39th Street where there are triplexes. The difference is, and I think the
community appreciated is the architecture. This project has been designed by Chris Johnson of
24-7 Design, who's well known in the Mantua and Strawberry Mansion areas, where what he tries to
do is take the traditional Philadelphia row home look and modernize it. But what you'll see are
Cornish lines, lintels, flat building facades with brick, where, you know, the other ones that are designed that are on that block, not as nice where you see a lot of those window bays and such, which I think, you know, in the years to come, we'll be disappointed as a community in terms of that architecture.
Then we'll review an aerial view of the neighborhood, showing where we are and that there are other similarly situated properties nearby.
Maps of the area, photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
This has been a vacant lot for some time, as far as we can see.
Our plans and drawings, our applications for appeal, our deeds of the property, showing that CGT Group LLC is the owner of the property and the Certificate of Tax Clearance.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Addis Eben virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and I have a few questions for him.
So the notice refusal is this.
We're an RSA 5 property, a decent size of 1,312 square foot lot, and we're looking to put three units on here.
And what was intentional here was to make sure that they're good-sized units and, you know, you have a unit per floor, so we're not trying to squeeze in a ton of units here.
kind of light in there front and back of the property and then just a design we do have two
front and back of the property, and then just a design. We do have two refusals, first of which
is this is an RSA5 property, and as such, by asking for multifamily use, that's a refusal.
And then the second is the occupied area, where 75% occupied area is required. We're slightly
above that. We're at 81.94% occupied area. We're trying to have functional floor plans,
have roomier units. There is a decent amount of vacant lots in the area. And then the lots that
are to the right of us, you know, what we're requesting is not greatly more than what they
already have. So we do have a letter of support from the Mantua Civic Association. Just as a
matter of background, Mr. Ades-Evan, like, you know, develops a lot of Mantua and has an excellent
relationship with them. You know, does a lot of community-oriented events and initiatives in
Mantua, and I think he's a known quantity. And, you know, someone who does work over and over
again with the community, it's a lot easier to say, hey, we're saying this, and we're going to
do it. And they're appreciative of that. 700 block of North 39th Street. You know, you see 701
North 39th Street is a triplex. 717 North 39th Street, again, is a triplex, both by way of
variance. 723 North 39th Street is also a triplex by way of variance. 725 North 39th Street is also
a triplex by way of variance. And then 727 North 39th Street is a triplex by way of variance.
So the three properties, 23, 25, and 27, are triplexes just like us.
Area view of the property, you can see these are the triplexes that are here.
They do take a decent amount of occupied area, and they're also triplexes, which that relief was gained by way of variance.
Then maps of the area, too.
You can see here where we are between Aspen and Olive Streets on North 39th Street.
And then you can also see here from a Google Map perspective where we are as well.
and then photographs of the property and this is what i was saying in terms of these you know bay
windows projected out windows i mean there is a brick facade but again different type of design
than what we hope to put here and then this is the property as of 2007 so google earth uh or
street view only goes as far back as 2007 so this has been a vacant lot for the longest period of
time just to show that it's been a vacant lot for almost 17 years as a matter of record on the
internet. And then this is our posting for the property for today's hearing. And then this is
North 39th Street to the right of their property. And by the way, you can see a ton of like meters
here showing that there's multifamily nearby. And then this is North 39th Street to the left
their property. Again, these are the multifamily structures. You can see those meters from four
meters, meaning three units. And then our plans and drawings, a little bit different than what
has been built in this neighborhood by some individuals by way of variance. But what we're
trying to do is have lentils here, have windows that match the traditional Philadelphia architecture,
have a pronounced cornice line as well.
And then this is, you know, our site plan in comparison.
We're only proposing a height of 35 feet.
You know, we think that's appropriate
for the three stories that we're asking for.
And then this is just a site plan
showing that our property goes slightly above
what the other properties,
the property to the right of us is.
And then these are our floor plans.
But if you walk into a vestibule area,
you make a right. This is unit number one, which is 1,701 square feet. And that counts to lower
level area. Really, these floor plans are like around 900 square feet per floor. But this is a
two-bedroom, two-bath. And then instead of, and you can see here, if you walk in, there's an ample
size living room, kitchen. There's two bathrooms, one bathroom here, and then there's a bedroom here.
And then there's also a bedroom in the back. You go up a flight of steps, same typical floor plan for the unit number two, a whole new floor, nice light and air for the front and the back.
And again, an ample size livery room and kitchen. And then if you go to the third floor and another two bedroom, two bath, same floor plan as the second floor unit.
We met with the community on August 15th at 5.30 p.m.
We emailed that notice two weeks ahead of time along with
We emailed that notice two weeks ahead of time, along with proof of that notice to the community and the relevant parties.
And we indicated that we mailed that notice to 161 addresses.
This is proof of, these are the addresses that we mailed them to.
This is proof of mailing to those addresses.
Let's see here, August 1st.
And then this is a deed to the property showing the CGT group LLC is the owner of the property.
And this is our certificate of tax clearance showing that my client
owes no real estate taxes on this property.
I would ask that Mr. Adeshevan virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Mr. Adeshevan?
my name is and could you state your name and please spell for the course not yes my name is
gazi at a seven g-a-z-i the last name is a-t-a-s-e-v-e-n my address is for yeah yes sir
you you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do
please proceed counsel uh yes mr at a seven you heard everything i had to state today about
your zoning matter yes i heard that and is it true and correct yes correct and do you adopt
it as your own testimony yes i will thank you questions from the board
yes where is this trash stored uh and so for unit number one we have trash storage
in the rear and for units number two and three there's uh ventilated trash closets for each unit
i appreciate you showing furniture in the units they're decently laid out so i noticed that
people tend to show furniture layouts when the units are decently laid out and they don't when
they're not just a doubt can you just tell you what i get what the architect gives me
just an observation
other questions from our comments 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 hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Wood with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single-family residential RSA 5 zoning at this location.
The proposal for three-family is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
therefore the planning commission recommends
that the board grant the requested variance
for three families
MI 2024-003-919-729-North 39th Street
I vote yes
Michael Johns, my vote is yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
Tana Graham, my vote is yes
Ty Owen, my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a great day, guys.
Thank you, counsel.
I have one more here from number three on their add-ons this morning, or add-ons this afternoon.
So Ishmael and James Snell will both vote on this.
So MI 2023-001-286-152-58 Logan Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Her amended refusal dated 8-26-24.
for. James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience
whose 2 p.m. case has not been called? I see the handshare. Five minute break and come
back and do the 330 list. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's meetings.
With me is our vice chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
board member michael johns president chair and our board member tyah winn
also here tyah president mr chair oh there she is yeah okay um also here is our attorney
hillary emerson and our deputy director for planning and zoning kathleen grady
And our Deputy Director for Planning and Zoning, Kathleen Grady.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting Kathleen.Grady at phila.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All comments and testimony should be directed to our Deputy Director Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Here's our continuances.
Number one, I understand, may be a continuance.
MI 2022-006-992-711-South-23rd Street.
The listed applicant is Michelle Yu, or the owners are Edwin and Esther Yu.
I understand this is a pro se, it may be a continuance.
Ms. Yu
Ms. Yu, if you're in the virtual audience
please raise your hand
Good afternoon, Chair
this is Yvette Benton
I'm your co-host for this afternoon
I don't see any hands at this time
So, my understanding
this is going to be a contrarian
So, MI-2022
Yes, Mr. Chair
I just wanted to note for the record
it's our understanding from communicating
with the applicant that the RCO, excuse me, that the RCO meeting has not yet occurred.
This is the fourth listing for this matter.
So MI 2022-006-992-711-South-23rd Street.
Cases continued.
Mark, must be heard.
Number four.
MI 2023-006-896-138 West Sharnack Street, that case is continued.
Number six, MI 2024, 002, 000, 800 South 56th Street, cases continued, attorney moving party.
And number nine, MI 2024-002-278-415 South Van Pelt Street.
That case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Go to number two. MI 2023-003-159, 3942 Wall Street. Jessica Donnelly is the listed owner.
Jessica Donnelly is coming back in as a panelist now chair.
miss donnelly hi yes good evening hi could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer jessica donnelly j-e-s-s-i-c-a-d-o-n-n-e-l-l-e-y
where a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
So before we start the case, one of the questions we have, the meeting was on August 8th, am I correct?
It was correct.
But we see the mailings were done the 6th. Are we sure that the mailings actually got there in time?
I am not positive. Obviously, I did call the ZBA and I asked prior to sending them if that was okay.
and they told me that it would be okay i i got the zoom meeting that friday and i mailed them
the i think the following monday so i didn't have the information from the rco
until the friday following the monday that i mailed them hillary
um miss donnelly when you attended the meeting were there any neighbors present
yes anyone who indicated they had gotten your notices
no one indicated they had or had not it didn't come up
But there were neighbors at the meetings?
but there were neighbors at the meeting there were
There were.
And did the RCO take a position or have a vote on your application?
They did.
They voted in favor.
It was five people.
It was four to one in favor.
Did they send you a copy of the letter?
Because we don't have anything for indicating their position.
They did not send me a copy.
They said they would.
I assume that they had sent it to you.
Mr. Chair, it's up to the board if you'd like to proceed.
It sounds like the RCO was satisfied and held the meeting.
Why don't we do this?
We'll hear it.
We'll hold until we get a letter from them or give another couple weeks for a letter from the RCO.
Sounds good.
So, Ms. Donnelly, our vice chair has a few questions for you, okay?
Yeah, I'm here.
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.
okay so this is the property in question 3942 wallace street i purchased this property in 2019
prior to me owning the property the first floor was used as a church
the second floor was a two-bedroom apartment and prior to the first floor being a church
it was a market. After purchasing the property, I lived on the second floor until 2021. And during
that time, I updated the utilities on the first floor. It was vacant. It needed electric and
heating. It needed a lot of utility work. But I performed no structural changes to the first
floor. Upon purchasing, it had a kitchen and a full bathroom. So I was able to get a residential
mortgage on this property. The use at that time was commercial, I was told by my real estate agent,
but the zoning was residential, RS5. So this is the property in question. As you can see,
it's just a regular row home but it does have roll gates in the front. This is my application
for appeal. I just have all the paperwork I sent in here so I'll just go through that briefly.
That's my tax clearance form. This is the correspondence I had with the zoning,
my RCO we scheduled the meeting for the 8th my notice of refusal this is the
mailing I sent out to 162 neighbors I believe and then to the public
organized the community organizations this is my deed
this shows I was purchased that 2019 I believe October these are my proof of mailings
quite a few of them and then these are just some photos of the property with the zoning
it is a corner property so I have those on two sides of the house I don't use this front
door at all right now the first floor is vacant the second floor is vacant as well
um in 2023 we moved out because we had a child and we could no longer fit in this home so we
rent a property of people mix north so really we just want to have this property sustain itself
and renting the top floor just doesn't pay the mortgage so we just wanted to do something
with the first floor so we asked the community if they wanted you know commercial or residential
you know we said we'd do whatever they preferred and they voted for the residential so
this is the side of the property the first floor has another entrance and that this is some just
some interior shots of the property see it leans towards a residential property but it could go
either way. This is just showing that it does have a kitchen and a full bathroom.
just showing that it does have a kitchen and a full bathroom.
And then this is just the zoning map. It's surrounded by multi-units every day. A new
multi-unit comes up in this area. Yeah, so that's my presentation. If there's anything else I can
show you or questions I can answer. So questions from the board?
yes so as i understand the hardship is that uh the reason it can't be a single family
property anymore is because you you moved out and you no longer live in the in the unit
well it was never a single family property it's i can't i would love to make it one unit but it
never was you know i can't it just never was i bought a something that was a church on the
bottom they had a kitchen and a bathroom and apartment on the top you know it never was a
single family unit understood other 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
planning commission
amy void with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change the
residential single-family rsa 5 location the appellant has shown that there are unique physical
circumstances or conditions that would prevent from the property from being used in conformancy
with the zoning code and that the proposal is the least minimum variance as a conversion from
former commercial use in the first floor to an additional residential unit is more in keeping
with the surrounding neighborhoods and the spirit of the code. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant requested variance for two-family residential. Thank you. Ms. Donnelly,
we're going to hold this for two weeks. And in that time, we'll see if we can get a response from
the RCO. Whether we get a response or we don't get a response, we'll vote on this
two Wednesdays, two weeks on a Wednesday at 2 p.m. Okay? Okay, great. Thank you very much.
I actually appreciate your time.
Number five, MI 2023-007-132, 58 West Pomona Street.
Tara Kayo is the attorney for the owner.
There's a letter of opposition from Pomona Cherokee Civic Association, RCO.
There's also an email from a neighbor expressing her opposition.
Counsel.
Sarah Cahill, can you please raise your hand?
Counsel, if I remember correctly, I swore you once today.
Am I correct?
Yes, you did.
Could you just state your name for the record?
Tara Cahill.
Right.
And could you also identify your client and have relationship to the property?
The property owner is a Panoma Realty LLC owned by Jimmy Rossi.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its action?
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 did.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
um this application is for a change of use from a single family dwelling to a two-family dwelling
the applicant purchased property on october 20 2022 and the property is on rsa 3 the property
is 2,155 square feet with three stories and a basement. Applicant purchased property to convert
to two apartments and to live in one of the apartments with his family. The owner proposes
to change the use from single family to two family dwelling and will renovate the property to
two new and modern apartments, each over 1,000 square feet. The owner also intends to live in
of properties within one of the apartments with his family and they love the neighborhood and
his children will matriculate into the school district. The owner wants to update and improve
the property that had not been improved for a very long time and both units will have
three bedrooms will have one of the one unit will have two bedrooms and two bathrooms and
another you will have three bedrooms and two baths and there's no major modifications to the exterior.
three bedrooms and two baths and there's no major modifications to the exterior
the property as i said is on rsa3 and multi-family dwelling is prohibited therefore a variance is
required the change of use conforms with the permitted uses on the same block as many of
the houses in their neighborhood are multi-family dwellings their direct neighbor property um the
direct neighbor's property is a multi-family and the following properties are all multi-family
dwellings there's one on 57 56 west pomona a 13 west 55 west and a 35 and 22 all of which are uh
three uh actually three family units and there's um only if that's only a few of the listed
properties that are multi-family in the neighborhood unfortunately the affected rcos oppose the
opposed use because one um they said mentioned in their letter
when they put their letter up yeah yeah so here's uh the opposition
and they attach a letter explanation at the end
uh one they say that uh there's many one to two bedroom apartments that are
being built nearby and they want to preserve the single family status in the area
Our response is, first, we completely understand their concerns, but the property owner loves the neighborhood, too, and will live in one of the units with his family.
Second, my client's situation is different because they are renovating the units to a three-bedroom that are great for new families.
The RCO is concerned that the area has a lot of one to two-bedroom apartments in the area, but this is actually for a three-bedroom that they're going to rent out.
A quick search online shows very little apartments available that are three bedrooms or more.
I also want to remind everyone that the property owner wants to build a two-family unit, not three or four or five.
The property owner is not building a large multi-unit property.
This is just for a two-family dwelling.
And he merely wants to add a second one because the property is quite large and it fits two units pretty well.
they were also concerned um the rco was also concerned about the design having basement
bedrooms without a door to um to exit so the owner had the floor plans changed so the bedrooms were
no longer in the basement i can show you the uh floor plan um here so uh this is the basement um
on the far left and um now that's changed the living room and the basement will be on the first
the bedrooms will be on the first floor um the hardship is that the physical feature of the
property is better suited for a two-family dwelling and it makes sense for his family because the
house is too large for a single family further the change of use to two-family dwelling will
not affect the neighborhood and will not harm the neighbor's use of their properties
Increased traffic congestion will not place undue burden on public facilities,
and there will be no significant change in occupation of the property.
Also, I wanted to mention that the neighbors were also concerned that there was neighbors
that took steps to change their properties back to a single-family unit. However, that's really
up to each individual property owner, and there's no guarantee that it will completely eliminate
the multifamily property, and my client wants to preserve this family, you know, neighborhood
and status. So we respectfully disagree for this reason to deny the variance.
So in conclusion, the owner will be living in one of the units with his family, and the proposed
uses consistent with the neighboring houses authorization is necessary to enable reasonable
use of the property so the owner can live in the property and use the rest of the space as a rental
unit the hardship is the physical features of the property is better suited for a two-family dwelling
and it makes sense for his family because the house is too large for a single family um with
that i don't know if the order needs questions or i can call the property owner let me ask you the
house that it's attached to is that a multi-unit uh it's like a it's um half of it is his property
that's like um yeah but i'm saying the house that it's attached to is that a multi-unit oh is that
the multi-unit um i actually i need to check that because it's the 56 west why don't you bring your
client on yeah it is a direct uh neighbors 56 west pulmon i i can ask my client that question
uh jimmy what's your client's name jimmy rosie r-o-c-i please raise your virtual hand
Jimmy Rossi, R-O-C-I.
Jimmy Rossi, please raise your virtual hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, so Council, you're an officer of the court.
We'll take your test.
I don't know if the designer is on the line.
What's the designer's name?
John Payne, if you're in the virtual audience, can you please raise your hand?
I see no one by that name with their hand up here.
Questions from the board.
I have a question.
Did you say your client lived there as a single family or they would like to move in as a multifamily?
yeah they want to move in at the moment they don't live there yet they want to live in there
um if they can renovate it to have you know to rent right now the house is empty yeah yeah
thank you so so they just they just bought the property i'm not in 2022 they bought it
what's the property to renovate before moving in so they bought it as a single family house
and they want to convert it to a duplex yes okay but you but you don't know whether the house next
door is a single is still i could do if you can i just want to double check no no you don't you
don't have to do all that it seems that you should have had that information but um okay thank you
all the questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
um just briefly um miss cow is there um any parking at the property i notice it's zoned rsa3
um there's street parking there's street parking okay it's just likely that a refusal was missed
in this case then for for parking spaces because an rsa3 parking was required one per unit so i
just wanted to note that on the record doesn't really change anything here today but i just
wanted to note it note it for the record sure thank you thank you question questions or comments from
the virtual audience there we have charles richardson charles richardson please unmute
yourself and wait for the chair good afternoon mr richardson i haven't seen you today yeah the
First time today, 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, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Okay, so the Councilwoman is against granting this variance.
The applicants made a lot of disingenuous statements during the RCO meeting, talking about they want to have their children go to the local schools, things along those lines.
lines they have grown children uh you know we did something there was a little bit of background
check that was done with regard to that they uh they just really bought a single family house
that's somewhere up in i believe it's the northeast or something like somewhere in that vicinity uh
and then they're talking about they want to move into into this uh property if they're able to get
the get it get it done as a as a multi-family it just didn't make any sense and and everybody that
was there in that meeting after the fact expressed some type of apprehension to the fact that these
folks were not being very truthful. And that being said, the councilwoman is joining with
the RCO and asking that you deny this variance. Thank you. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Stephanie Vogel. Stephanie Vogel, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir. My name is Stephanie Vogel, S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E, last name Vogel, V-O-G-E-L, and I'm here as the RCO chair in the PCC RCO.
All right. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
So thank you very much for hearing this case. I also actually live on the same block at 38 West Pomona Street. And so I'm familiar with these buildings, as well as the previous owner of this home. She recently passed away.
The house next door, I can confirm, is a single family house. And I can also confirm there is only on street parking. And this is already a challenge.
Um, and the majority of the houses on the block are one family house as is mine.
and the majority of the houses on the block.
And there is a desire for the community to maintain some one family home.
Now we understand the attorney mentioned some houses that may or may not have a couple of
different folks living in there.
And, you know, those wouldn't be legal by any means.
And I don't think that that should serve as a justification.
So I'm here to represent the RCO in case there's any questions from the community.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to call us.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There we have Pomona Cherokee.
Pomona Cherokee, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Could you state your name, please?
Hi, my name is Sabra Townsend.
I'm the secretary of the Pomona Cherokee Civic Council.
and i'm also vice chair to stephanie vogel on the pomona cherokee rco sabra do me a favor could you
please spell your name for the court sonographer yes sir my first name is sabra s-a-b-r-a last
name townsend t-o-w-n-s-e-n-d right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. Please proceed. I am on 67 West Washington Lane, which is around
the corner. I lived there all of my adult life. I grew up there and went away to college and then
came back. My concern is that there are numerous multifamily, multi-unit buildings in the
neighborhood. I submitted a document that was prepared by another member of the Pomona Cherokee
Civic Council that speaks to within a mile of the intersection of Pomona Cherokee, which is why the
organization is named that, and this is right on that corner. Within a mile of that corner, since
2019, 487 units have been built. If you expand that by a half a mile, 1.5 miles, there's an
additional 225 units. And even then, since this was prepared, there are two other properties
that uh have plans for units to be built i will also add that um uh the the zoning the
community got together to reverse the zoning so some of the uh
properties that are multi-family were grandfathered in i understand why don't we do this
Why don't you concentrate on this one here and tell us if you're against this one or for it?
Against this particular property for all of the reasons stated.
The density of the area is being overrun.
And so given that we participated in the meeting and the owners were not genuine in their statements,
they talked about little children going to elementary school,
and they already mentioned that their children were in college.
Thank you very much for taking the time to cause. We do appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Suzanne Ponson. Suzanne Ponson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Suzanne, could you please state your name and spell for this stenographer?
Suzanne, S-U-Z-A-N-N-E, Ponson, P as in Paul, O-N-S-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am president of a neighboring RCO.
Are you in faith?
I'm in support of the decision that the Pomona and Sherry King neighbors have arrived at, which is to deny this.
All right. Thank you so much for taking the time. We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Here we have Donna Streets. Donna Streets, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
yes i'm one of those people i live right across the street hold on hold on hold on hold on hold
on could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yeah my name is donna d-o-n-n-a
streets s-t-r-e-e-t-s right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes are you in favor of this project or against the project against thank you for taking
in time the course and we know you live right across the street we appreciate it is there
anyone else in the virtual audience chair i see no further hands at this time my planning commission
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
amy board with the planning commission the comprehensive plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning location.
The appellant has not shown that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances
that would prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board
can add a variance for two-family household living.
Thank you.
MI 2023-007-132-58 West Pomona Street, I vote no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Gerald Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no.
Tywin, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Number seven, MI 2024-002-007, 1725 North 27th Street.
Great. Pascual Colavita is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition, but there are provisos
from Strawberry Mansion. Mr. Colavita is coming back as a panelist now, Chair. Okay.
good afternoon counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
absolutely pasquale colabita pasquale last name c-o-l-a-v-i-t-a i am the
pardon me good your attorney for who for uh the owner 1725 hwb llc angela battle being the sole
member do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do our vice chair has just a few questions okay
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
we do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
we have received this thank you council please proceed and share your screen
sharing uh our table of contents here as stated earlier i applied on behalf of the owner
for a variance to the property.
It's in an RSA 5 zone.
It received the refusal for use only.
The request is for two-family dwelling.
In essence, I'll try to give this,
before I even get into the table of contents,
a brief because, as you can see,
it is paper-intensive.
it's it has been a it's a legalization of a pre-existing use that's been at the very least
in miss battle's family from her grandfather in 1982 to the present and get right to the hardship
the hardship would obviously be that this is a cost of retrofit the cost of retrofit this property
would well exceed the market value of the property after everything was said and done.
It would require eliminating staircases, multiple HVAC systems, hot water tanks,
bathrooms, et cetera, multiple kitchens. And as stated, this property has been in its
present condition since 1982. As you can see here, the property, and there's my 1982,
I'm sharing the deed owned by Howard Battle, went to Dorcas Battle, who is Angela Battle's mother.
We received the refusal again because the property changed to an RSA 5 residential district.
This is also a legal argument.
So initially what happened was I was hired to assist her in the Eclipse system.
At one point or another, and I'll get to it within our exhibits, you'll see our exhibits that we had licenses in 1998 for a two-family dwelling.
What we did was at one point or another, I had actually contacted David Fecto in the Planning Commission.
The problem we have here is what I'm going to do is I'm going to stop sharing for one second.
I'm going to share a different screen and show you the biggest problem that we had here.
Because typically what I would do is I'd go on to Atlas.
I'd upload our zoning archive that showed that it was a two-family dwelling.
i'd upload our zoning archive that showed that it was a two-family dwelling
unfortunately as you can see i is this being shared yet or no um no okay give me one moment
let me share the screen and as you can see on atlas 1725 indicates that there is no zoning archive
I actually went to the basement after much consternation, constantly contacting individuals on Eclipse.
We showed multiple different proofs that the property was previously done.
For example, we showed them affidavits from the prior owner.
We showed them the leases that it was two units.
The MS, I'll show you the MLS listing, the previous licensing.
They were not satisfied with that.
This code pursuant to a letter from, let me stop sharing here.
So my email back from David was that this property was rezoned in 2014.
So it means that the original 1933 code was here for at least 1925.
So what I did was I also went and sent them a copy of the code.
They didn't want to buy that argument, and hence, after multiple, multiple different emails with them, attempts at trying to convince license and inspection that this should have been an over-the-counter approval of a two-family dwelling license, we decided we're going to spend the extra money.
She hired an architect. I filed the appeal, our application, after receiving the refusal that's, as we stated earlier, at Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 3 is our appeal. Again, this is the least restrictive use and modification of an RSA 5.
Anyhow, our plans here, there was no change in height, width, or length of the property.
No internal changes.
If you would like to see, they are one bedroom and a two bedroom for the first floor.
And then the second and third floor are a separate unit.
as is required. After significant issues in attempting from March to attempt to schedule
a meeting, we finally got a meeting approved by the RCO. It was scheduled, I believe it was last
week we met with one person only the only person who showed up was the uh organizer and president
of the group it took about an hour and a half and i'm going to show you some photographs of the
property as you can see presently it is there are two meters there and i'll show you some older
photographs um and these are of the neighborhood there as you can see the the rest of the block
three family i mean they're all three-story units throughout the property i'm showing you some that
are and i'll get to them uh other uh multi-family dwellings in the area again it's here i didn't
realize I actually, instead of showing you the link, I actually showed you that their
exhibit 8A is the no zoning archive for it. So again, attached is that this property has been
in the two family units since 1982 at a minimum. Showed you previous leases. Right now, one is
vacant and the only reason it's vacant is because she's rehabbing it the person moved out this was
a covid during covid that this occurred um and um we'll go to eight d showed you mls even listed it
as a multi-family dwelling as a duplex i don't know if you can see
as a multifamily dwelling, as a duplex. I don't know if you can see it right here. Indicates duplex.
MLS has it. The OPA, when they wanted to raise the taxes, also indicates it. The city's website
indicates that it's a multifamily dwelling. This was also forwarded to L&I. Didn't take it. So,
But here's what I was getting at. So now. This is a previous.
Rental license. That indicates two units, and that's as far back as 1998.
Show you. Again, this is at one point, she had three meters in there.
She is knocked it down to two meters, one for each unit.
She took out the public lighting recently just and incorporated it within each of the units.
And here are photographs that showed from this one is in 2019.
And as you can see that there are three.
Counsel, I think you've really made your point here.
Okay. So bottom line is then we put posters up as is required. We met with the community group. Trash remains indoors or in the rear of the property. Nothing up front. We don't have any issues with that. No problem with no basement living.
we we presented photographs to uh as requested to the board uh she has no intent on any room uh
any rooming house and uh the external of course she's going to continue to maintain the property
we just ask that you approve this um based on on this no one was obviously interested
no one showed up at the meeting um and as you saw in the previous one if people don't
if people have a problem with it they show up so i just asked that council one council when you said
you met with the strawberry mansion uh person did he give you provisos no there were no provisos at
that time but we have no problem with uh trash remaining indoors we have no problem with no
basement living uh with no drug or the provisos that are there we have absolutely no no problem
with any of them because I mean all of these seem to be uh things that that one she agreed with and
uh agrees with uh as a manager and owner of the property and someone who wants to keep the
community as is um she her her niece is a um realtor in the area she's been maintaining the
property she has friends in the neighborhood that are taking care of the um the the maintenance of
the property. And, um, I believe that the program that she needed to be approved for
is called TURN, um, which is a, um, I think a FHA, um, subsidiary or.
I don't, I don't, I just think you, you, you want zoning. So we want zoning.
Right. Okay. Could you bring your client on please?
Absolutely. Her name's Angela Battle.
Angela Battle, please raise your virtual hand.
Angela Battle, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon.
Angela, hi.
Please proceed, state your name and spell it for the court stenographer.
Good afternoon.
My name is Angela Battle.
First name, Angela, A-N-G-E-L-A.
Last name, Battle, B-A-T-T-L-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Ms. Battle, did you have an opportunity to hear my testimony?
Yes, sir.
Do you agree with its accuracy?
Yes, sir.
And do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, sir.
All right.
Questions from the board.
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there we have strawberry mansion community organization strawberry mansion please unmute
yourself and wait for the chair mr chair i'm sorry i um i did want to note regarding the um
The provisos that were listed in the letter, I noted that two were enforceable, the interior trash storage and no household living in the basement.
I just want to note that.
I just want to note that.
Hello?
Hello?
Yes, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
My name is Bonita Cummings, survey mentioned community concern.
My name is spelled B as in boy, O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Ms. Cummings, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
um basically just to indicate that we did discuss trash so i'm not sure if the attorney
didn't remember that we didn't discuss basement living so i'm not really sure but again um we
just we expressed what concerns we did have we assessed the block there was no there was indication
from some members that they had not received notice and the picture that shows the uh meeting
for today on the door that's not where it was previously it was in the window which we set
pictures to um the zoning board via email um but if you know if the board is voting um you know we
just noted that these things did happen um again there's indication that there may have been this
use uh many years ago um so we just want to just make sure the trash you know remains indoors and
that there is no basement living inside yeah mr cummings as usual thank you for calling in we
appreciate it. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I'll seat all the hands
at this time, Chair. Planning Commission.
board with the Planning Commission. The comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing
single-family residential RSA-5
zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that there are unique physical
conditions or circumstances
that would prevent the property from being used in
performance with the zoning code.
Planning Commission recommends that the board grant
through perseverance for two-family household living. Thank you. MI 2024-002-007, 1725 North
27th Street. I vote yes with provisos. No household living in basement, trash stored indoors.
John, my vote is yes with provisos. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Hi, Owen. My vote is yes with provisos.
Tanetta Graham. My vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell. My vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shahid. My vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, everyone.
All right. Number eight, MI 2024-002-277-1309 Palthorpe Street.
um this is a pro se um
we do not have an RCO letter at this point
but there was a meeting held with South Kent community on July 24th and they requested another
meeting 823.
Are you the owner?
I am the owner. I'm John Williams.
John, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
It's John, J-O-H-N, Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-N-S.
Where are firms tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
our vice chair has a few questions for you sir sure good afternoon 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 thank you please proceed and share your screen to share my screen
I'm sorry here. Forgive me. The sharing screen is a drop-down menu.
It's the green button on the bottom of your screen.
the screen button on the bottom of my screen share i got it yeah thank you just click on
your documents and make sure they're open okay can you see my screen no no i think you gotta
click the documents then hit share okay how about now we good we see we see okay great
Thank you for your patience.
I have, this is my original submission to LNI.
I'm looking for an accessory parking space next to my residence.
I received a refusal because there wasn't enough space in a side yard.
I received a refusal because there wasn't enough space.
It's a RSA 5 zoning, and I'm required to have a five foot setback and then eight feet, six inches for a space.
Currently, the space that I have there is 13 feet, three inches and five, three and five eighths inches.
So I am two and three eighths inches shy of that.
And that's my hardship.
I have received my refusal and made an application for my appeal, the project information form.
I have lived in this home since 2009.
It was originally three separate lots with a fourth side yard.
I underwent an initial consolidation of the three built-out lots, and in a recent renovation,
consolidated that side yard to the property. So here is my deed of consolidation.
It shows 1309, which is really three lots, and then 1315 coming together as one.
My ask for this variance is that, well, I'm reducing the density in the neighborhood by consolidating these lots.
So that side lot is no longer buildable.
I'm removing a car off of the street, so reducing the pressure of parking.
And my Pailthorpe is a relatively narrow street that I'll be able to show some photos of.
where you can see in this photo, there was parking on both sides of the street.
It has been relegated, and there's parking only on the west side of the street, which is opposite my property.
So I wouldn't be taking a spot away with a curb cut.
A study of the street's approval, my RCO letter, and then a meeting summary.
And this came in maybe today to you all, but there was a vote, six votes, yes, and Marco's letter here, the South Kensington Community Partners letter.
So the idea here is that we're looking for some relief for parking.
It's a nominal amount of space, and I hope that by reducing the density in the neighborhood, you know, it might be considered.
uh we do not have a copy of your uh of the letter right am i right hillary we don't have that
letter this letter here yeah hillary am i right um hold on let me just double check this on that
this should have come in about midday today i made an inquiry checking to make sure things were here
um let me see sorry give me just one minute sure um no we don't we don't have record
receiving it especially if it came midday today it might not have been
processed and seen by us understood well it looks like this they're in favor
sir are they in favor of your project they are in favor it's a it's one of support um the the
meeting that had six votes six yeses zero no's okay um yeah okay all right all right questions
from the board did uh streets the streets look at this or does street have to look at this
Streets did look at this and gave approval here.
Do you have residential parking permits in this area?
We do.
You do?
There are not residential parking permits for this block of Palethorpe Street, but surrounding it is permitted parking.
And I see that the block is super narrow. So I know there's been a, and you may or may not know this, but a move to try to ticket cars that are parking on the sidewalk. So this seems like a sidewalk parking in there. So what do you feel about the impact? You know, how would you, how would this project impact that, in your opinion?
I'm not planning on parking on the sidewalk. The PPA has ticketed and behavior has changed.
People aren't parking on the sidewalks any longer. It is a narrow street, but there is enough room
for most vehicles to pass with some care down the street. People are parking on the west side of the street.
down the street people are parking on the west side of the street um so my my house is on the
east side a curb cut would not remove an existing parking spot from palethorpe street there are a
number of curb cuts that exist on the street already that was my last question thank you
quick quick thing can you go back to the um the uh plan that shows the uh
driving yes and now is that the width of the street these the two lines that you have
i believe that is the width of the street yes then how does one how does one park on the other
side of the street if you literally have to be in the parking the parking lane to get into your
space and to so if someone if people just parked straight across from you you'd never be able to
get out of your space it looks like i think you would be able to get out of the space um it's not
it's not for a large vehicle by all means i mean it's not you know city living um but i do think
that you can get out of the space there are existing curb cuts on the east side of the street
so this isn't the only example where somebody would face that scenario i just it's if if you
just back to with with board member graham talked about people are parking just from the images you
got people parking on the street you literally have to be what would be close to parking you
know the parking area on the street to get into your parking spot it is tight so i'm just saying
if people park on the street along here and that's the width of a car can't form you can't get in
get in and out of your parking spots that's all i'm saying and i see streets approved it but
as street aware of the conditions that occur on the street can you see these photos here
we can you can so i wanted to present a more recent if i can do this
i can't seem to open that
hmm um could you bear with me one second
I'm hoping, well, this is what it does look like now.
So cars are on the left side of the street.
It is narrow, but I believe it would be possible to make that turn.
Not based on the plan you showed, but okay.
Maybe it's not to scale and I could be wrong.
The plan that you presented shows that in order to get into your parking space, you literally would be where these cars are on the left.
You'd need that space to get into your parking space and to get out.
That's what your plan shows.
I'm just telling you.
I understand.
Maybe I misspoke, and it's not to scale.
I didn't draw it.
Judy Robinson of Continuum did.
And I think it's representative.
I don't know how proportionally accurate that width is.
This is all measured.
I don't see dims here.
As a scale on the joint, we have to rely on the scale.
Understood.
I'm just saying, that's a concern.
If people are parked across from you, you'll never be, based on this plan and the required turning radius, you'll never be able to get out of your parking space.
If people aren't parked across the street, you would be able to.
Gotcha.
And is there other driveways on your side of the street?
There are.
If you look down here, there are a number of gates, and there are multiple driveways.
All of these homes, this was a development 25 years ago or something, and each of those homes has a driveway.
There's maybe five or six of them continuing down the street.
So each of them has a driveway, and they all face similar situations.
This one happens to be directly across from another driveway.
But that's an exception going down the street.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Mr. Chair, I would just ask that the letter from the RCO be forwarded to the board, just in case we do not receive it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone with the first name.
Okay, they lowered their hands here.
okay they lowered their hands here as of now there are no hands up chair
As of now, there are no hands up, Chair.
Questions or comments from planning?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There are no unique physical circumstances that would prevent the property from being used in performance of the zoning code.
The layout of this block and its curbside parking pattern creates a potential hazard condition.
from ingress and egress in the proposed parking space therefore the city planning commission
recommends that the board deny the requested grants for surface accessory parking
my 2024 002 277 1309 pal therp street i vote no michael johns my vote is not
sir o'gaston my vote is no
vanetta graham my vote is no
thio and my vote is no
james snell my vote is no
ms mel shaheed my vote is no
thank you sir
number 10 mi2024-002-290-1211-west-cumberland
zen jin is the attorney
there's also a letter of support from the 37th ward rco
Xen Jin is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good evening.
Hi, Counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, my name is Xen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N,
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 1838
Philadelphia PA 19103
here on behalf of the applicant
M-E-I-E-T-O-L-L-C
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon,
counsel. Do you agree 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 yes thank you council
please proceed and share your screen thank you i'm going to share with the board what was previously
submitted as our exhibits can everyone see my exhibit on the on their screen we can sir yes
thank you so we submitted the refusal uh the support letter from 37th ward executive democratic
committee who we met with, photos, plans, tax clearance, and related documentation.
This application is in an RM1 district. It's a new construction to be used as a three-family
dwelling. There are various dimensional standard variances being sought before the board,
and pretty much all except for the last, which is based on lot size, the variances we seek
seek are partially caused by the unique physical features of this property.
I'm going to move to the photos to better show what we're talking about. So this is
Cumberland Street with an industrial site across that is currently unused. We are the lot that is
essentially right near the corner of this street. The unique circumstance of these lots is that,
as you can see from the photos, this is a very elevated site. And as a result, for us to put
the building in, in order to keep the retaining wall, the property essentially has to be pushed
back a little bit, three feet or so, according to the plan, the site plan, which I'll show in a
minute. And that is where that three foot in the back was removed as part of design. This is
actually basically the same depth as the existing buildings that are already there. We kind of,
my client tried to follow what is on the block with regard to the depth, and therefore, when we
presented with the community, there was absolutely no opposition to that particular aspect. The use
itself, we're proposing at the three-family dwelling, again, based on the size of the units
and the rentals in the area, this was the most sensible proposal with the size of the units being
about anywhere from six to 800 square feet, and then a first floor unit that would be larger.
Again, the community RCO met with us and looked at the proposal, and again, majority of the
attendees, including the committee, voted in favor of our proposal. The site itself, as you can see,
there's a where the building let me try to zoom in so it's clear
where the building zone starts
where the building zone starts there's a little bit of a setback again already because of the
the way the walkway is and then the retaining area and the and the elevation of the building
and as a result we have a six foot rear yard there is a open space on the side even though
the coverage is, again, greater than the 75%. There is open space. And also, this one has a
side alleyway that also leads to the front, allowing trash to be stored in the back and
brought to the front for all units that would be in the property. So essentially, we're asking the
board's favorable review of, let me, I'm sorry, let me move to the actual layout. So there's three
units that are basically one per floor. First floor has a unit that also have access to the
basement. The second floor is its own individual unit. And then the third floor basically is a
reflective of the second floor in design and size. But the third floor has a little bit of
roof deck space for their outdoor space. We kept it very small to make sure that it does not impact
any neighbors, both in the front. Well, there are no neighbors in the front, but would not be seen
from the street and certainly also would not be seen mostly from the back of the property.
The building next door will be perpendicular to us. They'll be looking at our party wall.
So from that standpoint, there are no windows that they would be looking at,
and therefore there are no real visual issues with that building either. So as a result of the
support from the RCO. And based on the circumstances with the lot, we would ask for
a favorable review of this request with all variances. Again, for the use variance itself,
we believe that it is not going to negatively impact the community with regard to the lot size,
partly because the entire block across the street cannot be developed residentially.
And that lot, this particular area, has been underdeveloped for quite some time. So the community also gave us feedback that they like the idea of a triplex at this location. They do not feel that it would be a greater impact than what would normally be expected.
And again, this is an RM1 district surrounded by RM1 buildings and then bordered across the street by an industrial site that is unused.
I'm happy to try to answer any questions or redirect to any portion of our exhibit for the board's review.
Could you bring on your client?
Have your testimony adopted?
Absolutely.
Mr. Shagai Bader, could you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
Chagai Bader, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Bader?
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Chagai Bader, C-H-A-G-A-I, my last name Bader, B-A-D-E-R.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Bader, did you see my presentation on the screen and hear my representation to the zoning board?
Can you verify to the board that what I have spoken is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Counsel, before I give it to the board, I know the other side is Duschel.
Are there multiple units on that side where you are?
It's all RM1.
All RM1.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
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 hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Board with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
By right at this location, the appellant could construct a two-unit code-compliant residential building,
but has applied for three units in a building oversized for the context of the neighborhood,
almost exclusively of code-compliant single-family residences.
There is no unique physical condition that would prevent this property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variances
for maximum occupied area, rear yard area, rear yard depth, and minimum lot per unit.
minimum lot per unit um mi 2024 002 290 12 11 west cumberland street i vote yes
google johns my vote is yes cheryl guest and my vote is yes
sanetta grant my vote is no tie and win my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you thank you thank you council all right
number three mi 2023 005047 209 west chest on hill avenue adam labor is the attorney for the
The owner, David Feynman, represents the protestants.
Adam Laver is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Mr. Laver, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly. Adam Laver, L-A-B as in Victor, E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Feynman I see him in the virtual audience at this time yes but I do yes
thank you Jason I do I don't see Sean Rex oh oh there we go yeah so he's there
sorry about that anyway mr feyman
i'm sorry um i think we're back on yeah okay as david feyman we represent the protestants in this
matter mr hold on mr feyman just for the record could you spell your name for the sonographer
F-I-N-E-M-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding from the letters that we've received from Ms. Emerson is that you were going to hold this hearing for the sole purpose of hearing from some of the virtual audience.
And the second part was that we did write a letter to you indicating that we thought that there were deficiencies in the posting.
Our people had saw the postings go up, I believe, August 11th or so.
and but it's clear and Mr. Laver then responded by saying that he had gotten stamped emails
from August 6th indicating that notices had gone up but it's clear from those but what Mr. Laver
sent us and from pictures that we've taken that those notices were just white pieces of paper
They were not in the designated orange that you've indicated has to be up.
I was going to make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not trying to, I'm trying to be, move this matter along.
I know that it's late today and you've been patient hearing it so far.
My suggestion was that if you're going to hear from people in the virtual audience, you go forward and hear from those people today, that you then continue the matter for the applicant to post the appropriate signs.
And the reason I say that, this is somewhat of a cause to leaven.
Why don't we do this?
Why don't we do this?
Hillary, why don't you respond about the signs for us?
so there is not a requirement since the applicants have to print their own signs that they
be on orange paper um so that has that has been the case since hearings went virtual because
it was impossible to require people to obtain orange paper to print them
so it is okay for them to be printed on white paper so that is not a violation of the code
provision okay so so mr feyman here here's what we're going to do we're going to we're going to
hear from the virtual audience today uh we're obviously going to have to have another hearing
after that i mean so but we're going to get started and see how many of these we can get in today okay
i think that that's more than fair mr chairman all right mr laver do you understand that too
Mr. Chairman, my understanding from Ms. Emerson's very clear email to all counsel in this matter is that we would proceed first today with the members of the public, and then the board would make a determination regarding the amount of time remaining.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding from Ms. Emerson's
So it may be possible that we finish today, but we shall see.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Richard Snowden. Okay, we had Richard Snowden. We have Anne McNiff. Anne McNiff, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good evening. Could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes. Hello. My name is Ann McNiff, A-N-N-E. Last name is M-C-N-I-F-F.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am not. I'm the executive director of the coordinating RCO.
All right. Please proceed. Thank you very much.
You're welcome. I'd like to read a brief statement from the Chestnut Hill Community Association.
Good evening. My name is Anne McNiff. I am the Executive Director of the Chestnut Hill Community Association, the Coordinating RCO for Chestnut Hill.
After a series of public meetings involving the applicant, near neighbors, community members, and our own group of planning and design professionals,
the Chestnut Hill Community Association voted to support the applicant's request for variances for 209 West Chestnut Hill Avenue, a.k.a. Greylock.
We believe approval of these variances will accomplish several important objectives that will benefit the entire Chestnut Hill community.
Most importantly, it will return a unique and historically significant building to an economically and socially productive use in a matter that accentuates the building's historic architecture and is within the parameters of the building's conservation easement.
This is not an easy task. After more than 20 years without an occupant due to the confines created by the easements on this property, Greylock has experienced significant physical deterioration and will be costly to restore.
regarding the proposed new buildings it is the majority opinion of the chca's zoning committee
that the buildings are appropriately located on the site to minimize visibility from the street
and surrounding private and public properties are in an appropriate residential density
excuse me are of an appropriate residential density use materials and design themes that
complement the existing historical structures, preserve view corridors in and out of nearby
public trails within the nearby Wissahickon Valley Park, and contribute to the creation
of a desirable residential community. Second, the applicant's proposal preserves almost all
of the 6.5-acre open space area between Greylock and the West Chestnut Hill Avenue, and does so
with a landscaping treatment that is consistent with the existing conservation easement and the
property's historical appearance. This rule requires substantial expenditures to achieve
on-site compliance with current best practice sewage disposal, stormwater management,
and vegetation and woodland practices. Third, at the request of the community, the applicant
conducted a traffic study to determine the effects of the additional residential units
on traffic volumes on West Chestnut Hill Avenue. The study found no significant impacts. In a
related vein, as the project progresses, the applicant has agreed, in the form of a letter
of intent, to consult further with the CHCA and the other Chestnut Hill RCOs about additional
building design details. In sum, we believe the proposed project will generate significant
benefits for the Chestnut Hill community and will do so in a manner consistent with the community's
existing residential and environmental character. We believe it provides a solid solution that will
give new life to a critically important property and therefore strongly urge the ZBA to approve
the proposed variances. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions from either attorney?
I do. Yeah, just a few. One of the things that you said
was that this was the majority opinion is that correct that is correct of the zoning committees
was that this was the majority opinion. Is that correct?
yes and that meant that there were some people who felt differently and voted against this proposal
isn't that correct that would be correct and in fact the before this proposal came before
Before the CHA board, it was heard first by two committees.
Isn't that correct?
That is correct.
And one of those committees, actually, there was a tie vote, if I'm not incorrect.
Is that right?
I believe so.
I would have to look at minutes.
It's been quite a while.
Right.
So there was, I think, if I'm not incorrect, there were about five people feeling that they should go forward and about five people feeling it shouldn't go forward.
Do you think that those numbers are approximately correct?
I really couldn't say without looking at the minutes, the exact numbers.
I wouldn't want to misspeak.
But there was a tie.
I don't recall how many on each side.
There was a tie vote.
So that there were a fair amount of people. And do you remember what the vote was of the community association? Because I remember that's a pretty big group, isn't it?
It is. And I actually pulled up the letter. The CXA board was 10 to support and five in opposition.
OK, thank you. I have no other questions.
Mr. Labor.
Ms. McNiff's testimony speaks for itself. Thank you, Ms. McNiff.
Thank you, Mr. McNiff. We appreciate it. Other people in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Mason Barnett. Mason Barnett, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. My name is Mason Barnett, M-A-S-O-N-B-A-R-N-E-T-T.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I affirm that. Are you a, are you a neighbor? I live just up the street at 11 West Chestnut Hill
Avenue. Thank you. Please proceed. I would like to wholeheartedly support the statement from
Ms. McNiff of the Chestnut Hill Community Association. I find it very distressing
that there are neighbors who continue to persist in opposing this wonderful project.
We have, for the first time in 20 years, a developer who has not only the capacity to
develop the land, but also is interested in doing so in a sustainable manner.
He has gone out of his way to incorporate community input into his proposal. That's
not always the case in these situations. He has also hired Viridian Landscape Studio.
Viridian is a local landscape architectural firm that is known for its sustainable designs.
They have created a land use plan that not only protects the Wissahickon,
but creates a beautiful park-like meadowscape in the large part of the property fronting on West
chestnut hill avenue and i think a part if we can get beyond um the argument made by the
opposition um we will see that we will have a well cared for property with new buildings that
are scarcely visible from west chestnut hill avenue and have and are relatively unobtrusive
from the park's lavender trail i personally use that trail i know that when you're entering the
park, you are looking downhill into the valley. You're not craning your neck up to the left to
see any potential buildings there. If you're coming out of the park, you are almost at the
exit and you are transitioning again into the neighborhood. Besides that, we will have new
residents in the community. Philadelphia is shrinking as a city. We need to encourage people
to live here, to work here. And people living on this beautiful property will contribute their
time, talent, and retail dollars. And finally, we will preserve a landmark historic property.
When I think about the size of this property, for where it is, it's huge. And the scale of the
dwelling, it's simply no longer commensurate with current day living demands, even for rich people.
If it were, we would have had a single family come along and fix it up long before now. But no one wants to do that. And so I think that looking at the intent of the code is very important.
If it were, we would have had a single family come along and fix it up.
The intent of the zoning code is to protect the character of the community through density and other things.
And it seems to me that this plan, given the size of the space available, adequately, more than adequately, does that.
and i sincerely hope that you chairman bergson and other members of this board
will see fit to approve the variance requested thank you thank you either attorney have any
questions no thank you mr chairman i have one question ma'am i i wanted to make clear you live
at 11 west chestnut hill avenue was that correct that is correct and we just looked at a map here
would would you agree with me that it's you're approximately i don't know a mile maybe a little
bit less than a mile away from that unit from the from the building from graylock um at most uh
tenths to two tenths of a mile not it takes me ten five to ten minutes to walk down there
according to maps if i told you you were a quarter mile away would you agree with me
i really can't tell you that i'm sorry it's close it's i go past it all the time it's it's i i
understand a couple follow-up questions if i may uh chairman bergman ms barnett thank you very much
for being with us today you just mentioned that you go by the property regularly uh could you
please uh speak to uh how how often you think you go by is it on foot is it driving uh give us a
little flavor? I would say I walk frequently in the park. So I either walk down the street and
enter the park just beyond the property, or I enter through the entrance off of Krefeld Street,
which is on the other side. But I frequently just walk down and pass this property, and I drive by
any number of times um a week and currently what do you observe uh regarding the the condition of
of the premises um the property gets um mowed on an infrequent basis um and it but it is clearly
abandoned it's vacant and it's it's it's sad because it doesn't it doesn't look the way it
could. Thank you, Ms. Barnett. Thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony. First of all,
another hand, please. Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Charles Richardson, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Mr. Richardson, you've already been sworn. Just state your name and
begin your testimony. Certainly, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson,
R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass,
room 508 City Hall. The councilwoman is supporting the applicant and also the RCO in asking that you
grant the variance. Thank you very much. Any questions for either attorney? No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson. No, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Next hand, please.
Chair, we have Celeste Hardister. Celeste Hardister, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell your name for the court sonographer?
Good afternoon. I'm Celeste Hardister, C-E-L-E-S-T-E-H-A-R-D-E-S-T-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Are you a neighbor?
no i am the development review coordinator for the chestnut hill community association and i
have some further comments from the association okay please proceed i know there are several
attendees today from our rco committees who are concerned about the outcome of this important
property the chca board came to its decision based on all of the factors identified in our
letter of support and in the statement made today importantly it made its decision in
consideration of the opinions voiced by people who attended our public meetings and people who wrote
to us. To quote from our letter to the ZBA, most neighbor input was directed to discussion of
easements which could not be addressed at our meetings. Some expressed dislike of the plans
Some expressed dislike of the plans for aesthetic reasons.
for aesthetic reasons, some expressed
Some expressed concern about density and not being able to directly view the front of the mansion from the Lavender Trail and views of the new buildings from the Lavender Trail.
The Krefeld School expressed concern about the impact of construction on their students, the impact of added traffic, and concerns that residents of Greylock's twin houses will complain about noise from the school.
the chca board did not find these concerns to be valid zoning considerations a few statements of
support were made in writing and at our meetings some suggested that people who are not opposed
were not at our meetings but that they have spoken to each other and are in support and it
came to our attention that due to the high emotions around this project some neighbors may not be
comfortable showing their support publicly. In addition to letters of support that were
directed to Chairman Bergman, and that I therefore will not quote, I will quote from two letters
sent to the CHCA board during our review process. The first states, we must be realistic about the
situation in our city and in Chestnut Hill as it now exists. Philadelphia urgently needs more
housing and after years of deterioration at this property, we can't ignore the possibility that
continued inaction at 209 west chestnut hill avenue will lead to the kind of irreversible
damage that only demolition will remedy the second letter states i regularly walk by that site and
understand that the current proposal will bring back beautiful landscaping to enhance the view
of the graylock mansion and carriage house which have sat vacant for too long i am writing to
support the proposed improvements to this property which will further the residential vitality of our
neighborhood while preserving a beloved landmark in our community to sum up the decision of the
chca board vice president matt rutt made the statement that community is made up of people
and this property has sat vacant for years this plan would bring people back to this property
people to support and volunteer in the community shop and dine participate in our clubs schools
and houses of worship and restore vitality to this corner of Chestnut Hill. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions for either attorney?
Yeah, I just have maybe one or two questions. There were numerous letters, am I correct,
that came to the association that felt that this development was inappropriate. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And they were not anonymous, those letters, were they?
I don't recall whether any were anonymous or not.
But most of those...
Many certainly were not.
Right.
Many of them, they listed their names.
They told you where they lived.
They told you they lived very close to this development.
Isn't that correct?
Well, what is correct is that neighbors are feeling endangered by how controversial this is. So people who are supporting it are feeling that there will be some kind of backfire if indeed they make themselves known. So that's the level of discomfort regarding the situation.
However, there are numerous people who have exercised the right of free speech to tell you that they are opposed to this development. Isn't that correct?
I have nothing further.
Mr. Chairman, yes, just a couple of questions. Good afternoon, Ms. Hardester. Thank you for being here.
Um, Mr. Feynman, uh, referenced numerous letters. This has been a long process, uh, that, uh, your coordinating RCO has been reviewing this matter, correct?
Is it accurate to state that perhaps several or many of these letters that were referenced were received early on in the process prior to the development team presenting refined proposals that led to the presentation before the zoning board at this current moment?
In my recollection, the majority of the letters that we received were very early in the process.
thank you and had not yet uh the the committees had not had a chance to really review the project
and the developer had not had a chance to respond and and several of these letters had already
issued their opinion and in fact significant uh refinements to the proposal were made through this
very uh detailed uh intensive process correct that is correct uh earlier you may have heard
Earlier, you may have heard Mr. Feynman cast doubt on the support position of the coordinating RCO. He asked some questions concerning the votes of the committee's Chestnut Hill Civic Association has a very in-depth process, as we all know, in the practice.
Mr. Feynman cast
Ms. McNiff was asked some questions about that.
I believe that you may keep the records of the coordinating RCO.
Are you able to share so that there's no doubt with the chairman and members of the zoning board,
the votes of the individual committees, which led to the full board vote in support?
If you give me a few minutes, I can do that.
my recollection is that the tie vote was broken by the chair the one time there was a tie vote
and that led to a six to five vote correct uh led to a support yes
thank you uh no need to check further thank you very much for making the time to be here
thank you for coming again can i just can i just clear up one thing the you you you received letters
early on, Mr. Laver has kind of indicated that was before there was a change in the development
plan. That's what Mr. Laver indicated to you. And you said you did receive those letters early on,
correct? Correct. You don't know that those people changed their mind, do you?
How would I know that? You don't know that.
All I know is that they had made up their mind before they had it. Right. And you don't know
if they changed their mind after there were a change in the plans isn't that correct you just
don't know i do not know thank you thank you however one last one last question i'm sorry mr
chairman however ms hardester what you do know is that the plans have changed and been refined
since those early letters were received right yes and more than once thank you
uh jason how many more hands do you have chair we have two more heads up okay next hand please
we have a tyler britain tyler britain please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
hi i could you please state your could you please state your name and spell for the court
stenographer. My name is Tyler Britton, T-Y-L-E-R-B-R-I-T-T-E-N. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Are you a neighbor? I'm on the other
side of Chestnut Hill, so I'm a Chestnut Hill resident, but not a near neighbor. Are you in
favor of this project or against? In favor. Okay. Can you add anything to what you've already heard?
uh nope i was just going to keep that brief and just say um i've also sent a letter in support
as well um and a number of uh nearby neighbors to me have uh have have voiced similar opinions
thank you very much mr britton either lawyer do you have any comments or questions thank you
no i i have no comments personally some distance away next hand please
Chair, we have Kimberly Dukes.
Kimberly Dukes, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Ms. Dukes, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Can you hear me?
I most certainly can.
D-U-K-E-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
All right.
Are you for or against the project?
against okay would you give us your reason why i am one of the near neighbors that abut the park
my husband and i own five acres it is a tremendous responsibility to keep up this
piece of chestnut hill that's a national historic district um i don't know if i can articulate
all the things that i need to i have been involved in this for a year just trying to
alert neighbors to what's going on okay i think lots of things going on in philadelphia that
you know are being fought against this is a very very rural area that has been neglected
significantly abashedly by Lavi and his team if you anyone wants to drive by they can see how
neglected it is and it just honestly Mr. Bergman
And it just, honestly, Mr. Bergman, it is not something that it should just be popically brushed.
I mean, it's been, this has been continued three times.
This is a serious issue.
Whether or not people come forward, I understand that that's important.
But this is an ugly development against easements that protect it from development.
And it's an assault to people like me who abut the park and have been spending, you know, unbelievable amounts of money, time, energy, just preserving this part of Chestnut Hill.
And I'm not doing it out of spite.
I'm doing it because I love this area.
And I just don't think it's the right thing to do. Not at this time, not this project. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Either attorney.
Yes, I have a couple of questions, please, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dukes, thank you for joining us today. I think I missed your address. Could you please state your address for the record?
Ms. Dukes, can you raise your virtual hand?
Mr. Chair, the only hand is. Okay. They've been allowed to speak, sir.
Hello?
Ms. Dukes?
Mr. Laver has a few questions.
I heard. So my address is 9002-9004 Krefeld Street. It is a five-acre property with a 25,000-square-foot home and carriage house.
The Greylock property is actually, I look out my window and I can see it from my kitchen window, and it is actually smaller than my property.
Mr. Chairman, may I please screen share for a moment?
You can.
Thank you.
Up on the screen is a map from the city system that shows the subject property where my cursor is and through the lavender trail woods, Ms. Duke's property.
At the closest distance, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, it is six hundred seventy seven feet away.
We just like that to be taken into consideration for the record.
No further questions. And I'd like to be considered that the other Tyler Britton and the first woman who spoke are certainly further than that.
This is out of order. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Feynman, do you have any questions, Mr. Feynman?
I'm just curious, you know, 677 feet. You can see the property, can't you? You can see the
Greylock property from your property, can't you? You can see it, can't you, Ms. Duke?
Ms. Duke, please unmute yourself. I can see it from my kitchen window. There is nothing but
woods in between. There is no buildings in between. And one of the things, I mean, I'm going
to show some pictures later to the board but one of the one of the things is that why don't you tell
us what how the property is being kept at this point in time we've heard testimony from the
developer about how he's keeping the property up is the property being kept up
absolutely not i mean not according to the rest of the neighbors who abut the park
all of us certainly take better care of our property than graylock is being taken care of
i could say that for sure i have no other questions thank you next hand jason
here we have david dannenberg david dannenberg please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr chairman um mr dannenberg has given me a statement that it might be easier if i read
in his statement rather than him doing it and I have I'm prepared to do that if that's okay with
the board then he can accept that that that's that's okay but I would give Mr. Labor a chance
to ask a question to sure okay okay a question Mr. Chairman I thought from Mr. Feynman's uh
emails that Mr. Donenberg is one of Mr. Feynman's two witnesses to complete his case is this going
to be it can either be one of the things i can either do it now or i can do it later that's all
i can either do it now or i can do it later that's all why why don't we do why don't we do
why don't we do
when you get a chance to do your case we'll bring them on let me see who else is in the audience
okay okay that's fine whatever you want else i understand mr jones kimberly jones please
unmute yourself and wait for the chair she's the closest neighbor since the closest neighbor
with physical address
or the closest neighbor.
Yes. Can you hear me?
Yeah. Hi, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
Kimberly Jones.
K-I-M-B-E-R-L-Y
J-O-N-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Ms. Jones, are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
Are you for this project or against?
My husband and I are generally for this project. Yes, sir.
You're for the project.
Is there anything different you can offer than what we've already heard from the prior testimony?
Yes, sir. I think so.
Please tell us.
I live at 203 West Chesterville Avenue.
I am directly next to the property.
Only the property that's closer than me directly would be the school behind us.
um and we are directly affected on a regular basis by everything that happens
at Greylock um the disarray and otherwise um we have been hesitant to comment we've recused
ourselves from most of the community things because the tension is so great um but I just
wanted to speak out because I don't um want it to seem like we don't care because we haven't
been public it's just it's stressful to be honest with you um the backlash and it just it's
uncomfortable and often feels unnecessary but um we've everything about the project isn't perfect
but generally speaking we think that it would be good for our neighborhood and as people who
I literally look out my bedroom window and every other window on that side of my house at the
property um and the land and we've lived here for 17 years and it's it's only gotten worse um
i don't approve of the condition that has been kept over the years um but i don't want to stop
the work that they're trying to do there because i think that it's good it's not perfect but um
i think it would be good for us um and i know there's lots of people who don't agree but
but thank you very much for your testimony either attorney you have a question yes i do
miss jones thank you thank you very much for for coming here and one of the things that you said
was that the project probably is not perfect no project is perfect but would you be more in favor
or less in favor of the project if it had less density in other words if there were less less
buildings rather than more buildings or less buildings than there are today would
you be more in favor of it then um that's a little bit tricky to me um because I've
heard all the arguments about that um I don't I don't have an opinion on that okay fine
thank you mr laver thank you miss jones for uh being here under difficult circumstances no
questions thank you miss jones anyone else in the audience chair if i may g craig shelter
please unmute yourself and wait who's adam did you say something then mr chairman uh i certainly
would like mr shelter to be able to proceed i just wanted to let the board know that uh richard
Snowden is trying to raise his hand as well. Thank you. Okay. Sir, please go on. State your
name and spell for the court stenographer. My name is Craig Shelter. My last name is spelled S-C-H-E-L-T-E-R.
You swear a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Are you a neighbor, sir?
uh not any longer i was originally i owned the house which was recently purchased by
the kreefeld school uh it was the gatehouse to the original um locker mansion uh i lived there
okay hold on so let me let me let me tell you my question um we've had a lot of testimony are you
in favor of this project or against the project i'm in favor of this project is there anything
you can offer that hasn't already been said?
I could offer a few things. One is, there was a question about whether anybody has changed
their mind during the process. I, for one, know that
I, for one, know that dear friends of mine who live right across the street from this project at 203 Chestnut Hill Avenue have no objection to this project.
dear friends of mine who live
They were originally not in favor of it, but after seeing the changes in the plan and the quality of the design that went into it, they changed their opinion of that project.
That's number one.
Number two, I would make a point that the real questions here come with regard to what the city's role would be in the zoning code versus a private easement that exists on the property.
And I say this in the context of my experience in Philadelphia.
I spent 15 years at the City Planning Commission, including three years as director.
During which time, the Historic Preservation Ordinance created the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, which subsequently became the Preservation Alliance.
And I was the first chair of that corporation of the easement committee.
And one of the things about the easement committee was the easements were always more restrictive than what the zoning would allow.
And there were also easements that were given in good faith by both parties where conditions changed that required them to be changed.
And I think that's the fundamental issue here.
But there's nothing in the Philadelphia Code that the developer hasn't met from a zoning point of view, density, traffic, access, aesthetics, landscaping,
that in any way would be anathema to something that would be considered within the zoning code.
And the process with easements can move on at a later stage, but I think it's critical here, given the need for housing and the need to get the site developed, that the zoning variances could be granted so this can move ahead.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there any, either attorney have a question?
Mr. Shelter, yes, I do. I have a few questions. Mr. Shelter, we've known each other for many, many years. Is that correct?
yes i'm looking at miss gaston all of us have practiced when you were in the uh when you were
on the planning commission and had to deal with you in all kinds of ways during that period of
time and we thank you for your service to the city of philadelphia when you talked about the easements
those easements we've made an entirely different argument to the board that the board is going to
have to consider and i'm not going to go through that again at this time but those events at some
point in time are going to have to be negotiated by and between the party that granted the
easements to the property isn't that correct and the developer objection this is irrelevant the
board already reviewed this matter i've heard him talk about these easements you know let's let's
just put it on the record i mean he came before you almost as an expert witness tried to make
himself an expert that's not so stop what stop representing my clients said that
i'm just asking a question yeah well nobody told you to stop representing your client
Well, no, no, I thought that Mr. Labor made a comment.
No, I think he said that's not so is what I think he said.
Right. Well, I'm just asking that at some point in time later, there's going to have to be a negotiation between the party that granted the easements and the developer.
Isn't that correct?
Isn't that correct, Mr. Shelter?
I think that is correct.
OK, that's all I have.
All right. Thank you. Mr. Lavery, do you have any questions?
Yes. Mr. Shelter, I guess I should say good evening at this point.
Just a clarificatory question.
You had mentioned near neighbors who had become supportive of the project.
Are you referring to Carolyn and John Friedman at 202 West Chestnut Hill Avenue?
Yes, I am. I think their letter was they had no objection.
thank you for clarifying mr chairman let me let me just indicate that um whatever rules of evidence
this board you might utilize that is the ultimate in hearsay if these people want to come forward
in hearsay if these people want to come forward and and come before this board i think that that's
and and come before this board
i i i i would i would say when when mr shelter started to talk spoke about they i didn't hear
you say anything you never you never stopped them i mean am i correct well okay when mr labor says
that he spoke to them i mean that i mean i think he originally said that i i they told me what
they told. Let me make this easier for let me just make this easier. A letter is in the record
from the Freedmen's. And I wanted to clarify the statement. So the letter speaks for itself.
All right. It's Mr. Snowden there. Excuse me. Can I say one more thing? I did speak with
Mr. Friedman. Why don't we do this? I agree with your testimony, but I but I but I think
you've testified and unless the attorneys have another question we should move on but we do
appreciate your testimony mr snowden please unmute yourself and wait for the chair thank you
i'm mr snowden could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes richard snowden s-n-o-w-d-e-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. Mr. Snowden, are you a neighbor? I live in Chestnut Hill. I am not
a near neighbor, but I am president of one of the principal RCOs in the community. Please proceed,
sir. Thank you, Chairman. I should say this. Are you in favor of the project or against? I am in
favor of the project. And Mr. Snowden, could you let us know what you know about this that's
different than what we've already heard? Yes, it has to do with the Business Improvement District,
which I represent, and also a number of other things. Let's proceed.
First, as the president of the Chestnut Hill Business Improvement District, I represent 1,200
businesses and property owners in Chestnut Hill because hundreds of thousands of visitors come
to our community annually to enjoy our historic sites of which Greylock is a part. We view our
Historic District is our brand and the protection of it as essential to our economic success. This
is why our organization voted overwhelmingly, in fact unanimously, to support this project.
Second, I'm here as an historic preservation activist with 50 years experience in historic
preservation in Philadelphia, including as a founder and first chair of the Board of the
Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. For 25 years, I have worked continuously to
shepherd the Greylock property to an adaptive reuse that respected its great historic qualities.
In 2000, leading a group of neighbors, we tried to buy the property in order to preserve it.
And when that failed, I negotiated the easements to which the project is subject today.
For the first time since then, we finally have a project before us that is able to fulfill the
spirit of those easements, which I helped write and to make sure that the property is productively
put in service. As a former board member of the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, I was privy to the
details of the numerous failed attempts to save Greylock. In Mr. Shankman's proposal, we are
fortunate to have a project that is financially viable and respects Chestnut Hill's historic
district and community at large. Third, I'm here as a business owner with extensive knowledge as
to how to plan and execute projects exactly like Greylock. Since 1981, my company Bowman Properties
has undertaken historic preservation work on over a hundred Chestnut Hill buildings
of Greylock's vintage and older, many of equal complexity. We presently own and manage over a
historic buildings in the Chesson Hill Historic District. The project before us is a very difficult
proposition to execute properly, both financially and in terms of actual construction. Having
studied Mr. Shankman's project extensively, my 43 years of experience in this field tells me
that his team has the ability, knowledge, financial muscle, and good taste to give my community
a project in which we can take pride for many years to come.
Finally, the time has come for the Chestnut Hill community and the City of Philadelphia
to take a practical approach to Greylock.
For 25 years, this magnificent mansion has sat waiting for a savior.
Neighbors, community groups, the city, and many others have had countless opportunities
to do something different, and they have not.
At last, we have a project on the table that fulfills most, if not all, of the many laudable goals for the property brought forth by our preservation advocates.
by our preservation advocates. As the old saying goes, don't let perfection be the enemy of the
As the old saying goes, don't let...
good by letting Greylock face another 25 years of ruin. Please support the Schenkman proposal
for Greylock. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stoughton. Does either attorney have a question?
I just have a question. Thank you. I just have a couple. Mr. Stoughton, we know each other
well don't we i mean we know each other i know i know of you yes i do okay and when you talked
about you were part of the group that gave the easements could you tell the board well let me
ask it a different way would you agree with me that when you gave the easements to the then
owner of property that there was a benefit that the owner got as a result of the easements being
given? Well, first of all, I did not give the easements. When the neighbor group failed to
purchase the property back in 2000, a near neighbor on the other side of the property and I
went and met with the person who wanted it at auction. And we convinced him that it would be
a great idea for him to put the easements there. We negotiated the easements, and then with the
Chestnut Hill Conservancy, we wrote them. So I am intimately familiar with them.
And was there a financial benefit to the then owner of the property?
Well, interestingly, no, but not really.
Well, was there any tax benefit that they got?
he never took the uh tax benefit how do you know that how do you know he didn't take the tax
objection this is all before the current owner it's irrelevant the board has ruled on this issue
i i think i think we want to concentrate on where we are today right mr chairman what what has
happened is that there were easements that were granted and the person who got who gave up
their rights on the property and gave the easements to
the organization that granted them the easements
gets a benefit from it. And that benefit is then passed
down from generation to generation on the property.
That's all my point is, Mr. Chairman. And I just have one other question, Mr.
Snowden. Mr. Snowden, you own
a great deal of property in Chestnut Hill
So, including, am I correct, whether you operate or not, but retail property on Germantown Avenue, isn't that correct?
That's correct.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Laver.
No questions. Thank you, Mr. Snowden.
Mr. Snowden, thank you for your testimony.
When we started today, I think Hillary made it real clear we were going to go for an hour.
We've reached an hour.
So what we're going to do is we're going to have another hearing. At that hearing, we'll get to the point that Mr. Feynman can finish his case, and then we're going to finish up, okay?
Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Mr. Feynman has done an amazing job in prolonging this case. The initial application was filed 15 months ago.
So I understand and respect, Chairman Bergman, what you just said, but it's critical that we be very precise regarding exactly what will be heard at the resumption hearing that you just mentioned.
It seems like we've gotten through all of the public testimony, and I believe Mr. Feynman has two witnesses that he has identified.
Just so it's clear, I have in front of me a loose-leaf book.
in those least leaf book i have uh one two three four five statements that i would read and then
have other the witnesses uh agree with the testimony similar to what this board has done
over that's right and by then we'll we'll introduce and we'll give you pictures that
were taken on the property other than that that should be everything and I I would say unless
unless unless something comes to my attention but quite frankly I'm not trying to prolong anything
that I would did it in this fashion so that the board could hear it in a in a manner that was
We strenuously object, Mr. Chairman.
The council for the zoning board had clearly made arrangements for two witnesses to be heard.
had clearly uh made arrangements for two witnesses to be heard uh and now the the the the uh
parameters keep on changing so hold up hold up hold up i think i think i there were people who
wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute we were originally told there was going to be two witnesses
i think what he's just said he's going to read statements that he has from a total of five people
that'll be it thank you mr chairman and thank both of you um hillary do you have any comments
mr chairman i realized i was mute for a second one of the reasons i did this
was so they wouldn't prolong testimony from people in the virtual audience quite frankly
i understand i understand i understand hillary do you have any comments
um i just i just wanted to note that we'll also take the recommendation of the planning
commission at the next hearing that's right mr mr fineman you mentioned something about showing
pictures how much time would you anticipate that would take i imagine reading five statements into
the record shouldn't take more than maybe 10 15 minutes but how much time do you anticipate for
the pictures the pictures would take maybe five minutes maybe okay thank you we will be in touch
once we determine um when we can hold the final resumption hearing in this case look at our
calendar but this is this is helpful to know how much time that we need so that we know what we
can schedule it could we please state on the record the two witnesses that will testify so
we know that their names i don't think we need to do that but if you i don't know if the chairman
is going to be a request. It's not two.
It's five.
Just so we said,
just what he said, initially,
Adam, our information was he was going to have
two witnesses. I think what he said is,
look, I have five, but instead
of people coming in to testify, I
will read what they would have said.
And some of those people
would have testified today.
I'm trying to work
with the board to make it less
i understand i understand i understand so that's where we are and i think we have an understanding
how long it's going to take and we will do everything we can to finish this the next time
we get together thank you both thank you thank you for the board's consideration thank you thank
you for your patience mr mr chair this is hillary i just want to note if um if mr feiman i know he's
he's provided some names and emails before but if he could um just email all parties the names of
those five witnesses just for clarity um as to who's testifying that would be that would be
help i mean who's testifying who who he's reading statements on behalf of that would be helpful
thank you i will do that and and i would reserve for myself maybe five minutes to make some closing
argument mr chairman we understand um is there anyone in the virtual audience whose uh 330 case
has not been called i see no handshare um thanks everybody i think we got a lot accomplished today
appreciate everybody staying a little later and uh thank you all and and by the way enjoy some time
next week all right i think the phillies are getting killed tonight by the way but
good night good night everybody thank you good night everyone problem