involved in this case. So some of the exhibits were emailed five days in advance. Some of
them were emailed more recently. I do know that as of this morning, the complete exhibit
package was emailed. And yes, there was a meeting with the RCO and the letter of support
was one of the ones that was emailed five days in advance.
Okay. Well, then you may proceed. Start presenting your case, please.
Okay thank you. Excuse me this is Sharon if I can just clarify that I emailed after receiving
the initial exhibits asked for clarification on some things and the applicant provided it.
on some things and the applicant provided it. Thank you. So this is a use variance.
Thank you.
The owner is seeking to put in a Mexican restaurant in the property. The property has
remained vacant for at least the past year. It is in an area where there are numerous other
restaurants surrounding it. This is a restaurant, El Limon, is the proposed restaurant that has
locations around the Philadelphia region. It would be appropriate for this area and this property.
And that is the only variance request for the use of the property. And if I could share my screen,
I could show up the start showing the exhibits. Yes, you may. Okay, are the exhibits visible?
yes sir okay thank you um so
this is the uh property on the left um from the street on the right is a uh salon it is the same
owner as the subject property above is a second floor office space and the top floor is uh residential
apartments this is the side of the property this is the chestnut hill train station and the train
station is also the train line is at the rear of the property and this is the the rear of the
building and this is the interior of the property
and uh the view from the uh the street and as i mentioned uh use of properties on this street
as restaurants uh it it's uh regular there are numerous restaurants around it 8624
Cosimo's 8630 is a breakfast boutique, McNally's Tavern, Tavern on the Hill. So there are numerous properties that are already doing the same thing. It's in line with what this community appreciates.
There was a meeting with the RCO, the RCO supports this variance request, there was an
agreement for provisos, so these would be part of the variance.
and that was agreed to with the uh with the rco we also have uh just received the letter
of non-opposition from uh councilwoman bass
and she asked that uh the board approved the the variance request with the uh with the provisos
duffy would you go back to the provisos please yes
Let's see.
Trash generator.
Uh, scroll down. Let's see. The applicant will hold on, please.
Private third party.
The applicant will schedule and receive third party deliveries between.
Sharon, do you have a copy of that? Because
i'm trying to pull it up now um obviously most of these can't be added by the board
there's commercial trash pickup we can do that yes uh extermination we have no control over
and it appears that this is a private signed agreement by the applicant that's correct
would we not we would not be required to put it in as a proviso oh you can still put in what
what is um appropriate you can do the commercial trash pickup um i'm sorry could you scroll up
again sure i i could zoom out if you can still see it so you can maybe see everything at once
that might be too small too small a little too small for my eyes yeah okay
that might be too small too small a little too small for my eyes yeah okay you know and and i
do understand a copy of this was submitted along with all the other uh exhibits yes um to the
letter of support you can you can limit deliveries to the hours of 7 a.m to 10 a.m
yeah i don't think anything else oh that's for deliveries okay
7 a.m to 10 a.m third party deliveries well that gets it shouldn't help the dining
the applicant must be that that's seating arrangements hours of operation that's to be
decided later uh we can't enforce the parking spots correct right okay totally two trash and
deliveries yes i think that's it mr duffy are you open seven days a week uh yes
all right um do you have your client do you want to adopt your testimony you have someone
Yes, Sanjeev Jain is the principal of the client.
And Mr. Jain, if you would raise your hand.
Yes, I'm here.
Hi, please identify yourself first and last name.
Sure, Sanjeev Jain, last name is spelled J-A-I-N.
His first name is spelled?
S-A-N-J-I-V, and I'm the owner of Chestnutville Real Estate.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Duffy.
And Mr. Jean, did you hear my testimony on your behalf?
I did, yes.
And do you adopt it as your own?
I do. Everything was accurate.
Okay, thank you. And is there anything you would like to add for the record?
Just that I appreciate the opportunity to bring El Limon into the Philadelphia area.
This will be their first restaurant in Philadelphia, and the neighbors and others around are very, very excited about it.
We've been trying to get them here for about three years.
Thank you.
Okay, any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
This is Sanjeev Jan.
we we had submitted a list of uh neighbors uh that would be testifying but that was
just in case we didn't get some of these uh support letters from the rco received in time
or a councilwoman uh cindy bass's office but we received everything okay thank you uh anyone else
like to I'm sorry no hands to you okay thank you planning commission
thank you chair Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission
um the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to CMX 2.5 at this location and the
proposed use does conform to this zoning district in the comprehensive plan we just had a question
about the refusal and the variance request it seems to include all uses allowed in cmx3 for
the ground floor i'm not sure if that was amended in the amended uh refusal um but if not then we
would recommend that the board grant the variance that the proviso lists that the specific use is
for a restaurant duffy you care to respond uh well my my understanding is it's for the specific use
as a restaurant not cmx3 uh generally and i'll uh if that is incorrect i would ask my client to speak
no mr duffy that that is accurate this is for a sit down and take out restaurant
um this is sharon the board can add a proviso stating for restaurant use only
okay just for clarity please it is a sit down and take up
well we'll just make it a restaurant right okay yes yeah i think it's a simpler way to do it okay
all right um all right thank you uh mi 2020-003108 8612-14 germantown avenue my vote is yes with the
following provisos commercial trash pickup deliveries will be uh between 7 a.m and 10 a.m
seven days a week and uh this application is speaks to a restaurant only
My vote is yes with provisos. Yes with provisos. Yes with provisos. Yes with provisos.
my vote is yes with provisos yes for provisos
Are we moving to 13 now or back to Leo? Let's check Leo and or Mr. Green whoever is available.
Mr. Mulvihill are you available? I'm going to leave. Thank you very much everyone.
good luck to you thank you sir i am available sorry i took my time hi that's okay can you put
your name and address on the record please and spell your last name certainly it's e-o-l-e-o
last name is mulvihill that's m-u-l-v as in victor i-h-i-l-l address is 20 oh no it's not
anymore. It's 1441
East Alton Street, Philadelphia
19125.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do.
Do you also agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, referral, photos
and or plans of the property five days
in advance of this hearing and have you
met with the RCO and
do you have a letter? Yes, yes, yes.
all yes to all thank you you may proceed all right good um morning still members of the board
Leo Mulvihill on behalf of Rushdie Muhammad we're here today for the application of a three family
dwelling and a new structure I'll start at the outset by saying this structure has been a
multi-family dwelling for years Mr. Rushdie has owned it for quite some time he's a member of
the mosque that's directly down the street from this property what I have here now on the screen
are the refusal appeal on project information form at page one area zoning maps at page seven
this is rsa five we have our deed at eight tax clearance at 13 the rco letter at 16 and the
history of zoning for this property beginning of page 21 going through to page 37 vote is the
property at 38 plans at 52 so i'll skip directly to let's do one page up
all right but here we go members of the board so we received a refusal
9-2-2020. We received a refusal from multi-family in an RSA 5 district and for a slightly smaller
than required open area. I'll show you the zoning map of the area as well. So members
of the board, this is located by the intersection of Germantown and 4th Street. That weird intersection
is right there as Redner Street comes in. The mosque is located directly down the block.
I drive by it all the time. Our subject property is indicated at the top of this map at page 7.
in the dark. We have IRMX to the north, RSA5 quite around us, and then CMX1 property at the south end
of the block. At the bottom of the page, you see the aerial view, which is taken directly from
Philadelphia Atlas. That's my client's deed. I wasn't able to get the certificate to work,
but here's the information showing that there was a small balance due yesterday, or pardon me,
not yesterday, several days ago, and now at page 15, it's been paid off. On March 17,
we received a letter from South Kensington. We initially had a meeting held with them for this
and a property immediately next door, which has also been owned by Mr. Rushdie for probably
15, 20 years at this point. Both of those applications, I asked for them to be heard
at the same time, but, you know, scheduling works out the way it is. In any case, this building
proposing new three-family dwelling. South Kensington wishes for it to remain as RSA 5,
despite the fact that this structure has been multi-family for years.
I, unfortunately, was not able to attend this meeting.
I was recovering from surgery, and unfortunately, it didn't make my calendar.
Mr. Rushdie was, however, present and fielded questions from the community.
The community, as you can read in the letter,
they believe that single family is the highest best use for this lot
because there's a need for rental units in this neighborhood,
considering the fact that this building is currently rental units
and these demolished, it's in kind of rough shape, and then reconstructed as a new structure.
That's what we're looking to do. Putting a new single family dwelling on this lot
means we have a property that's going to sell for somewhere around $400,000 with new market rates,
if not higher. It is going to continue to push people out of the neighborhood who have been
there for a very long time. And as a longtime resident of the neighborhood, Mr. Rush,
she does not wish to do that. You'll note there are some irregularities, and those were
due mostly to my surgery recovery and, frankly, trying to get my stuff together as I was
recovering. So the meeting was held over Zoom.
Neighbors, SKCP reported that some neighbors did not receive notice of the meeting.
that happens sometimes as we all know um we do have a hearing coming up on 152
that happens sometimes as we all know um we do have a hearing coming up on 1522
north 4th i believe on april 15th um i'm happy to resend notices for this and that project
and try to reconvene a meeting with south kensington and see if we can hear both of
these at once that the board would so prefer to try to smooth out those irregularities
meeting summary form that's just showing you page 19 and 20.
sorry for the interruption would you repeat that again about yeah some well so here's the thing
uh chairman so we submitted these two applications the two properties right next to each other one
five two four and one five two two north fourth um they took a little bit one took a little bit
longer to get through the initial review process than the other um so we didn't get scheduled for
a hearing on the same date some neighbors said they didn't get notice of our community meetings
which has been happening recently unfortunately so if the board is so inclined we can move this
along and reschedule if possible if it permits to be heard with 1522 which is already scheduled for
hearing on april 15 if i recall correctly and they're right next to each other same applicant
same architect same me i'm happy to represent and resend notices so the neighbors feel as though
they're properly notified and or potentially we can reconvene another meeting with south kensington
We're not trying to hide the ball here
or anything like that with this project.
Anya, what is a simpler way of doing,
the easiest way for everyone?
Do you have any suggestions?
And Chairman, they're identical projects,
more or less, too.
Yeah, understood.
I don't see it being a problem, Chair,
is your call.
to do a
put that on
for the 15th
of April
I might be cutting it a little close
Ms. Sunkett we have a project
already scheduled that same day that's directly adjacent
and the two can be heard together in the time
of one hearing as well
April 15th is Thursday
so are you saying
yes it's the 14th
and we have to get everything out