Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I apologize for the delay. The board had to go through its
annual ethics training. So we are going to begin our cases now. Again, we apologize for the delay.
My name is Frank DiCicco, and I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be
participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, board secretary,
confessor plaza, and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
excuse me sir i just want to ask um you might want to wait just a little bit because the
attendees are still coming in oh i'm sorry i forgot yeah i i thought because it was starting
late that was already who knows sorry to interrupt oh no i'll start over again when you're ready
thank you i am here it's snowing again in case anybody's interested oh my gosh i can say it
right now Frank do I have two minutes to walk away yes okay I'll be right back
okay so when Mr. Cenari comes back we should be good to go
thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Frank, we should be ready to go.
Okay, good morning again everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
We apologize for the lateness of starting this morning's hearing, but the board had to go
through its annual ethics training session this morning.
As I said, my name is Frank DiCicco, I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board
Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator, Mr. Jason Hand, and our Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Saleta are also
in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in our virtual hearings, I'll go through some
the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual
participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding
is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and also to remind everyone that this is being recorded and will be available to the public
on the web or otherwise if anyone is participating by phone please if you wish to testify you must
raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself i'll repeat for anyone
participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
and then star six to unmute yourself finally to enter an appearance statement call google
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue I would also like to
address and the address
remind everyone to please do not attempt to testify in the chat any comments should be
directed to our board administrator with that I believe Carol if you can call those
add-ons and the reconsideration's off okay the add-ons are
the add-ons are calendar number 0945 3965 Lancaster Avenue
we're voting that yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
Thank you. Calendar number 2752, 4317 Ludlow Street.
Is that for a reconsideration?
The record's closed and it's to be voted today.
It's Rachel Pritzker's case.
Lancaster Avenue again?
Ludlow Street.
Margaret's case?
No, this is Rachel Pritzker's case. It was eight dwelling units, refusal for parking,
two required, zero provided. Okay. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
My vote is no. My vote is no. Sharon, those are the only two add-ons, correct?
That's right. And then there are the reconsiderations.
okay calendar not these are the reconsiderations calendar number 2118-2105 Ellsworth Street
the other one behind 2-2107 Ellsworth Street and you know I saw that and I ignored it calendar
number 2116-2107 Ellsworth Street my vote is yes for reconsideration and rehearing
my vote is yes for reconsideration and rehearing yes to reconsideration and rehearing yes to
reconsideration and rehearing yes to reconsideration and rehearing calendar number 1383 4003 filbert
street my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing my vote is yes to reconsideration
and rehearing. Yes to reconsideration and rehearing. Yes to reconsideration and rehearing. Yes to
reconsideration and rehearing. Calendar number 0547 3761 Glen Street. Yes to reconsideration and
rehearing. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing. Yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
yes to reconsideration and rehearing yes to reconsideration and rehearing
now the continuances and withdrawals are as follows calendar number 2668 1331 north 17th street
it's leo mulvihill's case
uh that case is continued correct that case is continued sharon
why don't we do we'll read them all off and then we'll ask if anybody has any objection
okay calendar number 2196 2655 emerald street
is continued calendar number 0645 549 east loray street that's withdrawn anyone have any objection
to the cases that have just been read to either be continued or withdrawn please raise your hand
there are no hands at this time Jason are you there thank you uh is there anyone else anyone
If anyone else would like to request a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand at this time.
Mr. Chair, I have a Mr. Raymond Derizio.
Good morning, Mr. DeRizio. Please identify yourself with the record. Spell your full name.
According to Mr. Derizio, please identify yourself with the records, spell your full name.
Wait a minute. I don't know where he's going. He had his hand up a moment ago now.
Mr. Chair, maybe he had his hand raised in a mistake. My bad.
his cases of one of the cases we we called out as being continued 2655 emerald street
excuse me did you say um raymond derizio yes i can see him on my end if you want i can promote him
okay he has been promoted panelist okay thank you good morning mr derizio
please identify yourself for the record. Spell your name.
Mr. Dorizio, are you there?
He's not here and he put his hand down so I would suggest you continue to.
thank you okay any other hands up for continuances or withdrawals
i see no hands here thank you carol i think we can proceed with the rail
has his hand raised and another uh individual mark we use yes his hand is raised as well okay
I just promoted Mark Leuzzi to a panelist.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell your full name.
Mark Leuzzi. L-E-U-Z-Z-I.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And you're here on what case, sir?
2601 South Marshall. Legalize a duplex.
are you asking for a continuance no i am not ray is not answering and i know he told me to jump on
so he should be there okay well yeah that case we'll call your case up uh it's on our list so
when we get to it well your attorney might be available okay sorry guys no problem
Mr. Chair, I have a Petra Gamble. I will promote her to panelists right now.
Ms. Gamble, you have been promoted to panelists.
Good morning, ma'am. Please identify yourself with the records by your last name.
Good morning. This is Petra Gamble. Last name is G-A-M-B-L-E.
i'm here representing the coordinating rco point breeze uh cdc you swear to firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed please forgive me i don't understand how
these things work for reconsideration when we find out the date of the rehearing
i'm sorry for 2105 and 2107 uh ellsworth sorry street uh you will be notified by staff
only if they have put their name in as um an attendee and they've recorded that that they
were an appearance then the dates will be published on the zba calendar and those who are have put in
a parent statement will get notification via email excuse me this is sharon i believe the rco in
making that request was also represented by an attorney steve masters who should be able to
yes okay thank you thank you have a good day you too thanks
jason are they the only hands
no mr gerizio has his hand up has his hand up i will promote him to the head of panelists right
now thank you mr gerizio you have been promoted to panelists please wait to be sworn in sir
Please identify yourselves by your last name for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Raymond Dorizio, R-A-Y-M-O-N-D-D-O-R-I-Z-I-O.
Address to Penn Center, Suite 520, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
This is a continuous request.
Do you aspire to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
What case are we talking about?
This is calendar number MI2020-002196. It's 2655 Emerald Street.
you did you regret that we read that off as being continued is that what you're sorry
We read that off as being continued. Is that what you're saying?
I'm sorry.
yes i had a poor connection in the beginning no problem okay that case will be continued
and we'll get back to you on the marshall street case in due time thank you thank you
anyone else the chair mr sloan folks has been promoted to panelists to speak thank you good
morning, Mr. Folks. Morning, Chair. Can you hear me? I just got kicked off. Yes, we can. Please
identify yourself, and I'll swear you in. Good morning, sir. Sloan Folks, S-L-O-A-N-E, F-S-A-F-I-R,
O-L-K-S, Office of Counseling Maria Keyones-Sanchez, room 508 City Hall.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir, I do. I apologize if I missed this, but our office is requesting a continuance for meeting number MI-2020-002200, 4513 Takawana Street, as they have not met with the coordinating RCO and there has not been any community input.
We don't have any exhibits. Has this case already been continued?
I have it as the first listing chair that case will be continued MI 2020-0022004513
Takawana is continued thank you much thank you any other requests
no further hands at this time mr chair okay i think we can begin carol okay calendar number
2260 1017 west huntington street the attorney is cheryl gaston
Ms. Gadsden, can you hear me?
Gaston, are you available? You may unmute.
Okay, I'm here. Ms. Gaston, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name, please? My name is Cheryl Gaston. It's C-H-E-R-Y-L, Gaston. G as in George,
H-A-S as in Sam, T-O-N.
I'm with Spruce Law Group, LLC.
The address is 1622 Spruce Street in Philadelphia.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Hold on.
I mean, okay.
Okay, final questions.
Final questions.
have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents which are proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes thank you you may proceed
Okay. Good morning, members of the board. This is a zoning request concerning 1017 West Huntington Street in Philadelphia.
It is to legalize and or to otherwise add one additional residential dwelling unit to the first floor rear of this particular property.
the property was sold to my client as having three residential units and the one commercial.
Ms. Gaston, do you have any exhibits you can share with us?
Can I share a screen here?
Okay. Can you see the screen? Hello?
Yes. Yes, we can.
Yes, we can.
Okay. So this is the property here. The request, it's a small ask. It's just to legalize this
one additional unit. This is the deed for the property, which was included in the exhibit packet.
And again, my client bought the property with the representation that there were
three units that were approved as well as the one commercial unit. So this application is
just to legalize the one unit. When he went to go and get residential rental licenses,
he was told that only the two units in the front were approved along with the commercial space.
This is the notice of refusal, which is just for the one additional unit. The variance is required
because the minimum lot area for three units is 1440 square feet to 1919 square feet. The lot
is 1072 square feet. So there's a need for the variance to get the additional space.
This has taken a little while to get here because it was originally submitted as a paper
application, and then we, with the COVID restrictions and what have you, we then
converted it to an online application. The property, that's the tax clearance. This is the
site plan, which shows the additional unit, which is in the rear of the property.
We have pictures of the posting and of the actual unit which is here. This is the first floor,
this is the living room, there's a kitchen. It's a kind of bi-level unit so it's first floor bathroom,
bedroom there's a hair salon in the front well what it's supposed to be is a hair salon and
that's what the licensing is for um again because of covid they have not occupied the property yet
and then there's i've included some pictures of the other parts of the property the second floor
in the third floor units, even though they're not really part of this particular application.
We did meet with the community group. They sent a meeting summary form. There were 12 attendees,
and this was approved by all 12 in support. And again, that's our notification letter.
the addresses where we sent the notification letter and our certificates of mailing which
were all part of the packet. So again what we're asking for is just to basically legalize this one
additional unit. The code basically says that the fact that a unit or a lot is undersized
doesn't mean that it can't be used. This one is nonconforming because it is undersized
even for what is already approved. My client is basically a bona fide purchaser for value.
he purchased what he thought was three units and the commercial space and without this variance
then he's going to either have to try and convert the property which is the quintessential idea of
hardship you know that you know you don't have to do substantial reconstruction and or
revision of the property to use it as it is currently zoned and is your is your client
available this morning he is supposed to be on ask him to raise his hand we'll swear him in
mark are you on i can't i can't see from here who else is on what's his last name his coriolan
It's C-O-R-I-O-L-A-N.
It's C-O-R-I-O-L-A-N.
He's supposed to be.
The other person that's on is my paralegal.
It's Christine Schlosser.
But Mark, are you on?
He just raised his hand.
I'll promote him to our panelists right now.
Thank you.
Mr. Karolian, Mr. Karolian, you've been promoted to panelists, sir.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your last name.
I can't see.
All right, he may be having technical difficulties. Ms. Gaston, as an officer of court, will stipulate that your client would be adopting your testimony.
Any questions from the board?
no no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time mr chair you planning commission good morning david effecto f e c t e a
u with the city planning commission david you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank you sir please proceed thank you mr chairman members of
the board the comprehensive plan recommends commercial mixed use for this property the
application appears to be a legalization of an existing condition we note that there are five
electric meters on the wornock street side of the property we have no objection to granting this
Mr. Chairman if you're speaking I'm sorry MI 2020-0022260 1017 West Huntington Street
my vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you members of the board
that completes my business may I be excused you may and have a good day stay safe thank you you
too calendar number 1386 1325 Grant Avenue the attorney is Isaac Slepner
mr slepner has been promoted to panelists good morning uh mr chair members of the board
Isaac Slepner. Oh, and Tony Romo. Mr. Slepner, can you put your name and address on the record,
please, and spell your last name? Yes. Isaac Slepner, S-L-E-P-N-E-R. I am with Mattione Limited,
and our address is 100 North Independence Mall West, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia PA 19106.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
We have sent all the materials.
We did meet with the RCO, and we do have a letter.
The letter was just sent to us yesterday at 6 p.m.
It was also cc'd to the Zoning Board's administrative email, and it was sent to Karima Quintana as well.
And then this morning, I also sent it to Sharon Saleta.
So that's a long way of saying yes.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
As I mentioned, I'm Isaac Slepner. I am counsel to M-Squared Developers. M-Squared Developers are the owners of 1325 Grant Avenue. And if I may, I'm going to pull up our materials and we can walk through those.
and my clients are also on this call and could answer any other further questions but as you'll
see it's pretty straightforward um our first item is everybody viewing uh the screen now can
everybody see the pdf okay we will proceed all right exhibit one is our tax clearance which was
Okay, we will proceed. All right. Exhibit one is our tax clearance, which was run on January 28th for M-squared developers.
Okay. Ah, I know what I need to do here. This will be better. Full screen mode.
Oh, look at that. Okay. Exhibit two is our notice of refusal.
And it's two refusals, even though they're identical, because the property is RSD-1, and the variances that we're seeking are for open-air parking spaces at a front yard and a side yard.
But I'll explain why as we go through the packet.
Exhibit 3, and I'll rotate that.
Oh, sorry.
Exhibit 3 is our site plan.
And how do I unfull screen it?
Ah, there we go.
I'm going to show you this.
So what my clients did, they purchased this house and went about rehabbing it.
And in doing so, it had originally had a garage.
It's in the far northeast, and it's set on a rather sizable parcel of land.
It's fairly well set back from Grand Avenue.
Grand Avenue is a fairly major thoroughfare up there in the far northeast,
pretty heavy and speedy traffic, and there's no street parking.
The house had originally had a garage.
Um, but as part of their rehab of the house, my clients had walled up the garage to create additional living space.
Now here you'll see at the front area here, these, this was the, um, original parking space that they had sought a variance for and then realized that they needed to go back and seek a variance for parking at the side yard as well.
Because in RSD-1, a garage is allowed by the code, and a driveway leading up to the garage is allowed by the code.
But since they sealed off the garage, that triggered a variance in that the driveway, which formerly was the driveway leading up to the garage, now became an open-air parking space at the front yard of the house, and as well as an open-air parking space at the side yard of the house.
And that is what triggered the refusals and the requests for variance.
I will move on to the next page, which is our, I believe it's our building plans.
Oh, Exhibit 4, sorry, that's upside down.
But this is the plans for the house, which were drawn up by our architect, Mark Pinard.
and it'll just show you kind of where it is that the work to the house was done.
The work to the house was done by Wright.
This is the former garage there you can see right here at the front elevation
and the parking space is directly here on the driveway in front of the garage
and then in the side yard here, which you saw on the site plan at the side of the garage.
So we'll move on to Exhibit 5.
This is our, these are floor plans for the interior of the house.
It's a pretty sizable, nice house.
But as I said, we're here about the driveway and the open-air parking spaces.
This is, again, a kind of a miniature of the site plan.
So you can kind of see, again, right here is our front parking space that we're seeking the variance for.
Over here is a side parking space.
You'll see them in photos in a second.
There's a big red space here because we submitted these materials before we got our notice, our letter from the RCO.
But we do have a letter from the RCO, which I will also share with you in just a moment.
These are photos, and I'll start with a photo of our property.
So this is a photo of our property looking up the driveway from Grant Avenue.
Starting down here, the sidewalk, behind the sidewalk is Grant Avenue.
This is the driveway of the house.
There's a vehicle parked at the side yard.
That's one of the two parking spaces that we're seeking a variance for.
And then right here at the front is the other parking space that we're seeking a variance for.
This is a view down the driveway to Grant Avenue.
This, I guess, was taken while new cars were passing by.
But if you're not familiar with Grant Avenue up in the far northeast, it's, as I said, a fairly busy road.
It's one of the more major streets up there.
And cars regularly will speed by here 30, 40, 50 miles an hour.
And there's no street parking.
Our next photos are of some of the neighbors.
A lot of the neighbors in this neighborhood do similar things to what my clients are seeking to do.
This is 1329 Grant, which is just two houses up Grant Avenue.
As you can see here, they have a driveway with a former garage that is now walled up in this additional living space at their house.
This is another view of 1329's driveway.
way this is the other side of 1329 just showing you know for for reference um this is 1331
This is 1331 Grant Avenue. Also looks like they did similar with walling up the garage, building additional living space at their house.
grand avenue also looks like they did similar with
And that's a second picture of 1331 Grant and a third picture of 1331 Grant.
Exhibit 7C, we had originally been scheduled for a hearing on this in January, but we had to continue this hearing.
So these are photos of the orange poster back when they were posted in December in advance of the January hearing.
So there's a second one that's posted right up there by the house, at the front door of the house.
And there's a wider shot view of it.
And then when our hearing was continued, we posted orange posters again.
This is a close-up of the orange poster advising of today's hearing.
I had pasted my business card to it. I put it up on a stake at the edge of the lawn right up at
sidewalk line next to the mailbox. There it is right at the sidewalk line there and there's a
little bit of a wider view of it. Exhibit 8 is our initial application and our initial application
had been for a single parking space but we came to realize that we were going to need
to apply for variances for two parking spaces and so we did but this is our initial um application
for appeal uh exhibit nine is our project information form um signed on august 24th of
2020 uh exhibit 10 10a this is our um affidavit of service of mailing notices to the neighbors
We had initially done a mailing in November, on November 10th, and that includes our letter to the neighbors of November 10th, our initial refusal, and our long list of addresses provided by planning.
10B was after we had continued, we did a mailing again to the neighbors.
We did a mailing on January 19th, again, our letter to the neighbors advising them of the variances that we were seeking and the time and place of the RCO meeting.
Sent to the neighbors, same list of neighbors, that would be Exhibit B to our Certificate of Service.
And Exhibit 11 is the deed to the property in favor of M2 Developers LLC, which was recorded on March 16th of 2020.
They are the owners of record of the property.
I have with me my client, Stephen Moffat, who is one of the partners of M2 Developers.
And I believe Billy Marnock is also here.
He is one of the other partners of M2 Developers and our architect, Mark Pinard.
um but that concludes my uh offering to the board at this point thank you if you like just one of
your one of the owners uh to adopt your testimony then we'll move on yes um uh steve steve moffitt
are you there moffitt please raise your hand if you're there
mr moffett has been allowed to speak sir okay mr moffett please identify yourself with a record
spell your last name good morning my name is steve moffett last name is m-o-f-f-i-t-t
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed mr sluttner sure thing um steve you are one of the uh partners
of m squared developers correct that is correct yes and did you hear all the testimony that i
offered to the board today i did and is all of that testimony true and correct to the best of
your knowledge yes it is and would you adopt that testimony as though you gave it yourself
i would yes uh thank you i don't have anything further my notes indicate that there was a proviso
there was actually this is sharon saletta of the proviso is because there was an amended
applicant amended refusal that was issued on I believe January 26 there's been some confusion
getting permits when um there is an amended refusal so if you could just add a proviso
clarifying that the um I'm sorry
um if I could share that yes the application is approved with the new AP number
yes that's what it should hold on um is that the the the zero zero four two nine zero i i found the
language if approved with proviso as per amended application zb-2020-004290 the first part of that
again was if approved per? As per amended application ZB.
per as per amended application zb 2020 004290 okay thank you questions from the board no no no
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
mr chair i have an alice udovich with her hand raised i will allow her to speak right now
Thank you. Good morning, Alice. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Chairman, members of the board. Alice Udovich from Councilman Brian O'Neill's office.
The councilman has no objection to the granting of the variance at this location.
Thank you. Alice, would you just please spell your last name for the stenographer?
Sure. It is U-D-O-V-I-C-H.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
no other hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission good morning david
effecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends single family residential use for
this property given the amount of available land on the property we do not believe the addition
of accessory parking will negatively impact the block we do not object to granting these variances
thank you mi 2020-001386 1325 grant avenue my vote is yes with the proviso
as per amended application the zb 2020-004290 my vote is yes with proviso yes for proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso calendar number two six thank you six eight i have nothing further
thank you i was fast thank you number two six six eight 1331 north 17th street this is leo
mulvihill's case um i believe this is being continued with a um yeah with the condition
must be heard yes yeah zero zero mi 2020 does zero zero two six six eight one three one excuse me
one three three one north 17th street is continued must be heard calendar number two one nine eight
1904 south 7th street there are no exhibits with this um unless you have the mail sharon no we do
not have exhibits but unusual in cases where we have no exhibits we do have a letter of non-opposition
from councilman squilla that refers to an rco letter in support and this is the first listing
is the applicant here
is the applicant for 1904 south 7th street available
Mr. Chair, I see no one at this time. I'm sorry.
Okay, thank you. So MI 2020-0021981904 South 7th Street is continued.
Calendar number 2261, 1947 North 24th Street.
there are no exhibits is there anyone here for 1947 north 24th street
no hands for this one either mr chair has this case already been continued
i believe it's the first listing
Okay. MI 2020, that's 002261, 1947 North 24th Street is continued.
Calendar number 2199, 2060 East Rush Street.
That would be Henry Clinton's case.
I promoted Mr. Clinton to panelists at this time, sir.
Mr. Clinton, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Certainly. Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street,
Philadelphia PA, 19146. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal
or referral, photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Yes to all of the above.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Can I share my screen?
Sure, you may.
Is that viewable large enough?
Absolutely.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Henry Clinton here on behalf of the applicant of WoodTech Properties, LLC,
and Wojtek, V-O-Y-T-E-C, Spadlo, S-P-A-D-L-O,
is also on the call with me.
This is the cover sheet of our presentation binder,
our table of contents, AA through A-10.
Appearance statement for the board.
Refusal, this is a pretty straightforward matter.
This property is currently in an RSA 5 zoning district,
and the request is to permit a two-family dwelling on this long vacant lot.
We did meet with the Somerset neighbors for better living.
They would like to see something develop on, as I said, this long vacant lot.
So this is a letter of support, which is in my package.
Photos of the property.
You can see there's some development on the street right now,
but there are a number of empty lots.
This is our lot in particular at 2060 East Rush, RUSH Street.
It's a relatively big lot, a little bit more than 16 feet wide, and a depth of 61 feet.
You can see some unsightly looking lots still remain on the block, and this is our lot right
here where we're proposing a two-family dwelling.
the plans again are pretty straightforward mainly brick and some party board plank siding on the
front with four floors floor plan i can walk through first unit is basement first and second
floor second unit would be second and third floor with the rooftop deck so there's open space for
So the second unit and the first unit has its open space in the rear yard.
The rest of the documents are, you know, the D, the typical documents that we're required to present to the board.
Our notice of mailings, certificate of tax compliance, application for appeal, and our zoning map.
so we have a situation where it's kind of a unique
layout where there's a number of vacant lots on the street the community development group would
like to see some development on this lot my client is willing to construct a two-family dwelling
on this larger lot we don't see this as impacting any lighter air on either side of the property
it's not detrimental to the community
it really is in harmony with
the block in harmony with the code
and in harmony with
what Somerset neighbors for better
living would like to see on this particular block
so if there
are any questions from the board I'll entertain them
and if not I'll ask my client
if he can be unmuted
adopt my testimony as his own
put your client
on and we'll square them in. Mr. Spadlow are you available? Raise your hand so you can be unmuted.
Please raise your hand so that you may be unmuted.
Roy Tech this is Hank are you on the call?
Clinton and me may be having technical difficulties as an officer the court will
stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony. Thank you Mr. Chairman I do
appreciate that. Have questions from the board? No. No. No. No. Anyone else like to testify in
this case please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
You, Planning Commission.
Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The comprehensive plan recommends residential single-family use for this property.
This is a block of two-story single-family homes and some three-story single-family homes.
There is no evidence of any multifamily units on this block.
In fact, several new single-family homes have recently been built on this block.
There are no unique physical characteristics of the lot that would require two units.
We recommend against granting this variance.
No other multifamilies you're saying on this?
no other multi-families you're saying on this block
david not as far as i can tell mr chairman and we did discuss this with the community group
several of whom live nearby and it was their feeling that they want these lots filled in
and if someone is willing to come onto the block and construct the new construction like
my client is willing to do. It's going to fill in an empty lot, but also it's going to make
some affordability, either in terms of renting a one unit or the second floor, or if he decides to
sell them, it will make it more affordable than someone who would want to buy and spend a lot
more money for a single-family home. So it's bringing density and more foot traffic to the
black into the neighborhood. Thank you. MI 2020-002199-2060 East Rush Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Harrell 7 and 8 go together. Thank you, Chair. Calendar number 2258-2139 East Harrell Street,
number two and calendar number 2259 2141 East Harold Street. This is Sharon Saleta. I believe
these are Leo Mulvihill's cases and we have no exhibits. We do have letters of support from
the Neighborhood Association and from Councilman Squilla. There is no, this is the first listing
for both. Okay, so MI 2020-002258, 2139 East Harold Street, and MI 2020-002259, 2141 East
Harold Street are continued. Calendar number 2202-2601 South Marshall Street.
The attorney is Raymond Durizio.
Mr. Durizio has been promoted to panelist.
He's already been sworn in, Carol.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
and have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos and 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 you may proceed thank you may i uh share my screen with
some of these agreements? Thank you.
If I could just...
I'm sorry, I'm just accessing this. This is 2601 Marshall Street. Our application is for a two-family
dwelling. I believe on the note, if I could pull up the
refusal, and I'm sorry, I'm just trying to pull this up, and I'm
having a problem. I'm sorry with this.
I believe the
The zoning district is RSA 5.
My client's property is on the southeast corner.
It's Marshall Street at Shunk.
He's owned the property since 1987.
I'm sorry.
I'm trying to pull up my files in one moment.
If I can ever get this.
sir um do you see i'm sorry i'm having a problem pulling up he's he's had the um but i will
get these i'm being denied access here on my screen however he's owned the building since 1987
it is a two-floor property it does have separate utilities it's a corner property it was cmx2 i
believe the first floor he had a plumbing business there originally some years ago
now he's seeking to do residential on the on each floor we have met with the
On each floor, we have met with the Whitman Council.
They have not opposed our request.
I'm sorry if I can.
For some reason, I'm being denied access to pull up my exhibits.
We have attached that non-opposition.
The property has separate entrances. It has a garage. There is some open space. The second floor has a deck area. If I can ever get you the photos, I apologize.
um mr teresio if if it helps i do have the refusal in front of me yeah there's a single
youth refusal for minimum lot area for three dwellings um 1440 i believe it says is required
and you have 1072 yeah and i think that refusal is an error because it's only a two
family duplex a two family dwelling that we were seeking in fact i did email back the examiner when
i received this because it had a totally different property on there and you'll probably see it in
the packet that i put um fourth it said the northeast corner of huntingdon street so i think
there was an error there but it's only two units that we were seeking um not three um it doesn't
have the room it's two floors it's only two units and i'm sorry i'm trying to get my exhibits up and
i i apologize for taking your time and doing this in the meantime why don't we do this uh you're
having technical issues yes your exhibits are accurate would you want to bring your client on
yes he's already been sworn in so we just ask him if he adopts your testimony yeah
mr liuzzi could you raise your hand so you can be brought in
mr lucy has been allowed to speak okay can you hear me
okay go ahead okay mr leo so you're the owner of this property yes okay and you heard the
testimony that i provided to the board regarding um your request for a variance yes and was it
true and accurate to the best of your knowledge information and belief yes okay and would you
adopt it as your own yes okay thank you any questions from the board no no no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no further hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission good morning david
vecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends this property for for residential single family use this appears to be a legalization
of a two-unit building we do not object to granting this variance thank you mi20 excuse
me this is Sharon. Can I suggest since the refusal is mistakenly identifies it as three dwelling
units if you approve it could it be with a proviso maximum two dwelling units with other uses as
previously approved? MI 2020-002202 2601 South Marshall Street my vote is yes with the following
proviso maximum two units and what was the other part of that sharon with other uses as previously
approved because i believe there is a first floor commercial use is that correct mr dorizio yeah
there it was previously approved we're not looking to utilize that commercial use on the first floor
can i speak a second in that case it can just be maximum two units hey guys hey guys can i speak
Yes, there is a little garage
they store trash in, so
as far as commercial use, it is not
as a commercial use for a parking warehouse.
Maybe a little bit of construction
stuff, like a little scaffold I might put in there once in a while.
That's not an issue, but thank you.
Okay, all right. Thank you.
Okay, so that's a proviso
maximum two units.
Thank you.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
yes with proviso yes with proviso the next case calendar number 2196 2655 emerald street
has been continued next case calendar number 2201 2649 east clearfield street
you stay one second i would just stay on mr leucci you need to you're still on you have to mute
yourself or hang up, whatever's easier.
He's been muted.
Or hang up, whatever's easier.
I didn't mean to interrupt, Carol, but I'm getting feedback.
That's okay.
I understand.
Calendar number 2201, 2649 East Clearfield Street.
Jennifer Bedzillo is the attorney.
Ms. Bedzillo has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you. Once I see her or hear her.
Excuse me, ma'am.
I just unmuted myself.
Okay, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. Jennifer Bezidlo, B as in boy, A as in apple, Z as in zebra, Y, D as in David,
L's in Larry, O's in Oscar.
Sorry, I was 4500 Worth Street Suite D202, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19124.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the
RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, to all of that. Okay, you may proceed. All right, may I share my
screen? Sure, we love screens. Okay, let's see if I can get it done here.
Okay, so I'm here today with the owners of 2649 East Clearfield Street, Justina and Rafael,
who are a husband and wife who own this property together. I've emailed in and
am presenting a packet with the refusal, deed, proof of property, property, proof of tax, excuse me,
tax compliance, sorry, a letter of support from the Southport Richmond Civic, community
notification records, aerial views of the property, zoning map, use permits for other
multi-unit properties on this block, photographs, and plans. So the refusal,
deed, tax compliance, and the RCO letter. All right, so 2649 East Clearfield Street
is a 1,912 square foot RSA 5 zone parcel with an existing 1,884 square
foot structure on it. It's located on the north side of Clearfield Street between East Thompson
and Edgemont Street in the Port Richmond neighborhood of Philadelphia. Let me just show you some
photos. This is the front of the property here in the center. Justina and her husband
uh purchased this property with the intent to um use it as a two-family dwelling uh for their
family where their family members would live in both units uh they would reside in the upper unit
and her parents would live in the lower unit this would provide her parents semi-independent living
while still having the ability to support them um by living in the same structure but you know
with doors and separate living spaces uh interrupting are you what what should
go back to that photograph please oh sorry
this structure is ours right in the middle okay i was curious and one next door has two doors i
thought that was all right and i'm getting and i'm gonna get to that all right i just just curious
all right yes so let's go back to the plans so here you have the plans um the first floor unit
would be a uh one bedroom two baths and have its own entrance off the shared hallway and the upper
unit would be a one bedroom one bath unit um like like you saw in the photo uh let me just go back
to the photos to show you the current state of the building. Like I said, there we go. There's
the front, and this is going down the street. I use Clearfield. It's a fairly wide street for
Port Richmond. It is a two-way street, and it's kind of a main artery of the neighborhood.
As you can see, the interior of the building right now is pretty much down to
the studs, so this would involve a renovation of the property as well.
Um, this use is proposed to family use is not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Let me get to my permits.
Um, this use is proposed to family use is not out of character with
Sorry, one second.
it. On this block alone, so on the 2600 block of East Clearfield, there are at least five other
permitted multi-unit buildings, including the property directly adjacent at 2647 East Clearfield,
which is two units. And then a few houses down is 2641 East Clearfield, which is four units. All of
these properties are zoned RSA 5, but used as multifamily. In fact, about if you look at both
sides of the street, about a quarter of the properties are not single family homes. And on
this side of the street, as it exists right now, about a third of the properties are not single
family homes. I want to show you the zoning map. Because so this is our property right here. It's
note that this property also backs up to a fairly large industrial complex which is the Huntington
yarn mill currently being used as such. If we go here you can see in the photos
that this is our property and you can see this is all industrial use, this is industrial use,
this is industrial use. So, you know, and even if that industrial use discontinued,
it is zoned ICMX and you could have a fairly large industrial commercial development right
behind it. For these reasons, they did meet with the community association. Let me get back to the
letter. It was a well-attended meeting. There was 33 people in attendance and ultimately they decided
to vote in support of this proposal. I'm happy. That's generally the gist. We're looking to use
the property as a two-family dwelling for the owner's family, and it's not inconsistent with
the surrounding uses. If you do go beyond just the 2600 Block II, I didn't include all of the permits,
but if you look to, you know, the east and west, Clearfield Street really is a mixed-use street,
even though it's zoned primarily RSA 5 with lots of mid-block commercial and multi-family uses all
along the length of it. I could have Justina should be on the call and can verify my testimony.
Justina, can you raise your hand? It should be at the bottom of the screen.
justina can you put your name and address on the record and please spell both your first and last
name my first name justina j-u-s-t-y-n-a last name m as a mary o z as a zebra d as a david
z as a zebra ierz 2649 east clifford street philadelphia p19134 and did you hear my testimony
here today yes i did and do you believe it to be truthful and accurate yes and do you adopt it as
your own yes i do all right thank you questions from the board no no
anyone else like to testify in this case anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand
no further hands at this time mr chair before i go to the planning commission jennifer do you
have petitions that were signed by any near neighbors um i do not i know that um i can
have justina testify she did talk to her adjacent neighbors and they were not in opposition
Planning Commission. Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. The comprehensive plan recommends residential single-family use for this property. There are other two-unit houses on this block, and we do not believe adding an additional unit will have a negative impact on the block. We do not object to granting this variance.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-002201 2649 East Clearfield. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Calendar number 1076 329 East Worcester Street.
Mr. James Devine has his hand raised. I will promote him right now.
Mr. Devine, you have been promoted.
Please wait to be sworn in, sir.
Mr. Devine, are you available?
he has to unmute himself if he's not there or having problem why don't we go to the next case
and we'll come back to that okay calendar number 1095 3355 jasper street
This is being handled pro se by Bethania, Bethania Alvarado.
Madam Chairwoman, Ms. Rosamond, McKelvey has her hand raised.
Is it for Jasper Street or Worcester?
For Jasper, let me find out.
Ms. McElvester, you've been allowed to speak.
I'm the RCO for 329 East Worcester, and we were told there was a case today.
There is. So you're representing the RCO. We're waiting to see if the applicant is going to testify.
The name you mentioned, we have not heard of before.
so. That's Caitlin Donahue. Oh yes ma'am.
Is this case, Sharon or Tanya somebody, has this case been continued in the past?
I don't believe that it has but we did receive exhibits from Miss Donahue so if we could push
it back and see if she's able to sign on yeah that's what we did originally we went to jasper
street so is anyone here for jasper street
miss pedita gadiel has her hand up i see she's here for jasper speed i'll allow her to speak
right now hello good morning yes yes good morning chairman um the owner of property is supposed to
also be online she's supposed to be signed in register Miss Betania I got the package to do
the presentation but she's gonna present herself is she uh has she signed in she's supposed to be
signed in we've been signed in since 9 30 this morning hold on a second let me make sure let me
Let's go back to Worcester Street while we're at it, Ms. Rosalind, you're here for that
case correct Worcester yes one minute please um hold on we don't need your testimony yet I just
want to get trying to figure out who's who yeah there's neighbors and city council on the line
too for that um could we try again to ask if Miss Caitlin Donahue is present 32329 East Worcester
Street. Ms. Donahue. And this case has not yet been continued, correct? I thought it had been
continued. I'm asking staff, ma'am, just hold on. I muted you, please stay muted. I have a James
Devine, who's an attorney. Let's just see who he is, Chair. Okay. James Devine? Yes, I'm here by
phone. Okay, and here, and who are you representing? I'm representing 329 Worcester Street, Pennsylvania
Team Challenge. Sir, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure, it's James Devine, D-E-V-I-N-E.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
Mr. Devine, are you in the same law firm as Ms. Donoghue?
Yes, she was my associate.
Yes, she's my associate.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Devine, are you going to be presenting a package?
We can see, but we simply...
We raise our hand.
When our system locked in terms of our audio, when you attempted to let us in.
So do you need to be promoted to panelists?
Are you going to be able to share your screen?
yes and this is sharon slutt i can confirm that ms donahue did submit the exhibit package
okay but what are what are we promoting you under sir is it just your phone
i promoted mr donahue under his name but
it'll be Mr. Devine
Mr. Devine
my bad excuse me
he has to unmute himself
Mr. Devine
please unmute yourself
Mr. Devine, if you are still available, please unmute yourself, sir.
all right we're having problems again so let's go to number 13 jasper street if we're ready for that
yeah calendar number 1095-3355 jasper street
is miss alvarado there yes can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name please um batania a l b a r a d o at 3355 jasper street in philadelphia
okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes and you have emailed an exhibit packet with all the required documents proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal referral photos plans five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter yes thank you you may proceed
um I was um looking for the permission to create um my house into two apartments
do you have any exhibits you can share with us photographs floor plans
Badisa Khadijo does have them.
We're going to need to see some plans.
There's also a letter of opposition from Councilman Squilla and Harrogate Civic Association.
I have promoted Badisa to a panelist so she can present the presentation.
Aditsa, you've been promoted to a panelist to present.
Excuse me, ma'am, you're still muted.
If you can hear us, please unmute yourself.
Yes, I finally did.
I'm sorry.
can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
she can't testify i'm not testifying i'm just going to screenshot i i i know just letting
the board understand that can you share the exhibits can you wait one second do you swear
a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, can you put the exhibits up?
I have... Let me try to share the screen. Here you go. Give me a second. Here you go. Share. Can you see now?
Share. Can you see now? Not yet, but it looks like it's happening. Okay.
Yes. Okay, here you see the package starting with the application and at the end I'll show the plans.
No, she's supposed to speak, Lisa.
go ahead bethanya speak
bethanya
miss alvarado
uh-huh
can you speak now
perhaps the board could
let miss bedica know
which documents in particular they would like her to
Tax clearance, yeah.
Tax clearance.
First, we have the application that was submitted for the zoning hearing.
Here they have the refusal that was submitting for the zoning hearing.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
All you have to do is just show the documents.
And is the applicant prepared to speak?
She's opposed to.
Hold down to the tax clearance.
I believe she has to provide testimony for this case.
yeah i don't know what the hang-up is here to be honest
but daniel do you have to testify we can continue it i'm actually all this if the board has a
question for the applicant we should probably ask it and in the meantime uh baditsa will pull up
the required exhibits yeah that's why i asked for a copy of the tax the tax clearance uh photos of
the property? Any floor plans? It's there. Submitted in the package. It's there. We're
just going slow. The system has a problem. It's not giving out tax clearance, but the
property is tax compliance. We printed out the tax history. Here it comes now. It's coming
up now. Yep.
this is just photographs and or for a go hold on
first floor and second floor and now Ms. Alvarado can speak
Ms. Alvarado you may unmute yourself please
i think you should be better to continue the case because she's not prepared to present correctly
i agree okay uh mi 2020 that zero zero one zero nine five three three five five jasper street
is continued thank you calendar number zero six four five five forty nine east loray street
that was withdrawn that was withdrawn okay and um the case before that well
takawana is continued okay calendar number one zero seven six three twenty nine east worcester street
Mr. Devine can you unmute yourself
Is that Mr. Devine? Can you unmute yourself?
There we go. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Sure. James Devine, D-E-V-I-N-E, 45 East Orange Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 17602.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents documents proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with an rco and do you have a letter we we have and we do okay you
may proceed. Thank you. Thank you. May I share my exhibits? Yes, you may. I'm going to try.
We're having some difficulty. I apologize. May I proceed with my explanation while we
bring our exhibit packet up? Yes. Okay. We do have a notice of refusal or application for appeal.
the project information form, the deed of property and certificate of tax clearance, photographs of the properties, our correspondence to neighbors, support signatures, RCO meeting form, a follow-up request for an updated RCO meeting, which I'll explain in a moment, as well as our chapter code for staffing and requirements for drug and alcohol treatment.
i also have our ceo chris mcfadlon as a potential witness
we had an rco meeting back in september of 2020. it was unusually chaotic
mr devine mr excuse the interruption do you have any exhibits you could be sharing with us
he does but he's having a difficult i heard him say that i know but we can't
it says they're pulling up now
I apologize
every time we move to a different phase of our hearing
the system freezes
okay no problem
may i proceed with my explanation while the exhibits load yeah please yes okay i believe
that the the refusal is an error in this case what we're seeking is a variance we're an rsa2
a group living home and we have a variance to provide residential housing
for up to 27 women recovering from drug and alcohol addiction what we are
seeking in a variance is to provide expanded treatment within the home the
difficulty and the problem I believe that exists in this case is the
designation required by the regulations that govern Pennsylvania adult and teen
challenge require a request for a group, a practitioner, and or outpatient treatment.
The refusal at the RCO level was based upon the fact, or the understanding, I should say,
that this was going to increase foot traffic, bring additional folks into the residence,
and or create a problem with parking.
We are not seeking to expand the services outside of the current residents that live there.
We are simply looking to utilize our staff to provide additional treatment for the completion
of their rehabilitation as they move through their recovery from drug and alcohol addiction.
So I believe that the denial or the refusal was based upon a misunderstanding or misnomer between the definition or title given under the regulations governing drug and alcohol rehabilitation and the codes that apply to the RCA2.
We are not intending to bring additional personnel in.
in. We are not looking to promote or advance outpatient treatment for additional foot traffic.
The facility, it may be a material, but the facility does have its own parking lot, but
The facility, it may be immaterial, but the facility does have its own parking lot.
our intent here in our variance that we seek is to simply expand appropriately and within
the requirements of the various codes, the treatment that the residents are already receiving.
And I can offer Mr. McFadden to expand on what that treatment might be.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. I'm a bit confused here. I'm trying to pull up your exhibit packet.
What did you apply for specifically to L&I, and what did they refuse you for?
We sought variants to provide a group practitioner for expanded treatment,
and they refused as proposed group practitioner is prohibited in this zoning district.
So why do you believe that refusal is an error?
Because I think that the understanding under the zoning variance of what a group practitioner
is and what we actually intend for the usage are significantly different.
Did you discuss this with L&I after the refusal was issued?
We tried, and we requested a continuance of our hearing before this board in October for that purpose.
When we had the RCO meeting, because of the chaotic nature I described, although they took a vote,
they told us that we could request an updated hearing where the hope would be that we could present our argument
in a more direct summary version.
After you granted the zoning board continuance,
we had several emails and a letter,
which is part of my exhibits, to Ms. McKelvey,
and we were never granted an updated RCO.
Wait, we're confusing two things.
Who is Ms. McKelvey?
I believe Ms. McKelvey is the individual
Yeah, she was on a few minutes ago, Sharon
Yes, I just think we're confusing two things
L&I and the refusal they issued with the RCO
Which has nothing to do with how the refusal is worded
Or how the use is categorized
You aren't saying that L&I erred in categorizing this
as a group practice are you i think that this has been mischaracterized or misunderstood
throughout the entirety of the process every document of refusal that we have received
simply identifies that the group practitioner is not permitted in the uh in our current zoning
group the rsa2 okay but what i'm trying to impress upon this board is that we are not looking to
develop bring in or expand an outside outpatient group therapy program which is what i believe
the understanding is we are simply looking to expand the services that we already provide
to the existing residents under the variances that you've already granted
so none of the physical characteristics of the of the of the property will be changing
it's just what goes on inside correct um but again i'm not seeing the zoning hearing is
the zoning history is also listed on the notice of refusal are you saying that at some point in
the past the board or lni issued you a permit for a group practitioner use that you are now expanding
no no no
i'm sorry if i misrepresented that no lni has not nor has this board the only involvement we've had
with this board under this uh appeal and request for variance was the continuance in october of
this past year. Okay. Is there an existing use at this property? Yes. What is it? There are 23,
currently there are 23 female residents residing and participating in inpatient
rehabilitation from drug and alcohol addiction. Okay. I can tell you that the last zoning board
Okay, I can tell you that the last zoning board approval for this property was in 1997
approval for this property was in
when the board granted for a charitable institution 12 rooming units with community kitchen for
a maximum of 27 people.
Correct.
Okay, so you are now seeking approval to have a group practice with treatment.
So it would seem that the refusal is correct.
it says application for a group practitioner at first floor at the rear of the building
on the same lot with all other uses as previously approved
well the refusal as i've understood it has been because of the concerns that we do not meet the
criteria would cause additional foot traffic additional issues with parking it's because
it does not meet the code requirements a group practitioner is not allowed in this district
therefore you need an approval for this additional use in to have this use in addition to the rooming
units that were previously approved but we're not by virtue of the variance we are not requesting
that an additional group practitioner enter the building we are simply looking to it there is no
group practitioner in the building the department issued a refusal you are now seeking a refusal
a variance from the board the board grants a variance not l and i for a group practitioner
use is that correct yes thank you and um sharon so there's 12 people there legally they can have
up to 27 there but it's for a rooming house approval they're now seeking to add on the first
floor a group group practice um group practitioner practice for drug and alcohol treatment so it's
in addition to changing you know the changing the what the service that would be in uh on in
the interior of the building right the the remaining floors there will still be residential
units but they are adding a group practitioner to that use
so the number of women is 27 that doesn't change no this is i mean this would be considered an
independent use in addition to the approved rooming units they are now introducing a group practice
for um for outpatient drug and alcohol treatment so i don't think it would even necessarily it's
outpatient drug and alcohol treatment maybe mr divine can explain that it is not merely for the
residents if that's the case. It is primarily for the residents. We are not promoting or soliciting
outpatient services. We simply want to provide additional services to the 23 women that are
already living there. Aren't they living there illegally or am I missing something? They are not
living there illegally since 1997 it has been approved for rooming units for a maximum of 27
people oh i thought it was 12. it's 12 units for a maximum of 27 occupants okay
excuse me counselor could we see some floor plans
i have photographs i do not have a floor plan again
And we have a meeting room available on the first floor, but the purpose of our variance is not to expand or change any element of the building.
It's simply the services provided to the residents.
There's no structural interior changes to the building.
What is, correct me if I'm wrong, what exists is what will continue to exist.
It's just that service that you want to provide for the residents that are already in the building.
Correct.
Will that service require any additional space within the building?
No, sir.
No office?
There's a meeting room if necessary, but we are not changing any office space or introducing any additional outside personnel.
Will that meeting room be a room of assembly?
Um, I don't believe so.
Thank you.
Let's hear from the RCO.
I think there was a woman on.
Yes, my name is Rosalyn.
Rosalyn.
Hi, my name is Rosalyn McKelvey, and we're the Wakefield 49ers, the RCO that covers this
that covers this area and um we have our city council rep and neighbor on the line too but
area and
we have our
i'd like to say one correction of misrepresentation that they've done is they ask at one time for
one thing and when he says chaotic he seems to have difficulty bringing up their information
when we meet too. But he's talking about using a rear garage for this practitioner. And the
neighbor's question is, on this block, there's already a drug treatment, rooming houses for
mental, rooming houses for drugs. And the elderly neighbors that live on this block, and they're
also asking for an apartment. We're talking one block with all this inundation. And when asked
about what he was going to put there he says he needs a practitioner and the neighbors say well
if it opens up for him to have practitioners coming in what's going to happen with these
other two institutions on the block that have people walking around sitting outside
they might need it we can only speak to this property man yes sir so we understand i know
where you're going but you have to speak to this property i will speak to this property i apologize
no problem thank you then the neighbors have conversation and miss sylvia connors they have
conversations with him and they're ready to present where he says different than increasing
the number of people and the services so when we met the neighbors said no and they opposed it to
three RCOs there said no we oppose and suggested that he have more clarification. They then bypassed
me and went to Faith LLC and tried to have a meeting with the other RCO and I had the email
sent to the councilwoman's office where she said I was at the same meeting you were at sir
so what more do you want to tell me that could help me clarify and get a solution
because the neighbors have already said no then they sent me an email and came back and said they
wanted to meet with us more i gave him notification of a neighborhood community meeting in october
november and december where they did not show up or contact me for any information to give to the
neighbor at the zoom neighborhood meetings and they were taking i've taken it to the door handed
it to their staff so if he wanted to meet with us they have not yes Mr. Devine the lady mentioned
something about a garage being converted I am unaware as to any plan or request that involves
a garage as I indicated earlier there is a room on the first floor in an attempt to provide
greater clarification and explanation of the fact that we had available space to provide
these expanded services to the residents that already live there. We provided pictures and
an explanation. What are the current services? And you may have said this, I may have missed
it. What are the current services? Current services are full residency services along
along with inpatient drug and alcohol services.
And the service that you're looking to add on,
how different is that from what you're already providing?
Excuse me, Sarah, the issue is that
if they are providing drug and alcohol services,
those have not been approved.
Right.
So it isn't simply that they are expanding
a previously approved use.
They're adding a group practitioner to a previously approved residential facility.
Is this a methadone clinic or a suboxone clinic?
May I have Mr. McFadden join and he can explain exactly what the mission and services are?
Please have him come on.
Chris, can you join the meeting?
Is this a Gregory McFarland?
We're looking for Chris McFadden.
Chris McFadden, okay.
May I also say I do take objection to him calling the meeting chaotic.
When they cannot present their information and get a technical glitch and the neighbors have a question, that's not called chaotic.
It's called they could not present.
We're trying to get to that.
We're trying to get the facts out now.
Thank you.
i'm sorry i do not see mr uh he says his hand is raised i texted him and is raised
I'm sorry.
I do not see Mr.
He says
chris mcfadden you said correct yes i agree and this is pauline from it i also do not
see a mr mcfadden there's a mr mcfarland
while we're doing that let me ask is i think someone mentioned there may be
someone from the councilwoman's office and sylvia connor the neighborhood i know ma'am i'm asking so
would you please whoever's representing the councilwoman would you please raise your hand
will recognize you i believe that's mr charles richardson i will allow him to speak right now
yeah mr richardson good morning mr chair hi please identify yourself we'll proceed
carl's richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall
now the question to ask uh let me just swear you in you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed mr devine is there treatment
going on in the facility already you had mentioned that you wanted to expand the services that are
being provided or that your client is trying to uh extend the services what and since we
can't get him on and you're kind of a little blurry with regard to your your uh definition
as to what what services are being provided it sounds like you're trying to legalize what's
going on there right now is that kind of correct that is not my understanding mr mcfadden is on
under Greg McFarland, if we could recognize him, he can explain.
Okay, let's go to him and then hang in there, Mr. Richardson.
I shall.
You can ask your question of him.
I mean, ask us and we'll ask the question of Mr. McFarland.
Can you hear me?
Yes, please identify yourself with records by your last name.
My name is Chris McFadden. It's M-C-F-A-D-D-E-N.
Your affiliation with this product, this application?
I'm the president of the corporation.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
I think you've been listening to some of the questions. Maybe you can clear some of these issues up for us.
Yes. This facility has been in use as a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program for much longer than I have been affiliated with the organization, and it has been utilized for these services since, as you referenced, in the late 90s as a state-licensed entity within the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs.
and the uh the couple of the excuse me this is sharon's word again it may have been used as such
but there is no record of a city zoning approval for that use
that that has been our understanding since uh since i've been affiliated with the
the organization that's how the organization has been utilized for
a number of of decades
you concur that it has been it's not legalized
I do hear what you are all saying as far as the the zoning but the utilization of the program for
the 27 women that are the 27 vulnerable women in the city is the way that the service model
has been developed with helping with drug and alcohol programs.
Then can I ask, was there something that prompted you to seek a permit for it at this point?
Was there a violation notice? No, ma'am. As Attorney Devine referenced, what we are
attempting to do is be able to provide additional services for the folks that are already in
our program. And we do also have our program director on the call, and he is saying that
this is also in the exhibit. I know we haven't been able to get some of that up on the screen,
but we have 27, we basically have 23 beds in the program. 12 beds are utilized for these
inpatient services for the 12 women. And then the other beds are also used as a service for
within our nonprofit faith-based program. And what we are looking to do is be able to provide
And what we are looking to do is be able to provide additional counseling services within our current facility, our current staffing for these women.
additional counseling services.
Mr. Richardson, you can ask a question through the board.
Mr. Chair, I'm still trying to figure out, are they trying to legally, when he says inpatient
services, what are those inpatient services that are being provided? Because when I'm looking at
the refusal, it says something about a home for wayward girls, wayward women, but it doesn't
necessarily say anything about inpatient treatment. It sounds like they've been providing treatment,
now they're trying to expand that treatment, and we don't know whether or not this is even
legal at this point in time. What treatment have you been providing? Within the state of
well obviously within Pennsylvania there's a 3.5 model which is inpatient counseling services. So
we provide counseling for the women that live at the facility and that is in the first portion of
the program and the second portion of the program which is what we are talking about today is to
provide additional counseling services under the designation of outpatient services or group
practitioner. So it's counseling. It's all counseling services. It is not a methadone
clinic. There is none of that happening at our facility. Mr. Chair and board, one other
question I would have then is if you're providing counseling, isn't that considered a medical use?
it isn't it would i do not believe it would be a medical use for the the program as a counseling
center i do have a question when the girls arrive there are they detoxed if all you and i'm asking
that because of all you provide is counseling yes our our corporation we have 10 locations
throughout Pennsylvania, our main site is in Berks County. So when a female is in need of
detox services, they will come to our other campus that is in Berks County, where we will take care
of those medical, you know, the biological side of the addiction. And then once they complete that
portion of the program, we then are able to transfer them down to our site down there.
So we do take care of those things prior to coming down.
Anybody? Sharon, you have anything else to add?
No, it sounds to me as though this is a legalization and expansion of the existing use, but in
either case it requires um it requires a variance right and there was a question uh mr mcfarland
maybe you can answer there was someone uh i think miss um mckelvaney i think i have her name correct
she mentioned something about a garage yeah there it's we have uh two two buildings on the uh the
property and one of the buildings uh was a former garage but it's been a it's a fully renovated
building so it is not right now it's there's a couple of offices and then there's a large group
space and and there are i believe there are uh pictures that jim if you can yeah we haven't
been able to access those are you able to pull that up jim it's showing on our screen that they
are pulled up no there's nothing on that could you could you maybe email it okay here we go yes
coming up can you go to the pictures yes
Thank you.
here we go
Mr. McFadden, can you walk us through what we're seeing?
Sure, that's just the inside of the building. That's probably not the
best picture right there of the front window. Here we go.
There's the entrance into the building. You can see right there on the right is the
first office, right where this pointer of the screen is, and then right beside that is the
other other office and then you can see a bookshelf with a little desk there and
then all the way to the left of theirs I'm sure we'll go down to the next
picture. That's the other office. The parking lot, the garage. Yeah and there's
the outside of the building. And then there's a big yard around the back that probably goes
for 50 to 100 feet. And yeah, there's the parking area. And you can see it from on top
there, especially on the bottom picture there with the parking and everything there. And
And that's just the inside of the building, so you can see it's a nice building.
So this is presently being used for individual therapy and group therapy?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay, thank you.
And that's the larger building right there.
And you can see then that's the street, if you can see on the left side of the house there.
We've been serving a very vulnerable group of folks for over 40 years down in Philadelphia.
And that's really our main purpose here is that we serve a very vulnerable group of women
in our communities, and we provide a valuable service at this location.
And the main thing that we're really trying to do here is just add a level of counseling
services to our second phase of our program, just to be able to provide better recovery
support services.
all right uh
mr richardson yes mr chair you uh you have a better sense of what we're talking about now
uh i do i still uh it still looks to us like it's a legalization of the services that they're
already providing without having obtained the variance in the first place uh just so that you
know the councilwoman is opposed and she joins the uh three rcos that uh oppose this uh variance
and uh at this point she's looking at that the same the same things that well this is she raised
the issues in the first place so um you know that's all i can pretty much say about this at this time
chair i have a question is opposed to the legalization granting this variance uh which
will be again legalizing what it is that they're already doing that's expanding on what what is
what's already essentially illegal services i have a question since this is about an expansion
is it going to require a new staff and if so how many no no ma'am it won't
no new staff thank you
how many staff are presently there i don't i don't have the exact number i know
greg would but it's it's somewhere probably around 10. thank you
Another question then, Mr. Chair and board members.
One other question then, Mr. Chair and board members. Is the practitioner that you're
talking about legalizing, is that person already on staff?
It would be part of our counseling team that's already existed. So again, no addition of
staffing.
Yes. Just to be clear, there isn't a group practitioner. It's the type of counseling
that is being provided that is simply being enhanced to the second tier as described by
mr mcfadden this is operating i believe that there's also a misrepresentation that this is
illegal activity that we're attempting to legalize this is a transitional home for
folks recovering from their addiction that have already received the medical care required at
the other campus their transition here to continue to address their addiction
and transition back into regular normal life coping with their addiction they
are provided non-medical counseling to address the triggers and the causes of
their addiction by code. Those counseling services are offered at two different levels
and we initially sought this variance to simply allow the existing staff to provide the second
tier of counseling. What is the second tier? Chris?
if they start out the day going into therapy what do they do the rest of the day and if you're going
to elevate it into a second tier of counseling what does that consist of and the way that the
counseling based off of individual group sessions is a full day activity with very limited uh free
time and the uh when we're talking about this other level we're talking about it being extended
FOR SEPARATE PROGRAMS, SEPARATE PHASES WITHIN OUR PROGRAM. SO THE PERSON IS STEPPING DOWN
FROM ONE LEVEL DOWN TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF CARE. SO THAT IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO PROGRAMS. NEW SPEAKERS, COUNSELOR, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING TO EXPLAIN THE DEFINITION
of these uh programs i i do but i do not have it is it in the exhibits let me pull that up
so let me ask if i'm a neighbor or someone who lives in that vicinity
i walk by that place nothing's going to look any different or feel any different than what
has been going on that's exactly correct is that is that accurate yes absolutely
um excuse me this is sharon again can i pulled up the definition of a group practitioner
and this is what it says office use is related to diagnosis and treatment of human patients
illnesses injuries and physical malfunctions by a state licensed medical dental or health care
professional practitioner that can be performed in an office setting with no overnight care
Surgical rehabilitation and other medical centers that do not involve overnight patient stays are included in this subcategory as our medical and dental laboratories, unless otherwise indicated.
I'm just not seeing what you are describing as fitting within this, and I'm wondering if it requires another review by LNI or a clarification by LNI.
I'm sorry, can you specify the question?
Does it require another review by L&I?
You were refused as a group practitioner.
I just read you the code definition of group practitioner.
Do you agree that there's some discrepancy between what you are proposing and what the
code identifies as a group practitioner yes and that is what i attempted to uh try to articulate
from the beginning the difference between the services that we're providing based upon the
regulations that govern uh the services offered by pa adult and teen challenge versus trying to
square that title and definition with the code that we're seeking under the
variants and that the identification of a group practitioner from the outset
the the identification of a group practitioner from the outset has been a misnomer okay in in
that case i'd suggest that this this be continued and that um i can request a clarification from
ellen i or perhaps refer you to someone there because if you were to get a variance even if
this were granted by the board for a group practitioner if that is not what you're proposing
then your permit would not cover the use
that you are proposing.
Right.
And it would expand arguably beyond what we're proposing.
Chair, would that be acceptable to expand?
I think that's a good suggestion, yeah.
There are a number of folks who want to testify.
We're going to continue this.
This will be a resumption hearing
at which time the community will still be able to weigh in.
But we need some more clarification as our solicitor just suggested.
So without any other, without any objection, MI 2020-001076, 329 East Worcester Street.
This hearing will be resumed. Do we have a date, Jason?
March 3rd.
Thank you, Tanya. March 3rd at 9.30?
3rd or March 30th?
Sorry?
Question?
Question?
I'm sorry.
He asked if it was March 3rd or March 30th?
March 3rd, number 3. March 3rd at 9.30 a.m.?
at which time we'll consider any feedback from Sharon as it relates to L&I
and any feedback from the RCO and the Councilwoman's office.
We've got to get some clarity on this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think that concludes the 930 list.
Any other unfinished business?
Nothing I have.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sharon.
All right.
See you all back at 1.45.
I think we're having an executive session.
Yes, I'll send out an invitation.
Thank you.
All righty.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Excuse me, Tanya.
yes sorry i wouldn't know if you had left um i was just wondering do you need me to um
come on to the zoom at 145 or should i still wait until oh no that's a separate meeting
okay so we'll be starting at regular time but we'll be doing a separate meeting as all right
thank you time you're welcome pauline thank you bye-bye bye
Thank you.
we ready when you are chair thank you good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico
i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating at today's hearing along
with our vice chair ms carol tennari board secretary confessor plaza and board members
Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Jason Hand and our Board Attorney
Sharon Saletta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our
virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be
administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to
advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge
your agreement to be recorded. You will also be also be aware that the public will be available
to watch this proceeding on the web or what was the other one Sharon? Or otherwise. Otherwise okay
available to the public. Okay and I would also like to remind everyone please
Okay. And I would also like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to the Board Administrator, Mr. Hand.
At this time, I will announce that MI 2020-002-410-650 Fairmount Avenue
is February the 10th at 2 o'clock p.m.
And I believe that is it at the moment.
Is anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
Please raise your hand.
Chair, I have a Kathleen Catherine Mismer.
I will allow her to talk right now.
Good afternoon, Ms. Mismer.
Please identify yourself with a record,
spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon. Catherine Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, 19103.
We're going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I'm here on 2100 Benson Street. It's calendar number 39414.
As you may recall, this is a continued case from December 1st.
i'm sorry let me interrupt you what that calendar number calendar number is not correct
calendar number we have is mi2020-000735 yes this is an old one it has an original calendar
number still okay all right but it does have a meeting idea as well you're correct ms janari
okay so you're requesting a continuance yes it's my understanding that the councilman
A new RCO head and the client are actually meeting today to discuss this project.
I will note that for whatever reason, there is a date on the ZBA calendar for this case in April.
It's showing as April 21st at 3.30 p.m.
Is it possible to keep that date?
Jason and or Tanya?
Yes, it's fine.
Does that work?
yes it's fine okay okay very good thank you uh and what time what was that april 20 21st
at 3 30 p.m okay mi 2020-000735 2100 benson street is continued
until April the 21st at 3 30 p.m. Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
Chair, if we could announce that number 2-1609 South 8th Street is being continued.
Yep, I was getting, I'm waiting to see if anybody else had their hand up. I have that marked down.
Sorry, thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have a Diane Monroe with her hand up. I will allow her to speak right now.
Good afternoon, Ms. Monroe. Please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you in.
All right. Diane Monroe, 1117 Mount Vernon Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19123. I'm the chair of the 14th Ward RCO.
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do uh what case are we speaking to diane um the 641 north 11th street
we have not received any exhibits have you met with the or as the with the applicant and his
or her attorney no we haven't they were supposed to be requesting a continuance
because our open community meeting
is scheduled for the 17th of February
and they didn't come in
to ask for a continuance?
Not that we're aware of.
We didn't get any exhibits.
Has this case already been scheduled?
I don't have a record of any prior listings.
all right diane we're going to continue it as a must be heard uh okay um okay because it is
scheduled for today at february the 3rd uh 2 p.m yeah but no one's here no one's here we don't have
any exhibits and since it has not already been continued given the situation we're dealing with
with the pandemic we will continue it uh and it must be heard if they don't show up next time
it'll be dismissed all right thank you all right so mi 2020-0
all right thank you all right so mi 2020-002991 641 north 11th street is continued must be heard
uh i'm trying to remember did i get into uh number two on the list is mi 2020-000185
1609 South 8th Street. This case was remanded back from the Common Police Court. It will be continued.
Anyone have any requests for continuance or withdrawal or objects to any of the continuances
we just read into the record? Please raise your hand. Mr. Chair, I have a Mr. David Orfanides
with his hand raised. I will permit him to speak at this time. Thank you. Mr. Orfanides,
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, David Orphanides, last name is O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S, with Orphanides and Toner,
2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
I was trying to chime in.
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
I was trying to chime in on 641 North 11th Street.
I just heard Ms. Monroe speak.
it's mi2020-002-991 um i did send in a letter just a couple minutes ago regarding a continuance
request um this was our first scheduled hearing um the notice of refusal was issued on october 19
2020 we timely filed an appeal uh the coordinating rco which is miss monroe's group the 14th ward
democratic executive committee um wasn't able to schedule a hearing uh and within the 45 days
required by the code before today's hearing um we have a meeting scheduled for wednesday february
17th and i know you would continue the case i was raising my hand for some reason i'm not sure if i
wasn't seen but um i'd like to be i'd like the matter to be continued and for me to be designated
as the attorney moving party um i've been in contact with the administrator for the zoning
board miss sunkett regarding this matter i'm not sure how many community group meetings are going
to be um regarding scheduling we've had to date and so i think it would be best if i be designated
as the attorney moving party in that in this case and once we've completed the process with the 14th
or Democratic Executive Committee,
I would contact the board and or the administrator
to arrange for the scheduling
of the next hearing in this matter.
I don't think there's a problem with that, is there, Tanya?
No, I don't have a problem with that.
Oh, hi, Diane, great.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'll read this one back into the record,
MI 2020, 002991.
641 North 11th Street, Attorney Moving Party.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Any other requests, continuances or withdrawals for the two o'clock list?
No further hand at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I believe, Carol, we can begin.
Okay, calendar number 3041, 1400-02 South 5th Street.
The attorney is Rachel Pritzker.
I will promote Ms. Pritzker to panelists at this time.
Good afternoon.
Pritzker, good afternoon. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
and have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
pictures and 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 thank you you may proceed thank you i apologize i'm doing this
with a cat on my lap who will not move so i'm gonna try to do this carefully okay
just so the board can see what I'm dealing with here okay this is 1400-02 south 5th street
just so the board can see what I'm dealing with here
this property is zoned CMX1 and is directly adjacent to RSA5 so as the board well knows
it takes on the restrictions of RSA5 we're proposing um we were proposed the relocation
lot lines to create one from two lots, and also for a partial addition to the third floor above
an existing structure. We're not going to be doing the addition or the roof deck originally,
so those have been taken off our plans, and we did send to Ms. Saleta a proviso plans form
and the revised plan, so we're removing the roof deck and the addition. We're just proposing
for use as a child care center. The only other refusal that we have is for the rear yard depth.
RSA or CMX1 taking on RSA5 requires nine feet. This is an existing structure that takes up
100% of the lot. So we don't plan to demo anything or make any additions. And that's why
we have a hardship as far as rear yard depth is concerned. We met with the community
on, let me get to that. So there's the property, here's our deed.
As the board can see, this is the property right here. Again, it's a corner CMX1 existing
structure. We did consolidate those lots. As the board can see, the building takes up 100%
of the lot coverage. So there's really no ability to provide the nine foot rear yard
um had this been new construction um would have been different here's the zoning posters
the property
and let me get to the community we sent out this notice to the community we met with them on the
26th of january it was the dickinson square west civic association um they provided us a letter of
support for the projects. The only main opposition they had was they wanted to talk to us about where
we're going to put the loading zone. Obviously, we let them know that that doesn't really have
anything to do with the zoning portion of it. But we said that we would be happy to discuss with them
what made sense, whether putting a loading zone on Reed Street or on 5th Street.
Again, really the other issue was trash, which we are taking care of, but they did support our
appeal only if the loading zone is on 5th Street and time is limited. The board can see. We're
happy to work with the community on the loading zone, but we let them know that that wasn't really
a zoning issue necessarily um so we do have support from the civic and again on the record um
you know we will um make sure to work with them on that we sent out our mailers 169 mailers um
and i have our i believe our architect juliet whelan is on the call as well
if we want to go through the plans but i can just bring them up
and they were also sent to Sharon just to show the existing site.
Let me just download them so that they're clearer, better, again it's an existing second
story and we're no longer making any alterations to the site just have it broken out in certain
rooms as you can see based on the state's requirements for square footage per children
and stroller storage traffic was obviously parking was a concern but there's no ability to
parking on the site. And typically, as the board is probably aware, people who have daycare in
their neighborhood typically don't drive to it. They walk to it with their children. And so this
is sort of a nice amenity to have in this neighborhood. I'm happy to answer any additional
questions that the board may have. Again, this is just for use as a child care center in an
existing structure. And we're no longer putting a roof deck or anything to the property.
rachel let me ask you a question as it relates to the parking uh as you pointed out correctly
it's not enforceable by the zoning board i understand that councilman swilla submitted
a letter of support with the similar provisos that reflect what the rco had asked for is that correct
I believe so. I don't, I didn't get sent that letter. So if the board has a letter in front of them, that's
i i believe so i don't i didn't get sent that letter so if the board has a letter
Do we not have a letter?
I do. I have a letter from Dickinson Square West.
It's quite, and one from Squilla, from Councilman Squilla too.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Squilla's letter basically mirrors what the RCO was asking?
Yes, that's correct.
the reason i ask is that do you would you happen to know rachel if there have been any conversation
with the councilman as it relates to his support for creating a loading zone no we let the um
community know that we had not gotten into those discussions because if we didn't get the zoning
then those conversations would not really be appropriate at that time so typically we'd like
to wait until the zoning is approved to then have those conversations but we had said to the RCO that
we would discuss with them and we would need to get the near neighbor's support anyways for the
loading zone. Typically it requires a certain percentage of near neighbor support so it's not
something that could be done overnight anyhow. Yeah excuse me this is Sharon. Rachel I'm sorry
I didn't I didn't realize you didn't have the letter. It's a lengthy letter but if I could just
read the last two sentences? Sure. The committee supports appeal number, your number, only if the
loading zone is on Fifth Street and time limited and the maximum number of children served at one
time is reduced to 30 to 40 by proviso. The committee requests the applicant install six
street trees, three on Reed and three on Fifth Street. In the committee's opinion, no hardship
was presented. That's it. Okay. What's your response on the number of children, 30 to 40?
So the state is the one that regulates the number. And so this was a maximum of 55. That doesn't mean
that we will have 55. That's just what's allowed by the state. So there was only one person on the
call that felt like that was going to be like 60 parents and cars and and that's where i think that
came from but we had said that you know the state's really the one that regulates it and
leave it to their discretion yeah they do i just i just have a concern about the parking issue
what is the in your opinion what's the best way to sort of deal with that i just didn't want to
put hard in front of the horse and start negotiating that and then you know if the
community had hated the project then we would have spent a lot of time well i would the conversation
should be had with the councilman because he's going to have to work with the parking authority
on creating the loading zone yeah i mean we don't have any problem having it on fifth street
or having it on reed street those are the only two options it does it wasn't my client who's
on the line didn't have a problem either way it just was that we hadn't again gotten that far
down the road and if the council i'm not partial to either either fifth street or read i don't know
what the reason for the community suggesting fifth street was but i mean it is a busy
intersection very busy intersection uh so i i again i i know you don't want to put the cart
in front of the horse as you said but parking i think is a loading zone i think is going to be
crucial i mean i i my grandson goes along a few blocks away and it's helter skelter out there
and they do have two parking loading zones and it is tough was there anything in the councilman's
again i didn't have an opportunity to get that letter or see it does it have anything that says
they they wouldn't be supportive of the loading zone or just that they would work with us on it
Sharon has the letter we don't have that so again I think the language was basically the
same that they support it with that proviso that the loading spaces
I hate to have to do a resumption hearing but I think it's really again I'm not to beat up the
dead horse I think it's really important this conversation we had with the councilman
is the conversation just that he's so open to us yes putting a loading zone there yes i don't
think he'd be opposed to it but you still need i can't i can't speak for him but you're still
going to need his cooperation uh in conjunction with the parking authority of course so
tanya could enter at jason could we do a resumption hearing maybe next week because
It shouldn't take but a day or so to talk to the councilman about this.
And the hearing would just be as to get a feedback from Rachel on what the councilman's response was.
to get a feedback from rachel on what the councilman's response was sure no problem all
Sure, no problem.
right so we can do it next uh wednesday at two o'clock yes sir thank you all right so all right
rachel yeah that's perfectly fine i will reach out to the office no problem all right so mi2020-003041
1400-02 South 5th Street will be continued until February the 10th at 2 p.m. Thank you.
Calendar number 2951, 1712 Reed Street. That's Rachel as well. Yep. Can you put your name and
address on the record, please? Yes, Rachel Pritzker, R-A-C-H-A-E-L-P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R,
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 you're already under oath do you also
agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos and plans
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes you may proceed
share my screen again
okay this is 1712 reed street property zoned cmx one um with uh directly adjacent rsa five
We are proposing the legalization of an existing two-story building and for the erection of an
addition above a second story with a roof deck access structure for use as a single family home
to include private residential parking garage for one parking space. The refusals were generated were
for accessory parking in RSA 5 that cannot be accessed by a rear alleyway, rear street,
shared driveway. For open area, as you'll see from the photos, this is an existing structure
that takes up 100% of the lot coverage for no rear yard depth. Again, same thing with an existing
structure. And then I think we're about 0.58 inches off from the required 18 foot parking
stall width. Again, this is an existing building where we're doing an addition just above the
second story, legalizing it and doing legalizing the parking. So I'm just going to get down to
tax balance paid off. There's the deed.
So here's the property at the corner of Reed and Colorado. Again, zone CMX1 providing a single
family home. As you can see, this is the structure here. The garage is here. I'll show you from the
side view in a minute. This is from Colorado Street. So this is what we're looking to legalize
here, this garage, and doing an addition over the second story to provide a roof deck and roof deck
access structure. This is a corner of property, as you can see, that takes up 100% of the lot
coverage and has this existing garage that was never properly legalized this is the posting of
the zoning posters on the property code sections we met with the east point breeze neighbors on
december 16th via zoom i believe we have a letter of support there were 25 neighbors there 25 in
support from the near neighbors, three from the board and two extra commuters with 30 people in
support of this project. Certificate of mailing. And then the client who is the owner of the
property went around and here are the here's a petition of support from the near neighbors who
live on Reed Street, Colorado Street, in support of this project. So there was unanimous support
for this project. I'm just going to bring up the plans quickly. Very hard to do this. Multitasking.
Here's Reed Street.
Again, this is just to show the streets approval for the parking for a legalization of the
for a legalization of the garage it's existing garage with an existing curb cut and then here
garage.
It's existing garage with an existing curb cut.
is the plans that show the addition over the second story to include the pilot house
and some updates to the facade as you could tell from the pictures the facade needs some updating
everything else i kind of went over as to why we're not in compliance given it's an existing
structure that takes up 100 of the law coverage so i'm not sure if uh sharon has a letter from the
councilman's office but we did have that letter of support from the rco and um happy to take any
questions about 1712 three street thank you any questions from the board no no no
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chairman de chico and members of the board my name is greg waldman
planning commission staff spell your full name please um gregory waldman g-r-e-g-o-r-y
Last name Waldman, W-A-L-D-M-A-N.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends changing the existing commercial mixed use zoning for this property to single-family residential.
We do not object to the legalization of the existing accessory parking and lack of open area.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the requested variance.
Thank you.
M-I-2020-002.
Can I bring on my client to Swarminora?
Oh, yeah. Sorry. Sorry about that.
No worries.
Robin, do you see?
Jason, do you see a Robin?
Barua, B-A-R-U-A is his last name.
Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
No worries.
Robin Barua?
allow him to speak. Thank you.
Would you please identify yourself with a record first and last name?
Yes, Robin Barua.
Is that your last name, please? B as in boy, A-R-U-A.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Rachel, please proceed. Thank you. Robin, have you heard my
testimony today in front of the board? Yes. Is it
accurate and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. MI 2020-002951-1712 Reed Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes
i don't know if that's confirmed that's jim jim jim yeah jim's sounding bad buddy
what we get is an echo but we got your vote okay continue carol okay calendar number 2256
1837 south 10th street the attorney is hank clinton
jim there's a jim you got a there's a problem we're getting nothing but feedback from you
you might want you might want to you might want to leave the meeting and come back
Carol.
I did call a calendar number 225.
Henry's there.
Hi, Henry.
Hi, Henry.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Good afternoon, Mr. Harry.
Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia
PA, 19146.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you also emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and 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, I have to all of the above.
Okay, you may proceed. Thank you.
Okay, you may proceed. Thank you.
Thank you. Can I share my screen?
Thank you. Can I share my screen?
You may.
You may.
Is that visible enough or larger?
It's good for me. It's good.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Henry Clinton here on behalf of the applicant, Josephine Kalana,
who is also on the call. This is my presentation binder, which contains all my exhibits AA through
A10. I'll work my way through it, appearance statement, refusal, pretty lengthy refusal,
but I'll boil it down in a nutshell. This is a corner property where Ms. Kalana and her family
have lived for at least 40, and I think it might even be 60 years. It was a luncheonette on the
first floor, then an apartment or two above. The original application was to put a rear addition
on, which we're still going to do, and make it a three-story multifamily usage. And we also had
an existing garage, which we were going to keep. In meeting with the community group, we actually
met with the community group at least four times. My client decided to downsize from three units
to two and then to eliminate the garage which you don't often see in south philadelphia but that
what that's what miss colana wanted to do uh and it's it's going to be for her to continue to
reside there and her daughter will live there in the other apartment so it'll end up being
a duplex and we're saving the structure uh we met with east passion on crossing as i said
a number of times and they've given us unanimous support for the project
this is their explanation again i think it reiterates what i said we wanted three
but we're now only seeking two and there's no current or proposed rear yard setback
because the property already is 100% lot coverage
and again the community group goes on to explain what we have done
to make this project suitable to them and to my client
so here's the existing photos of the property it's the corner of
18th and Mifflin we're looking west in this direction you can see the building
is you know needs some maintenance needs some upgrade the the bays the tin bays are in good
shape they need to be painted but you'll see when we get to the renderings that this is going to be
entirely redone and then the addition is going to go above this area this this was the garage
and the addition is going to go here and we're going to have another beautiful protruding bay
to match the existing bay we're also going to keep the cornice have it repainted then we're going to
bring the cornice line down to the rest of the building so that your elevation is going to look
very uniform when you walk by this corner. This is looking east. We're at 10th, I said 18th,
excuse me, it's 10th, 10th and Mifflin. So we're on 10th Street. Now we're looking eastbound. You
can see this used to be an old entrance to the luncheonette with large windows here. We're going
to remove the wrought iron fence and redo the windows and the front door. We have made changes
to the plan. So if the board looks kindly upon this application, I'm going to ask if the board
can include the reference to one page as we have here. So again, just to give you a little bit of
feel for what this building will become, this is the new front on 10th Street with the protruding
bay, the existing cornice is going to be redone. This is the floor plan where instead of having
the garage in the back, you go to your first floor plan. Instead of having the garage in the back,
which would be here, that's going to be the entrance to the apartments. And this staircase
will go up so that there's an apartment on the second and third floor, and Ms. Kalana will have
the living room and dining room here, and she'll have one bedroom on the second floor. So it's
kind of split. There's going to be the entire third floor and part of the second for one apartment,
the entire first floor and part of the second for another apartment. Both occupants will have
access to the basement for storage and also to put any trash should they want to.
The remainder of the
The remainder of the documents are the deeds, the tax certifications, the notice to the
neighbors with our certificate of mailing, as well as a zoning map.
So I'm willing to go back through the project as the board deans worthwhile or answer any
questions but basically we have an existing property that's been there for many many moons
occupied strictly by the colonna family for about 60 years miss plana wants to stay in there and
downsize the application from three units to two units
here's your excuse me mr chairman here's the elevation i did not show you i only showed you
the elevation on 10th Street. This is now the new elevation on Mifflin Street. As I said,
we're going to have new bays here on the back. Now, these won't be 10 like the existing, but
we're going to try to match them as close as possible so that the visual effect of this is
really going to be pretty stunning, I think, when it's done. So we worked with the RCO, as I said,
on a number of occasions, and this is the plan that appears to be received overwhelmingly by
He's Pashonk.
Mr. Clinton, I think I heard you say the entrance to the second and third floor is going to be at the rear.
Well, I misspoke there.
The entrance to the second and third floors from the rear, the entrance here will be from the front.
But because it's a mother-daughter arrangement, Mr. Chairman, there is a door on this wall
so that if Ms. Colonna does want to visit her daughter, she can go out that area.
I just was curious as to why you didn't reference the front door, the door at the corner.
You're right. Yeah, it's going to be a nice entrance there. You are correct.
All right. Do you have Ms. Colonna available? Do you want to adopt your testimony?
Yes, I do. Ms. Colonna, are you on the call and can you just raise your hand,
and click that raise your hand icon
and you'll be unmuted.
I know she's on the call.
Well, if we can't,
if she's having a technical problem,
we'll stipulate you being an officer of court
that she would adopt your testimony.
Give her another minute,
but if not, we'll adopt the testimony.
Josephine, are you on the call?
all right well we'll again we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony
any questions from the board no no no would anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your
hand. See no hands at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission. Good afternoon.
My name is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff. You're already sworn in, so just
testify. Just trying to find my recommendation. Okay. The properties are indicated for commercial
mixed use on the comprehensive plan the planning commission appreciates the applicants revisions
to reduce the number of units at two and remove all street parking accordingly we have no objection
to the granting of the variance thank you very much MI 2020-002256 1837 South 10th Street my
vote is yes with the proviso revised plan one page stamp today my vote is yes with proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you Mr. Chair and members of
the board have a great afternoon likewise thank you calendar number two uh strike that calendar
number 1312-2117 South 66th Street.
I have a Ms. Tracy Salver with a hand raised. I'll allow her to speak at this time.
Thank you, Jason.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board.
good afternoon can you please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
and could you speak a little bit louder or move the microphone closer to you yes tracy soller
address 1019 south 8th street philadelphia pa 19147 do you
philadelphia pa19147 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do have you emailed strike that as well do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance refusal and or with referral photos and or plans five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter yes thank you you may proceed
we're here today on the property 2117 South 66th Street I'm sorry
um Jason can you promote her to a panelist
and done
okay Ms. Haller please proceed
Ms. Schaller?
She's muted.
Ms. Schaller, please unmute.
You've made a panel.
Can everyone hear me?
I hardly hear you.
You need to raise your volume or get closer to the mic.
For some reason it just
canceled my camera. If you don't mind, if I can leave, I can get back in with another computer.
Thank you. While she does this, this is Sharon Saleta. We had an email from the 40th Republican
Republican Ward RCO, they support the project with a proviso that a certificate of occupancy
be obtained within a specified time.
Thank you.
if she's having a hard time getting back on we can come back to her we can do the next case
calendar number one four three three four one four south 20th street
this could be lengthy no it's not going to be okay
what's hearing
number six
Mr. Michael Phillips has his hand raised. I will promote him to panelists at this time.
Jason, if possible, could Richard DeMarco and Leonard Reuter also be promoted?
Sure, Sharon. Hold on a second. I'll promote them right now.
Thank you.
Okay, so both of those guys have been promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
Good afternoon.
Name and address, please.
I'm sorry.
If I could just mention Chair Tracey has appeared.
Okay, Michael, hold off, we're going to go back to the prior case.
Hi, Tracey, you may proceed.
Hi, thank you for your patience. So this property is a single-family home, currently zoned as a single-family home in a RSA 5. We are seeking essentially a legalization of a use for a two-family home of this property.
If I may share my screen, I have the packet here.
If, if I may share my screen, I have the packet here.
Can everyone see that? Okay. Yes. Okay. So this property
is actually set up as a two-family home and as far as we know it has been used as a two-family
home since before 1985 and at that time someone had sought a variance for legalization of the
use as a two-family home. As you'll see in the history the zoning history which I've included
in my packet here a variance was granted back at that time and I'm not sure why
what happened or why they didn't get the permit at that time, but that was granted back in 1985.
As far as I know, it's continued to be used as a two-family home since that time. I have included
four-year reference on plans of the property, which show how it's laid out. As you'll see,
it is set up currently as a two-bedroom, one-bath on the first floor, and if you go up to the second
floor, it is a one-bedroom, one-bath apartment upstairs. If you'll notice in the photographs
of the interior of the property, this is a well-taken care of property. It is currently
tenant-occupied on the first floor and was when my client purchased the property just a little
while ago. We did meet with the RCOs in the local community and did receive a letter of full support
from the RCO and they submitted that letter this morning I believe. So I don't have a copy of that
here with me but that should have been submitted just saying that we have full support from
from them for this legalization. I also have included in my packet two notices that went
out to the community advising them of a meeting that we had over Zoom on Friday the 29th
which are here, as well as a copy of the deed, the notice of refusal. If you'll notice, there is one
change that would have to be made. It should be already in the ZBA's records, but the current
owner of this property is Dan Tran. At the time that this initial application went in, the parcel
owner was Dang Gam. So that would be the only adjustment from the original refusal that was
here. We did make note of that prior to sending out the notices to the community, and we also
made note of those changes on the posters that were posted at the property. I also have included
a copy of the deed. This is the new deed from recorded on November 4, 2020, and a tax clearance
certificate showing that the taxes are all paid as due. So it seems as though there is a need in
this community for apartments of this size and set up and laid out this way. The community didn't
have any issues. I know that they did ask that a proviso be included, just essentially providing a
deadline for my client to get a use and occupancy certificate or at least apply for one in the event
that the variance is granted. At this time, I can open it up if the board has any questions.
Okay, any questions from the board? No.
And then I do have my client, Dan Tran, present. Dan, if you could raise your hand.
Mr. Tran, good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.
Mr. Tran, it's been about to speak, sir.
Hi, my first name is Dan, last name Tran, T-R-A-N.
Mr. Tran do you swear and affirm to testify swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth I do thank you Ms. Sauer thank you Dan did you hear my testimony here today
I do and is it accurate and do you adopt it as your own yes thank you okay questions from the
board no would anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have a Michelle Cimeno. I won't allow her to speak at this time.
Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell your first and last name.
Give us your address, please.
Is this pertaining to 420 South 20th Street?
No. Yeah, that's why I don't know why they're calling me.
That's the next case.
yeah anyone else like to testify
mr craig meladosian has his hand up good afternoon craig please identify yourself
with the record spell your full name
craig c-r-a-i-g last name meladosian m-e-l-i-d-o-s-i-a-n ward 40 republican rco coordinating rco
P.O. Box
Philadelphia
I just essentially wanted to
Let me swear you in Craig
You swear and affirm to tell the truth
Nothing but the truth
Basically wanted to confirm the outline of
Council's presentation
Some of the RCOs
Went into the area of code
Enforcement
We've raised in the past our concern out here for fire safety, life safety issues.
Two Fridays ago, we again had another house fire on the 6700 block of Woodland.
So it's approximately a block and a half from this.
So to assuage those fears, a recommendation, as we've done with you in the past, is that
a certificate of occupancy be applied for.
you would determine the time frame and we would anticipate that would trigger an inspection by
l and i to confirm there are no life safety issues on the premises otherwise the property
seems to be well maintained and it would give us an additional quality housing unit in the area
thank you thank you for taking the time anyone else
no other hands at this time mr chair thank you cleaning commission
Good afternoon. Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff. This property is part of a rezoning
bill that rezoned the property to single-family residential in 2019. However, due to its proximity
to transit routes along the Woodland Avenue commercial corridor, we have no objection
to the granting of the requested variance. MI 2020-001312 2117 South 66th Street my vote is yes
with the proviso certificate of occupancy to be obtained within nine months. My vote is yes with
proviso yes we're proviso yes we'll revise though
okay i guess we're ready for the uh next case again i'll call calendar number 1433
412 south 20th street
i believe that we were going to have this case was going to be limited
i think if i'm not mistaken there was a request by mr demarco uh having questions for the
landscaper i believe it was uh yes chair jichico not to speak for uh mr demarco but uh we you were
ready to uh close the case this is an appeal against a zoning permit um or uh michael excuse
me just for interrupt let carol swear you win oh sorry name and address please michael phillips
1500 Market Street, Suite 3400, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, here on behalf of RLDL, 20th Street, LLC.
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
In the interest of time, Mr. DeMarco, name an address for the record.
Hi, good afternoon, everybody.
Richard DeMarco, 2005 Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Is Mr. Reuter wrong?
Hi, yes, this is him.
Hi, Leonard Reuter, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
So, go ahead.
Yeah, as I was saying, although you were ready to conclude the hearing last time, I know Mr. DeMarco wanted to examine and ask questions of the property owner's civil engineer, who we agreed.
the property owner's civil engineer, who we agreed in, I think, the second of the, you know,
the now four hearings that we would be calling in our case in chief. And so, you know, that was
the sole witness left to testify. I have approximately three questions for the engineer.
And then, you know, I don't know how many questions Mr. DeMarco will have.
And I believe the engineer should be on the line.
His name is David Plant.
Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree somewhat.
I would remind the board that we deferred a lot of our own testimony back in when the
hearing.
I know it's been a long time, and so things are stale.
But, you know, I don't have a ton.
But, you know, part of this was because we were told both at the original hearings that
would have an opportunity to question the engineer and so you know i'm going to be as efficient as
possible and i don't think we'll need a ton of time but yeah i would call i would remind the
board that we were promised this last year we understand we understand thank you go ahead mike
May I share my screen?
This time I'd like to call David Plant.
And just to quickly reorient the board, this was, again,
the buy-write permit for ground floor commercial with fresh food market
four units above with four commercial parking spaces in the basement that were accessory to
the commercial use. The fresh food market bonus and moderate income bonuses were utilized for this
permit. Questions were raised. One of the questions after we got through all the quiet
title issues at the first hearing and issues about the constitutionality of the fresh food bonus
There were issues that were raised by Mr. DeMarco and one of his witnesses about the ramp, the parking ramp leading into the basement for these four accessory spaces.
So David Plant here, just to put some brief testimony on about that ramp, there's also a letter that's Exhibit 9 that Mr. Plant prepared, setting forth information about the ramp.
we have a plan um that's been approved by streets department regarding the ramp that's also in
the file um so uh david plant are you on uh yes okay um you just need to be sworn in first
vice chair chanera would you like to swear in uh mr plant yes please identify yourself
for the record spell your last name david plant p-l-a-n-t-e do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you please proceed and uh rich can we
stipulate to mr plant's qualifications as a licensed uh engineer in the commonwealth
pennsylvania absolutely yes mr plant i'll be very brief with you uh you submitted a letter that is
in the record as Exhibit 9 regarding the parking ramp.
Did Rogerio Plant Land Design
design this parking ramp? Yes.
Are the pitch
and incline of parking ramps a zoning
issue? They are not. Okay. Would it be more accurate to say
that these are building code issues? Yes. Notwithstanding
that. Is the ramp that you designed feasible? Yes, it is. And was the ramp approved by
the streets department? The plan was approved by the streets department, yes.
And do you swear and affirm that the letter that you drafted to me that is in the record dated
October 28, 2020 is complete and accurate and truthful as to the ramp feasibility and the
heights. Yes. Okay. I have no further questions for Mr. Planck. Thank you. May I, Mr. Chairman?
Marco, please. All right. May I ask Mike to stop sharing screen? I'll do my share screen in a
minute. Thank you. Mr. Plant, good afternoon. Can you confirm that your business, your engineering group,
Your business, your engineering group, prepared the survey drawing, which was part of this development.
Can you confirm that?
That is correct.
And there was a testimony in the hearings back in last year regarding a portion of the plan that is known as the address 2006 Waverly Street.
Do you were you present for that testimony? I was not. OK. All right. Let me share my screen and I'm going to.
Mr. Plant, can you see what I have on my screen? Yes. OK.
I'm going to indicate with my course, sir. This is your organization, Ruggiero Plant Land Design, correct? That's correct.
And the dates here, this 3-19, 3-12-19 date, this is a lot consolidation survey, correct?
All right.
So over here, it says source of title.
Do you see that?
All right.
And do you see 2006 Waverly Street mentioned there as one of the lots involved in this process?
All right.
And you see there, if I read for the record, it says 2006 Waverly Street, the source of title says deed from Maria Suppresso to Edward Suppresso and Catherine Suppresso dated May 16th, 1975, etc.
Correct?
So in your preparation of this document, you have identified the owner of 2006 Waverly
Street as Maria and Edward Suppresso and Kathleen Suppresso, correct?
Well, I've noted them as the owner of record, reflecting the recorded documents.
Owner of record.
You agree with that?
And that is true and correct at the time you did and prepared this document.
Is that right?
That is what we gleaned from the documents provided to us.
All right.
All right.
But this document, you stand by this document as accurate when it was prepared, correct?
Correct.
All right.
And were you ever aware that a quiet title action was filed with regard to the ownership of the 2006 Waverly Street parcel?
Are you aware of that?
I am aware of that.
But there's nothing inaccurate about this document as to the ownership of 2006 Waverly Street at this time, correct?
As I stated, the owner of record, as stated on the plan, reflects the recorded documents and records available to us.
All right. Very good. Now, I'm going to take you over to the actual survey drawing, and let's just identify for the record.
Do you see what I'm outlining with my course here?
All right. Is that the 2006 Waverly Street parcel that you've identified as the deed of record being the suppressors?
I need to interrupt for a second. I know this is a little over two years ago.
My memory is not as good as it used to be. Are we rehashing the issue of title here?
Wasn't there something about someone didn't live there or lived in Florida?
I mean, did we not? And is it that important to go over this again? I seem to think that we've
already been through all this. Well, no. Correct me if I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, I understand it's stale, but what happened was the architect refused to testify on this
portion of the deeded survey and punted all of these issues to the engineer. So I was unable
to establish the record uh and if you recall you know the one of our main challenges to the issuance
of this permit was that the owner did not provide proof of ownership for this particular piece
because there was a quiet title action and yes we spent we did spend some time on it but i never got
to uh speak about the survey because the architect refused to answer the questions and this is why
this piece of this uh record is so important and why i need to make it so uh we never got here to
this point uh uh mr chairman we got sent to we were told we had to ask the engineer these questions
so that is why this was so important why i asked that this hearing be held i i disagree that we've
never got to the point we had a full hearing on this quiet title i thought we did uh the first
hearing that's all that was addressed we didn't even have time to get into any other issues at
the first hearing. We had an attorney who was one of the appellant's husband's partners
partners come out and representing an individual who lived in California. I mean, Mr. Chair,
come out and representing an individual who lived in California.
we have one building that was on this parcel with a single OPA tax number with OPA records
reflecting it as 2,273 square feet, which is the combined size of 414 to 1620th Street and this
2006 Waverly Street address. The city didn't recognize 2006 Waverly as a legal address. They
only recognized one owner. A quiet title action was filed, has been resolved. A corrective deed
is in the record. We believe that this is just simply a red herring. RLDL 20th Street was the
equitable owner of the property at the time the application was filed. Thank you for refreshing
my memory. Yeah, and Mr. Chairman, this particular issue, I've established this is all I needed. I
I wanted to make sure the record was clear at the time this application was filed.
This property was owned by the suppressors and not by a developer, and that was-
That has not been made clear.
You've allowed me to make the record.
That was the key part of my questioning of Mr. Plant.
I never got to ask these questions.
You've allowed it.
We have a complete record on this issue now, and I'll argue it at the appropriate time.
But we never got to establish these facts.
I never got to ask these questions before.
But I can move on to the issue of the ramp, but you're on.
I think that's the issue with the board we'd like to hear about.
All right.
Very well.
We'll do that right now.
So Mr. Plants, let me put up your drawing here.
Thank you for your testimony thus far.
So you've agreed that you did design the ramp for this parking area, right?
Correct.
All right.
You would agree that the code requires that when you propose accessory parking as part of a development, the parking must be accessible.
Would you agree with that, that the code requires that?
That's correct.
Now, you've testified that your ramp is feasible, correct?
Correct.
All right.
So your letter that Mr. Phillips referred to shows that you mentioned that there's a depth of 9.7 feet.
that right for this ramp to travel that's right all right
let's direct your attention to the site plan in this matter uh do you see this the depth here
where my do you see this the site plan here that i have up yes do you see this let me move it up a
bit here. This, this, do you see this, where my courser is? I do. That says a depth of 12 feet,
correct? Correct. All right. So your measurements are different from what was shown on this site
plan to lni correct um well yes um we have a shallower depth to the parking portion
of the of the cellar um the architect may have a another section in the utility room or
some other section that is lower than the parking section the parking section doesn't need to be
that deep but i've imagined you you're standing by your measurement of 9.9 feet 7 inches as opposed
to this depth of 12 feet shown on the plan correct that's right all right let's go back to your
drawing so you would say your your draw your uh depth is the accurate one not the one that's shown
here would you agree with that to the bottom of the ramp and the parking area that we show that's
we have addressed we haven't addressed other areas of the basement all right but you would
agree there the numbers are inconsistent you would agree with that objection
say that again i said i my question is you would agree that the that mr plant's measurement is
is different from the measurement that's shown on the on the site plan i can't make it maybe
Maybe Tom can answer it better than me.
I'm saying you would agree that your measurement is the correct one, right?
Well, as I stated, my drawing addresses the depth, not necessarily to the lowest point in the basement,
but to the parking area and the bottom of the ramp.
So there could be different elevations in different portions of the cellar.
but don't you base your drawing on this on the site plan and uh what that's submitted to l and i
well i i have my my drawing demonstrates what the elevation
well i i have my my drawing demonstrates what the elevation of the parking area the parking spaces
uh counselor counselor the architect and the engineer could have different ceiling heights
because they take it from different points okay all right well let's go back to the let's go back
to the to the to the ramp drawing you see the ramp drawing mr plant all right so there's a measurement
here of of 24 feet right do you see that traverse that's right and that's not an accident right
that's a requirement in the code is it not to have 24 feet wide for driveway aisles that's correct
all right your ramp though extends into that driveway aisle does it not it does okay so and
if we took take a look at your measurements here i see a 20 foot foot measurement
This is a five-feet measurement here, this portion of the ramp, correct?
And then there's a portion of this five feet is also within the 24 feet.
Agreed?
That is correct.
All right.
So the distance from here, the edge of your ramp to the parking that it faces, is somewhere around, let's say, around 17, 18 feet.
Would you agree around 17 feet?
Is that fair to say?
I believe that you're looking at that incorrectly. So what we show here is the ramp and the slope
on the parking aisle floor. So the ramp ends at the edge of the parking aisle, okay,
And in this case, we demonstrated the slope on a portion of the parking aisle.
Now, and I believe that ranges from a tiny amount at 7% and a portion of it at 5% or 4%.
Hold on a minute.
Are you saying that this ramp does not extend?
This is inaccurate?
The depiction of this ramp is not accurate?
The depiction is accurate.
I believe you're misinterpreting that.
That is demonstrating the slope within that driving portion of the aisle of the ramp.
That's right there, right?
However, the aisle is 24 feet.
Just because we showed a couple of lines indicating the breaks and slope, that doesn't mean that it is ramp or dry vial.
What I'm showing there is a depiction of the slope and the last five feet being 4%, approximately another two feet at 7%.
And those areas are within the drive aisle, but the entire drive aisle would be sloped in that way.
So it's not a separate ramp. It's not a separate structure.
So then, you know, I don't really, Mr. Plain, I'm not following it.
Let me ask you, let me try to ask it more simply.
There's no discrete structure along those lines, okay?
Well, what is the distance from the end of the ramp to this parking space right here, if it's not somewhere around 17 feet?
Well, it's 24 feet.
So the edge of this ramp should be back here, aligned with this parking area?
Why wouldn't you just have shown that?
Well, I'm showing you the slope all the way down to the main portion of the drive aisle.
But you have footage, you have a foot measurement here.
Why would you show it as five feet, five feet, five feet if that's not what it is?
Well, that is what it is.
That's a slope, that's to show the break in grade from those different grade percentages.
Am I seeing this correctly, that five foot that Mr. DeMarco is speaking?
It looks like the line at the top is lighter in shade compared to the other.
And is that something that architects or the way this thing is drawn out?
Those lines, the lines along the side, they have no significance.
And the vertical line at the end of the five feet could stretch all the way across the entire 24-foot drive aisle.
Because you're showing the slope.
Let me ask a simple question.
For all intents and purposes, correct me if I'm wrong, if I understand Mr. DeMarco's question,
that should only be the five foot and five foot.
And we could eliminate that last block of five feet and four percent?
block of five feet at four percent eliminated the last the block of the last five feet
We eliminated the last block of five feet.
so that then that gives you a lot more from the end of that second block to the parking area
it adds another five feet correct which gets you to the 24 feet rather that's right and and there
is no there is that is all that would all be asphalt um at the bottom of the access ramp
and across the parking spaces and the parking aisle.
So the whole thing would be blended together.
There is no discrete structure that would, you know, provide an impediment to a vehicle maneuvering.
And the ramp itself, the only place it would deviate from the parking spaces along the side would be at the end of the 18-foot parking space, the beginning of the 24-foot aisle.
That's the only place where there would be a discrete vertical break and grade.
That's where it would begin.
So, look, this record is already completely confusing.
and unfortunately I don't understand that but well let me mr. plant let me try to understand
something because I think what you just told me is the lip of the ramp is not where it's supposed
to be on your drawing am I hearing correctly drawing does not indicate a lip there I'm simply
simply showing you the slope. But it says vertical vertical ramp to garage floor elevation
and this is the drawing that you submitted to the streets department which you're claiming
was approved correct?
This is the drawing that was approved submitted to streets and approved by the streets department
correct? No this I don't know that this drawing was submitted to the streets department.
that's what your attorney just said that no there are two there are two uh plans rich in in my
documents one this simply shows the ramp in the and it shows what the uh you know the incline and
the percentage here it also shows 24 feet between the parking spaces which is what is required by
the zoning code these other issues are not zoning issues but this shows because that the ramp is
feasible. So I'm going to object. That is absolutely not correct. The 24-foot driveway
aisle is in the zoning code. Yes. And the parking has to be accessible, and that's in the zoning
code. If the parking is not accessible, it should not have received a permit. So it is a zoning
issue. Now, what I've been told now is that this distance is not correct, that the ramp exists
somewhere else, and is not accurately drawn. Am I hearing this right? Mr. Plante, please clarify.
That is not correct.
Not correct.
I'm sorry, Mr. Plank.
Well, so what is the distance from the edge of the driveway ramp to the parking?
24 feet.
So this ramp should be back here then, right?
If you want to, yes.
The ramp starts there, 24 feet from the parking.
So this distance from the top of the ramp to this point here has to traverse 9.7 feet, doesn't it?
That is not true.
I'm sorry.
You said the depth of this parking ramp is 9.7 feet.
Mr. DeMarco, as I've said repeatedly, a portion of that dry vial is also slow.
That's why we picked the end.
And that points to 9.7 feet at the end of the five feet.
A portion of that 24-foot dry vial is sloped.
As it is permitted, even if this was a surface lot where the grade on the surface of the lot would be regulated,
we would be permitted to have a 10% grade.
um a garage is not regulated the slope is not regulated but we're
you know well under the uh allowable slope in this case so let me let me ask you this
no obstruction just to to a vehicle driving uh at the end of the ramp and into the drive-off
so let me ask you this so let me let me make sure i understand these numbers are accurate
though right these footages this five feet five feet 27 feet yes five feet five feet five feet
right all right and those add up to 52 a little over 52 feet right that's right and the distance
right? That's right. And the distance that they travel down into the depth is 9.7 feet,
that they travel down
correct? Correct. All right. When you do the math, that's an 18% slope, isn't it?
Do you agree with that? You did these measurements, right?
Let me ask you this. The run of the ramp is 52.6 feet, right? You said yes to that, right?
I'll have to add this up. It's been a little while.
All right. But we agree that the ramp travels to a depth of 9.7 feet, right? You've testified as that, right?
I believe that is true.
All right. That's 18, a little over 18 percent average, isn't it?
And that the last part of my question, Mr. Plan, is that does not match.
The drawing that you're looking at here, I believe, has a shallower or elevation.
Well, here's what I'm getting at. And I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chairman.
But here's what I'm getting at.
these percentages don't match a slope of 18%.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Plant?
The highest slope is 17%, and it's less at these levels, right?
That's right.
This drawing that you're looking at, Mr. DeMarco,
contemplates a difference from the sidewalk elevation
to the drive aisle elevation.
Because your letter states the top is 42 feet
and then the bottom is 32.58 feet.
That's what your letter says, right?
That is correct.
That's 9.7 feet, right?
yes that drawing that the letter does not reflect exactly what's on this floor
all right so the the letter but these this drawing was attached to your letter as support for the
letter right i don't know the answer to that all right well is is the number that's on your letter
of 42 feet which will be the top of the ramp is that inaccurate uh
that uh well that drawing that that elevation is not specified on any of the plans to make to the
to the uh the city um so i believe that the parking elevation could be set as needed at
that elevation, or to create a flatter ramp, a milder ramp, at a slightly higher elevation,
which is what's shown on the drawing.
All right.
But so you're basically, do I have your testimony correct?
And so we're clear for the record here, Mr. Plant, these drawings are not really what's
intended to be built.
Is that what you're telling me?
there's flexibility and you can do what you want here? There is flexibility. The ramp is not
regulated. Hold on a minute. Hold on. Ultimately, you have to construct this, right? And it has to
work. Do we agree with that? That's correct. All right. So the slope of this ramp has to be a
certain slope that will allow the cars to enter and exit without damaging themselves, right?
That is correct. All right. And the streets department, you've claimed and your attorney
has claimed the streets department has approved all this right the streets department has approved
the plans uh that were submitted i believe and that you have a copy of that uh depict the entrance
to the to the they're in my exhibit packet if you want me to pull it up but again these aren't even
zoning issues this is like it's incorrect it's incorrect let me ask the question let me just
a simple mr mr plant if this garage were built according to the plan does it work yes all right
you don't see any reason why it would not work correct or is that right all right so why are we
beating up this this beating up the same issues going on because we're meeting you they're not
going to first of all from the from a practical standpoint who would spend the tens of thousands
maybe, I don't know, a million dollars to build an underground garage that isn't usable.
I mean, no one's going to do that.
Well, here's the issue, Mr. Chairman.
That's what I want to hear.
What is the issue?
I'm going to answer your question.
The problem is, in this exhibit, there's an elevator here.
In this exhibit, there's an elevator here. You see here, Mr. Chairman, there's an elevator on the, this is what really was intended. And, you know, the architect admitted that there was a, that is, that's incorrect. Now they want to go with the ramp. The ramp, the ramp is their open space.
You see here, Mr. Chairman.
so the point we have been making and you know everybody keeps dancing around these numbers
but this is their open space in order to receive the over-the-counter permit so they ditched the
elevator and put and tried to count it as open space by including a ramp and we're trying to
tell you and our expert testified i'm sorry you don't remember it but our expert testified janice
Woodcock, testify that the
ramp is
unfeasible.
It just doesn't
work. The ramp extends
to the... The elimination of
the elevator, what harm
is caused by that?
It's by having a ramp
they can use it. It would be a structure
if it was an elevator, and it would not allow them
enough open space to appear. But they eliminate
the elevator. So where's the harm done?
Well, we're saying that
they included the ramp in order to avoid having to request a variance, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair, there has been testimony at this. I think it was at the second hearing when the
architect testified that at one point there was a plan that included an elevator. That language
was just a carryover. The plan that was submitted and approved has a ramp on it.
But the point is, Mr. Chairman, this is how they got the over-the-counter permit. The ramp doesn't
work there's going to be a change in the future we have another appeal but i'm trying to show you
on that it's not just not accessible i mean look at the distance but richard you just said you made
a statement that the ramp does not work right the the mr plant says that it does work right so you
have a factual determination to make whether to believe our expert or mr plant i have to believe
them because i can't imagine spending all this money for something that is not functional it
doesn't make any sense i mean i'm oversimplifying it sometimes i have a tendency to do that
but underground garages are extremely extremely expensive all right let me let me ask it i can
ask a final uh a final question of mr plant so we can move on mr plant wherever this driveway ramp
ends. A vehicle, especially a handicapped van, you're showing a handicapped space right here,
correct? That's right. All right. A handicapped van, we can agree, is a larger vehicle than usual,
correct? The van, yeah. All right. So even if the ramp is somewhere where you're claiming it to be
and not right here, which is shown on this drawing, a handicapped van would have to make
multiple turns if these spaces were occupied would it not in order to in order to shoehorn
back into this handicapped space? Well it would be the same situation in really as really any
normal conforming surface parking lot or garage with a 24-foot drive aisle. So they may be able
to make that in one maneuver, they may need two.
Well, let's take the flip side.
Let's say the van somehow gets into this handicapped space.
If these spaces are occupied, how's the van going to make the turn to get up the ramp?
Who's going to have to make multiple three-point turns?
Am I correct?
I don't know that that's true.
I can't say that I put a turning template on this, but more than one,
Even if they had to make several maneuvers, there's no reason they couldn't do that.
And it's exactly the same condition that exists in every other parking lot in the city that has a 24-foot drive aisle and a conforming handicap space that's 11 feet wide.
You're saying every other parking scenario in the city of Philadelphia has this kind of a turn?
Obviously, I'm not.
I'm telling you that the dimensional issues here are exactly the same.
So even if it was a surface parking lot and we had the 24-foot drive aisle
and the conforming space, you would have the same condition.
All right.
Would you agree – this is my final question, Mr. Planck.
Would you agree that if this ramp extends into the 24 feet that you've shown
for the driveway aisle, that would be something that would be prohibited
by the zoning code?
It is not.
It is not. The ramp, because you're confusing this as though there is an obstruction, but the ramp is no more than a portion of...
But the ramp is no more than a portion of the drive aisle, which is slope.
All right.
I'll rephrase it.
I've depicted it as a ramp.
All right.
I'll rephrase it.
If this ramp extends into this 24-feet driveway, if, I understand you saying it doesn't, but if this ramp were to extend into that 24 feet, a refusal would be required, right?
It would not.
it's not an obstruction to to the uh the drive aisle but it doesn't so what it doesn't matter
if it did it doesn't all right according to mr plant's testimony i don't mean to be
curt here but we can if we can use anything mr chairman mr chairman mr chairman yes tom
it seemed like to me that the ramp overlaps with the driveway but that's not a code violation
thank you yep i know for the questions mr chairman all right mr phillips i'm sorry mr
reuter do you have anything to add because we're going to wrap this thing up uh no just uh maybe
just for the clarification of the record because i think the record's now going to be a little bit
confused i just want to ask mr plant just a couple quick questions which i think we all know the
answers to but i just want it to be clear um first of all mr plant just so we know for the record
that it's clear um how many parking spaces will be in the uh this garage four parking spaces sorry
we didn't hear that four parking spaces okay and um in terms of the philadelphia code the code
refers to a uh parking aisle and driveway and those are not the same thing is that right
Correct.
And you agree that a driveway connects to a parking aisle, which I think is also sometimes called a drive aisle.
Is that right?
That's correct.
So, and you'd agree that in the code drive aisle and parking aisle are the same thing?
Parking aisle and drive aisle, yes.
Right.
But that's not the same thing as a driveway.
That's correct.
Okay. And so I think what you're saying here is that the ramp itself, the part that comes in off the street, that is driveway, not drive aisle, correct?
We didn't hear you.
Yes, that's correct.
Okay. And so once, when you have the portion of the ramp after you make the 90 degree turn, now it's the shallower slope onto, you know, basically the floor of the garage, correct?
Correct.
Okay. And that the zoning code does not regulate the slope of the, I mean, other than the code requiring that the parking garage itself not be built on a slope, it does not regulate the slope of any ramps within the parking garage. Is that right?
well there is no um there is no requirement or regulation regarding the slope even of the
parking garage floor so okay right so so in that case then um so literally like if i were driving
let's say i was up where it says proposed five-story building where that line is and i
have a car there and I'm going straight down uh on the leftmost side of that 24 feet um when I get
to the portion there that's and then it's hard because I don't have control of the screen but
when I get to the portion of that last uh rectangle there in the middle if I'm in a car
or motorcycle or wheelchair and I get to that portion what happens if I'm just going straight
down right the the drive aisle is flush with the end of the ramp at that portion so there is no
obstruction okay uh and then all right so and in terms of the turn radius and the ability of an
access an x accessible van to get into the uh the space and i'll just call it the upper left hand
corner here. I don't know if that's northwest corner, whatever. That's not a zoning issue.
Would you agree? Well, the handicap space is required by code, and all of the spaces,
of course, would have to be accessible, and they all are. And, you know, everyone's confusing
And, you know, everyone's confusing that slope drawing, those two, those rectangles, as being some kind of an obstruction.
that slope drawing that
You would drive right across those and not even realize there was a break in grade or any change in surface or anything like that.
It's, it's, there's nothing there.
Those lines are only guidelines to help demonstrate the slopes.
So there is no obstruction. A vehicle coming down the driveway onto the drive aisle would be free to maneuver anywhere within that 24 foot drive aisle with no obstruction.
Right. Thank you. And then finally, if and when you get to the building permit phase, all of this will be reviewed in terms of the actual slope of the ramp and turning radius and all of those things within the garage.
And if it does not meet building code requirements, then that would have to be, then you would have to redesign this, correct?
Correct.
uh and if that redesign required a change in the zoning plan then then you would just have to come
back and submit another zoning application to correct that correct but as of now the
streets department has in fact looked at this uh they've looked at the the um the plan for the
driveway entrance correct right they looked at the uh where the curb cut would be uh and that
initial like entrance there and made sure the facade and every or the uh the opening and all
that was correct and it would just be again it would just be a building code issue the actual
uh physical structure that's being structures or spaces that are being put down in the basement
or i'm calling it a basement but i mean garage is that correct that's right okay i have no further
the questions uh mr chairman i just have one follow-up from the quote from the answers from
mr reuter's questioning let me let me make if it's okay one question mr plant is the drawing
that i have on my screen was that submitted to the streets department to my knowledge no it was not
all right is there a drawing that was submitted to the streets department for the driveway and
driveway aisles etc etc uh i'm that would be just the zoning plan i believe okay so the the the
streets department's approval that's been discussed here today was based on the site plan and not on
this drawing well the streets department issued a technical or final plan approval for the
access to the driveway all right let me just so i'm clear there was not a separate drawing
submitted by you to the streets department it's in the it's in the exhibit packet i don't know
where you know no i've had conflicting testimony mr plant this the site plan is the only drawing
that was approved by the streets department is that right no no there's a technical curb and
sidewalk grade plan setting forth all the specific elevations dimensions for all of the
outside the building in the public right of place.
Mr. Chairman, I thought that that's what this was,
and it looks like it isn't.
I think it would have been something that you should have seen.
It's in the exhibit packet.
Rich, if you let me share my screen, I'll show it.
It's been there.
No, we're not going to.
We've seen that.
I'm pretty sure we've seen that.
And, again, streets has really, what I'm familiar with is streets.
The purview with the streets apartment is the curb cut
and all the issues as it relates to ingress and egress into the garage,
not necessarily the garage.
And I could be wrong on that,
but that's pretty much what my understanding is about
the involvement of the streets department.
All right, Mr. Phillips, do you have anything?
Because we're going to move on.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to stop the screen share just so I can.
All right.
I have nothing further other than just to, again, establish.
It's right here is the streets plan with the stamp from streets that it was approved, 9-17-20.
And this was the technical plan that Mr. Plant was referencing.
Do you have a copy of that, Mr. DeMarco?
i mean i do but there's no there's no there's no there's no dimensions of the of the parking area
it's just the uh the it's just the radii for the turn in on the curb cut that's what streets
approves or disapproves i hear you but they said otherwise they said streets approved it i'm
we got a lot of conflict so i but but yes i have nothing further
But yes, I have nothing further with that.
Property owner will rest its case and can conclude.
Do you need anyone to adopt your testimony?
I do not believe I do.
If not, that's right.
The burden of proof is on Mr. DeMarco and his clients to show that there's some invalidity.
Understood. Thank you. All right.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, there are some objections to some of Mr. Phillips' documents.
There's a number of hearsay emails from my client to all of the protests in this matter.
There's emails with Angela Luton, who was the protestant on the compromise plan that has been scrapped in this matter.
They're all hearsay. They're all irrelevant. They're all in Mr. Phillips' packet.
if they're not appropriate for the consideration by this board.
So note my objection to those.
They're not hearsay.
I mean, they're party admissions, and they're email that this client wrote.
All right.
Questions from the board?
Mr. Chairman, there were people here who wanted to be identified as participating in the hearing today.
I thought there would be a way.
This is a virtual hearing.
You have no way of seeing all the people who are concerned about this application.
I wonder if you could open up the chat, let them put their names and addresses.
I'm getting it.
That's my if.
I asked the board first, and then I open it up for anyone else who would like to tell you.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one thing to that point, though.
Mr. DeMarco put on his case in chief.
He put on his witnesses, including members of the community who stated their concerns to this.
This is a technical appeal claiming that there is some invalidity and some error within the issuance of the zoning permit.
To the extent that he has any witnesses who can point to the invalidity, I believe that would be appropriate.
But just to have individuals state that they have concerns and don't like that this is up for development would not be pertinent.
No, no, no. I want them to enter appearances through the chat.
I don't want – they're not going to testify.
If I might make just one point related to that, though, and again, it's totally up to the board.
I'm not going to object to the board allowing people to put their names on the record and whatnot,
but keep in mind that for purposes of registering for the Zoom hearing,
you have to put down the matter that you are appearing, that you're wanting to witness while you register,
so you have to put the address of the property in question and then you also have to state whether
you're there whether you're just neutral or whether you're there for uh an applicant or
protestant or other and so that you know so technically that information's already there
we already have it yeah but if you want people i'm i'm okay i'm not going to object to people
just simply putting their names on the record saying i oppose or i'm in favor that that's fine
and again mr demarco if you find it necessary to give names and addresses fine other than that
we're going to move on i mean they do have to fill out the appearance slip and it has all that
information on it i understand i only have i only have a statement here uh mr chairman a very brief
closing argument mr mr uh phillips gave a gave an opening statement i don't believe i ever made
an opening statement but very brief and you can move on to your next uh list
so so i just want to make sure that the board understands that um you know we believe the
record's clear that at least more information should have been required by the zoning examiner
in this case with all the discrepancies from the on the plan itself but i want to make it clear to
the board that this proposal is what spurred uh changes to the zoning code the the proposal was
so onerous that the councilman's office changed the code to make sure that this never happened
again. So to be clear, there's a public policy issue here whereby the loopholes that this
developer exploited resulted in changes of the code. It could never happen again. That's why
the councilman's office is in support of the neighbors. And I'm sorry you can't see them all
physically today but there's so much concern over this but the issue of the ownership i don't want
the board to just say because it's been settled the actual quiet title litigation has been settled
that it's over the code requires that the applicant develop owners show ownership at the time so are
we just going to turn our blind eye and say okay no harm no foul you settled it later it's okay
that you told the the you told the department that you had site control when you didn't but
that you had site control when you didn't, but we're just going to overlook it because
We're just going to overlook it because you settled the case.
you settled the case with them. Thank you for selling the case. That's not how it works.
The code requires proof of ownership at the time that it was submitted and they didn't have it.
And it's in the record as an admission. The LNI wanted you to decide this, Mr. Chairman and
members of the board. They didn't want to make the decision on their own. It's not, you can't
just say it's irrelevant because it's been settled since then. It's been settled since then because
we all thought we had a deal. We thought we were singing
Kubaya, but that
didn't happen. The deal fell through. The developer
re-dinged on the deal. So now we're here,
but for God's sakes,
the code says what it says. We can't
just ignore it. It says you have to
have full control of the site. They didn't
have it. They rushed it, and that's why
we're here, and that's why we presented
that testimony that we did.
Thank you for your time. You've been very patient.
All right. Thank you. Can I be
very brief in my conclusion? I mean
brief, brief. Very brief, yeah.
two points. One, when it gets to the site control, we've established we were the equitable owner and
that the city considered one tax parcel. I won't rehash that. I just want to say there's a
presumption that municipal officers perform their duties properly. And the appellants have the
burden to prove that that did not happen here. The plans examiner's testimony was credible
that the application complied with all of the requirements. The permit complied with the
provisions of the zoning code the city of philadelphia believes that our engineer architect
everybody is on board that this plan conforms to the zoning code the with respect to the zoning
code being changed after the fact that's immaterial you don't retroactively then
invalidate permits that were issued under the code at the time think of the uncertainty that
would be created if this permit were invalidated because the fresh food bonus was changed after
the fact. It would cause every zoning permit that was issued to be called into question and to be
subject to revocation. Ms. Gilboy and the neighbors, they lobbied Councilman Johnson and were able to
effectuate a change in the zoning code after this permit was issued. That is the proper way to
challenge an ordinance to go through the legislative process. What is improper is to
try to use the zoning board to then retroactively invalidate valid permits that were issued under
the zoning code at the time, and that is what the appellants here are trying to do. We would urge
the board to deny this appeal and to allow the permit to stand as it complies with the zoning
code. I agree, and I think if it had been done the way you described early on, then the board
would be looking at this entirely differently but um legislation came much later yes leonard
sure very briefly um i would just uh just for the record i would uh i would adopt uh mr phillips
closing in its entirety especially with respect to the um the plans examiner having conducted her
duties properly here um and uh with respect to again the issue of the zoning code being changed
after the fact. Again, that's neither here nor there. In fact, the case law on one of the leading
cases on that issue is the Lindy Holmes case, which is still the lead case on the issue of not
of the city's municipalities having no authority to affect zoning permits that were issued validly
on the basis of either an actual change or a presumed change to the code that takes place
afterwards um that's a case from the 1970s i think and it's still good it's still the lead case on
the issue in the entire state and that's actually a philadelphia case by the way um and as far as
the change of ownership i i would disagree with mr demarco um in fact what he described is exactly
the way it would happen the person submits a permit application they tell the city that they
have authority to file it the city is not in a position to vet every application for the authority
we get the documents the documents speak for themselves if there is a civil dispute about
that authority that's not that does not affect the validity of the permit unless and until um that
litigation reverses you know and the court finds that you know say mr phillips client did not have
the authority and this that did not happen here it was resolved and therefore it makes there would
be no requirement no reason whatsoever to go back and require them to reapply now that they
indisputably have uh authority the city we the city does not uh just like we don't review deeds
to determine you know specific uh issues and rights and obligations under deeds we don't review
uh if somebody says they have authority we have to accept that at face value and if it turns out
later they don't have the authority then we would revoke the permit but that never happened here
so um you know again i that's it's a it's a non-issue and with respect to the confusion
of the plans i think 90 of the confusion that's been raised involve matters that are not
90% of the confusion that's been raised involve matters that are not zoning matters they are
matters for uh that may be for streets department review in the future although I don't think
given this is CMX one so the streets department I believe would not review the layout of the
interior garage they do in CMX three four and five but not one uh or two I think um so you know
those are building code issues, if anything. The streets department indisputably reviewed
the entrance, the driveway entrance from Waverly Street, and that was approved, and that was all
required to be reviewed or approved by streets as a prerequisite to the permit. So anything else
that involves the garage and the layout is just not a zoning issue. They provide an accessible
space and that's all they're required to do under the code again there I have no idea whether there
may or may not be building code issues later but that's not before this board thank you for that
brief statement and thank all of you for your brief statements appreciate it uh Mr. DeMarco you
can let your clients know that we understand that there some of them must be waiting online uh that
the the fact that they signed the appropriate uh applications to be heard today that they part of
their names and addresses will be part of the record.
N.E.K. Let's go.
Planning Commission.
Chair, this is no way to appeal against Illinois.
I'm sorry, it's an appeal against Illinois, I apologize.
Thank you.
All right, MI 2020-001433, 414 South 20th Street.
my vote is to
deny the appeal against Illinois.
Appeal denied.
Appeal denied.
Appeal denied.
Appeal denied.
Thank you.
Carol, we're going to go to number eight.
Thank you. That concludes my business.
Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
We're going to go to number eight, Carol, and then
after that, we have a
letter from Rachel
as it relates to the 1402
2 South 5th Street from Councilman Squilla. So let's do number eight and then we'll roll into
the other one. We'll go back to number one. Okay. Calendar number 0447, 646 North 32nd Street.
In your mind, Rachel, she's still under oath.
Please be promoted to El Paniclois again, sir.
Rachel, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yep, Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635, Markets, 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Okay, you're still under oath, but 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 or referral, photos or plans five days in advance of this hearing?
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
I'm going to share my screen.
So this is 646 North 32nd Street.
As the board may remember, we were in front of you back in October of 2020.
2020, we had originally met with this RCO, the Mantua Civic Association, back in September
of 2020, and we asked for the case to be continued back in October of 2020 in front of the board
as the RCO and your neighbors specifically requested a number of changes to the project,
which we made, and so then we asked for leave of the board, which was granted in order to
resubmit our application. So what I have in front of me is I just want to bring to the board's
attention the original refusal that we obtained. This was for 16 units as opposed to 10 units.
And then we actually did add in the bicycle spaces. So that refusal shouldn't be there.
I'll go through the plans with the architect, but basically this was opposed by the RCO as
they wanted parking, and that was really the biggest concern. And we had said, well, we need
to resubmit the plans in order to accommodate parking. There still was a concern about the
parking. There still was a concern about the density. However, we had tried to explain,
density. However, we had tried to explain
and I think the architect will do a better job than me explaining that because of the odd shape
and size of this lot, which is zoned RM1, so it allows multifamily by right, 10 units actually
makes it so that it's very large three to four bedroom units, as opposed to 16 units, which is
just two bedroom units. So although it's additional units, it's actually a smaller bedroom count.
Because we wanted to address the community's concerns of making sure that we weren't providing student housing and typically, as the board is familiar, three to four bedroom housing typically is not necessarily for families, although that would be wonderful, but typically it ends up, you know, being a lot of students and sort of obviously there's concerns with the community for that.
the other issue was health and safety issues about trash storage and so we've included that
into the new plans obviously we will have commercial trash before because it's more than
six units and then I want to go through just the site quickly this is the updated refusal so again
we had to resubmit based on the the concerns of the community and the ask to include parking we
let them know that if we include parking on this site given the odd nature of it,
as you'll see the size and shape of it, in addition to the fact that RM1 does not allow
for accessory off-street parking without a variance, that we were going to trigger
variances for height, for open space, and also for accessory off-street parking
accessed by a front street because this is a corner. With that said, here is
indeed the board has all this information so as you can see this is the lot we're talking about
here it's a very odd shaped lot and sort of sits sort of irregularly on this corner and so that as
the architect will explain kind of lent itself to some odd design considerations again it really
provided by right for 10 pretty large units and we had we had thought that in order to help with
the concern of density that's that although it's 16 units is more than 10 obviously it allows us
to provide two-bedroom units and I believe there's a one-bedroom unit as well the architect can
correct me if I'm wrong to make it so that there's less bedrooms and then also in addition again
providing parking and as you can see that was really an exercise we had to undertake with the
streets department as you know it's a sort of an odd location as well but it was really something
that was important to the community so we went back through again here's an aerial again the
board can see this is a really odd shaped lot sort of a location on mantua and north 32nd street so
really locating the parking in a way that was not going to provide any real uh issues was also part
of our exercise as well again here's photos of the lot this uh was used to be a bad shape house
that was demolished um and it's kind of sitting in this kind of awful condition at the current moment
again we met with the rco um it was quite interesting to me that although we had
multiple meetings we provided um revisions the project went back through and specifically
designed it based on the community's concerns that it was still a five to seven in opposition
their letter clearly states they wanted parking trash storage adequate notice to the neighbors
which we did and then still had a problem with the 16 units although again we had had a tried
to explain you know that it's less actually less bedrooms although more units and again we made
all these changes in order to create additional parking spaces that didn't exist and triggered
additional variances in order to meet that need. They wanted a reduction in the size of the units,
which we did, which is why we went from 10 to 16, although maybe that just wasn't
portrayed in the right manner. I also wanted to add that although it was a five to seven in
opposition, we did get support from a lot of the near neighbors, and we have included that,
and I also sent that to the board today. There's about eight, seven or eight letters from the near
neighbors in support. 601 North 34th, 603 North 34th, 644 North 32nd Street, which is directly
next door, 526 North 33rd Street, 437 North 32nd Street, 3215 Haverford, and I believe
312 Haverford. So we did go get near neighbor support because we did not understand why
so we did go get near neighbor support because we did not understand why there was opposition given
either.
we redesigned this entire project in order to to meet the parking needs i'm going to have our
architect adam rogers present the plans and then i also have the property owner lawrence resnick on
the call as well again the hardships for the parking a hardship for the property is due to
the parking requirement by the community obviously that's going to trigger a variance
as for RM1 the board knows you can't do parking if it's not accessed by a rear driveway a shared
driveway a rear alleyway or a rear street we don't have that opportunity on this site so it's
going to be from the front street it's a corner so there's two fronts and then the lot coverage
and the increased height also due to adding parking in and then the building all you know
to stay substantially the same again the 16 units which will show is smaller two-bedroom units
instead of 10 three to four-bedroom units. Rachel could you go back to the vote count
RCO vote count yeah I thought I saw eight eight non-opposition seven opposed or something no it's
it's five it was five to seven this is this I think it's five to seven oh eight non-opposition
so just people who didn't weigh in. Okay I'm just curious because
usually non-opposition is all you know it's another way of saying support that's why I was
curious all right. Yeah and I appreciate the chair making that that distinction I think that's
important and that's also why we went and got letters of support from near neighbors because
we felt maybe some people just didn't feel comfortable you know voicing their opinion
or what have you. And sometimes on a one-on-one basis, it's easier to explain a project to
somebody. So we went into that as well. Do you happen to know if any of those signatures you
received make up part of the eight and non-opposition? I couldn't tell you that. I didn't
keep track of it. No problem. Yeah, the vote was done by text to the head of that zoning board. So
I didn't receive any of the actual votes or who they came from, unfortunately. Thank you. Yep.
But Jason, do you see Adam Rogers?
I'm going to say to you, Rachel.
I'll allow him to speak right now.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers, you've been allowed to speak.
To speak, please wait until you're sworn in, sir.
Good afternoon.
Can you hear me?
Great.
I'm Adam Rogers.
Mr. Rogers, yeah, please spell your last name for the record.
Yep. Adam Rogers, ROGERS, with CADRE Design, 123 Leverington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Do you want to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Rachel?
Thanks, Adam. Do you have the ability to share your screen to go through the plans?
Specifically, I just want you to discuss the sort of the difficulty of the site and how the 16 units is actually less dense than the 10 units and sort of how we came to that,
in addition to just addressing how we were able to incorporate parking and why that caused
the additional variances that we obtained.
Absolutely, Rachel.
I'm glad to speak to that, though it doesn't look like I can currently share my screen.
Jason, are you able to make it so that Adam can share his screen?
It's already been done.
I promoted him to the panelists now.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Rogers?
Are you on mute, Adam?
There you go.
Apologies for that.
Sorry.
All right. So, Rachel actually did an excellent job kind of explaining the irregularities of this project, but I just did want to share the...
Can you do that in a little bit? It's just a little small, sorry.
Better?
Yeah, thank you.
So, we actually went through a number of iterations on this project, even previous to meeting with the community groups.
And I'll just share this previous zoning plan that actually we did go in for by right zoning before modifying the project.
Some of the constraints were that the setbacks on 32nd Street were frontages that we were trying to match to remain by right.
So we had a pretty unconventional large setback in the front, as well as continuing that around the side of the property.
set back in the front, as well as continuing that around the side of the property.
When we went to the latest iteration, in order to make the parking work, which I will jump over to
in a second, we had to basically cover the entire lot. After talking with streets and because of
locations of utility poles, fire hydrants, and some other existing street furniture,
This Mantua Street cut was really the only location that we could find to get access to
the property and that also limited our ability for turning radiuses in order to
pick up as many spots as possible which was the goal. So in the latest version here
this is that Mantua Street curb cut that we added and we were able to squeeze in
eight spots, including a handicapped spot. We were not able to get anything towards the back
of the building just because of the limitations on the 24-foot dry vial, which we've now heard
a lot about today. And as Rachel said, the other issue with the original design was the density
of the bedroom count. In our 80% allowable coverage, there really wasn't a way to get
10 units that sensibly had less than three bedrooms, and the count ended up being 35
total bedrooms, I believe, for the 10 units. When we went to the two-bedroom units, because more
space was allocated to living rooms and kitchens and everything else, we were more sensibly able
to get it down to 30 bedrooms. So like she said, it was a reduction in total sleeping rooms, but
an increase in the number of front doors. And again, in order to keep the same amount of
usable space and to make this work, we did need to pick up the additional first floor
lot coverage, which impacted yard setbacks and all of that. But on the upper floors,
we kept it the same. Rachel, did I pretty much hit on everything that you were looking for there?
Yeah, you did a great job. I just also want to show that we did add the trash,
enclosed trash, which was really important to the community as well.
So I just want to make note of that, that that was incorporated also.
And we were able to get the interior bike parking spots, which previously had that
need to be put outside. And it's a total of seven spots, not eight.
I apologize seven spots, including the ADA spot. Yep. So I mean, I don't have much more than that,
truthfully, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I know that the councilman's office issued a
letter of opposition. Again, we do have eight additional letters of support from near neighbors
and it was a five to seven vote and we specifically redesigned this project based on
the community meeting that we had. So it was just a little caught off guard when they still did not
support the project. But again, this was really a strong effort and collaboration from September of
2020, all the way until now. And we went back through the process and had multiple meetings in
order to, you know, incorporate this, there's always going to be issues with parking, but this
was on a lot like this, this is as best you're going to get, as we've already heard from the
board how expensive underground parking is and that's just not reasonable on a site like this so
again RM1 and happy to take any other questions. Had the opportunity to share those recent letters
with the councilwoman's office? We just got them and I didn't even know that the councilwoman sent
a letter because I wasn't I was told to me by the by Ms. Saleta so I wasn't even aware that
there was a letter but we did get those letters today questions from the board yes yes the
counselor why are you doing it on bedroom counts because one of the main concerns in areas like
this close to the schools is bedroom count for students a lot of the near neighbors consider if
you do three or four bedrooms that it's specifically for student housing so when you can't when we
reduce it to the bedrooms but have more units it just made it so that we had less actual beds
so that we could help ensure or at least show that the goal was not to get students
well can't you can't you reduce the density by reducing the number of units
well the number if we reduce the number of units with the 80 percent lock coverage you're still
getting really large units and to do that plus parking to make a feasible project it's a little
bit difficult okay no questions from the board no anyone else willing to testify in this case please
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Mr. Chair, I have a...
I'm sorry, Mr. Young just said to speak a moment ago.
I don't believe so.
Right. His hand is raised. I will allow him to speak right now.
Mr. Young, you have been allowed to speak. Please wait to be sworn in, sir.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Young. Please identify yourself. First and last name and your address.
Good afternoon, members of the board. Jeffrey Young, 3900 Ford Road, Suite B, Philadelphia PA, 19131.
I am here representing
Jeffrey just let me swear you in please
you swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth
please proceed
so I am here representing
my sister who lives
whose address is 630
North 32nd Street
which is
not even a half a block down the street from this particular
project
we are here today to voice our opposition
to this project
a question again rachel the buy right is how many units 10
and two bedrooms no it's 10 units there are three to four units but you can put more beds
all right you could do 35 beds as opposed to 16 units gets you 30 beds because the lot is so large
and oddly shaped okay all right again we did go through this as a buy right project and it it's
they're ridiculously sized okay all right thank you thank you jeffrey anyone else would like to
testify can i ask mr young a question is jeff are you there yes i'm here was the concern uh i know
you were at the original meeting so you you do you do notice that we did make changes for the trash
issues and parking as well? Yes. So we do note that there's internal trash storage now,
which is appreciated. However, again, given that it's going to be 16 units, that is the concern.
We understand your architect mentioned that the size of the units allow it to be more sensible.
But from our perspective, we believe that a lower unit count would be more sensible here.
We do not feel that the 16 units, albeit two-bedroom, is feasible here in this location.
Your client owns a property next door with much less units, and it still affects the quality of life for the neighbors in this particular neighborhood.
We're talking about just this property in particular. I just wanted to make sure that
you had no... Right. But given the density, I'm just talking about the density here. The property
next door is less dense than the proposal here. It's a lot smaller of a site. It's not even a
quarter of the size of this site. Again, I'm just speaking to the quality of life, the welfare of
the neighborhood. Again, with this added density here, my client feels that this
uh project um would have an adverse impact on her quality of life okay i i just wanted i
understand that and i just wanted to make sure that you saw the revisions that were made and
that you know all this the term sensible was just more so that three and four bedroom units with 35
beds is is a little bit more impactful on the community than 16 units with 30 beds to help
address that concern the counselor i agree with you on 35 beds correct if you're doing it by bed
counts you don't have to do it by bed counts you could deal with density by units right and we had
gone through with the buy rate which was 10 units and so why so in our perspective it was to to be
able to accommodate um less more units but less bedroom count in smaller units you have to increase
the number of units based on the square footage. So yes, theoretically, we could put two units here,
but if by right it's 10 units, and now they wanted us to add parking and enclosed trash,
and in addition to consider less density, the way we could accommodate all of that was
less bedrooms and a little bit more units, but less people overall, which typically
what we actually see from, in a lot of cases, as I know the board's aware, is less density,
less density but then they pack in more bedrooms so how can you pack in more bedrooms if you have
but then they pack in more bedrooms. So it-
How can you pack-
less units because if we go down to less units units are larger but your site is
irregular it won't accommodate but we couldn't then also accommodate parking and trash and then
you don't have a site that's economically feasible either well so it's a matter of economics it's not
a matter of economics. It's a matter of wanting to make less, the bedroom number less so that
it doesn't appear to go for students, which was the biggest concern in the neighborhood,
add in enclosed trash and parking, and also keep a building structure that makes sense
to support the additional accommodations here. That all ties into it. So it was a balance of
all that, so much so that, again, we specifically redesigned this and work with the streets
department to try to fit parking on a really odd site that talk about quality of living i think the
i was more concerned that putting trying to now get cars on this site was going to be concerning
but that's what you know the neighborhood had wanted so you can't ask a developer to come down
to less than the buy right number and also then accommodate all of this stuff it really has to be
well then that developer can build this project by right then and i mean i understand that you know
that the 10 units hold on one again i'm representing my client here and these are my
the feelings of my client um so i know it's just one of the time not to interrupt i apologize
finish jeffrey um so again even with the the 10 units being by right um and uh ms persker stated
that there could be three or four bedrooms and the concerns for students um even if that concern
is for students with the larger bedrooms, the zoning code stipulates that no more than three
unrelated people can be in a unit. So if they are four bedroom units, then it would be for
somewhat of a family structure, which I don't think the neighbors, my client would not have
an issue with it being more of a family structure in this particular property. Again, her concerns
are uh the number of units um and the uh the scale of the project
rachel this this project is 47 feet four inches uh yeah i think it's 47 four and a half
i'm a little and by right is 47 no no by right it was 38 in order right in order to accommodate
parking right you had to go up before correct and that's why we had to do leave of the board to
amend because we had to now generate all these additional refusals to accommodate those concerns
how many units if you didn't have the parking and the trash area which is an accommodation i'll
grant you that how many units would be allowed in the 38 foot by right 10 units and that's where
you get the number of beds correct and i if the architect can can maybe it would be more helpful
than coming from me can explain the size of those units because we did do the exercise of and you
can see clearly in atlas we went through by right and it was just so it was it wasn't about being
sensible it was i understand all right it's large yeah no matter which way you turned you got a
problem all right yep um okay you can't make everything everything work i had to get 90
percent of the way there anyone else like to testify please raise your hand
is there anyone from councilwoman got the a's office mr goodman by any chance
he did send me a letter in opposition in case he couldn't be here okay i knew they
sent i didn't know if he was making an appearance uh planning commission
um good afternoon greg walden planning commission staff this property was part of a rezoning in 2017
that we zoned the property to multi-family residential use the applicant has not demonstrated
undue hardship created by the nature of the parcel we believe 16 units and the additional
nine feet in height is an overuse of the property whereas 10 units are permitted by right accordingly
we recommend that the requested variance not be granted. Thank you. MI 2020-000447,
646 North 32nd, my vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
all right rachel uh we have uh we're going to go back on the record everyone
uh on your first case 1401 1400-02 south fifth
calendar number three oh i'm sorry
calendar number three oh i'm sorry
there's something pinging
jim you're breaking off real bad buddy
how about now now you're good calendar numbers go ahead and let me do it because i have the
letter from Squilla, all right? MI 2020-003041-1400-02 South 5th Street. My vote is yes with the proviso.
Excuse me, Chair, I don't believe that we got a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
But let the record reflect that a letter was submitted by Councilman Squilla to work with
the developer on establishing a parking zone just let the record reflect that yes but i don't believe
we got a recommendation from the planning commission before and oh i'm sorry planning
commission i'm sorry i'm sorry what case is this for number one at 1400-02 south 5th okay
the daycare center one one second um sorry about that sorry
Okay, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use
zoning for this property. The planning commission supports the RCO in their request for a reduction
in use based on potential impacts to parking and lack of on-site open space for children.
accordingly we recommend that the requested variance not be granted at this time
thank you uh anyway uh i think we voted my vote was yes uh with the understanding that there's
a letter that the applicant uh through the attorney for the applicant will work with the
councilman's office on establishing a parking loading zone my vote is yes with proviso yes
with proviso yes with proviso excuse me no you can't it's not a proviso this is this is Sharon
excuse me you can't add that as a proviso um it's too it's not specific enough you can put on the
record that there is an understanding that yeah that's right that's what I meant it to be not a
proviso I said there's a letter of uh from Councilman Squilla to work with the applicant's
trying to establish a parking load a loading zone thank you my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes
all right i think that concludes the two o'clock list yes it does uh we'll take a
let's see it's 4 25 so the uh 20 or 5 15 minutes pauline
there's somebody has their mic open i hear some noise in the background
uh if you can mute it that would be helpful good afternoon everyone my name is frank di chico i'm
the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere and her dog, Board Administrator, Board Secretary,
Professor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Also, Board
Member, Jason Hand, and our Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Saleta. For those of you who haven't
yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what
you can expect first we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their
testimony second we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and we will you will be able to
available to the this will also be available to the public on the web or otherwise participating
by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. I repeat for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally to enter an appearance
statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property
at issue. I'll repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. I would also like to ask everyone to
I would also like to ask everyone to please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to the Board Administrator, Mr. Jason Hand.
Before we begin, do we need some time for hands to go up?
He'll let me know, Jason, when we're ready.
Okay, so the first hand that is up, that is raised, is Mr. Pasquale Olvita.
I'm not going to go to that yet.
I just want to know.
We'll get their hands up.
Now I'm going to read off a list of cases that have been requested to be continued.
MI 2020-002343, 1150 South 52nd Street.
MI 2020-002408, 1518 West Tioga Street.
mi2020-000233 2241 north 15th street and mi2020-001432 32 excuse me 329 north 11th street
if anyone objects to those any of those cases i called to being continued please raise your hand
at this time. And if anyone else is requesting a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand
at this time also. Okay, Mr. Chair. Mr. Pasqua Colavita had his hand raised. I will allow him to
speak right now. Good afternoon, Mr. Colavita. Please identify yourselves by your last name,
and I'll swear you in. Good afternoon, Pasqua Colavita. On behalf of the last one you called
on your list of continuances. I just wanted to make sure that it went through. It's 329 North
11th Street. There's also a companion case, 327 North 11th Street. I thought that it was going to
be placed on this evening's list. We did meet with the community group. We're sorry. We didn't swear
you on. I'm sorry. I got ahead of me. You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth of course please and what was the other case 327 north 11th street which is
mi 2020 002263 out on our schedule did you have it listed for today no i i attempted to so what
was requested at the last listing was to send an email attaching them but that's fine i mean i
I'll somehow get them linked up but if we can just continue 329 we'll be meeting with the
community group for the second time to address their their questions in March okay that's
continued thank you so that would have to be a request directly to me Tanya sunk it in order
for that to happen okay thank you thank you Tanya anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal
mr chair a mr reginald banks has his hand raised good afternoon mr banks please identify yourself
for the record i'll swear you in hi um reginald banks
are you swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes and what case are you appearing on 4232 parkside avenue
are you the applicant yes i'm the applicant are you being represented by mr bettel yes
okay are you asking for a continuance no all right then we'll get to your case momentarily
okay thank you thank you any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
mr jeffrey young has his hand raised i won't allow him to speak right now sir
good afternoon mr young you're still on the oath from earlier please identify yourself with a
record good afternoon chair uh jeffrey young 3900 ford road suite b philadelphia pa 19131
I am the attorney for case number MI2020-002343, 1150 South 52nd Street.
And I'm asking if I can just be made the move-in party for that continuous request.
Okay, that was number one on our list, 1150.
MI 2020, that's 002-343-1150, South 52nd Street, Attorney Moving Party.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
No further hands at this time.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Carol, I believe we can begin with number five on our list.
Mr. Banks, please.
Calendar number 2340, 4232 Parkside Avenue.
The attorney is Steve Lutill.
Mr. Bertil has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you.
Mr. Bertil, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Good afternoon.
My name is Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, 1835 Market Street, Suite 14, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, yes.
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, we submitted all the documentation.
Subsequently, we submitted it on Monday morning initially due to a technical snafu on my part.
The submission on Friday didn't go through.
but we submitted all the documentation we did meet with the community
group that we have uh the court all the way around okay so you may proceed
thank you very much sure share my screen here
okay uh good afternoon mr chair and members of the board
As I stated, my name is Steve Bertil here on behalf of the applicant and owner of 4232 Parkside Avenue.
We are here for a fairly straightforward proposal.
We are here seeking variance approval to allow the continued use of the property in question as a psychotherapy and counseling services through the first and third floor in a dwelling unit in the basement.
Just to get a sense of the property, it's located on Parkside Avenue between Belmont
Avenue to the north and 42nd Street to the south.
The property is currently zoned as RSA 3.
As I stated, this property is home to Dunbar Community Counseling Services.
This community counseling services is ran by Dr. Banks, who was on the line with me,
who, after my brief presentation, will be able to firmly adopt my testimony and answer any questions specifically about the services he provides.
But they've been at this location operating as a psychotherapy office and counseling services for 10 years, or a little over 10 years at this point,
providing services to children and families in the community, partnering with area schools who can provide mental health services to their students directly.
Now, this use on this property was actually approved by the board 10 years ago under a previous zoning permit that allowed the use as it stands, although that permit had a sunset provision, which is why we're here today, to maintain the use and to obtain approval for this use into perpetuity without a sunset provision.
At the time, the provision was a five-year provision was to, as those provisions typically are, to ensure that the business actually is up and ran properly, that it doesn't become a community nuisance or an issue as it is in the middle of a residential block.
And I can say based on conversations with the community and that Mr. Banking Cessify, who himself, has been an overwhelming success in terms of becoming a good community neighbor and a partner.
And the multiple letters of support from not just the coordinating RCO, but all the RCOs in the area is a testament to that as well.
So, in terms of the refusal that was issued, we are here under one refusal, and it's the
use refusal for personnel services on the parcel that's RSA 3.
But as I stated, and as you can see in the notes, on the refusal, this use was previously
on the refusal this youth was previously granted via variant. It was just a sunset provision,
granted via variants.
It was just a sunset provision.
which is why we had to come back so that we can get it granted for good. And we're just,
we're requesting just continued use of the service, no change to footprint,
no change to the youth. We did meet with the community on December 15th.
As I stated, we received unanimous support from the community groups,
Also, the coordinating community group, which is the East Parkside Residential Association,
here's your letter of support.
We also received letters of support from Viola Street Residents Association
and the Centennial Parkside Community Development Corporation.
And in addition to that, we received multiple comments and emails of support
from individuals in the area.
So as such, in terms of a de minimis variant, probably as de minimis as you can get
because we're just asking to maintain the status quo.
So we're asking for this board approval
to go forward and do that.
As I stated with me, I have Mr.
or doctor, excuse me, Dr. Banks here with me.
Mr. Banks could raise his hand
so he can be recognized by the board.
Mr. Banks, please identify yourself.
You were sworn in earlier, so you're still under oath.
Yes. Hi, I'm Dr. Banks. I'm the Chief Psychologist of Dunbar Community Counseling Services and owner and operator of Dunbar Community Counseling Services.
Oh, you're sworn in already. So, okay, Dr. Banks, have you heard the testimony that I provided to the board this afternoon?
Do you affirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own?
Thank you, Dr. Banks. And if there was anything you would like to add regarding your business, you can feel free to do that now.
Okay. I am a graduate of Temple University. I actually came to Philadelphia to study psychology
there. And since graduating in 2000, I have dedicated my life to community-based
counseling services. And I've worked at maybe 10 agencies before starting Dunbar Community
Counseling Services, and I started Dunbar Community Counseling Services to address the
unique needs of African-American males in counseling who tended not to use this service
as much as other populations. But as we started to work with those African-American males,
We realized that young girls and families and many others needed this service, and they all
wanted this service within the community. They did not want a large facility, and so we specialized
and created a unique service that addresses those needs, not only in the community, but also in the
surrounding schools in west and southwest Philadelphia. Our primary goal when we set up
our business here was to get to know all of the CBOs, the community-based organizations,
and to partner with them in understanding and accessing mental health services,
as well as to support their individual causes, because we want to ultimately address the
ecological needs of our children and families, not just the psychological needs of our children
and families. So we've been here on Parkside for over 14 years. We plan to continue to partnership
with the community, and we've expanded services in the schools. As you already know, we're in a
pandemic, so most of our services now are through telehealth, but we have staff who plan to
continue services both in telehealth and in person as schools open. So we're an essential
part of the community as we are essential workers. We'll continue to support our community
in any way that we can. Thank you, doctor. Thank you for your good work. Any questions from the
board? No. No. Anyone else like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
Mr. Chair, I have Mr. Andrew Goodman with his hand raised. I will allow him to speak
right now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Goodman. Please identify yourself for the record and I'll swear you
Good afternoon. Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of Third District
Councilmember Jamie Gaudier.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
The council member wholeheartedly supports the variance application being presented this afternoon.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else would like to testify, please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Jason.
Planning Commission?
Hi, Mr. Chair, this is Mason Austin representing the Planning Commission.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
This property is indicated for residential single-family and the city's comprehensive plan and is zoned for that purpose.
However, the variance is requested to legalize a low-impact existing use that serves a critical neighborhood need
and for which there is support by the affected RCO and the district council member.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission has no opposition to the requested variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-002340, 4232 Parkside Avenue, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Calendar number 2341-450 Sloan Street.
Mr. Anastasio had his hand raised, I promoted him to panelist, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Anastasio.
Yes, hello, Ms. Vice Chair, I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time with my camera.
So please excuse me. I'm going to do this without the camera.
Don't worry. Please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name.
Yep. 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, Suite 1006, 19107.
Okay. And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Of course, yes.
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 clearance, refusal or referral, photos, plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
I have all that.
Well, that's good.
You may not proceed.
Go right ahead.
Thank you very much, Carol.
I'm going to share my screen.
Can you see the screen or no?
Make sure everyone sees that.
can we confirm that we see the screen or no we cannot okay i'll try again
I think he just removed himself
Maybe he's off and coming back in.
Carol maybe we should go to number seven I don't even know if anybody's here for that let's go to
number seven calendar number two three three nine five nine zero rector street no exhibits
is there anyone here for five nine zero rector street oh there's verne back he's back before
you get on verne just hold off is there anyone for five nine zero rector street please raise
your hand. No hands at this time, Mr. Chair. Was this case already continued? I believe
it's the first listing, Chair. All right. So MI 2020-002-339-590 Rector Street is continued.
Must be heard. We'll go back to you, Vern. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I don't know what
happen there. But let's try again. So you may proceed. If you don't mind. Thank you very much.
If you don't mind, thank you very much.
I'm going to try and get there.
Hold on for one minute, please.
Everything seems to be off, a little bit off today, for whatever reason.
But there we go.
can you see that now yes yeah thank you very much sorry for the inconvenience
it's a technology i guess right
so it's a 450 sloan street pretty straightforward application uh it's for a proposed takeout
restaurant in an existing structure. A client would like to do a halal restaurant. It's already
an existing one-story structure. For the last 130 years, this property has been a one-story
structure. It's been for most of its history, spaces for horse carriages, and then ultimately
it was spaces for hot dog carts. So that's where we are with this. So you see it's on the corner
of Sloan and Spring Garden. It's a very large property. It's almost 23 feet wide. It's over 50
feet deep. It's very unusual. It's a one-story structure as it exists. Here's the property as
you can see it. It's like a bunch of little garages that were for horse carts and then
ultimately for hot dog carts. That's the side elevation for Sloan Street. The plans for the
interior. Again, this is not going to be an Eden property. It's just going to be
just purely take out. Most of it is prep. There are, there's an entrance here for folks to come
in and to work. There's also a store, you know, storage for trash. And there are
certain areas in order to pick up and deliver halal. It's going to be basically a halal
restaurant, which is, as you know, very popular now for Mediterranean restaurant. Here is the
corner property. It's surrounded by CMX-2. It's adjacent to RM-1. Here it is again.
here's the unit right there again RM1 CMX2 there are some RSA5 corners but all of them are
multifamily with ZBA variances and I think what's most important is to see how this property
has been handled through the years.
So I think it's important to show you.
2010, it was, again, commercially represented.
This is 1942.
It was by the Planning Commission itself.
commercially represented different than the other single-family homes on Sloan Street.
Here's 1895. This particular corner was dealt differently than the rest of the homes on Sloan
Street. It's always been treated. Here's 1910. Again, 450, always been designated as something
other than single family because as you can see there's single family here and then in yellow
there's 450 which is again consistently dealt with as something different
than the rest of the block. Here's the interior of the property as it exists.
You know we met with the community organization
um of course here's the flyer here's the deed
Um, of course, here's the flyer. Here's the deed.
They would like an RSA five use. They would like a single family use problem is, and we've, here's the proof of mailing 98 pieces.
Problem is, is that this property has never been a single family home like ever.
We go back to 1895, and what we've determined in its historical use, because it's almost 23 feet wide, is that the property has never been, nor was it ever considered, even with the Planning Commission, a lot that should have been for single-family homes.
It's on Spring Garden Street, which is a, you know, not a quiet block.
It's across the street from CMX2 uses.
It's adjacent.
Everything along here is RM1 multifamily, you know, dwellings and or commercial properties.
So to require this property after 135 years to be a single family home would be doing something that's inconsistent with 135 years of history for this property.
And as a result, we respectfully request that he be able to put out what his proposal is.
His proposal is very specific, and we've met with the community on a couple of occasions, and what he'd like to do is a pizza parlor. Basically, it's a halal restaurant, but the hours would be very limited, 12 noon to 9 p.m.
uh two or three employees and that includes himself as the owner
the entire perimeter of the property would be lit up with flood lighting and would also have
a security cameras right now it's a very dark and dangerous corner that as you can see based on
what we've shown you is there's no activity on that corner. And we think we can actually
add a benefit to that block and that corner. Now, is the property conducive to a single
family dwelling? No. Every single family dwelling on Sloan is 15 feet wide. Here's a 23 feet wide
corner that has never served as a single family home. So what he'd like to do is do something
that actually faces Spring Garden Street, which is where the commercial space is, but do it in a
way that is consistent with safety and security issues with the community. Again, 12 noon to 9
p.m. closed down at nine security lights security surveillance something that that corner has never
had so we respectfully request the zoning relief on this particular property 135 years of use
has shown this is that this has never been you know for single family home development
And we just ask that we allow us to do something that's going to be actually positive, but again, not complying with the code.
How many days a week? Seven days?
No, no, no. Sundays is closed. Six days a week.
Monday through Saturday?
Saturday, noon to 9 p.m.?
Just noon to 9.
That's it.
I mean, it's really, I mean.
Trash?
Where does trash get stored?
Trash is stored in the rear of the property, but taken out by a commercial trash pickup.
Is there a takeout window?
Twice a week.
Well, that's all there is.
I mean, it's nice.
I'm asking, is it a takeout window?
I mean, let's look.
here's a service window here and a service window here that's it yeah that's okay
that's all there is i mean there's no place for loitering or hanging out or anything like that
the entire perimeter of the property would be lit up with floodlights all corners will be hit by
uh surveillance cameras again right now it's a very dark and dank place um and i know you know
surveillance cameras again right now it's a very
some folks would prefer dark and dank but i you know but at the end of the day this will this will
uh make sure that uh you know some undesirable issues are sort of uh dealt with by lighting it
up and making sure that there are surveillance cameras. We have the trash is right here
in the storage area. So commercial trash pickup comes up, takes the trash out of here and brings
it out. There's no reason to keep trash on the sidewalk, as you can see here on the left-hand
side, and he just wants to be able to provide halal, and I'm sure you know what that is,
chicken over rice and chicken over vegetables, and there's lamb and gyros and all that,
which is very popular right now, and, you know, but it's certainly not a lot that is
conducive to a single family home. Does your, is your client available? Yes. You can call
Michael. Please raise your hand. It's Michael Bissert. Michael.
this is michael briscoe i am not the owner i am a member of the committee rco committee
if you ask we'll get to you we'll get to you shortly sir yes i'm looking for my client
i'm sorry i got the wrong mic i decided hello okay jason it's all right can you hear me now
yes good afternoon please identify yourself spell your first and last name
Basir Mike Qureshi
Michael can you put your address on the record
and spell your last name
450 North Sloan Street
Philadelphia PA
and please spell your last name
Q-U-A-R-A-S-H-I
do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes I do
Michael did you hear my
presentation to the board this evening yes and was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
yes and would you adopt it as your own testimony sir yes thank you thank you questions from the
board no no no anyone would like to testify please raise your hand at this time
it was another michael i believe he had his hand up yeah mr michael uh briscoe he still has his
hand up yes briscoe are you um still waiting to speak if so yes i am sworn in good afternoon sir
or good evening please identify yourself spell your name for the record and provide us with your
address? Michael Briscoe. My address is 4053 Spring Garden Street. Would you spell your last
name, sir? B-R-I-S-C-O-E. And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Yeah. Good afternoon. Thank you for your
time uh the counselor referred to that corner as dark and dink a couple of times uh chairperson
it's not dark and dink it's a nice little uh residence with which is sandwiched between
lancaster avenue and market street nice single homes i walk that that garage area right there
on screen, me and my wife, we walk past there towards the Presbyterian Hospital. And by the
way, to the left of that garage section is the police parking lot for the 16th District. So
it's not well-traveled. It's not a dangerous. It's not a bad place. The neighborhood is nice
and comfortable. Nice. People have their children riding up and down Spring Garden Street
on bicycles. The concern has to do with the increased population that's going to be
frequenting the takeout, in addition to the cars that will be coming by to purchase.
takeout. In addition to the cars that will be coming by to purchase their chicken or whatever
they're going to sell. We have, right now, we have a takeout place maybe 30 feet to the north of this
place. We have another one on 42nd Street to the west. We have another one on 38th Street to the
east and of course we have Market Street. This is not a good idea for our community right now.
That's my position and we had a vote on it and that's the majority of the people in this area.
A single family home or two would be ideal. That's my position and that's the position
of our meeting. Thank you for your time. Thank you sir for for testifying.
Anyone else would like to testify? Please raise your hand.
Mr. Chair, I have someone's hand raised whose number ends in 3452. I will allow them to speak at this time.
Hello, Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
Yes, please identify yourself, name and address by your last name.
My name is Charles Bode, B-O-D-E, 4014 Spring Garden Street, which is about 300 feet from the property.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Okay, I have a few brief points.
First, there is no hardship in this case.
And as to the history, it has always been a quiet property.
A garage for horse carriages is very quiet.
And that was 130 years ago, as the applicant states.
If we don't ever allow the zoning to be modernized and changed, we'd never get anywhere.
So at some point, the zoning was changed to be single family.
And we have to understand, in our neighborhood, we have provision for multiple types of zoning, all the way from single-family to CMX4 down on Market Street.
And we have zoning for commercial, I believe it's CMX2, but for commercial properties on Lancaster Avenue, which is the proper place for a takeout restaurant.
We have the Promise Zone, a federal designation, which is trying to work on improving the neighborhood.
We have at least two organizations paying people to try and get businesses and improve Lancaster Avenue.
One is the LA21 Business Association, and one is the People's Emergency Center, CDC.
They're working very hard to get businesses on Lancaster Avenue.
And as most people are probably aware, businesses build businesses.
So we want to keep them, we have a proper place for them in our neighborhood.
It's not an exclusive zoning.
There will always be a property on a zoning boundary when there are multiple types of zoning.
But if we keep nibbling away, then there's no point in having zoning or having a zoning map.
So we have provision for the restaurant and we would welcome it on the avenue.
um as the previous speaker mentioned the police are at our corner at that corner they frequently
park there and that actually is one of the traffic problems because all of a sudden the
police cars are flying around because something happened but if we have a crowd of people standing
there it's going to be another problem there so we would request that the variance be denied
and it denies a family an opportunity to have a home.
And as the entire United States has seen for the last approximately year
with all this protest or whatever we would politically correctly describe it,
there's a big problem with families not being able to build wealth
by not being able to own a home.
This is an opportunity that the city has created by zoning it for a single family
for a family to have a home.
And we have had several single-family homes built in our neighborhood,
and there have been some that have been quite large.
There is one on 42nd Street.
I'm sorry, I apologize.
It's 41st Street, approximately 429.
I forget the exact number right now.
And I thought they were building a fraternity house,
but someone moved in about two or three years ago.
So as to the lot being large, that enables the space for our yard,
a side yard, a backyard.
yard we keep hearing that we need space around we keep asking can we ask more variance because
there isn't a nine feet or whatever is in the back this lot it would enable a proper single
family house to be built so i would request that it be denied that the restaurant can
So I would request that it be denied, that the restaurant can go on Lancaster Avenue where there's a place for it and where it would be welcome.
There are vacant stores right now.
I believe 3974 has a for rent sign on it right now.
So we would welcome the store on Lancaster Avenue and we would request it be denied here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify?
Mr. Chairman, please let me know when I can respond to some of that, okay?
Yeah, just allow anyone else to testify.
Something new and different?
Mr. Chair, I have a Ms. Elizabeth Warren right now.
I will allow her to speak.
Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a net record, spell your last name,
and provide us with your address.
are you available so please don't meet your microphone
Okay, can you hear me?
Yes, ma'am.
Please identify yourself, name and address.
Elizabeth Waring, W-A-R-I-N-G, 4023 Powleton Avenue.
Waring, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, ma'am.
Please proceed.
So I walk in that area all the time, and it's not dark and dinky.
I don't know where that came from.
But there are already a few businesses, daycare, the People's Emergency Center there.
The People's Emergency Center has a housing unit for women and children there in that immediate area.
Also, as I said, the police station, there's a donut shop and others leading into Lancaster Avenue.
And as Mr. Brody said and Mr. Briscoe, we have enough businesses there.
And I'm going to say this maybe in not such a nice way, but I don't understand why some businesses keep, we're trying to build up the neighborhood and why they keep coming in adulterizing, trying to trash it up with business.
We just don't need that.
And listening to the gentleman's presentation for the owner, at first they came in with a request for a steak shop.
Then I heard him in his statement said something about pizza.
briefly and then the halal business it's it's not a good corner it's the block is residential
and it should stay residential as you're still working on and supporting the development of
blanks to have a new business which is a block away thank you thank you anyone else something
new and different is there any uh and do we have any correspondence from the i think it's
councilwoman got the azo district if i'm not mistaken
excuse me this is sarin i believe andrew goodman is um present and wants to testify
yeah i thought he might be but all right he's been unmuted okay mr goodman you're still under
oath please identify yourself for the record good evening andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n
office of third district council member Jamie R. Gaudier. So yes, the council member stands
with the community in opposition to the variance application proposed here in the spirit of
something new and different. I'll just offer some additional clarity about this particular
stretch of Spring Garden Street. Oftentimes with Spring Garden, we might think of the,
you know, commercial arterial as it is closer to the Delaware Riverfront or at the community
College campus, but this is a residential, significantly smaller stretch of Spring Garden
Street, so just want to add that as clarity for why the residential zoning exists.
Thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, whenever you'd like me to weigh in.
I'm sorry, sorry, go ahead, please proceed.
That's okay.
I appreciate it, but if you'd like to hear from the Planning Commission beforehand, that's fine.
Go ahead. We keep the Planning Commission until the last.
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
let's remember that the property in question has never been a single-family home.
Let's remember that the property
We're talking about since 1895, which I've already provided evidence for.
It is 23 feet wide.
There are no single family residential homes on Sloan or on Spring Garden that are even close, you know, to that, you know, that size.
So to ask my client to build a single family home on this lot would be, you know, flying in the face of 135 years of history.
My client has already proposed that we present a halal restaurant on the Spring Garden sign that would have, again, lighting around the property, surveillance around the property, commercial trash pickup around the property.
not quite sure uh why the board or or anyone else would suggest that this property after 135 years
should all you know ultimately be a single family house when again a single family home has never
sit on this lot uh and as a result you know i'm respectfully requesting the relief so that my
my client can build not a two-story or a three-story, you know, property, literally just
wants to put a property that is at the same height, just something that's functional and workable
and that, that is, you know, something that could be an attribute to the community.
and with that i want to close but one one more thing um if you look at every other lot on sloan
street it is they are every house is 15 feet wide and they are single family homes there is a reason
why this particular property is 23 feet wide and 60 feet deep, because it does not acclimate to
the Sloan Street single-family homes, but it actually acclimates to the CMX and RM1 properties
on Spring Garden. There is not one single-family home that fronts Spring Garden, and there's a
reason for that. Spring Garden is a busy street. It's a noisy street. It's a loud street. A single
family property on this property has never been a plan for the city of Philadelphia based on the
evidence I provided this evening, not since 1896. So if we were to deny this appeal this evening,
we would be flying in the face of of you know precedence uh for 135 years
and again my client is willing to um be very strict with his with his operation uh he's
he's already agreed to hours of operation that go from 12 noon to 9 p.m nothing else
nine hours a day, around-the-clock surveillance, outdoor lighting, property management information
given to everyone on the block. So I'm not quite sure what the issue here is other than the
hope that a property that's never been a single-family home ultimately becomes a single-family
home despite its irregular shape size and inclination and um i just think the board i hope
will will think that uh will at least uh you know you know review the history
and you will see where we sit thank you thank you um just because a property has not been used as a
residential for 135 years. There may have been a time and that held water. But in the last 20 years
or so, commercial buildings, manufacturing buildings have been converted into residential
buildings. So I'm not I'm not suggesting that, by the way, also, I just like to say
So I'm not I'm not suggesting that, by the way, also, I'd just like to say I'm not suggesting that the community would be in favor of a multifamily.
But I think their main objective is to keep that from being a commercial, especially with a window service.
It could turn out to be considerably like a Pats and Geno's hours of operation are different.
I get that. But I think that's their concern.
So your client may want to have a conversation with the community and the county office.
I get that.
Let me finish.
I get it.
That may want to have a conversation with the community.
There may be a way for him to make it economically feasible to create more than one multifamily.
With that, we will go to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we agreed to 12 noon to 9 p.m. hours of operation.
I said that.
I said I know the hours are different.
I get that.
Thank you.
okay thank you thank you mr chair uh this is mason austin with the planning commission
this property is indicated for residential single family and the city's comprehensive plan and is
zoned for that purpose the city is the property is not located on a commercial corridor and there
is significant neighborhood opposition to the proposed use accordingly the planning commission
as opposed to the requested variance. Thank you. MI 2020-002341 450 Sloan Street, my vote is no.
My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
Thank you. Number eight, Carol? Yes, calendar number 2342, 6168 Ridge Avenue.
I understand there's a letter of support from Central Roxborough Civic.
Justin Crick is the attorney.
I'm promoting him to panelists right now.
Thank you.
He is now a panelist, Madam Chair.
Justin, can you please put your name and address on the record if you can hear me?
yes i can hear you okay good sorry name and address name and address please spell your last
name justin crick k-r-i-k address is 1500 jfk boulevard suite 630 philadelphia pa 19102
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but 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 to all.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If I may share my screen.
Thank you.
Members of the board, we are here today for the property at 6168-72 Ridge Avenue.
The refusal or the application that we have submitted is for the erection of a static internally illuminated wall sign and for a double face projecting sign.
Based upon the overlay in the district, the Ridge Avenue overlay, this sign was refused for its design as a matter of just the plans examiner's interpretation of it.
However, we have met with the, let me just situate you with the property.
We are on Ridge Avenue between Crams and Leverington.
And just a little bit, a very busy commercial corridor with lots of restaurants.
And what we're planning to use with this sign is a restaurant use.
We are actually this storefront here.
That would be the New Ridge Brewing Company.
and we're located next to the Santucci's and there are some residences above and here it is from
another angle a side angle so the front of the facade no longer looks like this it has been
transformed into this in preparation for my client's use my client is the proposed tenant
of the property the lease information is attached below but the sign design that would go right
along this facade is channeled letters, but not a racetrack of lighting behind it. They're
individually lit letters. They are in a sort of royal blue setup. And I'm going to zoom in here
as well so that you can see. Give me one second. The protruding sign is going to be a round sign
that basically just has the logo for the restaurant on it,
the restaurant on it, the New Ridge Brewing Company. We have met with the neighbors and
the New Ridge Brewing Company.
We have...
demonstrated several other photographs of restaurants nearby that have similar letters
or letters and signage that we believe is comparable. Admittedly, H&R Block was
grandfathered in before the overlay, and to the best of everyone's knowledge, we're not sure how
this one is there, but nevertheless, they also have a large protruding sign. I'll make it pretty
quick because there's a few others here in the area that are similar. But overwhelming support
from the Neighborhood Association after discussing this with them. For clarity, my client bought the
property originally from the Roxborough Development Corporation, which was integral in developing the
overlay. And we have correspondence from them that while these are the facade controls for that
overlay and what's allowed and what is not, they have given us their opinion separate from the
neighborhood that the intent of this overlay was to eliminate internally illuminated box and awning
signs and then as it continues it says we did not intend internally illuminated channel letters
or internally illuminated letter form signs to meet this prohibition so for those reasons
i'll get through the formalities in a second you have the zoning poster that has been posted
an initial page of the lease agreement between my client and the landlord and the rest is available
request. Here's the deed to the property for the Roxborough Development Corporation, or at least
the most recent one of record, and the tax clearance certificate. So members of the board,
the sign we're seeking to put up, we believe that it necessarily shouldn't have qualified under the
prohibition of the overlay, but nevertheless, whether it did or didn't, the neighborhood fully
supports the design and is in favor of it. And we're asking for the relief requested
to be allowed to place the signage.
I do have a gentleman, Mr. Eric Endricat,
who may have raised his hand already,
to testify on this behalf.
Good evening, Eric.
Please identify yourself for the record when you get on.
Spell your last name, and I'll swear you in.
All right, it's Eric Endricat, E-N-D-R-I-K-A-T,
and the address is 6168 Ridge Avenue,
philadelphia pa 19128 you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do please proceed mr quick thank you eric um have you had an opportunity to listen to my
testimony to the board today yes and would you accept all of the statements that i made to the
board as true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes absolutely and do you accept my
statements as your own testimony as if you provided it yourself yes i do thank you very much
uh members of the board we are we we would like to proceed we rest thank you questions from the
board no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no further hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission thank you uh mr chairman and
members of the board this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the city's comprehensive
plan in a zone for that purpose the restriction on signage is due to an overlay that was implemented
to support the commercial uses on ridge avenue given this context both neighbors and the rocks
boro development corporation the planning commission has no opposition to the request
variance thank you mi 2020-002342 6168 ridge avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote
is yes my vote is yes thank you members of the board maybe yes you may have a good evening stay
safe you too thank you calendar number two three four four six two two seven kella hill street
mr joseph console has um raised his hand i will
i understand is a letter from hmc square community association in support
mr consul can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name please
yes good afternoon good evening everyone last but not least tonight joe consul consul madison
one west third street suite 204 media pennsylvania one nine zero six three
you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do yes do you also agree
to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do and have you emailed the
exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and or
refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
plans of the property five days in advance
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes we said everything and yes we met
with them twice and we have a letter of support okay you may proceed hi board uh the property
i'm here for is 6227 callow hill street uh owned by michael's construction llc michael spencer is
here with us. He'll verify my testimony in a moment. This property is at the corner of Callow
Hill and Felton Street. Here's a just showed your front view. Here's a side view. It's from across
the street and that's in the rear. It is a 1,790 square foot property. In 1977 it was granted a
variance to be used as a three-unit building. It was commercial mixed use prior to that. According
to the neighbors, it was rented as a three-unit building until it fell into disrepair. Michael
bought it last year. The prior owner had had it for a long time before that. Michael is seeking
to use it as a three-unit building once again. The floor plan is on page 17 in your packet. I've got
it highlighted i cried all right i got it highlighted here uh the first floor has a one
unit as well as a studio apartment the second floor has a two-bedroom unit we met with the hmc
squared community association twice first time on december 3rd they were in favor but they had
several requests so we uh we deliberated we met with some neighbors we came back on january 28th
and we received near unanimous support at the first meeting there was concerns about noise trash
fire safety and water the potential for water in the basement because a neighbor had believed that
it had history of that the owner agreed to meet with an extra neighbor and several other neighbors
as I said address these issues again the place has been dilapidated for a long time so things
like noise and trash were speculation. But still, we brought back our new plan to the community on
the 28th of January, got near unanimous support. We believe the project helps improve a corner of
the city that very much needs it. Michael has a history of improving and renting properties
in that area, so we think he's capable of doing it. His plans include a basement for storage
that's accessible by all units, as well as a backyard that's accessible for trash storage
by all units. I'd like to call Michael Spencer, if I could, from Michael's Construction.
Good evening, Mr. Spencer. Please identify yourself with the record, spell your last
name, and I'll swear you in.
good evening my name is michael spencer um you said my last name for the record yes uh s-p-e-n-c-e-r
thank you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed mr console hey mike um so did you hear my testimony just now about
6227 callow hill yes uh was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes
is there anything you'd like to add um uh nothing nothing at the present moment i think you said
um mostly everything i need to be said okay there doesn't have to be anything
thank you our case will rest thank you uh anyone have i'm sorry questions from the board
no no anyone like to testify in this case please raise your hand
i see no other hands mr chair thank you planning commission thank you mr chairman and members of
the board this property is indicated for residential single family and the city's
comprehensive plan and is owned for that purpose however the variance is requested to legalize an
existing non-conforming use and there's no opposition from the affected rco accordingly
this planning commission has no opposition to the requested variance thank you mi 2020 that's zero
zero two three four four six two two seven cowl hill street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes there you go
all right um i believe that completes the 330 list it sure does thank you uh any unfinished
business yeah that's it thank you thank you all thanks staff everybody behind the scenes thank
commission everyone stay safe as well have a good night until next week take care
Have a good night.
You as well.
Have a good night.
Until next week.
Take care.
Bye, Pauline.
Bye, everybody.
Bye, Pauline.
Good night.
Good night.
Oh, there you are.
There I am.
I know.
I think Abby misses you, though.
Oh, my gosh.
Every time I look at you, you're someplace else.
You're in another block on the screen.
Oh, Abby misses you, though.
That's sweet.
That's very sweet.
She's like, how's Carol doing?
She's doing well.
Thank you.
Say hi to her.
I will.
I guess I'll see you next week.
Sounds great.
Okay, cool.
Have a good one.
See you.
You too.
Bye-bye.