You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Ms. Tenere has a few questions for you.
Hi, good afternoon.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, Mrs. Tenere.
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal,
or referral, photos and or plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing, and have
you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes and yes. Okay, you may proceed. Thank you very
much. Good afternoon, Adam Laver of Blank Rome, on behalf of Polner, P-O-L-N-E-R, Polner Group,
LLC, and its principals, Vitaly Polyachenko, V-I-T-A-L-I-Y, Polyachenko, P-O-L-Y-A-C-H-E-N-K-O,
and Eugene Nearest, N-E-R-U-S. Vitaly and Gene have previously appeared before the board.
We have worked closely in this matter with Point Breeze Community Development Corporation,
the Coordinating RCO, which has submitted a letter of support.
We've also worked with Councilman Johnson's office on the fine-tuned proposal before the board,
which incorporates valuable feedback from the community on the site, which I'll address in turn.
As I mentioned, the Coordinating RCO and the District Council members support this project,
along with petitions of support from the most closely impacted near neighbors,
which I'll bring up on the screen also in due course. The project has been designed by Harman
Deutsch-Oller Architecture. Rustin Oller of Harman Deutsch-Oller Architecture is with us
if needed. On the screen before you, you'll see photographs, aerials, and a zoning map.
I'd like to direct your attention, if I may, to the lower left-hand corner.
The subject property in orange is an RM1 residential multifamily.
The site itself is approximately 4,800 square feet in size.
It's depicted by Harmon-Doy-Toller with the blue dotted lines.
It's a vacant parcel, but you can see where the site sits in the middle of the block of 24th Street.
It's between Ellsworth and Alter Streets.
The site itself is unimproved vacant land, as shown on the screen.
To help put the property in context a little bit, we're looking here along 24th Street.
The property is to the left that you saw in the previous photographs.
Located across 24th Street from the site is this industrial property on the right.
Just again, contextually, that property ranges in height from approximately 70 feet to 92 feet at the high point.
And here you see another view the other way along 24th Street.
The subject property is where the hand icon is on the right.
And I'll move along.
Here are just a couple site photographs of the unimproved property.
another one, and I'll take you now to the notice of refusal, if I may.
There are three refusals. The first refusal concerns minimum open area. 16.7%
is proposed, whereas the code requires 25%. And the two additional refusals concern height.
45 feet is proposed. 38 feet is the base permitted allowance. And the final of the three refusals
concerns density. 11 units are permitted. 16 are proposed. I'd like to pause at this time because
there's a legal nuance that directly impacts what's before the zoning board and what's on the
refusal. The zoning application in the matter was submitted on April 22nd of this year,
including a request at that time to make a payment in lieu under the city's affordable
affordable housing bonus program. That would have permitted the density and the height that we are
housing bonus program. That would have permitted
proposing. However, and this is the nuance, just prior to the submission date, bill number 210075
removed RM1 lots in this zip code from partaking of the payment in lieu option under the pending
ordinance doctrine. The applicant then was instructed to resubmit as a regular application,
which it did, and that is what's before you. As a matter of law, we have to look at that moment
in time as to what was permitted, but it's worth noting that the legislation has since been
amended, but we're bound by the law in effect at the time of the application.
In the spirit, however, and behind the intent of the affordable housing bonus, and as addressed in a detailed community benefits agreement, Vitaly and Jean have worked to provide affordable housing options in the local community through a PBCDC-administered program, which has been recognized by the community and by the district councilmen who had proposed that initial legislation, which was the nuanced issue at the time.
So with this in mind, we're left with the one refusal concerning minimum open area as the remaining expected, if you will, with refusal.
This refusal itself is de minimis and in line with surrounding properties based on the tightness of the neighborhood.
Here I'm moving to a letter from Point Breeze Community Development Corporation, which, as you can see, supports the project,
specifically mentioning nearby neighbor support within a two-block radius.
The district council member's office has also joined the community and the RCO in support of the project as shown on the screen.
And in addition to that, we have near neighbor support of 20-plus neighbors.
As developers who have a presence in Point Freeze, Vitaly and Jean personally discuss this project with community members, going door to door, speaking with neighbors, people that they know, people that they don't know, explaining the proposed changes within their neighborhood.
And I'm just going through this quickly on the screen.
I'd like to turn now to the development proposal itself.
The zoning site plan shows a proposal for a four-story structure with roof deck.
Per the input of the community, the height has been slightly adjusted downward with a reduced
parapet. Additionally, the proposed rooftop deck will be limited to upper unit tenants,
not to the whole building, to lessen the impact of that. At ground level, coming in off of 24th
Street from across from that industrial building on 24th Street, this proposal will really
be placemaking in bringing together, pulling together this block with the lobby off of 24th
Street, internal trash storage with commercial trash pickup, bicycle room, etc. And here you see
four ground-level, bi-level units, each three-bedroom, three-bath that are proposed,
and typical units at levels two through four with 12 two-bedroom, two-bath units.
This is just very quickly showing you the limited roof deck with full setback five feet going all
the way around the property. On the screen before you is a conceptual rendering of 24th Street,
the front, showing front and lighting, up lighting and down lighting, prominent and noticeable,
as well as camera and security monitoring system, as this is a transition, if you will,
between industrial and residential, that's emblematic of the neighborhood.
This last elevation shows the rear of the property.
Again, the property only prints on 24th Street, but we wanted to give you a sense of the treatment of the rear.
Given the context of adjacent properties existing and approved for development, we would submit that the proposal before the board is reasonable.
The development itself will revitalize an unimproved property with active development as appropriate for the district.
balancing the city plan of record as depicted in the zoning map with community priorities
and the input in the dialogue that we engaged in as partners with the community.
The authorization of variance relief would not negatively alter the character of the neighborhood.
The authorization of variance relief would not negatively alter the character of the neighborhood
or district or be detrimental to the public welfare. And indeed, the proposal fits into
the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the exhibits of record and particularly those
who are closest to the property. The variance would represent the minimum variance that would
afford relief. This parcel is in the shadow of the industrial property across 24th Street.
It does require some relief to allow a reasonable use that fits within this neighborhood,
encompassing the mixture of important industrial and equally important residential. The grant of
variance relief will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, danger of fire,
et cetera, will not adversely affect transportation or unduly burdened water,
sewer, school, park, or other public facilities. As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman and members of the
board, there is a fully executed community benefits agreement, which is a private agreement
that I have available if the board has any questions, but I did not want to take up the
board's time with those specifics. And Vitaly and Jean are present and available as is Ruston
for further questions by the board thank you Mr. Laver do you what would you want to get one of
your clients on to adopt your testimony yes please Mr. Poliachenko Vitaly Poliachenko would
you please raise your virtual hand so that you may be sworn in
the tento when you get on please spell your full name and I'll swear you in
please unmute yourself I see that you're up on the screen
you're still on mute fatale
mr labor might be he may be having technical difficulties uh we'll stipulate you being an
officer of court your client would have adopted your testimony yeah any questions from the board
no mr chairman anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Chair, we have Eugene Nervous. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Eugene is my client. Eugene, Vitaly wasn't able to identify himself. Please identify yourself so you may adopt and affirm my testimony.
Sure. Eugene Nervous. Do you need my address as well?
Spell your last name.
N-E-R-U-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Nearest, have you heard the full virtual testimony that I've offered this afternoon on your behalf?
Yes, I have.
And would you adopt an affirmative as your own?
Yes, I would.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
I see no handshare.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends this lot for
single-family residential use. However, since it is currently zoned multifamily, we support
multiple units. However, there is nothing unique about these combined lots that would prevent them
from being used in conformance with the zoning code. We understand that the applicant was caught
in a code change preventing them from using the mixed income housing bonus, but the claimed
affordable units cannot be enforced by the city. We recommend that the board deny the requested
use variants.
I-2021-003398, 1111 South 24th Street, my vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Case number two, MI 2021, that's 003485. 1119 East Passionk Avenue. I believe Mr. Manione is the attorney of record. Councilman Squilla, Mark Squilla sent a letter of non-opposition, as did the Passionk Square Civic Association. If this is approved, there's one page of revised plans.
Mr. Mattione, please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
Please, we are affirming to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Tenere has a few questions for you.
Mr. Monioni, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, and yes, Ms. Tenere.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
everything okay great you may proceed thank you you're welcome
again uh i represent thomas and david tran and they are representatives of the owners of the
property you know the actual owners are their parents you know thomas is available to testify
as is rostin oler our architect and this is a uh we have provided the tax clearance certificate
The authorization letter from the owners to have their children appear, the refusal, the non-opposition letter from Passion Square Civic Association, the coordinating RCO, which urges that the variances be granted, revised plans form, one-page, revised site plan, floor plans, elevations, and site photos, among other things.
I just want to get into the refusal briefly.
This is a split-zone property.
It's CMX 2.5 for the first 65 feet, and for the last 35 feet, it is RSA 5.
However, under Section 14107 of the zoning code, RSA 5 governs the property.
So the only use that's permitted here is a single-family residential use,
despite the property being on a commercial part of Fatchelon Cabinet.
And here is the letter from the RCO, and I just point out in the middle.
In bold, we urge the ZBA to approve this variance.
I want to just show what we're proposing.
We're proposing a ground floor commercial use.
Ground floor commercial use up here.
This is on Patchen County Avenue.
So it runs through to Franklin Street, the little street in the back.
Ground floor commercial, basement level commercial.
We made some changes from the original floor plans that were submitted to the RCO.
We have the trash stored inside for both the commercial and the residential units proposed above.
We previously had a condenser, air conditioner condenser out back.
We removed that.
And this is the main entrance for the residential units from the back.
You have a front entrance for the commercial and a rear entrance for the commercial and the residential to get to the trash room.
On the second floor, we propose two basically studio apartments, one in the front, one in the back.
And on the third floor, a larger unit, two bedrooms, one bedroom in the front, one bedroom in the back.
It would have skylights, skylights, as you can see, as well.
When you look at this, on the east side of Passchonk Avenue, where we're located, 15 of the 18 properties have ground floor commercial uses.
Let me just show you the site. There's our site, and you see the front of the property, the front of the property, and the front of the property.
now here's the rear of the property we already have an existing uh parking
area in the back
and then this is the rest of franklin street
and show on passion cabinet what the uh
surrounding properties are as you can see it is all commercial uses
on the corner you have an auto repair facility and then this is going uh basically south
and you have all almost all commercial uses again 15 of the 18 properties there are
commercial uses on the west side of passion avenue permits were issued to 1100 to 18 east
passion avenue the ground floor commercial spaces and 39 blown units above
Again, our proposed use is for ground floor commercial with three residential units above.
If you look at the property, it has split zoning.
This is Paschonk Avenue and Franklin Street.
65 feet of lot depth is CMX 2.5 and 35 feet or 35 percent is RSA 5.
So if you were to subdivide this lot along that line,