Thank you.
There he is.
And Chair, you can begin when you'd like.
Good morning, Jim.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning as EVA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Ismail Shahid, our board secretary.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board attorney, Hillary Emerson, is also here.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phila .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves
before testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine
to raise your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question. Finally, please note the question
answer box is not for testimony or comments. Any comments should be directed to Tanya Sunken,
our executive director. Let's start today by talking about the continuances that we have.
Number five, MI 2022 001 395 341 North 52nd Street. This case will be continued. Number seven, MI 2022 001676 3618 Sears Street. This case will be continued.
Number eight, MI 2022, 001374, 4812 Knox Street. That case is continued. Number nine, MI 2022, 001391,
5221 Haverford Avenue. That case is continued. Number 10, MI 2022, 001396, 5813 East Worcester
Street. That case is continued. MI, number 12, MI 2022, 001680, 5710 Malvern Street. That case
is continued. And number 14, MI 2021 -004 -044 -6701, the 41 Call of the Street. That case is continued
and will be marked, must be tried. Are there any comments from the virtual audiences with
the continuances? Good morning, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. At this time, there are two hands
raised. The first one is
Mr. Ken Wood. I have allowed him
to speak. Sure.
Yes, good morning.
Hi, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Kenneth Wood.
K -E -N -N -E -T -H.
Last name Wood.
W -O -D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. What case, sir?
Regarding
25 0 7 each east allen street id number two seven three zero five seven seven five
and i got another id number is zp dash two zero two one dash zero one six six six seven you're
saying almond street sir yes yes 2507 tell me what what your issue is relative to that well
the neighbor the community was never given it the 250 foot that's why that's why i announced
that's being continued. Oh, okay. I didn't catch that address. Yeah, I did. That was one of the
oh okay i didn't catch that that address yeah i did that was one of the cases i listed
cases I listed.
i'm sorry that that case you're right well i'm going to call that shortly and the attorney
should be getting on okay yes all right do you have any other issues excuse me uh mr mr chair
um mr wood are you calling as a neighbor are you calling on behalf of the registered community
organization as a neighbor protesting i i did all the registration beforehand
hand and it said I was registered. Okay. Okay. No, that's fine. Thank you very much.
You'll be here. That's the only case you have, right? That's the only one I'm here for.
All right. Is there a request for additional continuances? What's the other hand you have up?
Chase? Okay, sir. This is a hand raised from a number ending in 3297. I have allowed this
person to speak okay good thank you i could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
joanne joanne hand j -o -a -n -n last name hand h -a -n -d right do you swear to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir what case you want to talk about uh zp
2 -0 -2 -1 -0 -1 -6 -6 -6 -7 -2 -5 -0 -7
Almond Street, AL. That case will be
you're a neighbor? Yes, sir.
I'm calling for a continuance. Okay, good. You'll hear that
shortly. Okay? Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Are there any other issues relative to the case as I continue?
Sir, I have one more hand raised from Mr. Dylan Mahoney.
I have allowed him to speak.
Mr. Mahoney, please unmute and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Hi, good morning, Mr. Mahoney.
State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Dylan Mahoney, D -I -L -L -O -N -M -A -H -O -N -E -Y.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
What case do you want to talk about?
Sorry, it was 1615 Elaine Street.
This is not one you called, but one I thought you asked for additional continuances.
twenty twenty two zero zero one seven one zero what's the what's the address 1615 elaine street
that's number one on the list mr chair we don't have any exhibits for that case yeah yeah we don't
have exhibits i'm going to be continuing that shortly okay okay thank you sir sure are there
any other requests for additional continuances? Okay. I do not see any hands at this time, sir.
Okay. Case number three, MI 2022 -001 -494 -2507 Ammon Street. That case is continued. Mark must be tried.
Mr. Chair, can we see if either the RCO, the council office, or attorney for the applicant
are present? Because we did not receive an official request for continuance from one of
those parties. I will call it again. I just called for additional MI 2022 -001 -494 -2507
Monomin Street, Adam Laver, or Council Member Squill's office.
Mr. Kline has his hand raised.
Allow him to speak?
Understood.
Mr. Kline, if you want to speak.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Kline.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Certainly.
It's Jared, J -A -R -E -D.
Last name is Kline, K -L -E -I -N.
And I'm counsel for the applicant for 2507.
All right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Is it OK to continue that, Mr. Klein?
Yes, it is.
We had previously discussed with the RCO and the counsel's office our desire to get a continuance.
The only thing I would ask is if you could do it as attorney moving party.
OK, thank you.
MI -2022 -001 -494 -2507 -Omin Street,
continue to turn to your moving parties.
Thank you very much.
Any other requests for continuances?
I do not see any hints at this time.
I also have several cases with no exhibits.
Number one, MI 2022 001 -710 -1615 Elaine Street. Patrick Jones is the expert that are listed.
Mr. Jones, if you are in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Mr. Jones, if you're in the audience.
Cases continue.
Mark must be tried.
Case number six, MI 2022 001761 3518 G Street.
No exhibits, first listing.
see no hands raised up okay that MI 2022 001 761 3518 G Street continue mark must be tried
and number 13 MI 2022 001 399 6642 Marston Street Lewis Cruz listed applicant
No exhibits, first listing.
Mr. Cruz does not seem to be in the audience for this case.
That MI 2022, 001 -399 -6642, Marston Street.
Cases continued.
Mark must be tried.
Any requests for withdrawals?
i see no hands mr chair thank you jason we're going to go to our add -on case
mi 2022 000 403 31 16 clifford street i vote yes
Her corrective refusal dated 1 -7 -22, revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA on August 3rd, 2022.
Carol, unmute yourself.
Carol Tsuneri, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you.
James Snell. Yes, for Proviso. Jim, you don't have to vote. We're good. We were only three
of his present that day, but thank you. Case number two on the full list. MI 2022 -003 -266 -2416 -18
South 7th Street. Attorney Jeffrey Young. Letter of support from Lower Moy -Mencing Civic Association.
letter of support from State Representative Fielder,
and letter of support from State Senator Saval.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Jeffrey Young has been promoted to panelists.
And we were joining shortly.
Good morning, members of the board.
My name is Jeffrey Young.
I'm here on behalf of the Cambodian Association of Greater Philadelphia.
Thank you.
Mr. Young, just for the record, spell your name for the court reporter.
First name Jeffrey, J -E -F -F -E -R -Y.
Last name is Young, Y -O -U -N -G.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Mr. Young.
Do you agree to avoid the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
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? Have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
And please share your screen. Sure.
Thank you.
Again, members of the board, my name is Jeffrey Young.
I'm here on behalf of the, excuse me, make my screen a little, I'm here on behalf of
the Cambodian Associates Bureau of Philadelphia for property address 2416 South Southern Street.
We're here today asking for two use refusals and one zoning refusal that I will get to
later on in the presentation. Here is our tax clearance to show that we are compliant.
Here is proof of ownership for deed dated February 28th, 2001 to the Cambodian Association of
Greater Philadelphia. So I want to start off by giving the board of
So I want to start off by giving the board a sense of where this property is.
This property is located in South Philadelphia on South 7th Street.
In between, to the north is Rittner, and to the south is Porter, and we're located on the west side of South 7th Street.
And as you can see here in the map, the area in this particular neighborhood is a mixed
use area with a number of commercial properties being used in the middle of the block directly
across the street from us is a Mexican restaurant.
As you can see to the south, there's Port of Beverage, which is also in the middle of
a block.
So in this particular neighborhood, there is a mix of many commercial uses that are in
places that are not traditionally used for commercial uses. But that can be attributable
to the zoning for this particular area. Our block is zoned as a mixed block zone, CMX1
and CMX2. And also the block north of us as well as also a mix of CMX1 and CMX2. So
What we apply for is for the erection of a secretary addition to our current property, as well as to use the property as a community center and a child care center.
Two use refusals are for use as the second floor as a community center and a child care center where CMX1 only does not allow for a non -residential use on that top floor.
we're also refused for we have a zoning refusal for a minimum real yard depth but as I'll get
through the presentation you'll see that this not that we have a hardship based on this non -performing
use you have to give the board a sense of the property this is the front of our property on
uh south 7th street um as you can see it's designed as a commercial building
um and on the block uh to the north of us i'm on our side there's a a mix of uh some single
family homes as well as uh apartments and multi -family use um on this on this particular
uh side of the street um this is the view is looking south um the block isn't as narrow as
it looks it's just uh the way the pictures came out i'm gonna just to give the the board a sense
of what the block looks like directly across the street from us. As I mentioned, it's a Mexican
restaurant. There's also an interior design studio to show that there has been a mix of these
commercial uses on this block. This is the south end of the block. There's a laundromat
on the west side and to on the east side is the beauty salon and directly like zoom in is maybe
difficult to see here but this particular parcel here that I'm highlighting is actually a barbershop
as well just to highlight the you know commercial uses that are on this block and again that's another
view this is the north end of the block showing some more commercial uses
i just want to give the board a sense of what we're trying to do our property currently has a
a second floor roof deck and what we would like to do is build over that roof deck to complete
the the space for our programming currently the space is about 300 square feet and we would like
to add that additional space into our programming. I'll zoom in here so members of the board can see
what our proposal is. Currently, our building on the second floor does not sit, does not go
back to the property line on the 2416 side. However, on the other side of the building,
it goes directly back to a small rear yard, which I will show in a second.
So again, there's going to be changes to the facade.
We're just going to add some new windows, spruce up the building a little bit,
and again, add this 300 square feet of space for programming in our facility.
Again, this space will be used as a child care facility, as well as a community center.
Our first floor of the property has already been zoned for use as a community center and an after school program of up to 40.
for use as a community center and an after -school program for up to 45 kids.
So this particular use is one that is common to the neighborhood and has been this way since
about 2003. So our expansion of this particular use will not prove to be a hardship to the
community. And it's also the most minimal variance allowed that we need in order to, you know,
create the space that we're looking for. So with the addition, we will have on the second floor,
two playrooms, two offices, as well as this area here will be a kitchen area,
kitchenette area, as well as two ADA accessible bathrooms. As you can see, so this pink area here
is the new addition that is currently a roof deck that is underutilized at the moment.
This gives the board a rendering of sense of what the finished product will look like.
Here you can see wooden floors, partitions to separate the different programming spaces in the facility.
And this is just another rendering so the board can get a better sense of what the finished product will look like.
And as you can see here where this paneling is, this is where the addition will be created.
so again to talk about the use refusal back in 2005 there was a zoning permit on file for
a multi -purpose community center at this location as i mentioned for up to 45 children so what we're
trying to do is just expand this particular use to that second floor the second floor
previously had a variance granted in 2009 to use that second floor as accessory space to the
community center for office space. So what we're trying to do now is use this accessory space
that's used for offices, now use it for programming and still have those offices located
at this, on that second floor level.
To get a sense of what the hardship is
for the zoning variance,
you can see here there's a permit from 1955
where the prior owner erected a one -story addition
on the property
and also created a partition on that second floor.
So as they created the addition to move the property line back, they also then got a permit to demolish a portion of the second floor.
So what we're trying to do now is restore a portion, restore that second floor that was demolished and removed in 1955.
the five. Here is our letter that we sent to the neighbors, and we hosted a community
meeting with the Lower Moya Missing Civic Association held on June 27th. This is the
flyer that was sent out as well with our letter. Here's a letter of support from the Lower
Moya Missing Civic Association. As you can see, there were no one opposed or non -opposition
to our project.
As mentioned earlier, this is a letter of support
from State Rep. Elizabeth Fielder.
We also have a letter of support
from State Senator Sovall.
And with that, that concludes our presentation
and we haven't answered any questions that the board has.
Mr. Young, do you have anyone who wants to adopt your testimony?
Yes, I would like to call Ms. Samantha Kim.
Ms. Kim
Hello, how are you?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, my name is Samantha Kim, S -A -M -A -N -T -H -A, last name K -I -M.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Young.
Thank you.
Ms. Kim, are you authorized to speak on behalf of the Cambodian Association of Greater Philadelphia?
And did you hear my testimony presented this morning?
And do you agree with my testimony being accurate?
and uh would you adopt my testimony as it was your own yes thank you questions from the board
And would you adopt my testimony as it was your own?
no mr chairman no mr chairman mr chairman all right questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no further answer mr chair planning commission good morning chair bergman ian hegarty
for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
That's H -E -G -A -R -T -Y.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Rasheed.
Thank you.
Good morning, board members.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing CMX -1 commercial mixed -use zoning
at this site.
This proposal, as we've heard,
is for expansion of an existing non -conforming use,
and the City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -003 -266 -2416 -18 South 7th Street.
I vote yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Young.
Thank you.
Case number four.
M -I -2022 -001 -550, 2940 -42 North 5th Street, Rachel Pritzker is the attorney, letter of support from HACE, H -A -C -E, the coordinating RCO, letter of non -opposition from Councilwoman Sanchez.
Mr. Brandon, let's have an answer to the panelist, sir.
Good morning.
Good morning, Brandon.
and then state your name and spell for the court reporter, please. Sure. It's Brandon Saverin.
That's B -R -A -N -D -O -N. S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N. Right. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Could you identify your
client and the relationship to the property? Yes. This application concerns two adjacent
properties. My client and the owner of both is Esperanza Health Center, Inc. Thank you. Our
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Brendan.
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, with the caveat that this is actually a referral rather than a refusal.
But yes, I do.
It's accurate.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the
referral, photos and replants 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.
Okay, you may proceed, and please share your screen.
Thank you.
So, good morning, members of the board.
Again, my name is Brandon Saverin from Pritzker Law Group.
The properties we're here to speak about today are 2940 -42 North 5th Street
and 2944 North 5th Street, which you can see here.
And my client, Esperanza Health Center, as indicated on the map,
has already occupied the 2940 -42 building.
So that is marked on Atlas.
You could say we're famous.
Here is a shot of the outside of the 2940 -42 building.
with Esperanza's awning on the left, and the second property, which I'll address in a minute,
2944 North 5th on the right, excuse me, I'm a little bit hoarse from allergies,
is currently vacant and was last used as a takeout restaurant. So we're here on a referral
for a special exception. There were no refusals issued. My client put in a zoning application
to accomplish two things. One is to consolidate that 2944 property with the metal grate on the
right into its existing health center on the left. So again, that would be a consolidation of lot
lines. And then after we obtain that, to connect the two buildings inside. That is by right.
In addition, the zoning application proposed to clarify that the use that will take place on these two combined properties is group medical practitioner.
That use requires a special exception in the CMX 2 .5 district.
And that's why our zoning application for both the consolidation and the use triggered a referral to you today.
we obtained a letter of non -opposition.
We obtained a letter of non -opposition from Councilwoman Sanchez's office.
We also obtained a letter of support from HACE, who was the coordinating RCO on this matter, after my client met with them.
And you can see there that the zoning committee of HACE voted unanimously to support the continued use of this property when enlarged.
as a group medical practice. I wanted to walk you quickly through the permitting history of the
property. This property was called a health center and a medical center in some prior permits under
the old zoning code before 2012. So for instance, just to pick one as a sample, here's a permit for
assigned from 2007. You can see that this was issued to my client Esperanza Health Center as
the owner and applicant and the use registration at that time was existing medical center.
Fast forward to permits that were issued after the adoption of the new zoning code
and the use began to be referred to as sole practitioner. Here's why that matters. Under the
current zoning code. Health center or medical center, at least to my knowledge, is not a defined
use. The sort of two possible uses for an outpatient medical practice such as this are
sole medical practitioner and group medical practitioner. We are going to be in the
combined facility a group medical practitioner. So we felt it was important to have that exact
terminology placed on our new zoning permit. And that triggered the referral, and that took us
through the RCO and ZBA process. Briefly, to qualify for a special exception, one must essentially
demonstrate that the proposed use of the properties will not have negative impacts on the public
beyond what would typically be expected from a medical practice. In this case, what would
typically be expected from the subject use. So this is relatively straightforward to demonstrate
in this case, because Esperanza already operates a medical clinic in part of this location. So
the impacts that the code draws attention to are congestion in public streets,
impacts on other public facilities like utilities, parks, and schools, overcrowding of the land,
including the supply of light and air to adjacent properties, this existing health clinic does not
create any traffic issues or strain other public systems or harm the public really in any manner.
And I believe that's borne out in the RCO's unanimous support of the project. The enlarged
facility will not operate in such a different way that any of those negative effects would appear,
whereas they currently do not. Further, the proposed integration of that adjacent building
does not involve a significant expansion of either building as experienced from the exterior. This is
really interior work and also sort of a cleanup of the front facade of the 2944 building. So because
of that, because we're not enlarging the mass of the structures, we're not going to have a negative
impact on the adjacent properties, their use, their light or air, etc. So as such, I respectfully
request that the board grant a special exception to allow Esperanza Health Center to operate
both of these properties when consolidated as a group medical practice. And I do have the
proposed building permit plans, which sort of function as a floor plan, if the board would
like to see them. I have our architect who can walk you through them. And I have a client
representative to adopt my testimony. Whatever of those witnesses. Mr. Shadram, why don't you
have your testimony adopted? Sure. Okay. So the client representative's name is Justin Perry.
Justin, if you could please raise your hand.
Perry has been allowed to speak. Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please,
for the court reporter? Yes, Justin Perry, J -U -S -T -I -N -P -E -R -Y. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed, Mr. Saverin.
Good morning, Justin. Are you an authorized representative of Esperanza Health Center?
Yes. Okay, and were you able to hear the full extent of my testimony this morning?
Yes. And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
uh and was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and would you therefore adopt
yes and
it as if it was your own testimony yes okay thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no
mr chairman no mr questions or comments from the virtual audience
so you know that's mr chair planning commission thank you chair bergman
ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission the proposed special exception will
not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected for this use
and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the special exception
thank you mi 2022 001 550 29 40 to 42 north this street i vote yes
Harold Teneri, my vote is yes.
Thomas Hallamon, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Saverin.
Thank you.
Case number 11, MI 2022 -001574 -5669 West Burke Street.
Lynn Nichols is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Winfield Residents Association.
thank you good morning mr chair good morning miss nichols how are you could you state your
name and spell for the court reporter please yes lynn nichols l -y -n -n last name n -i -c -h -o -l -s
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, John A. Bailey, and she is one of the owners of the property.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Ms. Nichols.
Do you agree to wait with the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit pack with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
vote is 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 yes okay you may proceed and begin to share your screen
thank you thank you
can everyone see this yes okay um good morning mr chair madam vice chair members of the board
um we're here on behalf of the applicants john a and jasmine bailey who are now the owners of
5669 West Burke Street in order to re -legalize a property that was before you in 2017.
The prior owners received a variance in order to use the property as a triplex, which it had
already been built as. And in 2017, after receiving the variance, for whatever reason,
they never obtained a certificate of occupancy. So we're here now to have that property
re -legalized in order for the owners to be able to obtain the certificate of occupancy to
use the property as a triplex. As you see here, they have a certificate of tax clearance.
These are photos of the property showing a view looking at the rear of 5669 West Burke Street,
which is a property on the corner. It's a large property located in West Philadelphia on the
corner there. As you can see, this is a view looking at the front of 5669 West
Burke Street. I'll pull that up. As you can see, this view here is looking at the
side of 5669 West Burke Street. And during the RCO hearing, we learned
something interesting about this property. It had previously been a gas
station in this area, and it's well known by the residents who live here
that this is the side here probably where it had serviced gas at one point. So it's a pretty large
property which can accommodate the requests that the applicants are asking for the use of this
property at this time. We also have here the addresses that are impacted that we mailed our
letters to. And apologize for my screen moving so slow right now. This is the proof mailing as well
as I'm going to get to the zoning notice that was posted on the property. And this
zoning notice that was posted on the property. And this is the refusal.
The plans here, if the board would like to see the plans do show that the property can
accommodate the applicant's request. And as you see, the RCO sent their letter of support and
it was unanimous. Would you like to see the plans? We only have one question about the
On the first floor, there's a studio label.
What is the studio?
I believe if I can get to the plans.
Give me a minute to get to that page.
I apologize.
My screen is very slow today.
so are you referring to in the uh on which level here right here around the floor
ground floor back up go back up go back up it's okay
I know. Can I just have a moment to stop sharing and get to that and then turn it and bring it back
up? Sure. Excuse me, ma 'am. You can also, this is Pauline from IT. You can also try just turning
off your video of yourself sharing all right all right no problem stop video
and then you should still be able to share okay thank you
now where did my document go okay all right here we go
that's better okay so right in the
go up a little bit okay so on the first floor where you see it's entry bedroom
you said it's go back go back up a little bit more oh i see up here studio that's a that's a
utility room. Okay. We just want to make sure that's not a fourth unit. No, it's not a fourth
unit. Okay. Okay. All right. I apologize for my screen today also, but no, that's the utility room.
Okay. Do you have your client here to adopt your testimony? Yes. I'd like to call John A. Bailey
at this time.
Ms. Bailey has been allowed to speak
Hi, could you state your name
and spell it please for the court reporter
Sure, my name is John A
J -O -H -N -A -Y
last name Bailey
B -A -I -L -E -Y
Alright, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Ms. Nichols, proceed
Thank you, Ms. Bailey
are you an owner of 5669 West Burke Street? Yes. And who do you own the property with?
My twin sister, Jasmine Belli. And do you agree with and adopt the presentation and testimony
that I gave you today for the property that you own with your sister at 5669 West Burke Street?
Yes, that's correct. Thank you. I have nothing further. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no further answer mr chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission board members the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the existing rsa 5 single family zoning on this block however this proposed use
is consistent with the physical configuration of the building which was altered pursuant to a
previous zoning board decision and so the city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2022 -001 -574 -5669 West Burke Street. I vote yes.
Harold Tineri, my vote is yes. Tom Solomon, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shemel Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you,
thank you have a good day all right um so 15 mi 2022 000 643 704 north 23rd street sean ward is the
Sean Ward is the attorney. Fairmount Civic Association did not reach an agreement on this
attorney um fair amount
application. Mr. Ward has been promoted to panelist, sir. Good morning, Mr. Ward.
good morning Mr. Chairman members of the board Sean Ward S -H -A -W -N -W -A -R -D
counsel for the applicants thank you do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes I do Mr. Ward could you identify your client and relationship to the
property? Yeah, the Gianna Scully's are the owners and applicants operating through their
LLC, Gianna Scully Enterprises. All right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. Ward, do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do. 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 yes i do okay great you may
proceed with your screen it's thank you thank you very much uh mr chair members of the board i've
submitted my typical exhibit packet to the uh zba uh last week i represent anthony and andrew
Gianna Scully, that's G -I -A -N -N -A -S -C -O -L -I, doing business as Gianna Scully Enterprises LLC
for the subject property at 704 North 23rd Street. A1 is the notice of refusal. This is an application
for a residential dwelling unit at the first floor in a CMX2 district. Obviously, residential use is
not permitted at the ground floor level. And there's also a refusal for the number of units
they're allowed to, given the square footage of the lot, in addition to what would be a commercial
or non -residential use at the first floor. But we seek use variants today for that.
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal. A3 is the project information form. A4 is proof of ownership.
A -5, proof of tax clearance. A -6 is a floor plan. A -7 are photographs of the property,
including aerial views and street views. As the chair indicated, I'm sorry, that's a typo. It's
not Propac. It's a fair amount. The RCO letter, they reached no position. The board reached no
position. However, there was a vote in support by the affected neighbors and all attendees. I'll
point that out when we get to the actual letter. A -9, if submitted, I would ask that it be marked
would be the district council, Councilman Clark's letter of, if submitted. A -10 is the relevant
zoning history of the property. In 2014, a permit for additions and use as a first floor business
and professional office in a two -family was issued. In 2020, there was an application for
a three -family with no commercial use on the first floor. That case was dismissed, and I'll
explain that in a second. In 2022, the present application is before you for the three -family
use with no commercial office on the first floor. Other uses on the block, I would point out that
700 North 23rd Street property directly to the left is zoned as a five -family dwelling
pursuant to a ZBA variance. 706 -08, the property immediately to the right, is zoned as a three -family dwelling.
And the rest of the block, 710 through 724, are all residential uses, varying from one and two -family.
However, I couldn't find anything for 720. A12 is the zoning map. A13 is the aerial photograph.
Griff. I would just point out they purchased the property in December of 2015. It had a vacant
first floor. The applicant renovated the building. Andrew Gianniscolli occupied the first floor more
or less as a live workspace while the renovations were ongoing. They made application and a ZBA
appeal in June of 2020 for the first floor residential use. However, at that point,
they found a potential tenant for the first floor as a non -residential use but it was proposed as
event space which would have required a zoning board appeal and the likelihood of success for
event space was tentative at best so they chose not to proceed with the lead
tentative at best. So they chose not to proceed with the lease or the appeal. Okay, so the
applicant reapplied for the free family use in 2021 after their case was dismissed because they
chose not to pursue the variance for the first floor residential use because of the possible
events -based tenant. But however, that never panned out. So we're here again applying for
of three -family use. So there's no commercial use on this block other than the church at 728
North 23rd Street. That's the other end of the block. Both the adjoining properties left and
right are used as multifamily pursuant to ZBA variances, and all attempts to find a commercial
tenant at this juncture have been unsuccessful. So we have the, as mentioned, the notice of refusal,
the application, the application of appeal. We have the project information form,
a copy of their deed from December of 2015.
Proof that we are tax compliant. As you can see, there's no balances due.
As far as the floor plan goes, what we have here is a 650 square foot space at the first floor.
In addition, there's a common entryway, which would lead to the stairs going up to the upper units, and you would make an immediate left turn to get into the first floor space.
Again, this current configuration does not lend well to the use as a commercial space on the first floor.
So that's another reason why we seek the variance today.
Here's a picture of the front of the property.
as you can see there's a residential uses on both sides copy of the postings this was a continued
case it was posted twice another picture of the front this is that entryway that I spoke of
this leads out to the street and you would make an immediate left -hand turn into the first floor
apartment there is a three -piece bathroom a bedroom at the rear
living area. Kitchen, as you can still see, Mr. Janus Scully does work out of the space,
but he lives there as well. With regard to the Fairmount Civic letter, as you can see,
let me blow this up for you. While they did not reach an agreement, that was the board,
the RCO board and not the attendees at the meeting, of all affected neighbors, five were in support, zero opposed, and two took no position.
All attendees at the meeting, 14 supported, five opposed, and seven took no position.
And then in their letter of explanation, they do indicate that they were unable to reach an agreement on the proposed use
because there was no absolute majority in support.
Then we have the zoning permits from 2014.
Originally, it was for business and professional use on the first floor,
but two family above.
That's the application.
This is the 2020 refusal for the very use that we're here for today.
With regard to 700 North 23rd Street, as you can see,
It was a change of use, residential, household living, multifamily.
It was granted by the board.
which is primarily accessed from Fairmount Avenue.
And then here is an aerial photo from Google, an angle shot.
This being the subject property here with the red mark, residential multifamily to the left, residential multifamily to the right.
And then these are all residential properties, either one or two family dwellings with the new St. John Baptist Church at the other end of the block.
That is the sum and substance of the application.
We don't believe that the commercial use on the first floor at this property is warranted nor
needed and we would ask that the board kindly grant the variance for the requested relief.
I would ask Mr. Janis Gulley to or one of my other representatives to virtually raise your hand
so that you can be identified and allowed to verify and adopt my representations.
I could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter.
Andrew Giannascoli, A -N -D -R -E -W -G -I -A -N -N -A -S -C -O -L -I.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, Mr. Ward.
Thank you, sir.
Andrew, you've heard my representations to the board, correct?
Are they true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge, information, and beliefs?
And would you adopt them as your own testimony?
Thank you very much.
That's all I have.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no answer.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed -use zoning at this location.
However, as recently as 2014,
this property was issued permits
for professional office and two dwelling units.
The proposed use is also consistent
with adjacent non -conforming uses on this block.
And so the City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -000 -643 -704 North 23rd Street.
I vote yes.
Carl Tineri, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. See you at 3 .30.
Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience whose 9 .30 case has not been pulled?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, everyone. See everyone at 2 p .m.
No need to wait, Chair.
Okay, good.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Ismail Shahid, our Board Secretary.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thomas Holliman, our Board Member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And James Snell, our Board Member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is our Attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised that proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phila .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments, direct them to our executive director, Tanya Sun.
So let's look at the continuances for this afternoon.
Number four, MI 2022 -002 -272 -1942 North 32nd Street.
That case is continued.
Number six, MI 2022, 002 -205 -233 South 24th Street, that case is continued.
Case number nine, MI 2022 -002 -176 -3413 North 19th Street. That case is continued.
Case number nine, MI 2022.
Number 10, MI 2022 -002 -276 -3415 North 19th Street. That case is continued.
And number 15, MI2022 -002 -208 -744 North 40th Street, that case is also continued.
Is there any questions from the virtual audience about any of the cases that were continued?
No answer, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Is there any other requests for continuances?
No answer, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Jason.
Case number three.
MI 2022 -002 -167 -1600 -36 North Broad Street.
This case is withdrawn.
Is there any questions in the audience relative to that case?
I see no answer thank you and then case case number 11 MI 2022 002 166 3811 Lancaster Avenue
um there are no exhibits for this case Mr. Chair this is Hillary this is a case that
we did receive the exhibits for except for the tax clearance um it can it can go ahead but the
vote will need to be held for the tax clearance thank you very much appreciate it
okay we're going to go to our add -ons
excuse me mr chair and i'm listening jason i'm sorry i thought someone had a hand raised but
Thank you. Case MI 2021 -003 -957 -3440 North 18th Street. This is a re -vote to better clarify
the provisos that we have. Voting for this the last time was myself, Ms. Tenere, Thomas Holliman,
and James Snell. I vote yes for this. Provisos. Revised plan, one page, stamped by ZBA on August
3rd, 2022. Maximum of four units. No basement living, no bathroom in the basement, no bay
windows, interior trash storage, and garbage disposal in all units. Carol Tenere, my vote is
yes with all of those provisos.
Thomas Holland, my vote
is yes with all of those provisos.
James Snell,
my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you.
Number two,
MI 2020
812, 830
East Thayer Street.
A resumption hearing
on this matter will be held at a date
and time that will be announced on Wednesday,
August 10th at 2 p .m.
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, just a clarification on that language. The board won't be voting on the case, because we will be conducting additional review as it was listed for a resumption hearing, as opposed to a hold. So we'll update the status of the case next week at 2pm.
All right. Thank you. We're going to start with case number 13. Hillary has recused herself from
this case. Amy Gaylor will be filling in. MI 2022 -000 -662 -5637 North 10th Street. Mr.
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney.
Mr. Nockamson, promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon, Mr. Nockamson.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson, A -L -A -N, the last name Nockamson, N -O -C -H -U -M -S -O -N.
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19109.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Palmer House LLC, and the member of that LLC is in the virtual audience.
And the member of the LLC is in the virtual audience.
His name is Maurice.
His name is Maurice Bennett.
Thank you.
Our vice chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
And Mr. Jim Ockamson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, 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?
um we do have a letter um and dylan mahoney of the ninth councilman district is here my
understanding the virtual audience um and we have a letter from them um we did have difficulties
meeting with the community um but uh it's stated in the letter as such and you can present that
when you are now ready to proceed and share your screen thank you okay
Again, we're here to present 5637 North 10th Street.
We'll go over the notice of refusal first, then the correspondence from the 9th Councilmanic District,
a rental license showing that this was a legal duplex as late as April of 2019.
Then we'll go over a map that we created based on our research of the public record,
showing that there there is significant multi -family use on this block so what we're
asking for is not of character not only with regards to the property but also this block
maps of the area photographs of the property in this around the area our plans and drawings we're
not changing anything with regards to this property essentially we're just trying to
re -legalize it as a duplex our meeting notice for last night's community meeting
Unfortunately, only one person was in attendance.
And as soon as they started speaking, or as soon as someone, I think it was Mr. Mahoney
was speaking, they left.
I take no offense to that, but there was no one else there.
Our application for appeal, our deed to the property, showing that Palmer House LLC is
the owner of the property, and our certificate of tax clearance.
And at the conclusion of my presentation, Mr. Bennett will adopt my testimony, and we
would be more than happy to get any questions from the board.
Mr. Nackamson, could you turn your volume up a little bit?
Is that better?
A little better.
Yeah, I guess you're just closer.
That's fine.
I'll just move closer without, like, seeing too big in there.
All right.
This is my notice of refusal.
It's an RSA -5 property, but it's RSA -5 in name only.
This has a significant history of multifamily use.
All we're trying to do is legalize it.
you'll see that the date of the refusal is January 25th of 2022. Presumably, we applied
earlier than that, obviously, because, you know, in order to get the zoning, the refusal,
we had to file a zoning permit application. The reason why I say that, it's my understanding that
if a use is abandoned for more than three years, that's when, if we filed, you know, for the zoning
permit application to restate that use we shouldn't have received a refusal we should have just
received another zoning permit given the change of ownership and less than three years of abandoned
use so i'm a little um i i don't understand why we would have received the refusal but that's
that's the case and we're here uh here's the letter that we received from um uh cheryl uh
Council member Sheryl Parker's office today and you know we sent those materials to Hillary Emerson
earlier today as soon as we received it to update our presentation materials but essentially the
fact is we did try to have a community meeting last night one person showed up as soon as you
know the presentation or the community meeting was about to begin that person left the community
meeting, so no vote was taken. But we did make a thorough presentation to the board. A little bit
more background, too. This rental license is in the name of Hall Palmer. That's why we're naming
this property the Palmer House LLC. Maurice Bennett is related to Hall Palmer. That's his
aunt. And unfortunately, when she died, you know, the use discontinued, and that's why we're here
today um but you know he wants to honor her legacy uh by um you know she honored her legacy by
you know purchasing the house the name of an llc that's essentially named after her
um so but you can see that we had a rental license so miss palmer had a rental license
as late as april 28th of 2019. and then there's a significant history of uh multi -family use on
significant history of uh multi -family use on this property for duplexes uh so we see 17 other
in this property for duplexes.
instances other than ours where there's that type of use so again not out character to what we're
asking for uh maps of the area uh we're on north 10 street uh between shoe and alney and we back
off back up to uh cherish a cherished playground and then here's a google maps perspective as well
so you can see there's ample public transportation for individuals uh who are looking to occupy this
property photographs of the property uh there's one entrance um but depending the property but
again we're not changing anything uh from uh what's already there and you'll see both of the
plans and drawings you have a ground floor unit and then you have a second floor unit
there will be no living in the basement uh north 10th street to the right of the property
north 10th street to the left of the property and then our plans and drawings oops just
look at that so you can see it um but here here's just basically our floor plan it's pretty basic
walk through the front uh you can either go through you know on the first floor of unit number
one was a two -bedroom one bath or you can go up apply the steps to the second floor which is the
second unit which is a two -bedroom one bath each of the unit owners will have access to this how
the property slopes down this is actually technically on the ground level in the rear
to a storage area that's basically the floor plans in a nutshell nothing's changing to what
is current was currently there when mr bennett took over the value of property
we met with the community again last night mr mahoney who i believe is the virtual audience
was in attendance as well 80 properties were notified of that meeting
these are the addresses of the properties proof of mailing to those addresses or application
for appeal uh that palmer house llc uh files to the cbi our notice of refusal or project
information form or deed to the property showing a palmer house llc purchased the property
from the estate of palmer lee hall also known as palmer l hall
and our tax clearance certificate.
With that being said, I'm going to unshare my screen.
I'm going to ask that Mr. Bennett virtually raise his hand
so he can adopt my testimony as his own,
and then we can answer any questions
that CBA may have .
Jason, do we say a hand?
and he's been allowed to speak sir okay thank you could you state your name please and spell
for the court reporter
yeah all right can you guys hear me yeah state your name please and spell it for the court
reporter? Maurice Bennett, so M -A -U -R -I -C -E. The last name is Bennett, so B as in boy, E -N -N -E -T -T.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed, Mr. Nockamson. Yeah, Mr. Bennett, you heard everything I stated today.
Correct, I did. Is it true and correct? Yes, it is. And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
I do. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Dillon's not there?
Okay, Mr. Mahoney has been allowed to speak.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, thank you. Just state your name for the record. You've already been sworn.
Yes, sir. Dylan Mahoney.
Okay. Proceed, Dylan.
Yes, sir. You've received our letter summarizing a community meeting that was held last night.
It was requested after some scheduling issues with the originally assigned RCO.
As Mr. Notkinson mentioned, unfortunately, nobody was in attendance at this second community meeting.
so no vote was held
and the councilwoman will not
be taking an opinion on the case
thank you
anyone else from the virtual audience
Anyone else from the virtual audience?
No further answer, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, David Fecteau, F -E -C -T -E -A -U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the residential single -family zoning at this location, the city's zoning archive shows that
the property was altered in 1940 to turn it into a duplex. Since this application reflects an
existing condition, it would not appear to impair the use of adjacent properties. So the City Planning
Commission recommends that the board grant the use variance. Thank you. MI 2022 -000662
5637 north 10th street i vote yes carol tenere my vote is yes
thomas holland my vote is yes
i know jim's on
okay that's votes taken your congratulations mr notkinson hey but by the way number one is
your case, so just stay on the line. Okay. MI 2022 002274 1306 08 Arnott Street.
Letter from coordinating Northwest Civics, Northwood Civic Association,
and also letter of non -opposition from Marie Kionis Sanchez.
um could you identify your client and the relationship to the property uh eleanor stark
uh who's the owner of uh 1306 and 1308 eric street is my client um mr vega uh represents
4667 -69 oakland streets but miss uh stark will be the one who will virtually appear
and adopt my testimony but i i understand mr vega's been notified as well aware of all the
issues yes he is yes yes right um vice chair carol tenere has a few questions
hi mr nocumson do you swear strike death to create a way the reading of the refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy i do 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 yes in all
respects okay great you may proceed and begin to share your screen all right let me share my screen
this is a very straightforward case um my cover page to this really speaks volumes about this
matter so this is 1306 and 1308 arick street right so it says dash it's really two separate
lines and this is 4667 -69 oakland the red lines indicate the current dimensions of these properties
right? So this yellow line indicates of how we want to cut this off. So Ms. Stark has been living
this property since 1987. She's a nurse. She's retired. She's looking to sell this property
for her retirement fund. And she discovered at that time that there was an issue regarding
the lot dimensions approximately 10 years ago uh mr vega and miss stark and her husband her late
husband um entered into agreement where they relinquished this little section of land uh for
the benefit of mr vega and his late wife um so that it would square off the you know mr vegas
property and he can build you know build up his backyard which includes a pool and he would have
a patio area, concrete patio area. When Ms. Stark was trying to sell her house is when she discovered
that the paperwork was not done correctly. So that's why we're here, essentially, just to
legalize this, do the right paperwork. Ms. Stark has a buyer who's been patiently waiting for some
time to purchase this property, and hopefully with the CBA's approval, the lot dimensions will be
legalized. So during this presentation, we'll go over the nose of refusal, the letter of support
During this presentation, we'll go over the notice of refusal, the letter of support from the Northwood Civic Association, the letter of non -opposition from a district council member.
from the Northwood Civic Association.
If necessary, we can show that this is non -common to have nearby properties with secondary structures and budding property lines.
That's one of the refusals.
Our maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area, just our survey essentially.
our meeting notice and proof that we sent that meeting notice out for the community meeting
our application for appeal or deed to the property and our certificate of tax clearance
and again Ms. Stark is in the virtual audience who will adopt my testimony
so lots going on here but that's you know essentially that refusal states there are
three properties we're combining two to make the Arab Street property we're taking a part of the
our street property giving it to the oakland street property to square it off we have two
refusals um and by the way the other thing is there was a there was a part a garage that was
on my client's property that's been demolished years ago where the concrete pad is for mr vega's
like backyard just to legalize that to the demolition of that uh parking garage so we have
two refusals here one is the side yard minimum width is 2 .7 where eight feet required again it
goes to our building our actual house which has been there forever so again because of the exchange
of lot lines we have to legalize the house portion of our 1306 -8 property and then the second refusal
has to do with the garage that's on Mr. Vega's property where there is no setback
between the garage and any property line, our property line, where three feet's required.
Again, that garage has been there forever, so that's an existing condition.
So the correspondence from the Northwood Civic Association, it was unanimous support.
There was one person in non -opposition, but everyone else was in support, including the board members of the RCA.
And they had detailed explanation of what happened at the meeting, how we presented at the meeting.
They also included our presentation materials, which included notice refusal, the same presentation materials we're going to show you today in terms of photographs and things like that.
And then you'll see the yellow line.
And then, again, you'll see this in your presentation materials.
This concrete pad, that's what is technically still part of the Arick Street property, which we want to transfer over by way of these proceedings and ultimately a deed of confirmation to Mr. Baker.
And you can see it from a different angle as well.
And then this is just a survey, which you'll see in your presentation packet as well.
Based on that letter of support that we received in the coordinating RCO, we received today a letter of non -opposition from the district council member.
And then again, it's non -common to have structures budding property lines.
This is just from Atlas.
We just gave examples of similarly situated properties, which would be foreign to foul of the Philadelphia zoning codes.
Maps of the area, we're not creating density here.
again what we're trying to do is square off this property right here so mr vega uh can use it uh
use his backyard function and then this is just a map of the area from a google maps perspective
and then photographs of the property again the same photos that we sent you know showed the
community group uh this is our street property from the front of the property this is oakland
street property from the front of the property this is uh the aerial view from that we received
from atlas again the red indicates the uh current uh property lines while the yellow indicates
where that our property would end and mr vega's property would begin again we're squaring off the
property to relinquish that portion of our land for mr vega which they agreed to almost a decade
to go but do not get the pre -core correct at that point at least there's no record of the city
our streets are right of the property our streets are left of the property again single
family neighborhood that's what we're keeping here these tend to be very big lots in this part
of the city oakland street to the left of the property and then just our backyard again the
same photos we sent showed the community during the community meeting just showing the lands that
we're relinquishing to mr vega and then our plans and drawings again if you take a look at it
here's our two refusals this is our side yard this is our building structure
we're not creating a new building structure just because when we reconfigured a lot or the
we're not creating a new building structure just because when we reconfigured a lot
for these lots this building falls runs about of the current three foot uh or excuse me eight foot
uh side charge requirements um and we're at 2 .7 feet and then here's mr vega's garage
there is no setback there should be a three foot setback there is no three foot setback
so that's the other regions
and then our meeting notice we met with the community on june 30 at the 7 pm
17 addresses were notified of the meeting
these are the list of the addresses this is the proof mailing to those addresses
application for appeal that we filed with the cba
from certain views on the project information form our deed to the property
and our certificate of tax abundance showing for both parcels that you know they're in good
standing with that being said i would ask that miss stark virtually raised her hand
so she can adopt my testimony as her own
Eleanor Swift has her hand raised. Do I allow her to speak?
Please.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Eleanor, E -L -E -A -N -O -R -S -T -A -R -K, Stark.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Nockamson.
Yes, Ms. Stark, you heard everything I stated today.
Right, I did.
Okay, and is it true and correct?
Yes, you stated very well.
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this
location. These refusals appear to result from an existing condition. Granting these dimensional
variances will not impair the use of adjacent properties, and the proposed conditions are in
harmony with the spirit and intent of the zoning code. Therefore, the City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the dimensional variances thank you mi 2022 002 274 1306 to 08
irish street i vote yes carol tenere my vote is yes thomas halliman my vote is yes
Thank you, Mr.
Nackamson.
Case number two.
MI 2022
212 1511
West Allegheny Avenue.
Letter of support from
Neistein to Tioga
with some suggestions.
Mr. Saverin,
I have five
form letters of support
from neighbors,
one from the adjacent St. Joseph's
Institution.
Good afternoon, members
of the board. Brandon Saverin
representing the property owner.
Brandon, you've already been sworn.
Could you identify your client
and the relationship to the property my client is 1511 allegheny llc that's the owner of the
property and our vice chair carlton area has a few questions i do agree to wait the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes madam vice chair 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 uh yes to all of those questions okay great you may proceed and begin
to share your screen thank you thank you um good afternoon uh members of the board um again my name
is brandon saverin from pritzker law group um i represent the property owner 1511 allegheny llc
And Noreen Cody, who is their principal, is here to adopt my testimony today.
I also have with me David Markowski, who is the project architect.
i also have with me david markowski who is the project architect and if you have any questions
about either the zoning plan or the floor plan that i'm going to walk through please don't
hesitate to let me know and i'll bring him on here our application regards the construction
of a 20 unit apartment building on what is presently a vacant lot at 1511 west valley
Avenue. Just to give you some context, we're about a block and a half off of Broad Street on
Allegheny. Here's the lot right here. It is a vacant lot that sits basically amongst mostly
other multi -unit type buildings. I'll get into that more in a moment. We have a letter of support,
as the chairman mentioned from the Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team. So the chairman also
mentioned suggestions. So we revised our zoning plan in accordance with those suggestions.
I submitted a proviso change form and a revised zoning plan to board staff last week. So if you
are inclined to grant the variance, we would ask that you do so with a proviso referencing
our revised zoning plan, which is one page. I want to give my thanks sincerely to the NTIT RCO
for really working with us, having multiple discussions, and helping us sort of get the
ideas needed to revise the physical plan, as well as prepare to have a positive impact in the
community, both during construction and beyond, which is to say that we intend to follow all of
their suggestions and are appreciative of their support. As the chairman also mentioned,
we have, I believe, about a half dozen letters of support from surrounding property owners,
including the only two adjacent properties, one of which is a letter shown here from the St.
joseph's retirement home and the other is uh the the uh building on the other side and a letter
from that owner is here um this is a section of our own that shows the front and rear elevation
of the property um so as you can see this is going to be a six -story building as proposed
with the units on the upper five floors and a parking level on the ground floor.
Give me one moment.
I'm just going to pan over to the other parts of the sheet.
We have a ground floor site plan here and an aerial site plan here.
This shows the features of the ground floor, which is four parking spaces, an elevator lobby.
All floors are served by elevator. A trash room that collects trash from two trash chutes
to make this sort of a building that is easy to use for all users, regardless of age. We also have
utility room, storage room, and a little bit of bike parking in the rear of this lower floor.
We're showing a sort of circular seating area that, if we can get permission from the streets department, we would build in the beginning of the sidewalk right of ways.
This is a very wide sidewalk, but that would be subject to their discretion.
In addition, which I'll sort of skip over, we have turn radius data down here.
This is a sample floor plan of one of the upper floors.
They would all basically be the same, with the exception of the common roof deck at the top.
So all the floors, including the roof deck, would be served by elevator.
And what you're looking at here are basically three two -bedroom units and one one -bedroom unit.
Keep going here.
All of the units, because they are served by elevator, we designed to be considered type B under the International Building Code, which means that they are able to be modified with fixtures into, you know, disability compatible units.
Let me go to our refusal.
So the underlying zoning district here is RSA 3, both in terms of its allowed uses and its
dimensional rules. The RSA 3 designation really compels the construction of single family homes
on lots that are to be left 50 % unoccupied. So this is the planning commission zoning guide.
This is the Planning Commission Zoning Guide.
This here is a sample.
This here is a sample image of an RSA 3 property in their eyes, which is sort of a twin, as we like to call it in the city.
So the refusal, the top one, is that you can't have more than one dwelling unit in this district.
The others sort of flow from the fact that the rules are designed for a single family house.
For instance, there's a 38 -foot height limit. There's that 50 % open area requirement I mentioned. There's a rear yard depth of 20 feet requirement. So we're proposing 25 % open area and a 10 -foot deep rear yard.
the RSA 3 district would require 20 parking spaces we're only providing four we also have
a dimensional refusal at the bottom there for proposing a 16 foot wide drive aisle rather than
a 20 foot wide so there's sort of two reasons that there are hardships with regard to all
these variances the first just to go back to the parcel map is that the property is a little bit
sort of long and thin. And as a result, you know, to get sort of a product that matches the
surroundings, we're doing something that, you know, occupies most of the depth of the property,
but we'll still have a small rear yard and a side alley that separates it from the St. Joseph's
home. That's also why we couldn't provide more parking spaces because each floor plate basically
only accommodates four spaces. So, you know, to do 20 spaces, you'd be looking at occupying
multiple floors of the building, which is prohibitively expensive to build. The other
reason that we have a hardship, which is probably more compelling, to be honest, is just the nature
of the surroundings. So our property has no known history of single family use. The block,
at least per the permit archive, currently has no single family use. Let me say that again.
This block has no single family homes whatsoever. You can kind of see I'm panning through.
It's different apartment buildings that are in different states of repair, some good,
some not so good. And then there's some office and other use. I actually went through the archive
and listed every building out. So very quickly, there's a couple houses of worship. There is
an apartment building with 16 units, an office, 56 unit building, six unit building, 46 unit
building, and the St. Joseph's home, which I believe has a better part of a hundred rooms
in it. That was the property that was directly to the left of us there.
um so um why does that create a hardship um there is a concept called a validity variance which
basically says that if you can't build the product that the zoning code commands you have a hardship
and to quote from one commonwealth court case very briefly that discusses the concept of a
validity variance that case held that um a validity variance is deserved when quote the regulation is
confiscatory and that it deprives the owner of the use of the property, the applicant can establish
the confiscatory nature of the zoning regulation by proving that the land has no value or only
distressed value as a result of the regulation. This case is called Shehola Falls Trails for
zoning hearing board. So what I would propose to you is that based on the total lack of single
family homes on this block, we can't build and sell a single family home that's going to cover
the cost of construction. It is simply an unsalable product in this location, given the
surroundings. The last thing I want to touch on is the North District portion of PCPC's
comprehensive plan. So we are one of these blocks, I believe here, that is shown in tan. And that,
as you see, is surrounded by this C caption. And what C says is that in this location on Allegheny
Avenue, the comprehensive plan recommends a rezoning to RMX3 for the purpose of promoting
the development of large apartment buildings, preferably for senior housing. So we're not an
age -restricted product, but I would say that we are fully compatible with as many seniors as we
would like to live there. Um, and, um, this is also highlighted on another page of the plan
and the housing recommendations for the North district that says that, uh, the, um, that zoning
should seek to quote, increase the allowable density near major transit stations, such as
such as Allegheny Station. Again, we are a block and a half from Allegheny Station.
Allegheny station. Um, again, uh, we are a block.
And here is finally an image from that Planning Commission zoning guide I mentioned,
showing their sort of sample image of an RMX3 housing product. RMX3, again, is the designation
that the Planning Commission recommended for this block. Our building would not be anything
near the size of this building shown again we would be 20 units so with that i would like to
see if my client is available to adopt my testimony and again if you have any questions i do have the
architect here noreen cody is her name noreen could you please raise your hand she's going
know how to speak, sir. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Noreen, N -O -R -E -E -N, last name Cody, C -O -D -Y. You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed, Ms. Saverin, Mr. Saverin.
Noreen, were you able to hear the full extent of my testimony today?
Yes, I was. Okay, and was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. And are you an authorized representative of 1511 Allegheny LLC?
Yes, I am. And would you adopt my testimony as if it was your own?
Yes, I would. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Saverin, I'm going to open it up to the board,
but a couple of quick questions. One is, is the height consistent with the St. Joseph's property?
You know, I really would like to bring the architect on, but just eyeballing myself.
yeah that's all i want you to do is eyeball yeah i i think it is because the saint joseph's home is
sort of one two three four four stories with sort of a large fifth story that is partially
submerged okay all right that's fine and then the second question is if you know how did you get to
20 units um so i think if you look at that floor plate you have you know four units per building
and for for i apologize um the rmx designation that i mentioned which was recommended um zoning
for this parcel the rmx3 designation allows a 500 uh percent floor area ratio um so that's right
about where we are i think if you um exclude the access structures we're just under 500
percent far we might be at four quickly so we felt that this was appropriate given the heights of
the surrounding buildings um the the content of the comprehensive plan and also that we wanted
this to be an elevator building in order to um you know make it senior friendly and in order to do
that we sort of needed a critical mass of units to justify the cost of the elevator um you know
it's four units per floor so it's it's a rather sort of um spacious you know layout i don't
think it would be okay all right good questions from the board yes mr chairman a counselor
you have uh six children refusal six you send something refusal right your revision uh form
reduces to what how many refusals um mr hollman i'm quickly going to pull up my proviso form
would you allow me one moment to do that i don't think off the top of my head
gesturing scale windows front back so i don't think that the um changes um remove or add any
refusals they're agnostic to their refusals the changes are uh things that the rco recommended
in terms of creating additional public and green spaces, so additional balconies, additional
windows, a lot of landscaping both on and around the building. The refusals that you mentioned,
Mr. Holloman, none of those would have been generated with the exception of the parking
count and the drive aisle refusal if this property was indeed RMX3 as the comprehensive plan
recommend so again absent the parking none of the other refusals would have been generated at least
that's my best understanding um and you know that is basically because the code is designing for
a single twin house which as i showed you in the context of the block it's just not what's
here i mean nobody has the open space or the side of rear yards that the code compels right so we're
really just trying to fit in and propose a product that's
and propose a product that's going to be useful to the community.
going to be useful to the community.
Arnold, did you have a question?
I have another question, Mr. Chairman.
Go ahead, Tom.
You have a curb cut?
Has it been reviewed by city?
The requisite reviews were made by streets.
I don't believe that city planning has touched this yet because we only front on one street.
but i know david facto may be able to shed some light on this and one other thing i'll
add is that the rmx3 designation would have compelled six spaces um so we're proposing
four um so we're only a couple short we tried to get in as many as we could there
um any other questions about yes i have one more you have parking uh four spaces yes and you
required 20. How do you justify less spaces? So again, the RMX3 designation, which is recommended
by the plan and really is in keeping with what is on the block currently, only would have required
six spaces, not 20. You know, 20 is a one -to -one ratio. The way that we brought this up with the
RCO, it's a very fair concern, Mr. Holloman. I'm not trying to make little of it, is that the St.
Joseph's home, which is behind and to the side of us both, it sort of semi -surrounds our property,
has an enormous parking lot with probably over 100 spaces, just guessing, that goes largely
unused on a given day. So as is mentioned in memorialized in the RCO letter, we're in contact
with them. We're trying to work through a lease agreement for spaces. But the sort of point here
is that none of the surrounding buildings have one -to -one ratio parking many of them don't have
parking at all and you know the four spaces was the most we could do without getting into
subterranean parking or multi -level parking and i think those are both sort of offensive to the
aesthetics of the community for their own reasons so this is what we could fit on the floor of the
building i think you're trying to put too much on the site that you want to get city council to
change the zoning so you can put what you want on the site well i i think that a rezoning is not
legal on a parcel by parcel basis as you probably know um and it's a major action for the city
council person who i believe is councilwoman bass to rezone swaths but let me say the rsa3
zoning is appropriate for many places in the city just not this block specifically so even a rezoning
may not be appropriate because a rezoning is typically done when many blocks need a fix
this is a unique thing on sort of these you know 14 and 1500 blocks of allegheny i suppose in a in
in a fictitious world she could have done legislation just to address this block but
it's not been done i think a variance is uh under state case law appropriate therefore
um and if i don't know if charles richardson is on here but i i would welcome his input if he is
i i think he his office is at least not opposed to this project with its current density
thank you questions from carol did you have a question no i do not questions from the board
more questions no okay questions from the virtual or comments from the virtual audience
mr chair i have mr charles richardson with his hand raised i will allow him to speak at this time
mr richardson hi good afternoon mr richardson good afternoon mr chair and board
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Hi, Mr. Richardson, just for the record, could you spell your name for the court reporter?
Sure. Richardson, R -I -C -H -A -R -D -S -O -N.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Richardson.
As Mr. Saverin did allude to, the Councilwoman does not spot zone,
So that would not be something that she would be able to, would be willing to do with that one parcel.
I am aware that Mr. Saverin has worked diligently with the NTIT RCO and they came up with a lot of different suggestions and things along those lines.
We have kind of laid back and allowed them to do what they needed to do with regard to coming to some conclusion.
We have kind of laid back and allowed them to do what they needed to do.
If they've got a letter of support from NTIT, then the councilman will not stand in the way and will not have any opposition to this project at this point.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson, for calling it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further answer, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr.
Chairman and members of the Zoning Board.
The zoning maps for Tioga were changed in 2006
in response to a community request.
However, the Comprehensive Plan recommends this property
for residential mixed use three zoning.
The hold on, I lost my place.
So residential mixed use three zoning
would allow the proposed use to be permitted except for the proposed parking count and drive
aisle width. Since the applicant would only be short two parking spaces, the proposal complies
substantially with the recommended zoning in a comprehensive plan. The City Planning Commission
recommends the board grant the use and dimensional variances. Thank you. MI 2022 -002 -212 -1511
Allegheny Avenue. I vote yes with Proviso. Revised plan, one page, stamped by ZBA on August 3rd, 2022.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with Proviso. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell? Sorry about that. Yeah, no, a little technical issue. Yes with Proviso, James Snell.
Thank you, Mr. Saverin.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2022, 002 -169 -2118 Pine Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Letter of non -opposition from Center City Residence Association.
28 neighbors from the 2100 block of pine and 400 block of sound south van pelt have also uh given
their support mr chairman members of the board henry clinton and mr clinton could you spell your
name for the court reporter please sure henry h -e -n -r -y clinton c -l -i -n -c -o -n do you swear
a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your
client in relationship to the property? Sure, I have two clients, Lynnae Schwartz, L -Y -N -N -A -E,
Schwartz, S -E -H -W -A -R -T -Z, and Leslie, L -E -S -L -I -E, Surchuk, S -E -R -C -H -U -C -K, and Ms. Schwartz is on the
call, as is Ms. Surchuk. Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Clinton. Do you 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 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?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed, and please share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is that visible, Ms. Denary?
It is for someone 25.
Can you increase it?
I'm being just mad.
Well put.
Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I'm Henry Clinton for Ms. Schwartz and Ms. Surchuck.
This concerns 2118 Pine Street.
This is my presentation package, which contains exhibits AA through A10.
I'll walk through the pertinent ones.
this is our appearance statement this is the key document it's a rather straightforward
request today the refusal concerns a required setback for a rooftop deck as you will see from
the photographs this deck has been in existence for a while my clients purchased the property
in 2007 and the deck was in existence then they needed some repairs and rightfully they applied
for a permit when they apply for a permit to do these repairs they found out that it was not
properly zoned so we began the process and we're here today before the board so we met with the
center city residents association and presented basically the same package and i'm presenting to
the board today to them and they issued a letter of non -opposition to this request what's also
of non -opposition to this request. What's also interesting is my clients were very very
interesting is.
proactive in contacting neighbors on their street which is Pine Street and this is at the intersection
of Pine and Van Pelt and they also contacted and reached out to their neighbors on Van Pelt Street
and they got an overwhelming response of support from all the near neighbors and even neighbors
that are far away because they realize this deck has been in existence from 2007, and
you can just about see it from the ground level anyway.
We also have emails of support, which I can read, but they are introduced as evidence
into the presentation today, and I don't want to take up the board's time, but you
can take my testimony as well as my client's testimony that these are strong letters of
support for various reasons from adjacent and near neighbors.
Mr. Chairman, I won't read these emails.
I gather you did not want me to, and I'll just leave you to present it.
You're an officer of the court.
We understand what your testimony is.
Understood, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
So this is the photograph.
This is my client's property.
This is Van Pelt Street.
This is Pine Street.
And you can see it's a three -story structure with a mansert roof.
roof, and then you can just about see the deck at the very top.
This is a wrought iron open fence, which is going to remain.
As I said, my clients are basically replacing what is there.
This is an aerial view to give you an idea of the property.
This is looking south, Pine Street, Van Pelt Street.
Again, another perspective, you can see the rooftop deck from this angle, and it is set
back somewhat if you took a linear line from where this overhang is and bring it straight up you can
see that it is set back several feet and that's why the refusal doesn't indicate it has to be set
back five feet because it's it's set back about half that distance right now this is another
perspective photographs that we took just to show you the manser roof and the rooftop deck there's
also ample space between the rear of my client's property and the first house south over in Pelt
Street. Additional photographs for perspective of the board. This is a view from the rooftop deck.
You can see that the boards are old, weathered a bit, need to replace. We also need to replace
some joists beneath the decking. And this is a view looking towards center city. Again,
you can see some of the decking is certainly a need of repair.
So the plans are pretty straightforward. This is the existing deck.
And this is a replacement deck. So we're going to remove some structures that are not being used.
There's an opening there for a hot tub, which is not being used, and some existing planners that
are built into the deck. And we're just going to have a full open deck. And my clients will
be replacing some of the planners, but they'll probably be in containers, but not built into the
deck. Again, the perimeter of the deck remains the same. The access to the deck remains the same.
The height of the railing remains the same. In fact, the railing is going to be an exact,
it's going to be repainted and recoded, but it'll remain in place. The remainder of the
presentation, Mr. Chairman, are the typical documents you would see of tax certification,
application for appeal um our zoning map again indicating uh where the property is located
uh and the deed so i don't want to belabor the point but basically uh the deck is as it was in
2007 except it needs upgrading and reinforcing my clients are continuing with the same footprint
Yes, I have.
If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Yes, I would.
Thank you, Ms. Schwartz. We appreciate it.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no further hands, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location. This appears to be the
legalization of an existing deck. The aerial photos that we have available to us appear to show a roof
deck on this property dating back to at least 2005, which predates the current owner. Therefore,
the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the dimensional variance.
Thank you. MI -2022 -002 -169 -2118 Pine Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Mr. Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Clayton.
Have a great day.
Okay. Next case will be two cases together, seven and eight.
Number seven, MI 2022 -000658 -3440 Messina Way, and MI 2022 -000659 -3442 Messina Way.
Michael Mattione is the attorney, has the support of the Packer Park Civic Association,
although the court the uh the chairperson of that group did not see them uh didn't seek it
was necessary to have a meeting mr chair i have mr matthew laley with his hand raised sure
and i'm to speak at this time please
good afternoon mr check can you hear me i i can could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter. Sure. Matthew Liley, M -A -T -T -H -E -W -L -E -I -L -I. I'm appearing
for Mr. Mattione on behalf of the property owner. Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client and the relationship
to the properties? My client is Penrose Park Associates LP. They own the both properties.
Thank you. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Hi, have you agreed to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to the accuracy of it?
Have you emailed the exhibit packets with proof of ownership tax compliance,
refusal 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?
I have the RCO sent a letter of no opposition in lieu of meeting with us due to the minor nature of the variance.
Okay. This is Santa Place, right?
Correct. I was here a couple weeks ago on a neighboring parcel, and these are just two other identical floor plans, identical variance to that same application.
Okay. You may proceed and share your screen.
thank you i don't see the option to share my screen i have to promote them to panelists please excuse me
sorry about that madam chairman mr langley will be returning as a panelist shortly
sure that's that's fine jason thank you oh all right here you go
Okay, so as was said, I represent the property owners for 3440 and 3442 Messina Way.
Both properties are within the Siena Place subdivision in South Philly.
um i'll go through the hearing exhibits quickly uh there's the real estate tax clearance was
submitted um the refusal as i stated before is for a minor variance uh it's just for a balcony
in the rear yard um because of the way the zoning code defines the rear yard it requires nine feet
of rear space. The balcony intrudes four feet into that rear space so we're short by four feet
I believe for the rear yard. And as I said before it's the same variance for both properties 3440
and 3442 Messina Way. We have the letter of no opposition from the Packer Park Civic Association.
We have the letter of no opposition from the Packer Park Civic Association. After trying to meet with the group, we were informed that their schedule was very busy.
They referred the matter to the Siena Place Homeowners Association. We spoke with the board president who had no opposition to the variances and supported any building that would be done in conformity with the surrounding houses.
We sent out notice letters to the community, which I believe were also submitted, informing them of the zoning board hearing and in lieu of the RCO meeting, informing them that they could meet with or rather that they could submit any questions or concerns they had to my office.
We haven't received any communication from neighbors regarding the development.
here we have floor plans for the properties you can see on this map in this corner here
is where the two properties are located their neighbors they have the exact same floor plan
the community is designed with three model houses and these houses 3440 and 3442 both are the same
floor plan. They both contain, you can see here, this balcony on the second floor of the rear of
the property. That's the balcony that generates the variance or the refusal. Every other property
of this floor plan in the development has this same balcony. There's, I believe, 313 homes
in the entire subdivision, and each one of those has some sort of balcony or roof deck.
I submitted also floor plans. You can see
on this one, again, the balcony on the rear second floor. This protrudes again into the
backyard by four feet. For these properties requiring variances, the typical depth of the
balcony, I believe, is five feet. We reduced those to four feet to create, to minimize the variance
needed, just to maximize the open space in the rear yard. These are additional floor plans and
elevations again we can see the balcony on the rear of the structure here
now we have some photographs this is the site photograph it's vacant land at the moment
construction hasn't started on this phase these are the neighboring houses that have already been
built in the community it's very high construction standards good materials used throughout
um this is one of the floor plans that has a rear deck this is not the floor plan here but
this is the floor plan you see here that has
the same deck as 3440 and 3442 Messinaway
um as I said every property in the development has some sort of rear balcony or roof deck
This variance would enable the owner to build the properties in conformity with the existing uses.
And we have our zoning posters, application for appeal, and our affidavit of service that mailing was sent to all of the required properties,
is informing them of the ZBA hearing and that they can provide comments to my office.
Counsel, do you have someone to adopt your testimony?
I do. The principal of the owner, Dave Bartinski,
if you could raise your hand and we can have you adopt the testimony.
I don't know if he's in the audience.
Counsel, you're an officer of the court.
We will accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
Yeah, I just have one question.
How many homes in Siena Place have roof decks?
You know, I think I misspoke.
I don't think they're roof decks.
I think they're rear third floor decks.
They're not on the roof level.
I believe they're on the third floor level.
That's what I recall. I thought maybe the next phase was doing roof decks, but you answered it. Thank you.
That's what I recall.
I thought maybe the next phase was doing roof decks, but you and me,
Any other questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any answers, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Vecto, City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this
location the applicant has failed to show that the absence of a balcony in the required rear yard
would render the property unusable however the presence of a rear deck will not injure the use
of adjacent properties and the proposed condition is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the
zoning code therefore the city planning commission recommends the board grant the variance for both
properties. Thank you. MI2022006583440 machine away and MI20220006593442 machine away. I vote yes
for both. Carol Tenere, I vote yes for both. Thomas Holliman, I vote yes for both.
James Snell, yes to both. Ishmael Shahid, yes to both.
Number 11, MI -2022, 002166 -3811 Lancaster Avenue, Norman Wakes is the listed owner.
Mr. Chair, there's a change in ownership at this location when we got the exhibit, we learned of it.
The owner is now, or the owners, Monique Greenwood and Glenn Hogue, and the case is pro se.
If you'd like, I can read the refusal into the record.
Application is for assembly and entertainment at first floor in an existing structure on the same lot with all other uses as previously approved.
No sign this application.
There is one use refusal.
the proposed assembly and entertainment is prohibited in this zoning district.
Thank you.
Will the owners please raise their hand?
Ms. Monique Greenwood.
Thank you.
Hi, could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter?
yes my name is monique greenwood m -o -n -i -q -u -e greenwood g -r -e -e -n w -o -o -d right do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do okay our vice chair has a few
questions for you yes hi 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 yes we've done all
of those things we do not have the actual tax clearance but we do have evidence that taxes
the tax has been paid we're waiting on the clearance letter okay thank you you may proceed
and share your screen.
I need to ask my architect
if they could come on to share the screen.
Is that possible?
He can share the screen.
He just cannot testify.
You'll have to do the testifying.
Okay, sure.
What do we have to do to have them do that?
What's the name of the person?
Monique McRae.
Jason, you can put more hearts of panelists.
It's already been done.
Would you share your screen, please?
Monique?
Okay, Monique, I was asking you to share the first slideshow.
Okay, so let me just first start out by introducing myself and thanking you for allowing me to present.
My name is Monique Greenwood. I am not an attorney. I'm a passionate owner who is excited about starting a business in a building that I recently purchased at 3811 Lancaster.
I am currently the owner of a building right down the street at 3709 Bering, where I operate a bed and breakfast called Aquaba.
where I operate a bed and breakfast called Aquava.
We've been there.
We've been there for three years.
It's one of three ends that I own.
We're also in Brooklyn, New York, and the Poconos in Pennsylvania.
So we are in the hospitality business now for 28 years
and really saw the need to bring something unique to Lancaster Avenue,
which is a commercial thoroughbred.
In all honesty, because of my ignorance starting out,
I assumed that it was as use right because it is on a commercial street that is surrounded by
office buildings, restaurants, coffee houses. But I was later told that I needed the special
use variance. So that's where we're here for today. The next slide kind of just shows you
the property. It is a corner property. It's a very narrow property. It has two entrances,
is one right at the corner of Bering and Lancaster.
And the second is right on Lancaster.
It's a cute little building.
And the next slide will show what we're proposing to do.
It will be a upscale tea salon and private event space
where we can do baby shower tea parties
and bridal shower tea parties and that type of thing.
If you look at the vantage point from Lancaster on the next slide, our immediate next door neighbor is Alpacare.
We have been in talks with them.
They're very excited that we're there because we will have a component of what we do where we allow community -based organizations to meet in our space once a month.
So they will be meeting with the mothers that they serve there once a month.
We have received a letter of support from Alpacare.
They were also on the call with the community organization, which voted in full support of the project.
We are not changing the exterior of the building at all.
You know, we've already cleaned the brick.
We're putting back the shutters that were original to the property.
And there's a very small sign and we're changing the front door.
But no change to the exterior of the building at all on the inside. We're also not doing any structural changes.
The downstairs have been used, I believe, as an office prior.
So if you advance the next slide, please, you'll see that on the inside.
We're just going to be adding the tables and chairs needed to to offer the high T service.
We are not doing any cooking on premises.
You can advance the slide please again.
So this is the inspiration for what we're doing.
We currently serve high tea at our bed and breakfast
in the Poconos is very successful.
That's the, those are the pictures that you see
that were taken at that property.
You see the tea tray that's there.
All of those items are cold items
and they will not be prepared on property.
We are partnering with several other local businesses,
if you can go to the next slide.
Victoria's Kitchen, which is a restaurant on Ogons,
will be providing all of the savory items,
the sandwiches, the tea sandwiches, all of that.
And then Brooklyn Tea is our tea provider.
And we're sourcing right now with a local bakery
that will make the patisserie.
So we are just plating it on premises
and serving it on premises.
The next slide.
And so that's what I was talking about, that we are going to have monthly community events
where we're hosting space for nonprofit organizations in the community.
We are only open by reservation for high tea.
We'll be open on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, three seatings, 90 minutes of pure bliss,
where guests can come in and have their high tea.
And if you go to the second presentation, we'll show you what we submitted with our application.
So the proper plans were submitted.
The architects can jump in if you have any specific questions, but you can see that the building is a triangular shape.
It's on two floors and we are not changing anything.
we're kind of refitting out the kitchen because we don't we're not going to have the
residential stove that was there because we're not doing any cooking. It's a small
small kitchen space that you'll see. The next the next one
I'm going to go through these very quickly, these plans.
I'm going to go through these very quickly these plans.
Guys, if you can just get to the part of the application that we can show, because these are all the elevations and everything is here.
But we did receive the letter of refusal, I believe it's called.
And we also mailed out a notice for the public meeting that was held.
That public meeting was held.
We received the letter of full support.
Where's the letter?
Can you go to the letter?
Yeah, from the People's Emergency Center.
It was a unanimous vote in support.
We felt very honored and blessed that all of our neighbors came out and expressed their excitement for what we intend to do.
So let's see.
That's a copy of our deed.
so we purchased it at the end of the year. This is proof of the mailing to all of the
local residents. I think you have it. If you like, I could email the receipt from
the payment of the taxes on this property. It has happened, and I think
I'd be happy to, at this time, answer any questions you might have.
Hillary, are we okay with the taxes?
If she has a receipt to show payment, I would prefer that we just hold to receive that.
I can send it right now.
I can email it to you right now.
You give me the email address where I can send it.
Give me, once you do the planning commission, give me one second, Mr. Chair, just to look
and see if there's any questions any questions any questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands mr chairman thank you planning commission planning commission thank you sir
good afternoon uh ladies and gentlemen of the board david fecto city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a more intense commercial mixed use zoning at this location
which is commercial mixed use 2 .5 in the proposed zoning district assembly and entertainment would
be allowed with a special exception so the city planning commission recommends the board grant
the use variance thank you just hold one minute here yeah mr chair this is hillary um the from
And what I can see on the the revenue website is still showing a balance for the taxes.
So we will need to see proof of payment before we can vote on this matter.
OK, so.
Can I email that to you now or.
So, Miss Greenwood, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to hold the vote until next Wednesday.
By Wednesday, we'll have everything straight and we'll have your vote.
OK, yes.
Thank you very much.
Would I tune in on Wednesday?
Pardon me?
Will I tune in on Wednesday?
You can tune in, but it'll be strictly a vote.
Everything's going to be closed, except the case is closed, except for receiving the information.
Perfect.
You can tune in.
You'll see your vote, okay?
Thank you.
And thank you very much for your presentation.
Number 12, MI 2022, 002 -168 -528 -West Burke Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from Old Kentington Neighbors Association.
Letter of non -opposition from Councilwoman Sanchez.
Petition of support signed by approximately 12 neighbors.
and five letters of support, mostly from the 500 block of Bourke Street. Mr. Nockamson.
Good afternoon, Alan Nockamson, Nockamson PC.
Mr. Nockamson, you've already been sworn. Could you identify your client in relationship to the
property? Yes, my client is Norris Square Holdings LLC, and the virtual audience is Chris Steele,
the member of that limited liability property okay our vice president has a few questions
our vice chair i'm sorry hi do you agree to wave 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
referral copies of photos a copy of the refusal referral photos under plans of the property five
days in advance of this hearing and if you met with your co and do you have a letter yes
and if you met with your co and you have a letter yes no respects okay you may proceed
please share ring sure thanks
all right so i'm here to present 528 west berk street uh we are in the old kids in uh section of
Philadelphia. During my presentation, I will be going over the notice of refusal, then the letter
of support from the whole Kensington Neighborhood Association, the letter of non -opposition from the
district council member, Maria Quinonez Sanchez. We did make great efforts to meet with nearby
neighbors. I believe we even have either a letter of support or a petition signed by our next door
neighbor but we have a petition signed letters to support from nearby neighbors my client actually
lives nearby as well or my client's representative chris steel maps of the area photographs of the
property in the surrounding area our plans and drawings our community meeting notice and proof
of mail event notice to the affected properties our application for appeal to cba or deeds of
property showing in north square holdings llc is the owner of the property and their certificate of
tax clearance. Again, in the virtual audience is Chris Steele, the member of the corporate
property owner, who at the end of my presentation, I'll ask to virtually raise his hand to be sworn
in and to adopt. My testimony has no interest in his own. Notice of refusal. So we're seeking
a three -family dwelling in this CMX2 property. Ultimately, we're being refused because we're
swapping out the commercial component with the residential. Not out of character for this section
of the city. First of all, there's a CMX2 property on this block, 520 Westbrook Street,
which is also solely residential in nature. And you'll see from the photographs of the property
in the maps of the area that this is a residential section of philadelphia other than across the
street there is a shopping center where the cousin's supermarket is and our goal is to
support that shopping center and the shops that are in there as well as close by there's a
commercial border or germantown avenue but there really is no commercial component on our side of
street or nearby, other than those, you know, obviously two instances which should be supported
by this increased density.
We did meet with the Old Kensington Neighborhood Association and their community, and after
that meeting, they issued a letter of support to give an explanation as to why.
Then, yesterday, we received a letter from the district council member stating their non -opposition to this matter, given the support from the community.
And then we really did make a concerted effort to reach out to nearby neighbors.
Again, I believe while I was transitioning as a panelist, I did hear just before I transitioned over.
that there was reference to the fact of the amount of signatures, but also that we did get signatures, both from the petition as well as letters of support from nearby neighbors, the people who would be most directly impacted by this project.
And the letters were mostly from the people on that 100 block of Westbrook Street.
And then maps of the area, you can see this is a CMX2 portion of the neighborhood, you know,
on our side, but there is no commercial on our side. So you can see right here where there is
no commercial on our side of the street. Again, across the street, there is a shopping center.
uh most of the commercial you're going to see is going to be coming out of you know germantown
avenue we're hoping to support that commercial quarter as well as the shopping center as well
by this increased density and then photographs of the property we're at vacant lots we've been
vacant lot for some time um it would be very difficult for us to put a commercial establishment
mid -block in this more residential area of town and we don't want to divert resources again from
Again, the shopping center across the street, as well as Germantown Avenue, which is a commercial park.
Then Westbrook Street to the right of the property, as you can see from the photos, no commercial components.
Even across the street from us right here, the shopping center is over here, but right here is all residential in nature too.
And then Mr. Steele and his company, they developed throughout the city of Philadelphia, and there's just examples of his workmanship.
And then Mr. Spielberg and his company,
And then our plants and drawings, what we try to do is to have the traditional red brick facade with a modern twist.
I think the community was appreciative of the fact of the windows and having eyes on the street in this respect and the lighting, paying particular attention to this side alley, which is a shared alley next door.
we will be able to storage all unit owners will be able to store their trash in the rear
and and then take that trash from the back of the property to the front of it
and then here's just you know again our elevations our floor plans the first unit is a bi -level unit
the second and third floor units each there's a unit number two which is a second on the second
floor and then unit number three which is on the third floor uh we met with the community on may 10th
37 addresses were notified of this meeting list the addresses
our application for appeal that we followed the cba notice refusal project information form
a deed to the property showing that north square holdings llc is the owner of the property
certificate of tax claims with that being said i would ask that mr steel virtually
mr nackamson just out of curiosity what was in the basement oh sure i can share that again
um i believe this is secondary living area but let me just confirm that
so if you walk into the front of their property there's a vestibule area essentially unit a or
unit one you walk into a living room kitchen dining area there's a bathroom up there and then
there's the bedroom. You go down the flight of steps and it's a secondary living area and then
an office area. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Steele, can you virtually raise your
hands? Steele has been allowed to speak, sir. Hi, Mr. Chairman. This is Chris Steele, C -H -R -I -S -S -T -E -E -L -E.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Nockamson.
Yeah, Mr. Steele, you heard everything I had to say today.
Correct.
Is it true and correct with respect to your project?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands Mr. Chair hi planning commission thank you Mr. Chairman good afternoon
David Fecto City Planning Commission Mr. Chairman and members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends this property for residential multi -family zoning however after the plan
was released planning commission staff posted a series of public meetings in 2016 to conduct
a rezoning process. At that time, the civic associations asked for commercial frontage along
this block of Burke Street across from the shopping center. The applicant has not shown
that a hardship exists that would prevent the inclusion of ground floor commercial space in
this proposal, and so the City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the use of
No letter of explanation. Vote was 8 -7 in support.
Okay, Mr. Bertil will be rejoining us as a panelist in a moment.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Hi, Mr. Bertil. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Steve Bertil, B -E -R -T -I -L, Troutman, Pepper, Hamilton Sanders, LLP, 3002 Logan Square, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yes, I represent the applicant SR40 Street, LLC, in equitable honors.
Right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Bertil. Do you agree to waive the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
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, to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. As stated, my name is Steve Bertil and I'm representing
the equitable owners SR 40th Street LLC
of this particular property.
This site is a part of a project
that was presented to the board a few weeks ago,
but because the parcels in the particular project
are not contiguous,
they have to be reviewed under different GP
and application numbers.
And so you'll be hearing about this project
about two more times in the coming weeks for other parcels. You'll recall that this project
is part of a partnership with the Redevelopment Authority for the housing vitalization of vacant
locks on the 40th Street corridor. For this particular project, the parcel in question is
718 North 40th Street, which is this orange rectangle highlighted here in this overview of
the phases for the project. For this particular variance, we have no use refusals. We have one
dimensional side yard refusal with a difference of about one foot. As the case with the last
property brought before the board, this particular site has been selected to be developed into
housing according to a multi -phase plan, as you see here, for a mixed stock of housing options
within the Mantua and Belmont neighborhoods.
The applicant has been identified as a developer
for the market rate and deed restricted
workforce housing component of this plan.
Now, upon application to LNI,
he obtained a refusal for the side yard property.
As you can see, the proposed side yard is four feet
and it does not meet the dimensional requirements of five feet, which I'll get into in a second.
Just to orient the board to the property in question, here's the area of the block in
questions. You can see there's a few vacant properties. The front's on 40th Street and
is currently a vacant lot. This digital area, as you can see, is adjacent to a few other vacant
lots as well that will be the subject of this project that i'm referring to
here's just a street view of the property of the frontage that's on 40th street
there's another angle as you see the the vacancy of lots extends a few parcels deep along 40th street
And where the arrows, where the arrow stretches is the particular part of the large vacant area that's subject to this particular refusion.
Now, as I stated, we're proposing a to construct a ground up construction of a multifamily structure of eight residential units.
the refusal that we have
we saw earlier is for the
What I saw earlier is for the side yard, as you will see in the site plan here.
side yard as you will see
in this
Oops, a little too much. Let's back up a little bit there.
Most of the side yard actually does extend to five feet, as you can see here.
The refusal is generated because there are two portions, both at the rear and the front of the structure,
that extend out. So allowing only four feet due to the ground floor units being ADA accessible
and the extra foot of the living spaces to accommodate the ADA components of those ground
floor units, which you'll see in a second with the floor plans.
as you can see here the ground floor ada units the living the living space of those units are
extended uh out of foot to accommodate the circulation entryways or stairways on the opposite
side to make sure they're not uh basically they're not limited and then in the living spaces of the
ADA units aren't cut short due to the fact of the required stairway and building circulation.
So to accommodate that, we have to extend out one foot only where the living areas are
and maintain the five foot side yard along the structure everywhere else on the building.
And so what we're proposing, as I stated, is a eight unit multifamily building, two
two -bedroom apartments and six one -bedroom apartments. Again, under the zoning destination,
the use, the density of the structure is all by right. We only have the dimensional refusal
of this one -foot side yard difference on these living areas of the ADA units.
Now, we did meet with multiple community groups in this area, and I believe on June 23rd,
There is a copy of the notice letter that went out to all the RCOs and all the required
notice within the community.
And I'm pleased to say that we did obtain the board of support from the community groups.
As I stated, the project itself is part of the larger project, and so the design rendering
It's identical to the rendering seen for the other sites on this project, as you can see, matching the cornice line, the height, the massing, and the materials of the existing structures of the property utilizing brick and maintaining that front covered porch.
And so inclusion would believe that the variance of one foot of those particular sections of the living areas is de minimis in nature and will not adversely affect neighbors or anyone's use of the property or adjacent properties.
And so we respectfully request that the board bring our variance.
The representative for the ownership could not attend here today.
And so I would ask if the board doesn't have any questions, of course, that as an officer of the court, the board recognizes that.
Mr. Betel, that's fine.
That way.
Absolutely.
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board for the council?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, sir.
No, Mr. Chairman.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no i asked mr chair planning commission thank you mr chairman members of the board
david fecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends a change
to residential multiple family zoning at this location under rm1 the applicant would be allowed
seven dwelling units by right, but a minor dimensional variance, let me start that over,
but for a minor dimensional variance, the applicant would be allowed an eighth unit.
So granting this variance will not impair the use of adjacent property, and it would meet the spirit
of the comprehensive plan and of the zoning code. So the City Planning Commission recommends the
board grant the dimensional variance thank you mi 2022 002 207 718 north 40 street i vote yes
carol's nary my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you thank you mr bertill
thank you let's let's let's all take a five minute break come back and we'll finish up the
the 3 30 meeting okay five minute break mr mr chair can we just see if there's anybody else
meeting okay five minute break mr chair can we just see if there's anybody else for the 2 p .m
list we we can nobody else is there anyone yes this case hasn't been heard on the 2 p .m list
i've seen all hands mr chair thank you everybody back in five minutes please thank you yes sir
walk down to the beach
you're back
I can't tell you
how uncomfortable
it's crazy
oh god
I'll be right back
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That was a grand entrance.
Oh, my God.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's crazy.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are you okay?
Yes, court reporter, are you back, Ms. Stacey?
Yes, ma 'am.
I'm ready for you.
Okay, we're good.
All right, I'm ready.
My name is Bill Bergen.
Are we recording?
Okay, thank you.
My name is Bill Bergen, and I will be chairing this afternoon's 3 .30 ZBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Ismail Shahid, our board secretary.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Before we start, here is our virtual format.
Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting our board executive director,
Tanya Sunkett at phil .gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and
witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to
testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To an appearance statement, call
267 -270 -5548. Leave your email and the address of the property question. And lastly, please note
the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony or comments. Any comments have to be
directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunken. So let's look at our continuances for this
afternoon. Hold on a minute. Number four, MI 2022 -001681 -3878 Lancaster Avenue. That case
is continued. And number six, MI -2022 -001 -695 -530 -32 Moore Street, that case is continued.
Both those cases are continued. Is there anyone in the virtual audience
has a comment relative to them? Relative to them?
I don't see any hands, Mr. Chair. Are there any other requests for
continuous this afternoon. And I see no hands, Mr. Chair. Okay. I also have two cases that do not,
we do not have documents. Number one, MI 2022, 003408, 1030 Loney Street.
it's an l 2447 investments llc
do we see anyone
that case is continued or must be tried case number two
Pardon me?
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, to interrupt you, but I hand this one up from Mr. Anthony L. Samarco, Jr.
Can I speak?
Mr. Samarco, you have been allowed to speak.
Please wait to be sworn in.
Hi, Mr. Samarco.
State your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Anthony L., as in Louis, Samarco, Jr.
Could you spell your last name, please?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I apologize, Chairman.
S -A -M as in Mary, A -R -C -O.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you represent the first case?
We have no documents?
I had no idea how this was handled.
This is my first case.
All right.
So here's the point.
All right.
That's fine.
So what you should do is call the office and they'll gladly help you with directions.
We're going to continue it, but the next time it must be tried.
Mr. Samarco, are you an attorney or are you a representative of the property owner?
I am the owner of the property.
So I think, number one, you're going to need an attorney because it's an LLC.
Right?
Yes. Yes, that is correct. Because the property is owned under by an LLC, you will need an attorney to represent you at the hearing.
Yes, that is correct.
Because the property is owned by an LLC.
You will need this.
I didn't know that nobody, nobody told me that I've worked for this myself for 31 years.
Okay, okay. So that's so what you what you want to do is you want to look for an attorney who would represent you.
Okay. And they'll they'll do everything for you. Okay.
Okay. And if there's any questions, you can always call the office and we're glad to help.
okay thank you very much that's not not a problem number two mi 2022 001 759
1200 to 28 west loudon street magic investments corporation listed no exhibits
once again Mr. Chair no hands okay that case is continued mark must be tried
are there any requests for withdrawals
once again no hands at this time we're going to go to our regular list number three
M -I -2022 -001 -762 -2448 Frankfurt Avenue.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from the Fishtown -Kensington Area Improvement District.
Mr. Clinton will be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
okay good afternoon mr chairman hi mr clinton you've already been sworn just
state your name for the record sure henry clinton h -e -n -r -y clinton c -l -i -n -t -o -n right could you
identify your client the relationship to the property sure my client is atlin a -t -l -i -n
Longini, L -L -O -N -G -O -N -I, and he is a representative of the LLC. Right. Our vice
chair has a few questions for you. Hi, Mr. Clinton. Do you 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, or referral, voters under plans of this property
five days in advance of the hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes. Well, the above. Okay, great. You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Thank you. Sure. Thank you.
Is that visible, Mr. Mary? Yes, it is. All right. Great.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Henry Clinton on behalf
of 2446 to 48 frankfurt llc my client atlin longini is on the call as well as the architect
justin bright these are my table of contents containing exhibits aa through a11 which i
ask be admitted upon the conclusion of this matter the rest of my appearance statement and this is
a refusal this is a pretty straight up uh issue here the property is owned cmx2 and in the cmx
zoning district as the board knows you're supposed to have commercial along the first 30 feet of the
building and then you can have two units above. My client does not want to do commercial and I
will explain why and I have expert report to acknowledge why zoning or keeping residential
is the way to go in this particular part of the block. Now ironically my client already was
approved by the board for a two -family dwelling prior to the pandemic, but during the pandemic,
as a lot of my other clients, they ceased activity as did Mr. Longini. As a consequence, his prior
approval expired, and that's why we have to come back through the process again. So we do have a
letter of opposition, which I will get to, from the Businessmen's Association, but we have some
supporting documentation that I wanted to show you the board. First, this is a simple letter from
Berkshire Hathaway indicating commercial is not viable at this space. Rather a terse commentary,
but we also have a more in -depth letter from a well -recognized realtor in the city of Philadelphia,
Patrick Conway. He's been in the business for about 25 years, and he's taken a close look at
the block and at this project. And as I will show the board, a portion of the block is residential.
so commercial use is out of character and there is a commercial project a few doors north that
And there is a commercial project a few doors north that are going to have commercial spaces and which is actually mentioned in the Business Association's letter that, you know, why don't you put commercial?
are going to have commercial
There's going to be other commercial coming forward on the block.
And Mr. Conway is suggesting, well, if you add more commercial here, when you already have vacancies, and I'll get to that, on the blocks on Frankfurt Avenue, it really doesn't make a lot of economic sense for a developer to move forward with commercial in the middle of residential when the commercial aspect of the block is further north.
The third reason that Mr. Conway indicates that commercial is not viable or would not be viable
on this block is because when he did a survey between 2300 to 2600 block of Frankfort Avenue,
he found seven vacant commercial spaces. And I have photographs that my client actually took
of the fronts of each of those seven properties.
So this was the vote, and with all due candor to the board, there's also a letter from East
Kensington Neighbor Association. We met with them, but it was a real close vote. It was only three
to two. So I think that, you know, Councilman Squilla, you know, may have followed the directives
of ECNA, but I think the close with the vote was so close that I'm asking the board to look beyond
that closed vote and look at the real realities of what's happening on this block. This is a
letter from the Fishtown Kensington Business Improvement District and you know not surprisingly
as they are a group of businessmen they want to see commercial everywhere but I don't think
in the general domain we want to see commercial that's vacant and only leads to dark spaces
and unusable first floors. So here's the photograph of the block. The yellow stickers are
existing to family or requested to family. So this is the vacant lot right now where my client
would like to continue with the residential nature of this block. And the red dot indicates
a triplex. So this is all multifamily here. There is commercial in the corner and the project that's
going to be commercial is down the street. Across the street is a church. So in this particular part
of the block, you know, it's all residential and or institutional use. Just another photograph of
the area. And these are photographs of the fronts of some of the commercial spaces between the 2300
and 2600 block of Frankfurt. My client will testify under oath that he took these pictures
and that these spaces are currently vacant.
This is on the 2300 block of Frankfurt.
Retail space available.
This is also on the 2300 block of Frankfurt Avenue.
Retail space available.
This is actually on the 2300 block of Frankfurt Avenue.
I know Mr. Conway's letter says 2300 to 2600 Frankfurt,
but this is on the 2300 block of Frankfurt,
just three blocks down.
And this is also on Frankfurt Avenue. This is on the 1 ,800 block, excuse me, 1 ,700 block.
And there's another vacant property on the 1 ,800 block commercial.
Here's space to be leased on the 2 ,400 block of Frankfurt Avenue.
These are the plans. I mean, we have no issues with open space or rear yard or height
or anything like that it's strictly a question should my client who was once approved for this
residential property be given the opportunity to restore him to the condition that he was in
prior to the pandemic this is the the floor plan the site plan which I can walk through
for the board if they so desire but it's pretty straightforward
What I wanted to get to for the board was, and certainly the elevation is in keeping
with the character of the block, this is my tax certification, application, the zoning map.
But what I wanted to show the board was, these are the properties that have been previously
approved for two family and this is the subject property I put that in there because as I said
Mr. Longini was approved at one time for two family dwelling so this is 2446 two family dwelling
2017 and this is my client 2016 it was approval for two family dwelling
for two -family dwelling. Just showing you another shot of an approval from the OPA.
This is 2450, two -family dwelling. This is 2452. This is a three -family dwelling.
and this is the deed actually we had to resend in the deed because we
excuse me this is now the correct deed we initially we sent to miss emerson 2446
but this is the correct deed indicating that 2446 to 48 frankfurt owns the property so you know we
have a unique situation i don't often come to the board where without community support but when i
looked at this situation when it was indicated that he had a permit at one time, did not or was
unable to build at the time, I thought coming back to the board and knocking on the door again
would be a position that I thought equity would demand or would suggest that Mr. Longini be given
the opportunity to put the two -family house on the slot, especially when there are so many
vacancies with commercial. I know that as a matter of public policy, we don't want to
suggest or try to put forward spaces that will be uninhabitable or unrentable. And I realize
what the zoning district is, but because half of this block is residential in the areas of the
aerial photographs that I showed you, I'm asking the board to keep the request in play, restore
Mr. Longini to the position that he was in several years ago. We also have a letter,
expert letters from Mr. Conway and another member of Berkshire Hathaway indicating that
commercial is not viable. We believe that Mr. Longini would be, would not be an astute
businessman if he moved forward with commercial and only was left with a vegan space. We want to
continue the residential nature of this half of the block. We believe the use is consistent with
the block. It's in harmony with the code. It does not adversely impact any other buildings. And
actually, if he was able to bring residential use to this property with two single -family
dwellings, it would actually support the commercial use that is on Frankfurt Avenue now.
And again, not that two families are going to all of a sudden rent one of the seven vacant spaces, but the more density that we have on the block, certainly the better.
So with that, I ask the board to consider this request in the totality of the circumstances.
And with that, I rest and ask that all my exhibits be admitted.
Exhibits are admitted. Could you have your testimony adopted, please?
Sure. Mr. Longini, can you raise your hand, please?
Mr. Longini has been allowed to speak, sir.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Mr. Longini, can you respond?
you have to unmute yourself right hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
you need to hover along the bottom of the left side of the screen to mute yourself sir
I hope you had it for a second. If you just place your mouse over the left bottom portion
of your screen, you should be able to click the mute button.
Mr. Clinton, you're your attorney. Okay. Could you state your name for us, please?
Please spell it.
My name is Alton Lugoni, A -L -T -I -N, last name Lugoni, L -L -O -G -O -N -I.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Longini, were you on the call when I went through the presentation of your project?
Yes, I was.
Okay. And I mentioned to the board that you took these photographs of the vacant commercial spaces on Frankfurt Avenue. Is that true?
Correct. It is true.
And when did you take those photographs?
Yesterday.
Okay. And are those photographs representative of the type of vacancies that exist?
And are those photographs representative of the type of vacancies that exist in commercial spaces on Frankfort Avenue?
Correct.
And if you had the opportunity to testify today, having heard my testimony, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you, Mr. Longini. With that, Mr. Chairman, I rest.
Mr. Clinton, what's on either side of the property?
Residential.
residential on either side yeah let me show you the yes sir let me show you the aerial photograph
whoa sorry mr chairman so the uh for me
let me just get to it i apologize for this
Mr. Clinton, if you know the page, you could type it in the top left and it should go to
it for you.
Thank you for that suggestion.
So yes, so Mr. Chairman, this exhibit shows an aerial view with the yellow dots indicating
multifamily duplexes and the red dot indicating a triplex.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Any other questions from the Board?
no mr chairman no mr chairman
and mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no further hands mr chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission that's h -e -g -a -r -t -y you've already been sworn in
All right. Thank you very much, Chair. Members of the Board, in 2016, the zoning map was amended to CMX2 on this block in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
While CMX2 requires ground floor commercial use, the subject property is situated mid -block on a block with very few buildings with commercial ground floor uses.
The immediately adjacent properties, as we've seen in the evidence, are purely residential buildings as well.
Given the unique context, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant this variance.
Thank you. MI 2022 -001 -762 -2448 Frankfurt Avenue. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Have a great day.
Number five, MI 2022 001716 418 Survivor Street, David Orphanides.
all right sir mr orphanetes has been promoted to panelists letter of support from the fishtown
neighbors association vote was 16 to 12 in support and also receive approval from streets
departments for plants. Mr. Orphanides, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Certainly. David Orphanides, last name is spelled O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Certainly. Shane and Elena Souders are the owners of the properties, and Shane is on the Zoom today.
All right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Waive the reading. I cannot stipulate to its accuracy in this particular.
Okay. 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 meeting, in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of those.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin with sharing your screen.
Thank you.
can you all see the screen yes great terrific again my name is David Orfanides I'm with the
law firm of Orfanides and Toner and again I'm here this afternoon on behalf of Shane and Elena
Souders the owners of the subject property properties which are 418 420 and 422 set 5th
street the photo you have up in front of you right now everything I'm going to go through
The photo you have up in front of you right now, everything I'm going to go through, all the exhibits I'm going to go through were submitted to the zoning board five days in advance.
all the exhibits I'm going to go through
I would have asked that at the conclusion of my presentation, they'd be admitted into evidence.
This photograph, which is the first page of the exhibits I sent in, show the subject properties.
You'll see there's a wood stockade fence and then a single family dwelling.
The Woodstock Stockade fence surrounds what is 418 and 422 Survivor Street per the deeds.
They are vacant.
And then 422 Survivor Street is presently utilized as a single -family dwelling.
And this view is from the corner of Survivor Earl and Earl Streets.
You'll see in the aerials in the zoning map that 418 is actually located at the corner of Survivor and Earl Streets,
with Earl Street not having any parking on our side of that street, and that's important because
we are proposing, what we're proposing is to demolish the structure that presently exists
on 422 Survivor, to relocate the lot lines, to create two lots from the existing three lots,
and upon each of those to construct a single -family dwelling. The property, as you'll see from the
zoning maps, or you can see from the zoning maps that we've included with our exhibit book,
are zoned RSA -5, so there's no use variance here at all, purely dimensional variances.
And we'll be demolishing the building on 422, and we'll be constructing two single -family
dwellings. The one at the corner, which is going to include all of 418, surviving a portion of 420,
is going to be occupied by my clients, and then there'll be an additional single -family
on what is now 422, and then the other portion, the remaining portion of 420.
Again, our exhibit books, exhibits that we provided to you are all set forth.
The exhibits, individual exhibits are set forth in the index, all 18 of them.
I'll go through the notice of refusal now.
As I indicated, the proposal is to relocate lot lines and to change the three lots into two, the three existing lots into two, and then to erect two single family dwellings.
Now, in terms of the, we have a refusal for lot size.
So the properties, as I indicated, are zoned RSA 5.
The minimum lot size in this zoning district, because of an overlay, isn't the lower 900
some square foot lot size.
It's 1440, as it has historically been.
Now, the Planning Commission and LNI as a result wrote us refusals because they say
the two lots that are you creating out of the three existing lots, by the way, each of those
is only 560 square feet or teeny lots. I'll show you real quickly on the survey plan and zoom in.
You can see right here the three lots, 418, 420, and 422, which are each only 14 feet wide and 40
feet deep. And here you can see what we're proposing, parcel A and parcel D. So they say
Parcel A is only going to be 640 square feet, and parcel B is only going to be 1 ,040 square feet.
Both are less than 1 ,440, and as a result, you get a refusal.
Well, the zoning code in 14305 says that if you have nonconforming lots, which these existing lots are,
and there's a lot adjustment, which we have here,
that if you modify them such that the size of them is increased, that's permitted.
And we've gone back and forth with the Planning Commission, with L &I and the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission has taken the position that because the OPA says that these are only two lots,
418 and 420 to 22 that we are we are making we're making them small we're not actually
making these smaller lots larger particularly as it applies to the northernmost and
our position in that respect and you know it may be a lot over nothing in the end because we do
as indicated have a letter of support from the fishtown neighbors association
is that the OPA can put lots together
based upon something that happened in the past.
We've submitted an application
to get separate OPA account numbers for them.
It's just an administerial task.
And if they were three separate OPA accounts,
we wouldn't have this issue.
So it's our position.
And when you take the reading of the zoning code
regarding non -conforming lots,
kind of, I won't say arbitrary nature,
but the fact that the way the OPA puts properties together
has nothing to do sometimes with how they're actually deeded and described.
And you can see here in the deed that you have three parts.
And you can see here in the deed that you have three parcels, A, B, and C.
So it's our position that that refusal does not apply.
And then there's a refusal for bringing the parking from Earl Street, which is the one side of this corner property.
And you would say, well, you know, we all know the provision that in RSA 5 with an attached building, which is this, you can't access parking unless it's from a shared drive, an alley, or a rear street.
And what's interesting is that the definition of a rear street doesn't say that the street has to be opposite the front.
It just has to say that it's one that's not designated as the primary frontage.
And then if you look at the drawings that we have, the planning commission has designated
Saviva as the front, and as a result, based upon that definition in the zoning code that
I just referenced, you have one street that's designated as a front, and in this case, the
other one should technically, may not be what they intended, but by the definition of a
rear street in the zoning code would qualify. You can see here from the complete streets that this
is a local street. This is from the city of Philadelphia, open maps. And again, if it's a
local street and you have a primary frontage and this is the other one, it technically qualifies
as a rear street. So for those reasons, we feel that those two refusals don't apply. The third
refusal regarding minimum rear yard depth, because these lots are all under 45 feet, they don't have
the same open, they don't have any open area requirement. They don't have the typical nine
foot rear yard depth requirement. They only have seven feet. And as you'll see in our zoning
drawings that we provide, and we do have revised zoning drawings, we've taken the liberty to
create egress across the corner parcel. So the northern parcel has the required seven foot rear
yard depth. But because we wanted to give them egress out to the street to take trash out for
emergency egress things of that nature our rear yard depth technically is only is only four feet
deep because rear yards get measured to the edge of an alley or an edge of an easement so if we
remove this we would be completely compliant we wouldn't be here at all if everybody accepted our
interpretations of the first two refusals but those are the three refusals that you have
As to Earl Street and the parking, and you can see here, we're located right across from Palmer Park, right off of Frankfurt Avenue.
And you can see Earl Street right here.
There's no parking on the street.
It's a very narrow street.
And so the idea is that, you know, we're utilizing, we're getting one car off the street.
We're reducing the number of lots.
You could have three single families here on the existing lots as a matter of right.
We're reducing the number of lots.
We're reducing the number of single -family dwellings.
And with one of those, we're actually getting cars off the street without taking any on -street parking.
Again, the properties are zoned RSA 5.
You can see them over here.
We do have floor plans at page 11 that throw the various layouts of the various floors.
The larger unit at the corner of Surviva and Earl Street is the unit, the house that my clients plan on taking.
So here is, let me just go back to here. Here are the elevations. This is from Survivor. They will front on Survivor. And here's the side Earl Street with the parking.
we do have revised drawings and the revised proviso plan forum it's one sheet
um it's minor minor revisions and they're set forth in that um the community group wanted us
to mirror the structures particularly in terms of the roof decks and the pilot houses and you'll see
here that we put the pilot house they weren't originally right next to each other
So we've mirrored them and put them right next to each other.
And that was based upon feedback we received from the community group.
We had certain, we provided some articulations in the facade.
Then we relocated the streets department elements, the stair and what have you.
Again, those are minor changes, but ones that we wanted to put in.
And they have already been reviewed by streets as indicated.
Here's the streets review authorization.
um we um we have tax compliance at tab 16 we have the posting of the photo of the notices for the
hearing and the notice of refusal at tab 17 and then at tab 18 we have um the 14 303 notice the
list of addresses to which it was served the notice provides uh the date of the community
group meeting uh this was the first notice that went out within the 20 days of the designation
This was the first notice that went out within the 20 days of the designation of FNA as a coordinating RCO. We did not have the date at that time, so we resent another notice of the June 4th meeting by certified first class as well.
of FNA as
So there was two notices regarding this project. So for the reasons that I stated, I don't think we don't believe that two of the refusals even apply in this case, or it's arguable that they don't. The third is really a function of us providing that easement for the benefit of the northernmost parcel, parcel A.
and there's still no it's still this building still the same distance away from the adjacent
or budding building on Earl Street which by the way is largely there's just a blank sidewall they
do have a window in that wall at the upper level which could be argued that it's not code compliant
because it's right on the property line and there were we did start a dialogue with that property
owner during the community meeting regarding that so with that I would rest the right ability to
respond to any questions that there might be. And again, I ask that our exhibits be admitted
into evidence. And then I have both Rost and Oller from Harman Deutsch Oller, who are the
architects, to adopt my statements. And then I have Shane Souders as well to adopt my statements.
So if they could be promoted to panelists, if they have not already been promoted, and that if
I can ask them to do so, I would appreciate that opportunity. Okay. Hello?
everything's we've taken everything that you've given us how about the is the uh uh the owner of
the property has she could you have her come first to adopt the testimony yeah that's what I was
maybe you didn't hear me yeah yeah yeah we're good we're good but yeah so it's Shane so Shane
and Elena are husband and wife and Shane is on right now so Shane could be promoted to a panelist
so we can adopt the statements.
Hello.
Hi, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yeah, Shane Souders, S -H -A -N -E, S -O -U -D -E -R -S.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Orfinetes.
Shane, you heard the statements
that I made to the board today, correct?
And real quickly,
you and your wife own the properties? Yes. Okay. And you heard my statements today and were they
true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes. And would you adopt them as your own testimony?
Yes. Thank you very much. And then in terms of the architectural aspects, if you would like to
have Russell Knoller adopt those statements. We're fine without the archive. I guess
Mr. Orphanidis, one question. I think when the plans were reviewed by the group here,
parcel b is does the basement have a kitchen and a living area
no no uh no i'll show you the floor plans so parcel b
which is the larger unit which is what sheen is going to utilize doesn't doesn't have a kit i
think i think what you're looking at is what over here is over here rusting could you address that
is that what you're talking about what looks yes yes is that right hillary
yes it says kitchen living area here and then it has a bedroom a bathroom so it looks like
there's a separate unit in the basement rusting um could you have rustin oler promoted to a
panelist and have him address that please sure it's been enough to speak could you state your
name please and spell for the court reporter yeah rustin oler uh r -u -s -t -i -n last name h -l -e -r
Harman Deutsch -Oller Architecture. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Proceed, Mr. Orphanidis.
Rustin, so the question has been raised, first of all, whether there are two units or one unit
in the structure that's going to be located on Lot B. Is it one unit or two units?
So it is one unit. There is not a full kitchen in the basement. It's a kitchenette. It's designed
to be an in -law suite for when um shane elena's parents the grandparents of their children visit
them uh it'll be it's part of the same single family household excuse me excuse me uh i have
a question is the kitchen that does it have a stove it does not so you don't heat anything up
there's no gas no electric stove no there is not and generally that is in my experience from the
years of when i years ago when i represented lni that was generally what we used to characterize
or designate designate us a living unit um and no it doesn't you know so to that if to that
in that respect russ nola has confirmed that there is none there is no cooking yeah the philadelphia
your property maintenance because it allows us to only have one means of cooking in the unit
thank you okay questions from the board
thank you okay questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments
from the virtual audience i'll see you don't answer mr chair planning commission thank you
chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 5 single family zoning
its location. With regard to the refusals for lot sizes and yard depth, we believe the proposed
lot configurations are consistent with the adjacent lots on this block face and don't
conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code. And with regard to the refusal for
parking access, we agree that the proposed parking location meets the purpose and spirit of
the section of the zoning code relevance parking access. So the State Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant each variance. Thank you. MI 2022 -001 -716 -418 Survivor Street. I vote yes
with proviso. Revised plans, one page, stand by ZVA on August 2nd, 2022.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, that was an error on my part. It should be August 3rd, 2022.
okay august 3rd 2022 i'm sorry carol tennari my vote is yes with proviso
thomas thalaman my vote is no james snell my vote is yes with proviso
ishmael shahid my vote is yes with proviso thank you mr orphanetes thank you may be excused yes
thank you very much have a great day number seven mi 2022 001 566 5375 umbria street
sean ward is the attorney letter of non -opposition by ridge park civic association
good afternoon mr chairman sean ward on behalf of
the owner and applicant, spelled S -H -A -W -N, last name Ward, W -A -R -D, 331 East Street Road,
Trevos, Pennsylvania. Mr. Ward, you've already been sworn. Could you identify your client and
relationship to the property? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I represent Brunson Communications Corporation,
formerly known as Capital Cities Broadcasting, locally best known as Channel 6. Okay. And
They are the owners of the subject property. And I have with me today, Jim Brunson, or Jim Braun, B -R -A -U -N, who is the company representative today.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Yes, ma 'am.
Hi, Mr. Ward. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Without haste.
a few emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal
or referral photos under plans to 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 the above you may proceed and please
share your screen without haste i know the hour is drawing uh late so i'll be trying to be as
brief as possible uh mr chairman uh members of the board as always i've submitted my typical exhibit
packet which number one can everybody see it yes i hope yes excellent uh again i represent brunson
Communications, formerly known as Capital Cities, locally known as 6ABC or WPVI. The property is
5375 Umbria Street, which is the location of all those telecommunication towers and broadcasting
equipment. So we applied for the erection of a one -story detached structure, about 20 feet by 50
feet. It's basically a garage type facility for wireless communications transmission equipment.
So it's refused because the proposed extension of the wireless facility is prohibited in the
district and he proposed multiple principal buildings in the district is also prohibited.
So A2 is the ZVA application of appeal, A3 project information form. A4 is the proof of ownership,
A -5, proof of tax clearance. A -6 are the site and elevation plans. A -7 are the photographs.
A -8 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing. At A -9, we have a Ridge Park's RCO
letter, which is separate from a packet. I received that after I submitted my exhibit packet.
which is separate from a packet. I received that after I submitted my exhibit packet.
And if submitted, I would ask that the district council person's letter be marked as A -10.
With regard to the relevant zoning history, there were three variances granted on this property,
as you can see on my screen, 1999, 2000, and 2008, all dealing with the microwave or
telecommunications towers and associated equipment. A12 is the zoning map and A13 is the aerial
photograph. So we have our notice of refusal, our application of appeal, project information
form attached, transmittal letter to the board, proof of ownership. Capital Cities Broadcasting
Corporation is listed as the owner under OPA. However, pursuant to other deed documents found
in the system, you can see that Capital Cities has since changed its name to Brunson Communications
Inc. We have proof of ownership showing that all taxes are paid through 2022. With regard to the
site plan, it's approved by the Planning Commission as evidenced by the stamp on the plans.
As you'll see here at the upper left -hand corner, this is an asphalt driveway that comes in from Weigard Avenue, and there's a driveway leading down to the site where this utility building would be constructed.
Again, on the site plan, you'll see Weigard Avenue is located up towards the upper left of the plan, and there's a meandering road that comes down asphalt lane that would bring you to the site where the proposed utility shed would be.
Again, as far as the floor plans and elevations go, you basically have a 20 by 50, you know, plus or minus structure with double doors front and side for access for utility vehicles.
And again, the side view of the structure, you'll see that there is more or less a garage door, for lack of a better term.
We have copies of the posting.
Here's an aerial view, as you can see.
You can see the tower right here where my cursor is pointing.
It says one of the towers on the site.
The only entry to the property is located back in the neighborhood where Umbria and Culp Street meet, I mean, Weigard and Umbria.
It is a gated entry with a secured gate.
We presented our RCO summary of relief to the Ridge Park Civic.
Ironically, this is probably the first time I've ever seen this in any of my cases before
the board, there were three affected property owners, two of which are owned by Capital Cities
or Brunson, as opposed to something in South Philadelphia where I had to send out 571 mailings,
but that's besides the point. So here is the mailing list.
This is just a Google map showing you the location.
Umbria Avenue or Umbria Street more or less runs parallel to this Google River.
And this is up in the Roxborough Ridge Park section of the city.
The property is zoned residential. However, obviously, this site is not used for any residential purposes.
It's solely limited to telecommunications equipment.
Here is an aerial photograph from Google showing the subject site.
And with that, that represents my complete application based upon the letter. Oh, wait,
I'm sorry. I'll show you. Here is the letter from Ridge Park. And their concluding statement is the
property has few immediate neighbors and there were no issues with the proposal. There was no
opposition to the project and we therefore encourage the zoning board to permit the applicants
to proceed with their plans so uh based upon the foregoing uh we would ask that this board
to consider the grant of this variance uh for what is basically an institution in the philadelphia
area and uh as jim brunson raised his hand he could be uh allowed to speak where he can therefore
for verify and adopt.
He's been allowed to speak, sir.
Hi, Mr. Brunson, could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court reporter?
It's actually Braun, so James Braun, B -R -A -U -N.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Ward.
thank you sir uh jim you've heard my representations to the board today i did
Thank you, sir.
Jim, you've heard my representations to the board today?
I did.
are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
they are and would you adopt them as your own testimony if colton testify i do thank you mr
chair that's all i have questions from the board no mr chair no mr chair questions or comments from
the virtual audience? I see no hands. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty
for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends
the zoning map amendment from RSD to I -1 industrial to reflect this area's long -standing
use as a site for radio transmission towers. This proposed structure also supports the existing
legal non -conforming use, so it's therefore consistent with both the existing uses and
the recommended zoning so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the
variance thank you mi 2022 -001 -566 -5375 umrey street i vote yes carol ternary my vote is yes
thomas holloman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
thank you mr ward thank you mr chairman have a great afternoon
Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been pulled from the 330 list?
Do not see any hands Mr. Chair. Okay thank you everyone. Good day. A lot of good work. Thanks
everybody. Thank you. See you tomorrow. All right. See you guys. Have a good night.