1st 2023 must obtain a certificate of occupancy 90 days I believe we usually
do opening part of me prior to opening prior to opening and hours of operation
10 a.m. to 9 p.m. yes seven days a week 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. yes with proviso
yes for proviso yes for proviso okay thank you thank you very much have a good one
that ends the 9 30 hearings
okay well we'll be back at uh two for you guys this afternoon
Be safe.
Take care.
Thank you.
See you too.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
...to press star nine to raise their hand to speak.
Star nine to raise their hand to speak.
Press star nine to raise your hand to speak.
I'm ready when you are, Frank.
Professor, I guess you're wrong.
All right, good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment. We have a quorum. I'm officially calling this
session to order. Attending this session is our vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, our board member,
Mr. James Snell, board member, Mr. Thomas Holloman, and our board secretary, Professor
Plaza. As you're probably aware, today is our third day of holding virtual hearings.
Also in attendance, I keep doing this, also in attendance is our city solicitor, Ms. Sharon
Soleta and our board administrator Ms. Tanya Sunke. While we may have to make a few adjustments
along the way, our plan is to call each case and basically proceed as we would have in a live
hearing. We ask that the attorneys for the applicants or other interested parties identify
themselves for the record when the case you'll be participating in is called. We will then hear
the appellant's presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other
parties. Interested parties and members of the public not represented by counsel will then be
given an opportunity to testify. We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
At the hearing's conclusion, the board will either vote the matter immediately
or hold it for discussion in executive session any case held for discussion will be voted on
the record at the scheduled july 29th morning session would be morning session still tanya
uh yes it should be sorry i'm doing quite a few things
Even though we're in an afternoon session now, these cases would still go to the morning session, correct?
Yes, I believe so.
Okay, if not, we'll make the adjustment later.
Okay, thank you.
A couple of changes related to the virtual format.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony rather than to the room as a whole since there is no room.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
I'll repeat that.
We ask that any witnesses testifying would please identify themselves prior to speaking
or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by your
participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded i would also also ask anyone who wishes
to testify ask uh please raise your hand so that tanya will know who wishes to testify and you'll
be called on in the appropriate manner i believe i uh we're ready to go carol i'm ready to go
I think second we're doing the continuances first yes calendar number 39284715 West Lycoming
Street calendar number 39291 6603 Souter Street and calendar number 39288 150 West Wyoming
there's one additional case calendar number three nine two eight seven five seven one eight
thomas avenue that case is withdrawn thank you ready for the first case anyone else wish to
is there any any other request for continuances i understand that there's another case i'm not
sure if anyone from Councilwoman Gaultier's office is on. Yeah, Chair, if I could,
technical person, Bill. Yes. Could you make me a co-host so I can
take care of this, please? Thank you. So we do have
We have Max Weiss, I believe, who was supposed to be available for this case.
Is that correct, Sharon?
Yes, as of this morning, that was correct. And the case is 5230 Walnut Street, calendar 39828.
As of this morning, that was correct.
And this is the case.
Okay, Max, I have promoted you so you can go ahead and give your testimony.
And Rachel Pritzker is the attorney for the applicant, so she will want to speak as well.
Rachel, you can speak as well.
I would have both of you to identify yourselves for the record and I'll swear you in.
uh hi this is max weiss
weiss w-e-i-s-s yes uh please identify yourself that is working for the councilwoman
yep i work for councilmember gaudier and you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes please proceed thank you um on behalf of councilmember gaudier
I'm here to request a continuance of the hearing for appeal number 39828 for 5230 Walnut Street
because there was not enough notice provided to neighbors of the RCO meeting last night
with the Cops Creek neighbors. The RCO meeting was held last night and wasn't held last night.
What was that? Monday, Max. Oh, sorry. Monday. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Yes. Days are blending together.
No, it's okay.
It was Monday night, and our understanding is that notices were not mailed until July 13th, so about a week before the meeting.
And the RCO and our office are concerned that due to USPS delays, near neighbors, folks living within 250 feet of the property, did not receive notice of the meeting in time to participate.
And according to the RCO's letter that they submitted to the ZBA following the meeting, none of the attendees of the meeting identified themselves as living within 250 feet of the property.
So, you know, we think the concern that near neighbors didn't get notice is, you know, evidenced, you know, by the fact that, per the RCO's letter, there were not attendees who, you know, lived within 250 feet of the property.
So, we request a continuance of this hearing.
Thank you, Max. Rachel?
Rachel Pritzker, R-A-C-H-A-E-L-P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R. I'm the attorney for the owners of the property.
We sent out the notices again a week before. We only found out about the hearing then. And we've
actually been in correspondence with this RCO for a number of months about this project because this
was submitted quite a while ago. There were 40 people on the meeting, 28 on the Facebook live
group, which we also sent around a video a week before that they asked us to do a video that they
could promote on their Facebook page, doing a walkthrough of the project and a presentation,
which I did with the owner. In addition, I've received calls the last couple of days from
near neighbors, which I sent documentation. No one expressed any real issues. They just wanted
an understanding of the project, but I did get direct calls, which I took. And basically I had
explained to Max when we spoke last night that the only variance that we're requesting for this
is for the parking requirement. Walnut Street is a state-owned highway, so the city has no
authority to actually grant a curb cut. PennDOT does, and for a 10-unit project where there's not
one curb cut on that side of the block, in the middle of the block, on the 52nd-100 block of
Walnut Street, we don't think it's worthwhile going through the extensive PennDOT process
because we most likely think they won't be granting a curb cut, and the only way to get relief
from this one refusal is going in front of the zoning board of adjustment. Most of the concerns
in the RCO meeting were about the affordability of the project. The owner is voluntarily with
no bonuses or subsidies doing 60 to 80 percent AMI through the entire building. And the other
concern was about diversity and inclusion regarding construction and the owner's business, which he
already offered to share the makeup of his business in addition to sharing his contractor
list and subcontractor list um in addition to obtaining information from the rco and any
neighbors who um would be interested in working on the projects rachel sorry to interrupt no sir
are you and uh are you in opposition to having a discontinuity yeah yeah you're giving us the
full case it's what sorry the reason we're opposed to the continuance is because again it's just for
a refusal for three parking spaces that we don't the city doesn't even have authority to grant
PennDOT probably won't approve, and most of the concerns that we had in the RCO meeting with the 40-person turnout in addition to all the other outreach we did, we just don't think it warrants that to send this case back based on a code, a contradiction in the code, just, and given that's not really what the RCO's concerns were, it just seemed.
a contradiction in the code just and given that's not really what the rco's concerns were just
seemed a little bit unreasonable at this point and we had tried to relay that to to the council
office uh all right i'm not sure if the council office no disrespect understood this uh as we're
explaining to us what i might want to do is either hold this or we can hear the case and uh vote on
it we'll take it up in the discussion and executive session and vote on it next wednesday
that would be fine that would give you time rachel and max uh to have a further conversation and and
enlighten the councilwoman as to what the real issue is here
and maybe not have to reschedule another hearing that work mr weiss mr weiss makes sense yeah i
yeah i think we just want to make sure that near neighbors have an opportunity to be
heard okay all right so why don't we do that um so chair yes i do have two hands up and if i could
ask if the caller with the last three digits of 509 do you wish to speak in behalf of this
continuance request? Because your hand is up. And then we have a Roman. Are you prepared
to speak in behalf of this continuance request? Yes. Hello? Yes. Are you in behalf of this
continuous request speaking yes yes um the caller on the phone yeah this is roman this is roman
the caller on the phone can you please speak first roman bourgeois okay go ahead roman
please spell your name for the stenographer name and address um my name is roman uh r-o-m-a-n g-u-z
hva 2015 north 5th street 205 north 5th number five street to 2015 north 5th street number five
street yeah you're way way way way what's what's your uh concern about this matter do you have
property or anything you know what i'm sorry i'm i'm i think i'm out of place here i'm uh you're
in a different case probably. I'm in a different case.
I apologize. I have no opposition.
No opposition. I apologize.
No problem.
All right.
Sharon, do we need to get any more
testimony from Rachel on this?
No. If you're going to go forward
with the case, you should just hear it in order.
We'll go
forward with it, and then we'll make the decision
to have a discussion
and vote on it
next week. Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
Ready Frank? Yes. Calendar number 39750-9998
Frankfurt Avenue. The attorney is Michael Phillips.
Michael are you here? If so could you raise your hand?
Michael, are you the caller with the numbers ending in 5-0-9?
It's unusual for him.
I don't see Michael Phillips.
let's go to the next case you may be having technical problems we can come back to that
calendar number 39727 207 green lane the attorneys are sarah alderfer
and leonard reuter for the city
and this is an appeal against onai correct all right
any other participants in this in this case
for this Sarah I have promoted you to a panelist you can share your screen if you wish
hi good afternoon everyone hi Sarah can everyone hear me yes okay I'm going to be sharing my
You got a little bit of an echo. I think it's the room you're in. So maybe pull the mic a little closer.
screen. You got a little bit of an echo. I think it's the room you're in.
I apologize. I'll try to do, get a little closer. Is that better?
A little bit.
All right, let's give it a try. Your name and address. Spell your name, please.
Hi, my name is Sarah Alderfer, S-A-R-A-H-A-L-D-E-R-F-E-R, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia.
I'm here today with my client, Charlotte Martish, who is the owner of 207 Green Lane.
Sarah, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And a court reporter, are you able to hear this witness?
Thank you.
okay Sarah please proceed okay so as stated this is an appeal against L&I to document the
continuous uninterrupted and not abandon use of the property at 207 Green Lane as a three family
dwelling since it was approved and permitted originally in 1949 the property was acquired by
Sigmund Sulik on May 2, 1941. On November 7, 1949, he obtained a use permit after obtaining
a variance from the ZBA to use the property as a four-family, multifamily property. That use
permit is available at Exhibit 6 on page 27 of the PDF of exhibits that I previously
submitted. Since then, the property has been used and continues to be used as a three-family
dwelling. Sigmund Zulik operated it as a three-unit dwelling from the time he first permitted
in 1949 until his death in 1978. In 1978, it was continued to be used as a three-family
dwelling. Sometime in the end of 1979, Sally Solick, his wife, lived in the first floor unit
and then rented out the upper two units of the property. And then as well, in 2001, until the
fall of 2015, Sally's daughter and my client's sister lived in the property as well on the
first floor unit. Because it was owner-occupied for so long, when rental licenses were obtained
for the property, a rental license was obtained for two units in 2004 because the first floor
unit was owner-occupied, and so a rental license was only needed for the two units. However,
it was always maintained as a three-unit property. The rental licenses are Exhibit 11,
and the history of the rental licenses begin at page 113 of the pdf
in 2015 susan moved out of the property and she took a while to remove her personal effects
so charlotte at that point in time had the property repainted to prepare to re-let the first
four unit but decided instead to market the property for sale as a three unit property
at that point in time there was some delay in completing in marketing the property for sale
because the two upstairs units were long-time residents of the property and charlotte wanted
to give them the opportunity to secure alternate housing in senior housing and so they've the third
floor resident has secured such housing and has moved out and the second floor resident is
continuing to live there while she is trying to obtain alternate senior housing but she always
but charlotte always intended to maintain the property as a three-family and has not been in
that use. Since 1949, no alterations have been made to the interior of the property to reduce
the number of units. That is also confirmed by the Sanborn maps, which are exhibit 9,
which is PDF page 44, and also the interior property photos, which show that there have
not been recent alterations made and that the property is maintained, continues to have three
units, three bathrooms, three kitchens