Let me know when we're ready, Lakeesh, with people in.
Well, I may step away just for a minute or two to call the hospital.
I know you're here.
Chair, we have 15 attendees and we can begin as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair. She just stepped away for a minute.
I'm here now. President, Mr. Chair.
Ismael Shahid, our board secretary.
Here, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Thomas is here and James Snell our board member present Mr. Chairman I'm just having a little
problem with my computer we hear you we hear you now Thomas also here is our board attorney
Hillary Emerson and our ZBA supervisor Lakeisha Dandy before we begin here's our virtual format
Be advised
Hold on a moment
I'm sorry
Excuse me, Pauline?
Yes, sir?
Could you send Hillary a link to get in?
All right, thank you.
So here's our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
by participating in your knowledge, your agreement to be recorded.
A 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.
you. To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email and the address
of the property in question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for
comments or testimony. Any comments have to be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sumpkin.
So let's look at continuances on today's list.
Number one, MI 2021 -003 -057, 4841 North 6th Street, this case is continued.
Number six, MI -2022 -002 -946 -2100 -202 North Franklin Street. This case is continued.
And number 10, MI -2021 -005 -092 -4324 Frankfurt Avenue. This case is continued.
Is there anyone who has questions about these three cases being continued? Please raise your hand.
Good morning, Chair. I see no hands at this time.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Now I'm going to go to, we have a, we have a list of cases that we do not have exhibits for.
Number two, MI 2021 -003 -092, 41 North Robinson Street. Larry Hawkins is the attorney applicant.
We do not have exhibits for this case. It's the third listing. Mr. Hawkins.
We do not have exhibits for this case. It's the third listing.
Mr. Hawkins, if you're in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
So on 10 -1, this person called for a continuance. So MI -2021 -003 -092 -41 North Robinson Street. This case is continued, must be tried.
Number three, MI 2021 -005 -123, 931 South 18th Street, Mr. Calambi is the owner -applicant.
We do not have exhibits for this.
Mr. Calambi.
I see no hands at the sound here.
So this case, MI -2021 -005 -123 -931 South 18th Street.
This case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
Number five.
MI -2022 -002 -900 -5304 North 5th Street.
Chillon -Coxham is the listed applicant.
We have no exhibits for this.
This is the first listed.
I see no hands up at this time, Chair.
So MI -2022 -002 -900 -5304 -North 5th Street, this case is continued.
number eight
MI 2021
230 West Wensley
Street. No exhibits
third listing.
I see no answer
by me.
Which case was that?
Number eight.
Hillary, are you on?
I'm here, Mr. Chair.
This is the third listing of this?
Yes, can we make this one a must be tried?
Okay, yeah.
I'm going to try reaching out to the applicant one more time.
Thank you.
So MI 2021 -003 -062 -230 West Wensley Street, continued mark must be tried.
Number 13, MI 2021 -005 -068 -2049 Chelton Avenue.
Jamari Lee is the listed applicant.
We have no exhibits for this second listing.
i see no hands up chair okay so mi 2021 005 068 2049 chelton avenue this case is
continued continued mark must be tried and number 17
MI 2021 -002 -889, 2949 -51 North Phillip Street.
Well, as Mary Enona is the listed applicant, we have no exhibits for this case.
Third listing.
I see no hands up, Chair.
Hillary, we're going to give this one more time.
we've this is the one what they've reached out to our staff yes we can give this one a must be heard
all right thank you so number 17 mi 2021 002 889 2949 51 north phillip street uh continue mark must
be tried. And number 15, MI 2021 -001 -001 -2500 Wilmot Street requests what this case is withdrawn.
Are there any other requests for withdrawal?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
So we're going to go to our add -on list.
MI 2022 -003 -082 -1525 North Stillman Street.
I vote no for reconsideration and rehearing.
I vote no for reconsideration.
Am I voting on that one?
Yes, everyone can vote on that one.
Yes, yes, yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no for reconsideration.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no to reconsideration.
James Snell, my vote is no to reconsideration.
ishmael shaheed my vote is no to reconsideration
thank you we're going to go to number four
mi 2021 002 622 12 10 elbridge street jacqueline biaz is the owner
um amy geller is our attorney filling in hillary emerson is recusing herself um letter of
Opposition for Take Back the Neighborhood and Letter of Opposition from the Community on the Rise.
Ms. Baez.
Ms. Baez, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
MI -2021 -002 -622 -1210 Elbridge Street. This must be heard. I vote to dismiss this case.
Harold Tenere, dismiss this case.
Thomas Holloman, I vote to dismiss this case.
James Snell, dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, I vote to dismiss this case.
okay we're going to move to number seven
mi -2022 -003 -456 -6015 baltimore avenue jenner bazila doe is the attorney
letter of non -opposition from cobs creek neighbors
with Proviso. Chair, Ms. Bezidlo is coming back in as a panelist now.
One second to turn my camera on. Good morning. Good morning. Hi, could you state your name and
spell for the court reporter, please? Sure, it's Jennifer Bezidlo, just so you know, three syllables
and the y sounds like an i just for future reference it's a hard learning very uh b is in
boy a is in apple z is in zebra y d is in david l is in larry o is in oscar um and at 2401 uh walnut
street suite 102 in philadelphia thank you do you swear for them to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do but you identify your client and relationships with the property
My client is Sorrel Vignet, and she's the owner of the LLC, L -L -Y -L -L -E -N, LLC.
And our vice chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Jennifer.
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, 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?
You may proceed and begin to share with your screen.
Great.
One second here.
Let's get it up.
All right.
Let's move this over so I can screen.
All right.
Like I said, my name is Jennifer Bezidlow. I'm here today representing the owner of 6015 Baltimore Avenue.
Sorrel, she owns it through her LLC. She is a first -time investor in multifamily housing.
So I just wanted to say I submitted this packet with a refusal.
The only refusal is for multifamily housing in a CMX1 that's adjacent to an RSA5.
deed proof of tax compliance we've got a zero balance here this is the letter of non -opposition
from the neighbors we'll go through that a little bit more in a bit the notification letter and
addresses these are just some aerial views of the property we'll come back to these as well
zoning map which we'll come back to and talk about photographs of the property
scroll through that briefly we'll come back as well and the surrounding area that's the block
And the floor plans, which we'll come back to. All right, let's get back to the first picture here.
and the floor plans which we'll come back to all right let's get back to the first
And, okay, so 6015 Baltimore Avenue is a CMEX one zone property.
The parcel is a little under 1700 square feet, and it has an existing two -story structure that's about 3100 square feet.
there's no proposed changes to the structure to the envelope of the building we're just talking
about a use permit my client purchased this property in 2000 in February of this year
at the time it was divided into three units they were all appeared to be residential units
and was told by her realtor that this was a legal three -unit building with a potential for a fourth
unit, which is why the original, okay, let me back up. So purchase this with relying on the
realtor's representation, quickly realized that this was not a three unit building, legalized
three unit building, and applied for this variance. The original application was for four
units. However, that has since been reduced to three. And that is what was presented to the
community uh and that is what they have entered a letter of non -opposition to um all right so
let's go to the floor plan to just talk about what we're proposing so uh the first floor excuse me
okay one minute um we we're i think we lost our court reporter just hold on one moment please
no problem thank you
Thanks, and I'm working in the background trying to get him back.
Thank you.
all right Jen no problem also just let me know if you need me to go back once he's once he's here
we're good okay excuse me this is Pauline from IT Lakeisha the email did he say that it's
an internet problem? They didn't say, they were just requesting a phone number for him to call,
but I can ask if this is just his internet or did he just want to switch to a telephone device?
The one on the bottom says lost internet connection, but that would be his internet
provider. We wouldn't be able to help with his internet connection. Okay.
he can use a hot spot though if he has like a cell phone or something
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Pauline, is it possible he could just use an open phone line?
It is, sir.
We're just trying to figure out what it is he exactly lost.
I'm sorry.
No, no, no.
did you see the uh email paulie
i saw the one that you sent so he lost his internet and she was just requested that he
can um join over the phone okay yes that sounds great
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
They're resending him the information right now.
Is he on?
Not yet.
Okay, good.
Good. Is it Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
do you know if the um caller call them listener if either one of them is mr kelly
and mr kelly if you're in the audience can you please uh press star nine to raise your hand
I don't see any hands up, Keisha, right now.
Excuse me.
This is John Kelly, the court reporter.
Pardon the interruption.
I was knocked offline for several minutes.
I am back on now.
Oh, that's great, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, let me, it's Bill.
Let me ask you, would you want us to start this over?
Do you have where you left off?
The last, unfortunately, the last thing I had was the vote for the add -on of 1525 North Stillman.
So, and that was some time ago.
I can get the audio link from Tanya or whoever's working on that right now, if I should need it, if anything should be requested.
All right, so why don't I do this?
Let's start with number seven again.
Okay, 6015 Baltimore Avenue.
all right mr kelly yeah all right yes yes thank you for getting back on mr kelly we
you're the most important person here we could all take our steps back but we feed you okay
all right jennifer could you start again please sure i'll just start from um beginning
all right so hi jennifer basilow i'm the attorney representing the owner of 6015
BALTIMORE AVENUE. SORELE VIGIER WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY THROUGH HER LLC. WE 'VE ALREADY SCROLLED THROUGH THE
PACKET SO I WON'T DO THAT AGAIN BUT SUBMITTED A PACKET WITH A REFUSAL DEED TAX COMPLIANCE LETTER OF
NON -OPPOSITION FROM COGS CREEK NEIGHBORS, AERIAL PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BLOCK,
A ZONING MAP, PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND FLOOR PLANS. SO LET'S JUST GET TO THE FRONT PHOTO HERE.
All right. So, 6015 Baltimore Avenue is located in the Cobbs Creek neighborhood of Philadelphia.
The parcel is a little under 1 ,700 square feet and is in CMX1. And there's an existing
two -story structure that is a little under 3 ,100 square feet. My client purchased this property
in February of this year. At the time, it was already divided into three units, which
appeared to be residential units, and was instructed by her realtor that this was a
legal use of the property by right, and there was a potential for a fourth unit in the building,
again, by right. Relying on that information as a first -time investor, she purchased the property
and soon realized that this was not a by -right use of the property and applied for this variance.
So the original application was for four units.
That has been reduced to three units, and that was what was proposed to Cobbs Creek Neighbors,
and that is what they entered the letter of non -mob position for.
So let's go to the floor plans.
um the um the three units would be a studio in the um in the front um area of the first floor
um a hold on let me scroll up so you can see the whole floor plan um a one bedroom in the rear of
the property on the first floor and then the second floor which is over here you get up through here
is a two -bedroom one -bath unit. There is no living space in the basement. It is storage only.
There is no living space in the basement. It is storage only, and it is accessible by that studio unit for extra storage.
Each unit has an entrance off of a central hallway on the first floor hallway.
So here you can see this is the view from the back of the property to the front. That's the front door.
The front unit has a door right inside of that front entryway.
And then in the rear of the property, you see you have these doors.
This is the door to the second floor unit to the left.
And this is the door to the rear first floor unit.
And this is a door to the outside.
All of these properties have access, all of the units have access to the rear yard and this alleyway to the rear yard.
In the rear of the property, there is also, you can see in this left photo, an alleyway that connects the rear of the property to the street.
So each unit has multiple ways to exit the building and access to the rear yard where it's proposed that the trash would be stored and took out on trash day.
Okay. So I just also want to mention in terms of parking and that which is always a concern
in the neighborhood, this is right along the trolley lines for Baltimore Avenue, there's bus
access, as well as like a block away from the media Elwynn regional rail line. And so there's,
we, you know, I know everyone always says it, but there's a lot of public transit use
for the people that live in this neighborhood. Let's go to the zoning map. Okay, so
So this property is zoned CMX1, as are all the other properties, basically on this side of this block.
But that is not how these properties are being used.
And a three -unit residential building is actually much more consistent with these properties than would be a commercial use in this space.
So I've marked the use of the properties, current use.
you can see over here we have a cmx2 that's actually automotive use this is a three -story
building used which is a cmx1 that uses four residential units you have two vacant properties
another auto -centric business the corner does have a commercial space on the first floor it's
a salon with two units with two additional residential units our property the property
next door which is two residential units. The one next to it is three residential units.
We have two residential units with no commercial and then again on the corner we have a deli
with I couldn't really determine the number of residential units above but there are residential
units above. So as you can see the middle of the block is basically being used as more
of an RM1 type usage, not as commercial use. And if we go across the street, while it appears it's
RSA5 zoning through most of this block, about half of the properties are used as duplexes. As far
as I could find documentation for, it's possible even more of them are used as duplexes. And at
the corner, we have a very large senior housing complex. Again, I couldn't find the actual number
of units but it's a very large building so let's go to the aerial photos you can see
that's a really large residential building there. I also want to point out that our building has a
first story addition on the first floor and that's where this rear most of the rear first
first store unit is going to be so that's why it makes sense that this is one of the buildings that
have three units instead of just two, because it is a larger building than even the one next door,
which has a commercial unit and two residential units. So that makes sense. So you might say,
well, why aren't we using the commercial space? First of all, it's not what is happening on the
middle of this block. As you can see, this is all of this side of the block. You have a corner
commercial and a corner commercial and everything else is used as residential um and the residential
that what would be the commercial space is very small it's um less than 500 square feet which
makes it not really suitable or marketable for most of the uses we find in cmx1 um like a daycare
or retail um those sort of things i guess it could be an office but it's not a very large office
either uh my office is about that size and it's not really all that suitable for more than one
person um so we met with like i said so and we already do have on this block um you know
We met with, like I said, so, and we already do have on this block, you know, neighborhood accommodations, such as a salon and a deli, which would be common uses for CMX1 properties.
We did meet with Cobb's Creek neighbors on September 12th.
There were maybe two or three near neighbors who were there.
none of them were in opposition and one of them explicitly said they were so happy that there's
not going to be more commercial use on this block because they had been having trouble with the
congestion from the commercial uses so in summary you know we think this is an appropriate use of
this property given the way that these buildings are currently used and the surrounding uses of
the property. I just want to mention that if this was actually zoned RM1, like how this block is
basically being used at this point, based on the size of the parcel, four units would be allowed
by right, and we're just seeking to have three here. So we think it's an appropriate use. It's
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It wouldn't really burden anyone. None of the neighbors
are opposed, and it would provide much needed housing in the neighborhood. It was mentioned
at the community meeting that there was a lack of housing for people, especially smaller units
in the neighborhood, and that they thought this was a good use of the building. So that's my
summary, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Well, you want your client to adopt your testimony?
Absolutely. Sorrel, are you on? Can you raise your hand?
Mr. Sorrell, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hi, good morning. I'm Sorrell Vang.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Sure, Sorrell Vang, S -O -R -E -L -L -E -V -E -I -G -N -E.
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed counsel as well did you hear my testimony here today and believe it to be
truthful and accurate yes correct i do as your own yes thank you okay questions from the board
no mr chairman mr chair no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience. I see no hands this time, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning. David Fecto, F -E -C -T -E -A -U with the City Planning Commission. Do you swear a firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Proceed, sir. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and members of the board. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
commercial mixed -use zoning at this location. This property, along with the others on this side of
the block, were built as commercial mixed -use buildings, and the commercial mixed -use one
zoning district allows the applicant the flexibility to decide whether to include
commercial space on the ground floor. The zoning archive shows that the building received approval
in 2002 for a ground floor commercial unit and one apartment. Converting the ground floor
commercial unit to residential would yield two apartments the third unit was built without
benefit of permit through no fault of the applicant and so the city planning commission recommends
the board grant the use variance for maximum of three dwelling units thank you MI 2022 003 456
60 15 Baltimore Avenue I vote yes proviso maximum three units
carol tenery my vote is yes with proviso thomas holliman my vote is yes with proviso james snell
my vote is yes with proviso ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso thank you counsel
thank you so much okay number nine mi 2021 001 108 2500 wilmot street sean ward is the attorney
recommendation of support from the Bridesburg Community Action Alliance
Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist now chair thank you
good morning Mr. Chairman members of the board Sean Ward on behalf of the owner applicant
Hi, Mr. Ward, just for the record,
should you spell your name for the court reporter?
By all means. First name, Sean. S -H -A -W -N. Last name, Ward. W -A -R -D. Address is 331. East Street Road, Trevos, Pennsylvania, 19053.
By all means.
First name, Sean, S -H -A -W -N, last name Ward.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And could you identify your client in relationship to the property, please?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I represent ROW, that's R -O -W -R -O -W -L -L -C, which is the owner of the property.
Okay, our Vice Chair, Carl Tedere, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Ward, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I will waive a reading, and there is one inaccuracy as I see it, which I will address during my presentation.
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 hearing? And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin by sharing your screen, which is already up.
Very good. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I've submitted my typical exhibit packet for Roro LLC
for the subject property at 2500 Wilmot Street. Just as a little background, Mr. Chairman,
you marked one matter for 2500 Wilmot Street as withdrawn at the beginning of today's session.
There were two applications pending in this matter. I was granted administrative leave by
the executive director to amend the refusal and basically what we did was we included whatever
uses and refusals or referrals that were in the other appeal into this one so we consolidated it
into one. And therefore, we withdrew the appeal at MI 2021 001001, which the board acknowledged
this morning. So that brings us back to the present case at application ZP 2021 -001772
at calendar number 001108 before the board now. A1 is the notice of referral and refusal
as amended and consolidated. The application is basically for use permits for personal vehicle
repair and maintenance, as well as equipment and material storage. Now with regard to that refusal,
Let me just fast forward a little bit here. In 2015, a permit that was granted pursuant to a variance for equipment and material storage, as well as in 2018 for the erection of a new building for use as contractor's office equipment storage.
So I am not quite certain why that was refused in the present application when, in fact, in 2018, you know, at the earliest 2018, those uses were approved and the new application was filed within three years of 2018.
and therefore I believe those refusals for equipment and material storage were issued in
error. However, I'll defer to the board on how we deal with that today. In any event,
we submitted with the revised application a key plan which identified the uses in the 10 spaces.
As you can see, they're all either personal vehicle repair or contractor use with
material and equipment storage. So the amended refusal resulted in six refusals, actually six
refusals and referrals together. The order of repair requires special exception. There was five
of those. And then there was one refusal for equipment and material storage as not permitted
in the district. So today we seek special exceptions for the five tenant spaces and a
use variance for the equipment and materials storage yard. A2 is the ZBA application, A3
project information form. A4 proof of ownership, A5 proof of tax clearance. A6 is the aforementioned
site and key plan with regard to the amended application. A7 are photographs. A8 is the RCO
meeting notices and certificate of mailing. There was two meetings held in this matter.
A -9 is the RCO letter from Bridesburg. That letter does reference some provisos, which were not worked out at the time they submitted their RCO summary, but we have since resolved that and have come to an agreement as to provisos, which I believe are acceptable and related to the zoning issues at hand.
A9 is the RCO letter from Bridesburg. That letter does
A -10, I would ask if a district council person's letter was submitted, that that be marked as A -10.
Again, the relevant zoning history.
2015, equipment and material storage was approved and permitted.
And 2018, the same direction of a new building for use as contractor's office with equipment and storage.
A -12 is the zoning map.
A -13 is the aerial photograph.
So we have attached, we have the amended refusal.
We have both other refusals as part of both appeals, the applications for appeal.
We have the two project information forms for each appeal, the one being moot now since it's been withdrawn.
We have a copy of the deed.
Roro purchased this property January of 2016.
We have proof of X compliance for the property through 2022.
Here is a key plan, which was filed as part of the amended application.
So basically, again, in space one, vehicle repair, space two, vehicle repair, three, four, our contractor's office, warehouse, showroom.
That's Blue Galaxy. They are a granite and marble contractor, fabricator, installer.
Five, six and seven are auto repair.
Eight, again, as part of the Blue Granite countertop, as well as nine and ten.
And 10 is basically, there's a small outbuilding, but it also includes the rear yard, which is where Blue Galaxy basically stores their granite marble slabs outside.
Here's some aerial photos from Google.
As you can see, this is the new building that was constructed on the corner.
this is a shot from belgrade street looking into the property another google aerial i apologize
these aren't in any specific order because when i i combined the file um it it populated them in
whatever order it wanted again just a picture of the front building where blue galaxy has its
office and showroom this is what is actually wilmot street which intersects with belgrade
at the corner of the property as you can see it backs up to some other industrial uses in the rear
again this is a shot of the storage yard
this is one of the auto repair garages
again you'll see all the marble and granite slabs that Blue Galaxy stores outside in the rear yard
This is a shot from the corner of Wilmot and Belgrade at the corner building.
And again, I think, you know, most of the photos are self -explanatory.
This is that outbuilding in Lot 10, again, part of the storage yard.
This would be Wilmot Street looking at Belgrade at the intersection.
This is a copy of the 1129 notice that was mailed out for the meeting on September 8th of 2021.
one. This is the most recent one, went out September 14th for our meeting on September
27th. These are the addresses.
Our two certificates of mailing. This is the RCO meeting summary in support of the application
by a vote of 7 to 3. It does mention provisos. Again, we weren't able to attach that to the
exhibit packet, but I did submit to Hillary a proviso letter
identifying the two. So with regard to the special exceptions
only, we agreed would be, you know, we would go for a
probationary three year special exception. The neighbors and the
The neighbors and the RCO wanted to keep an eye on the auto repair uses, as well as, you know, keep their thumb on the pulse of what's going on there.
RCO wanted to keep an eye
So we have agreed to a three -year special exception, and the other was, with regard to the special exception for personal vehicle repair, a limitation on the hours.
And we've agreed to Monday through Friday, 7 to 9, Saturday, 9 to 5, and closed on Sundays.
and we feel based upon that there would be no impact on the general health safety and
welfare of the community. Therefore, we satisfy the requirements for the grant of a special exception.
I would point out also, Mr. Chair, that the RCO was well cognizant of the Blue Galaxy
use for the granite business, and there was never an issue with regard to their use.
their concentration was basically on the auto repair uses.
And then these are the two zoning permits for equipment and material storage.
This one granted in 2015.
And then we have another one granted in 2018.
So, you know, again, I don't know why the use was refused
when it had been already approved twice in the last eight years.
Here's a zoning map. Let me blow that back out. Okay. As you can see, we're in an ICMX district. It is adjacent to some RSA -5s. That's why we've agreed to some of those provisions with regard to the auto repair.
And again, most of the equipment and material storage is at the rear of the property, so
it's not an issue to the neighbors.
And then here we just have an aerial photograph.
As you can see, this property is just east of I -95 in the Bridesburg section, and that
would be the sum and substance of our application.
I do have George Groves in the audience, George, if you can raise your virtual hand and be
identified, he can verify and adopt my representations. Mr. Grose, please unmute
yourself and wait for the chair. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
George Grose. George, G -O -R -G -E. Grose, G -R -O -V -E -S. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. George,
you've heard my representations to the board today yes are they true and correct to the best of your
knowledge information and belief yes sir and you adopt them as your own testimony yes thank you
very much questions from the board no mr chairman mr chairman what questions or comments from the
virtual audience. Chair, I see no hands at this time. Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the industrial and commercial mixed -use zoning at this location. The applicant has shown that
the proposed vehicle repair and maintenance and additional activities will have no more of an
impact than those activities would be expected to have. The City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the special exception for vehicle repair and maintenance and the additional
proposed special exception activities and the use variance for an equipment and material storage
yard. Thank you. MI 2021 -001 -108 -2500 Wilmont Street. I vote yes with the following provisos.
Her amended refusal dated 9 -6 -22, temporary special exception for personal vehicle repair and maintenance use only to expire November 1st, 2025, and hours of operation for personal vehicle repair and maintenance use only, Monday to Friday 7 -8 -9 -P, Saturday 9 -8 -5 -P, and Sunday closed.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisors.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with provisos.
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
The next case will be three cases together.
Number 11, MI 2021, 002630, 1913 Watkins Street.
number 12 mi 2021 002 624 1915 walk -in street
and mi 2021 002 625 1911 walk -in street the uh
1911 walk in street the uh there is opposition from the point breeze community development
corporation when a 10 -0 vote uh opposition from nine neighbors and then there's also an application
of uh approximately 34 neighbors signed a petition of support leo mulvihill is the attorney
Chair, Mr. Mulvihill is coming back in now as a panelist.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
And good morning, Chairman, members of the board.
There we go.
Good morning, Mr. Mulvihill.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly.
It's Mulvihill.
First name is Leo, L -E -O.
Last name M as in Michael, U -L.
V as in Victor, I -H -I -L -L.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the three properties?
My client is D as in Delta, M as in Mary, G as in Golf, property 63 LLC.
The principal is Ellison Yohi.
He is on the line as well.
This is for three different properties, 1911, 1913, and 1915 Watkins Street.
I'm going to stick to the 1911 plans packet for purposes of the presentation, as they were otherwise the same.
Okay. Mr. Mulvihill, our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Good morning, Mr. Mulvihill. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy on all three cases?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusals or referrals, 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?
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin by sharing your screen, which you did.
All right. So everyone can see 1911 Watkins. I just want to be clear that that's what's showing.
all right so members yes great members of the board again leo mulvihilm here on behalf of dmg
property 63 llc and what we're here for today is the an application for two single family homes
and one pardon me i have that backwards two two family homes and one single family home hey members
of the board unfortunately my computer screen just went totally blank and i have no idea what happened
i'm gonna back out try to get back in um in the meantime i guess you might want to move on to the
next presentation because unfortunately i can't present with a black computer screen okay all right
i'll be right back thank you be here so the next one would be
um 17 okay um number 16 mi -2021 004 -828 -2514 north 17th street jermaine harris is the attorney
letter of uh north central philadelphia cdc is not taking the position
mr harris chair mr harris is coming back in as a panelist now
good morning good morning mr harris could you say your name spelled for the court reporter please
Jermaine Harris, and I am counsel for the owner, Rosina St. Luis, who is also present on this call.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I most certainly do.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. Harris, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed days of a 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?
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin by sharing your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, let me get to my exhibit packets.
All right. So this is concerning property at 2514 North 17th Street.
All right, so this is concerning property.
And this is a, first of all, we're seeking to change the use of this property variance from a single -family dwelling to a duplex.
This is, that's what this is.
We just saw the letter of refusal. And here is the actual property right here.
It's a shell. It's been vacant for quite some time.
My client just purchased the property. Let's see here.
She just purchased the property, I believe, last year and Rosina St. Louis.
And the property was recorded 4 -26 of 2021.
And as far as the property itself, again, this is a frontal of the property, the front image of the property.
Right here is the posting of the notice, which was done outside of the 21 days.
and also if we look at the inside again this is a shell when my client bought this property
she bought it from another developer and this developer had started apparently this property
had been vacant for quite some time and this developer had started doing renovations on the
property um so he framed it out towards a duplex uh what you're looking at right here is the first
floor continuing on the first floor then i believe this is the second floor
part of the second floor as well so it's really has just been framed out
by the owner by the previous owner as duplex
there's another framing out but the property uh to this day uh remains vacant um and she's just
trying to complete what the prior owner had done. Now, let me get to plans. So we have
here, nothing's being done for the basement. For the first unit, it would be, which would
be the first floor it would be you walk into the building and then you would go to the kitchen
bedrooms in the front then you have a hallway a bathroom right here at the cursor and then
towards the rear of the building is a bedroom. Then you go up the stairs
and it's pretty much the same similar layout. You go into the second unit. Here you have the
living room, you have the back bedroom, then you have the bathroom, then you have a bedroom.
And that's pretty much what the layout of this building would be. Trash would be stored in the
rear. And by the way, here's the tax clearance of the owner. Now, you just want to, even though
this is a RSA 5, there are several current units and duplexes within this block. I saw just on
atlas i saw five uh duplexes at this uh particular on this particular block uh 25 18 which is two
doors down 25 37 25 42 17th street 25 56 25 51 all of these are duplexes according
2551 all of these are duplexes according to the city records uh we don't feel that this would be
an overuse of the building uh at all we're just talking about two bedrooms for both floors
um we don't think it would uh create substantial congestion uh in the area in fact it's consistent
with what the area is right now in synconformity with the five other duplexes that are at this,
that are on this block. Let me see if I have anything.
There was also a letter, as was noted, there was a letter of non -opposition from the RCO.
Yeah, it was a letter of non -opposition. And essentially, they would defer to the zoning board's discretion. Although there were 10 people that were present at the community meeting.
And if they were to hold a vote, then it would have been that they would have voted yes.
The majority would have voted yes to the to the variance change.
So we would ask that this that this panel allow for this use variance to be approved.
And I don't have any other evidence to introduce, but I would like to have my client, Ms. St. Louise, adopt the testimony and add anything else that she may wish to add.
Ms. St. Louise, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Louisiana St. Louis.
And could you spell your name, please, for the court reporter?
R -O -S -E -N -A St. Louis, S -A -I -N -T -L -O -U -I -S.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed, counsel.
Yes. Ms. St. Louise, did you hear the testimony that I just presented to the board along with the exhibits? Did you see what I presented?
Yes, I did.
Okay. Do you agree with and adopt the evidence that I presented to this board?
Now, do you have anything else that you would like that you would like to add other than what I've already stated to the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
chair i see no hands at this time by planning commission
thank you sir good good morning david effecto city planning commission in 2014 the zoning map
was amended from residential multi -family to residential single family in accord with
recommendations from the comprehensive plan there is no unique physical condition of this lot that
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code the majority of the block is
single family the city planning commission recommends the board deny the use variants
mi 2021 -004 -828 -2514 north 17th street i vote yes carol tenary my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes James Snell my vote is yes
thank you counsel thank you man be excused yes thank you all right let's go back uh Mr. Mulvihill
Mr. Mulvihill, please unmute yourself.
All right, here I am.
Hi, Mr. Mulvihill.
How do we look?
I think everything's good for a second.
Hopefully it doesn't...
All right, okay.
So you've been sworn, if I remember correctly, right?
And I believe our vice chair spoke to you?
Correct.
Yes, I did.
So why don't we start, Mr. Mulvihill?
Explain what you're doing here.
So members of the board, this is for three separate parcels.
1911 Watkins, 1913 Watkins, and 1915.
1911 Watkins, 1913 Watkins, and 1915 Watkins.
There currently exists on 1911 and 1913, two -story structures that are in really bad shape.
My client tried to look into saving the structures, but the cost to do so is significant.
So what we're proposing instead is the demolition of those two structures.
Then on the three lots, we're looking to construct one single -family home on 1911,
And then two duplexes, I believe, in 1913 and 1915.
Originally, we had suggested that each of them would be duplexes, but based to initial community feedback, we scaled that back for a total of five units across the three properties.
So for all the properties, we received a refusal, as we're seeing now on page one of my packet, for two family living in a single family district, that would be removed for one of the parcels.
And then 1911 has a slightly then smaller rear yard, just based on the size of the lot and the location and dimensions of the lot.
So there's not a whole lot that we can do with that, unfortunately.
Here's our project information form at page four.
Our area zoning maps are here at page seven and eight.
To the left, we see the Philadelphia Atlas zoning map.
This is largely zoned RSA 5, although you will see in the photos that there's new construction, multifamily here on the corner of 19th and Watkins, and again at the other corner of 19th and Watkins.
There's other multifamily up and down 19th Street.
There's new construction and older homes all along Watkins Street itself.
This is the deed for the property in 1911, and instead of going through both other packets, which have been submitted as an officer of the court,
I can tell you my client has the needs for the other two as well.
It's my client's tax certificate for each of the properties.
And this is the tax clearance showing no balance owed.
Each of the properties has that as well.
This is our initial notice of community meeting.
We initially sent that back in February and had a meeting in March.
We just had a second meeting last week with the initial notice.
And as part of that initial meeting, at least,
going to page 21 of my packet dated March 21,
We have a letter showing that ultimately there is a opposition to the proposal of six units in the block, due to the fact that the neighbors didn't want more multifamily there.
At the second meeting, there was another vote held on the reduced number of units.
We never received a copy of the overall vote from that meeting.
I'm unsure whether it's the same different or something else.
I imagine somebody from point breeze is going to tell me on the line.
So while we did have 10 people at this meeting in opposition,
my client then went around the neighbors and I have many,
many pages of support signatures from neighbors in the immediate area.
I'm going to continue the page through those.
So members of the board, we can see we have a number of signatures for each of the properties.
As I continue to go through the number of signatures and support, it's plain that there's
more people in support of this project who live in the immediate area than overall attendees
at the community meeting.
So I understand that these community meetings are an important process.
RCOs are an important part of the process as well, but unfortunately, we all know that they don't always reflect the feelings of the immediate neighbors,
which, as you review the number of signatures that we have in support of each of the projects, even as duplexes,
we can see that this clearly overshadows the opposition at the RCO.
We see at page 48 my initial posting of the property.
To the right, we can see the two properties that are currently existing in poor shape
on the interior, and then the empty lot, which we propose to construct a new single family,
or pardon me, a new two family home on.
On page 49 off to the right, we can see this quarter property.
I believe it's a three or four unit building directly next to where we're proposing to build.
This is looking down towards the block.
Again, we have a multifamily structure that's been existing for a while.
This is directly across the street, two -story single families.
And there's a mix as you go down the block, as we can see the more traditional two -story row homes
with the larger new construction, single family.
Down towards the end of the block, there is more multifamily as well.
My understanding is that these new structures here are all single family, however.
My understanding is that these new structures here are all single family, however.
And this is the photos of our repost of the property
beginning at page 75. And at page 78, what I'll do now is just do one page up so we can take
a look at our plans so members of the board this is now our site plan pardon me this is now our
site plan for the property at 1911 and all the properties are exactly the same in terms of
site and floor plans with the exception of 1911 being slightly smaller than 1913 and 1915
just due to the lot size leading to a minor variance request for open area.
So members of the board, we can see our three lots, 11, 13, 15.
The lots themselves, 15, 15, 14 feet wide.
We're proposing significant size rear yards if we zoom in on the plans.
It's a nine -foot rear yard.
There's going to be a four -foot alley behind that.
So it's significant space behind the structures as well.
It's not as if we're going to be directly up behind our neighbors.
What's the proposed floor plan for the two -unit building?
More or less, we have unit one, which spans the basement and the ground level.
Unit two would be the second and third floor.
In the case of the single -family home, there would be no deviation between the two, no delineation between the units.
the floor plan would more or less remain the same though so essentially they're one bedroom unit to
the downstairs unit so you'd come in the front stairs head to the right go downstairs to get
in the basement where you have bedroom or office space to the rear with egress access
full bath and significant other space down here for flex living kitchen dining to the rear with
a built -in washer dryer and to get up to the next unit you go up the stairs you'd be in your living
room to the front, again, kitchen to the middle, probably dining in the middle, kitchen to the
rear with a bathroom off to the side. Then going up the stairs, you'd have another two bedrooms up
there. So one one -bedroom unit, one two -bedroom unit, or for the single -family home, we're going
to do a three -bedroom unit. So overall, there's not going to be really any change in the overall
numbers of beds between the two -bedroom units and the single -family home that we're looking to
build here. So I know there were concerns that were brought up in the community meeting about
density and things like that. The density of this project will not be any greater
than a single family home of the same size, specifically because it's the same floor plan,
same number of bedrooms. It's just a matter of taking these properties and looking at
price conscious consumers now, with rates being what they have been, with rents being what they've
been, we were looking to take this, build new properties and have somebody be able to
move in there for a slightly less cost than perhaps brand new new construction home, which
is going to be a rent of $2 ,500 a month, or a mortgage of gosh knows how much based on
the sales price of the property. Ultimately, the hardship with dimensional variances just
comes through the size of that one lot. For the use variances, it comes down to the sizes
of the lot and the costs inherent to new construction simply that new construction homes here
are going to have to be priced somewhere between four and five hundred dollars thousand dollars
versus a lower price more affordable to existing neighbors we're happy to take any questions that
the board may have at this time but first i'd like elson to please raise his hand to be unmuted
and I'll ask him a few questions.
Elson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I believe I did just unmute myself.
Okay, could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter?
Name is Elson, E -L -S -O -N, last name Joji, X -H -O -X -H -I.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Mulvihill.
Okay, Allison, you've heard my presentation today through the zoning board.
And this involves what was initially two, pardon me, three two -family dwellings, which at the insistence of the community group, we changed to a single -family dwelling and the two two -family dwellings.
Is that correct?
Yes, correct.
All right. Do you have anything else you'd like to add to my presentation with respect to the meetings, your involvement in the community or anything else?
Yes. Just a quick note, Leo. I know there was three duplexes. I think you said 1911 was a single family, but I think we're going for 1915.
i think you said 1911 was a single family but i think we're going for 1915 the single family
and 11 duplexes but that's fine thank you so as you can as the board can see we did
before the first meeting we reached out we went around the neighborhood we got signatures from
you know whatever neighbors that we can find in the area which was the immediate blocks
surrounding our areas i think it totaled to somewhere around 40 or something signatures
that's each for each of the properties and then when when we went to the RCO meeting
I was not aware that we actually had to had some of these neighbors show up to the RCO meeting for
support so that's why the vote went 10 -0 against so when we requested to come back around for the
five units instead we went back around to the neighbors and you know we've we were able to
knock on some doors and get some people to actually show up to the RCO meeting. So I don't
know. We don't have the vote yet, but I believe we do. We should have some support for this
duplex construction for 1911 and 1913, not including 1915. That's because we're deciding
to go single family on that one. And Allison, you're based in the area, correct?
Do I personally live in the area or?
your work your work is based in the area you've done a lot of work in the area okay yeah so we're
south philly residents um we do a lot of work in point breeze grace ferry uh whitman plaza so
everything's south of center city okay and with respect to seeking to build the two units rather
than single family homes the reasoning for that largely has to do with the price for the ultimate
consumer in the neighborhood is that fair to say yes all right i don't have any other questions for
you at this time.
Board, we're happy to take any questions today.
Mr. Movahill, the 1 ,900 block of Watkins, predominantly single -family?
It is predominantly single -family, although towards the end of the blocks, both to the
east and the west, there are multifamilies on those ends of the block.
And Mr. Movahill, the RCO never changed their vote?
We never received a second letter.
I'm uncertain what the results of the second vote were.
So if somebody from the RCO is on the line and would be willing to share that information, we'd appreciate that just because we've never received that before this and today.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a call -in user.
Call -in user, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
uh tiffany green concerned citizens appointment hi hi tiffany could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter please or uh t -i -f -f -a -n -y g -r -e -e -n right do you swear a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir um i'm yes am i able to speak yes i said
proceed please great um i attended both meetings um at the first meeting it was more of we had
quite a few attendees at that point, and the, as the Robert said, or the lawyer said, that
there was quite a bit of opposing to what he was proposing, which is putting in the
turning into R &1 multifamily. He never talked about in terms of any physical unique issues
regarding the project that would be substantial to him making those changes. Mostly, people
talked about asking to do two -story single -family homes, which they were not really opposed to.
They want to take full advantage of their zoning code at this point to do three -story. So most of
us stated that we would like to continue with the single -family homes on the block. At the second
meeting, there was some people on the Zoom, but no one clicked over. And the young Lee Haley from
Point B -CDC stayed on to see if anybody would talk, but no one spoke up.
I never saw the petition, so I don't know.
I don't even know our petitions.
We put the actual description of the zoning code from the zoning board on there.
So I can't say to the validity of his petitions, although I know at the second meeting,
no one from the community spoke up at the meeting or anything like that.
And so I say we oppose.
We would like, we would ask the board to maintain the zoning in this area as RSA 5.
there's no real
hardship for a rezoning
we have other homes
who have been built single family homes
in the area and we just like to maintain that
just finally the developer
talked about profit and pricing
most of the time about how it
would be to benefit in terms of the properties
in terms of profit
and I said to him in the meeting that all you talk about is
the profit and the other you're not talking about
any physical uniqueness
that would allow you to get a variance
so that's where we're at right now
so we ask that you do not rezone
do not rezone. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
thank you
anyone else in the virtual audience
Chair, we have Brad Paterka. Mr. Paterka, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name as spelled please for the court reporter?
mr puterker please unmute yourself
Hi, could you state your name, please?
If you hover near the bottom of your screen on the bottom left, you can unmute.
Beautiful.
There we go.
Can you hear me now?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Brad Paterka, B -R -A -D -P -E -T -E -R -K -A.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
I just wanted to chime in as well in my opposition to the proposal here.
We moved into the block a couple of years ago, specifically because it was a residential single family unit.
And I had kind of organized the troops this last time around when they had tried to get all three of the buildings switched to multifamily.
Um, and I had actually personally gone to the majority of our neighbors who I also have signatures in opposition to all of this. Um, and to, I believe it was Tiffany's point, um, why nobody, uh, attended the most recent RCO. Uh, I just got a notification. It was mailed out on September 22nd for a meeting on the 26th.
um so i don't know if that's why a lot of people just didn't get their mail in time and weren't
able to chime in but um had i known about that ahead of time i would have absolutely been there
as well um but again just to kind of reiterate the point that we don't want multi -family on our block
um and the there is no existing multi -family on watkins the um the corner lots that uh
leo was talking about are on um either 20th or 19th so okay again we just prefer to keep
how it was. Okay. We appreciate your call. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Elson. Okay. Mr. Elson, could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter, please. Elson, E -L -S -O -N, last name Joji, X -H -O -X -H -I, the owner of these three
properties. Wait, wait, wait one minute. Wait, wait one minute. Do you swear for him to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. And you own the properties? Yes.
I spoke just a little bit ago. So in response to the questions from the two people on here
with the opposition, yes, we understand the concern, and that's why we don't expect to have
100 percent support in the block but um what i would like to bring up we never received the
second vote and on the second vote from the um areas where i got the signatures from we went
back around the neighborhood to ask people to show up in support of five units instead of six
so i'm a little bit concerned of why we don't have that second vote yet since it was last monday
and as for the late notice i do apologize to you guys but we also were given um we didn't get
months notice ahead of when the rco meeting was going to happen i believe they were trying to
fit us into the schedule i'm not sure leo would probably know more about that but i would just
like to request that we have the results from the second vote just to see that hey there's some
opposition but there's also an overwhelming support for these projects which would provide
more housing as leo stated more housing at lesser cost for more families instead of a larger housing
for single family units at a higher cost okay thank you for your for your input is there anyone
else in a virtual audience you're asking all the hands at this time hi planning commission
chair before the planning commission weighs in i just wanted to direct sure i'm good leo it's
okay i just want to direct everyone's attention to ms tiffany's concern regarding the petition
it is showing on the screen you can see that for our petition we concluded all the information
about the refusals including the citations of the code so anybody who did sign this was made aware
and i believe elson would himself personally do these neighbors to do so so it wasn't as if
we were just like sitting around doing nothing he went door to door knocked introduced himself
and we provided the complete explanation to all the neighbors um i would still like to know
and we provided the complete explanation to all the neighbors. I would still like to know the
results of our vote from the meeting from last week as we don't have that yet though. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. David Fechtow,
City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this location. 1911 Watkins
is a 678 -square -foot lot, and 1913 and 15 Watkins are both even smaller. So we would argue
that the small size of these lots does create a hardship that would require dimensional
variances. However, there is no unique physical characteristic of 1911 and 1913 that would
prevent them from being used for single -family homes. So the City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the dimensional variances for the properties however uh we would request
that you deny the use variance for duplexes at 1913 and 1911 Watkins okay um okay i'm gonna
i'm gonna vote all three of these shepard uh mr chair this this is hillary um let me just
interject i need to ask mr mulville a question um with 1915 being proposed um now as a single
family dwelling um mr mobile hill are you that's the only um relief that's requested is the use
variance on that case are you then requesting that that case be withdrawn or would you like
the board to vote that as a duplex if the board takes a vote if the board is disinclined to grant
the duplex vote, then perhaps just a note that for that particular property, I would prefer not
to withdraw it. I'd rather have the board vote for it. Okay. Thank you. So we'll just, so we'll
just vote. So the board can just vote them as, as they've been refused. Correct. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Duplexes. As that, because my understanding is Hillary, and correct me if
i'm wrong looking at my applications the 19 the property that we're proposing for the duplex
has no dimensional variances which we just said so correct it's more or less a moot point i guess
we should just do the vote for the refusal okay we'll figure it out all right right no that that's
that's fine i just wanted to to make sure that that wasn't be that was not being withdrawn and
that one should we should still vote it um recognizing that you are proposing a buy right
use at the property with no dimensional refusal that's correct all right thank you so go back
again hillary i vote 1915 as a single home or as a duplex no no no so you just you're voting it
you're voting it as a duplex okay all right i'm gonna vote all three together yes you can do that
Okay. Number 11, MI 2021 -002 -630.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Let me just jump in. With number 1911, it has the dimensional variance requested. You may want to vote that one separately. But you can vote 15 and 13 together. Vote 11 separately.
Thank you.
all right number 11 mi 2021 002 630 1913 walking street
and number 12 mi 2021 002 624 1915 walking street i vote no for both
harold canary my vote is no
Thomas Holloman
Thomas Holloman
my vote is no to both
James Snell
my vote is no to both
Ishmael can you repeat your
sorry Ishmael can you repeat your vote
I couldn't hear you
yes okay thank you yes thank you now hillary 114 i vote for the dimensional variance right
and then no to the duplex you can yes if you want to grant the dimensional and deny
the use just be clear in your vote yes right okay mi 2021 002 625 1911 walking street
I vote yes with proviso yes to dimensional variance and no to use as a duplex
Carol Tenere my vote is yes with proviso Thomas Harleman
thomas holloman
and no to
and no to what was your no to the uses of duplex the uses of duplex thomas holloman my vote is
yes to the proviso and my vote is no to the duplex jane snell my vote is yes with proviso and no to
the duplex thank you the board have a good day okay um thank you is there anyone in the virtual
audience whose case has not been called in the morning session chair i see no hands at this time
all right thanks everyone see everyone at two o 'clock thank you see you then too thank you
good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this afternoon's zba hearings
with me is carol tanari our vice chair present mr chair ismail shaheed our board secretary
president mr chair thomas hollman our board member president mr chairman and james snell
our board member president mr chairman also here is our attorney hillary emerson and our zba
supervisor lakeisha dandy before we begin here's our virtual format be advised the proceedings are
being recorded by participating you acknowledge agreement to be recorded the video will be
available by contact tonyasunkett .com for the benefit of our court stenographer we are we
ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying if you are participating by
phone if you wish to testify press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute to
an appearance statement call 267 -270 -5548 leave your email and the address for the property
question and finally the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony
all comments have to be directed to our executive director tanya sunken let's look at continuances
for this afternoon's hearing. Number three, MI 2022 -003 -270 -2201 East Tioga Street.
That case is going to be continued. Number six, MI 2022 -003 -778 -2708 Commerce Way. That case is
going to be continued. And number eight, MI 2022 001 088 8575 Parsdale Avenue. This case will be
continued attorney moving party. Are there any questions in the virtual audience about the three
cases that have been continued. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. I will be the
co -host for this afternoon. Thank you, Jason. Yes. Do we see anyone else?
Any comments about those cases? I do not see any hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Any requests for additional continuances?
Okay, sir. I have one hand up by Mr. David Orphanides. I will allow him to speak at this time, sir.
Hi, Mr. Orphanides. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly. David Orphanides. Last name is spelled O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Is it case number 111510 North 25th?
Yes, sir.
I'm here on behalf of Milk Brew LLC, the owner of the property, and I'd like to request a continuance.
Thank you.
Granted.
Thank you.
Number 11, MI 2022, 003395, 1510 North 25th Street.
That case is continued.
Thank you for calling in.
he asked if he could be excused oh yes absolutely absolutely
okay thank you uh and number 12 mi 2022 004 240 45 14 to 22
0 -0 -4 -2 -4 -0 -45 -14 to 22 Woodland Avenue.
That case has been withdrawn.
Any other requests for withdrawals?
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
We're going to go to our add -on list.
Voting on this case will be myself, Thomas Holloman, James Snell, and Ishmael. MI 2022 -003 -285 -1234 West Allegheny Avenue. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
I'm sorry, with proviso, revised plan, one page, stamped by ZBA on October 5th, 2022. Sorry, Tom.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
We're proviso.
Hold on, Bill.
This is Hillary.
I have it, Hillary.
I have it.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, so there's no proviso with this one, right, Hillary?
That is correct.
There's no proviso.
Okay, so no proviso, Tom.
I'm sorry, number two has proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
okay number two voting on this will be myself carl tenary and ismo mi 2022
zero zero three one nine seven thirty nine hundred aspen street i vote yes with proviso
revised plan one page stamp izba on october 5th 2022
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
thank you and number three
MI 2022
003170
2300 North 18th Street
this is going to be
continued to next week
we're waiting on a letter
from the RCO
it'll be continued
to next Wednesday
2 p .m okay go to our regular list mi 2022 003 275 1314 north carlisle street
bernie ferlager is the attorney i understand there is a letter of support from the rc i'm
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
Can we go to number 13 first?
Sure, okay.
Thank you.
That's one where I need to recuse myself
and Amy Gaylor's filling in.
MI 2022 -001 -122 -6814 Old York Road.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Ward will be coming back in as a panelist.
Hillary, do we have a letter on this?
Here it is.
I have it.
Letter of support from Oakland Community Action Association.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Can you identify who the applicant is,
please? I represent Lee Real Estate LLC, which is the owner of the property and president of me
today on the conference is Henry Lee, the sole member of the LLC. My name is spelled S -H -A -W -N -W -A -R -D,
address 331 East.
Rory, Ms. Warren, our vice chair, has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Ward.
Do you agree to waive 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 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.
You may continue and begin to share your screen.
Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I've posted up on the screen my typical exhibit packet.
I do represent Henry Lee, that's H -E -N -R -Y -L -E, doing business as Lee, L -E, Real Estate, L -L -C.
The property is known as 6814 through 20 Old York Road, and that is the subject of today's hearing.
and that is the subject of today's hearing. A1 is the notice of refusal. This was an application
A1 is the notice.
for the erection of an addition at the rear of an existing attached building for use as vacant
commercial on the first floor. We don't have tenants identified yet, but use registration
would be required prior to occupancy, and use as permitted per CMX2 zoning, together with a
multifamily five -unit household living above. The application resulted in one refusal. It's
a dimensional refusal for the minimum rear yard depth, nine feet being required, zero being
proposed. I would point out that when we get to the site plan, you'll see that at the first floor,
there is no rear yard and we're looking to have some development above that. So we're not
eliminating a rear yard because one does not exist at present. In any event, we seek a,
it's not a use variance, it's a dimensional variance or a zoning variance. A2 is the ZBA
application of appeal, A3 project information form, A4 proof of ownership, A5 proof of tax
compliance, A6 is the site and elevation plans. We do have some supplemental plans as requested
by the RCO, which are attached together with A6. We have A7 are the photographs. A8 are the RCO
meeting notices and certificate of mailings. A9 is the RCO letter of support. At the time I submitted
the exhibit packet, I indicated pending because I hadn't received it yet, but that has since been
submitted. A10 would be the district council person's letter if submitted. A11, relevant
zoning history, I would point out that in 2009, uh, the, the zoning board granted relief for the
very same project. Uh, if anybody recalls in 2009, that's when the economy took a turn for the worst.
Uh, that zoning, uh, permit expired, uh, because, uh, Mr. Lee was unable to proceed with the project
due to the financial circumstances at the time. Uh, A12 is the zoning map and A13 is the aerial
photograph. So quickly, with regard to the refusal, again, there's one refusal for minimum rear yard
depth, nine feet being required, zero being proposed. And that is it. And it notes on the
refusal, the ZBA granting a variance for the very same project. And in fact, it's the same plan that
we used for this application that we did in 2009. And you'll note here, it says zoning permit
expired. So we have the application of appeal, project information form,
transmittal letter to the board, copy of the deed, scrolling through,
tax compliance. Here is the very same plan that was approved pursuant to the 2009
variance request. Again, what you have is a property that is known as 6814 through 20
on Old York Road. The first floor structure encompasses basically the entire lot. So there
was no rear yard at the ground level. Uh, the applicant proposed to roof over, uh, this walkway
here, uh, to give tenant access to the apartments, uh, with, with cover. Um, it would be a dedicated
entry. Um, and so, uh, because of the roofed over structure over an existing first floor structure,
Um, you know, the, the rear yard setback requirements still is imposed and, uh, we,
we, we can't comply with that. So, um, with regard to the, uh, RCO, we presented those plans at an
initial meeting. Um, they had a concern, a couple of concerns. One was about, uh, dumpsters on the
Street on either Haines Street or out on Old York Road. So we provided a floor plan to show
a vented interior. Let me blow this up a little bit.
A vented interior track storage room with ample storage for the commercial tenants.
As you can see, there's a vent fan, which would exhaust out to the street.
So we complied with that. One of their other requests were surveillance cameras,
not only on the street, which we provide at this corner of the building,
And two, at this corner of the building, along with one at this corner of the building.
and two at this corner of the building, along with one at this corner of the building.
But they requested surveillance cameras in the walkway where the tenants, the residential tenants, would access their apartments to ensure their safety coming in and coming out.
So we did provide these plans to the RCO.
And then they also requested, as opposed to just a railing along the second floor, they requested more of a privacy enclosure to prevent any items that might be discarded or inadvertently fall over the side of the building into the adjoining yard.
So what we agreed to was to provide a six foot high fence with a two foot high lattice above it to permit light and air into the hallway, but yet provide the protection of both the tenants, residential tenants on the second floor, as well as the property owners and occupants of the property adjoining us to the
We have our photographs of the posting. This is posting on the fence. This is the Haines Street
side. This would be a egress for the apartments. This would become an ingress, egress for the
retail space or commercial space on the first floor corner. Here's another shot from a Google
street view of the property. This is the Old York Road frontage. Again, this is from the corner.
This is an angle view of the property. This is another angle view. Not that you can really see
it, but at the first floor level, the building extends to the property line. We are talking
about roofing over this section here atop of the first floor extension for the purposes that we
described. So we have our RCO meeting notice went out on April 22nd for our meeting on May 2nd.
We have the notice of refusal attached to that. Here's a copy of the zoning notice.
the addresses, our certificate of mailing. Then we sent it out again on the 9 -12 for our meeting
on September 19th at 6 .30. That meeting was in person. The prior meeting was via Zoom.
Again, we attached the copy of the refusal. This was my order confirmation. I do have the
certificate of mailing if anybody would like to say it. And again, bringing the board's attention
back to I apologize for the blurriness of this I don't know why this was uploaded this way but
you can clearly see that in 2009 the variance was granted by the board for the erection of
a second story addition to an existing two -story structure and but again
it was the same exact plan that we're using for today's purposes
So there's the notice of decision, the refusal.
The property is zoned CMX2.
The uses are permitted as we propose.
So we're not here for any use variances, just a dimensional variance.
With regard to the RCO letter, they submitted their letter on September 22nd.
12 votes in favor, one vote opposed, and they had some conditions which I'd like to discuss.
So briefly, this letter came in. There were a few items in here that, quite frankly, we did not discuss, i .e. no alcohol sales was never discussed.
We did discuss a prohibition on smoke shops and smoke lounges, hookah lounges, and we agreed to that.
and daycare -type uses. However, we never discussed alcohol sales or deli -type businesses as tenants.
The maintenance and hiring of a property manager, when construction should start,
and the completion of the project, I quite frankly don't believe are enforceable or valid
provisos that the board could impose. However, the adequate ventilation of the
enclosed trash room we've provided, it's in the plans, and the security lighting and surveillance
It's in the plans and the security lighting and surveillance cameras have been added.
So given that, we received an email from the RCO May 25th of 2022.
And again, they discussed erecting that barrier as discussed at the second floor
to prevent items for trash from falling behind the property, which we've provided.
Trash collection, no dumpsters on the street. We provided the interior trash storage room.
We've shown on a plan the installation of security cameras at both ends of the building
and the walkway to the apartments. We've agreed with them that we would obviously prefer to hire
local residents on the site for construction work because they're more likely to show up for work
and not gets caught in traffic or being able to get there.
The appropriate facade materials, there was an amendment to the zoning code,
but this application predates that, so I don't think that's applicable.
And again, in their May 25th letter, written commitment not to rent a smoke shop or daycare,
which we have agreed to. So we did reply to that. And again, the walkway barrier was agreed to be
installed and shown on the plan. Interior trash storeroom was provided and the apartment egress
was shown on the plans. Mr. Lee ensured that employment opportunities would be made available
to qualified community residents. We would restrict the uses of smoke shop and daycare
in the first floor commercial spaces.
And we would obviously include those provisos
in any future agreement of sale
should the property be sold.
So that is all I have at this time.
I do have Henry Lee in the audience.
Henry, he is a phone participant.
Mr. Chair, if you want, he's got his hand raised.
There it is, okay, good.
Hi, Mr. Lee, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter please henry last name is lee h -e -n -r -y last name o -e do you
swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank
you chair uh henry you've heard my representations to the board today yes are they true and correct
to the best your knowledge information and belief yes and would you adopt them as your own testimony
today. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, there are two additional hands raised. One hand is from a Kelly McShane Tyree. I have
allowed them to speak. Okay. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, thank you very much. My name is Kelly McShane Tyree, spelling K -E -L -L -Y, McShane, M -C, capital S -H -A -I -N, third name, no dash, Tyree, T -Y -R -E -E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
thank you um i am a near neighbor and i am also the chair of the beautification committee for
the oak lane community action association which is the also the rco i think it's very important
to note um a bit of history in terms of this property in our community um our community has
been extremely involved with the mr chairman i'm i'm going to object uh the history of the property
is not relevant to the zoning application so why don't you do this why don't you tell me what you
think of the project and your views I am extremely concerned based on past history that we do not
have a greening and cleaning plan attached to this I know that that is extremely important to the
community given the fact that we have been there many times cleaning up the property we're thrilled
to see the movement on this but we have worked along with the old york road businesses
to personally invest in terms of financial in terms of our time in terms of planting trees
along this corridor and it's extremely important to establish that that would be the continued
expectation that this project is in keeping with the character of our community in terms of our
cleaning values, our greening values, and certainly maintaining the art.
cleaning values, our greening values, and certainly maintaining the architecture.
Okay. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate her efforts to maintain the greenery of
we're here on a dimensional variance for a rear yard. I understand.
Thank you for your call. Thank you for your voice and we'll weigh it appropriately.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
Chair, can you hear me?
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Sharon Wilson, and that's spelled S -H -A -R -O -N -W -I -L -S -O -N.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I just want to get clarification on a proviso, which indicates no alcohol sales. And I heard Mr. Ward, who actually received that letter on September the 22nd, if he actually communicated to the RCO, which I'm a part of, whether or not he disagreed with that and would not support that proviso before receiving that letter that they received going forward.
Sharon, if I could address that. I did speak to Henry about the alcohol sales, and he's agreed to accept that proviso. However, the deli grocery store use, he doesn't think that's appropriate. But the restriction on alcohol sales, he's more than willing to accept today and include that in any decision by the board.
Great. As long as we can make that a part of the record, I'd appreciate that.
Yeah, we acknowledge and agree to that today.
Thank you for calling in.
We appreciate your input.
This is Amy Geller.
I just wanted to point out that alcohol sales are regulated by the state, so I don't believe that a proviso would necessarily be enforceable regarding alcohol sales.
Thank you, counsel.
We agree to it anyway, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I missed. There's a hand raised from a person with the number ending in four, three, two,
eight. That's fine. Yep. Well, wait a minute. Okay. Just put it back up again. I'm allowing
them to talk right now. Okay. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter,
please. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Sure. My name is Frida Williams.
I am the. Could you spell it please for the court reporter? Certainly. Frida. F -R -E -I -D -A
Williams. W -I -L -L -I -A -M -S. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth.
Proceed.
Oh, okay, sorry.
I am the chair of the Housing and Zoning Committee
of the RCO, OCA,
and I'm the author,
in addition to the president of OCA,
to the letter, the report, RCO,
and the proviso.
And I simply want to make it clear that,
Although Mr. Ward is correct that the alcohol statement of prohibition or desire for prohibition was not discussed in the meeting, there are ballots that were received upon the vote regarding this matter, and individual residents indicated those items that were important to them.
This is a second RCO, and therefore it is quite possible that concerns of the second group that attended is in some way slightly different from those concerns that were versed from the first group that met.
So I just want to make that clear, that there's no date and switch.
We're simply reflecting what the residents at this second meeting said.
And then the other thing is, and I'm not sure that it's necessarily a point, but I just want to make it known that in some of the conversations that we had back and forth, when we asked for things, the response that we got in some instances was that there was a need to consult with a co -owner.
however and also a second party attended this second rco meeting who was identified as
a co -owner of the property i don't have the name in front of me because i of the attendant
I don't have the name in front of me because the attendance list I do have, and if you needed it, I could provide it.
But I'm simply stating for the record that although it is identified today that Mr. Henry Lee is the sole owner, that is not what was presented to us as a community, and that in some instances, Mr. Lee had to consult with a co -owner.
So I just want to make that clear.
All right.
thank you very much for your call are there any other comments for the virtual audience
I see no further answer Mr. Chair Planning Commission good afternoon Mr. Chairman David
Fecto City Planning Commission Mr. Chairman and members of the board comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location the applicant having shown
that the lack of a rear yard is an existing non -conformity and the addition is unlikely
to impact adjacent properties the city planning commission recommends the zoning board grant the
variance thank you amy there's a note here may not be necessary to stamp plans are you aware of that
uh yes um i believe however mr ward has um indicated that he his client will be willing
to stamp the plans is that correct okay all right good uh mr chairman just to address that uh the
You know, we took painstaking efforts with the RCO to discuss the trash storage room, the surveillance cameras, the rear partition fence.
So in order to provide some confidence in them that we're doing what we agreed to do, I have no objection to the stamping of those plans.
And because I think that provides additional comfort and security and confidence with.
Thank you. All right. So am I twenty twenty two zero zero one one two two sixty eight fourteen old York Road.
I vote yes with proviso. Revive plans. Three pages. Stand by ZBA. October 5th, 2022.
Can we refer to them as supplemental plans because it doesn't revise the application plan, but they're supplemental to the application.
I vote yes. Supplemental plans, three pages, stamped by ZBA, October 5th, 2022.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell. My vote is yes. We'll provide those.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Amy.
All right. Go to our regular list. MI 2022 -003 -275 -1314 North Carlisle Street.
Meredith Furlegger is the attorney.
I believe, hold here, wait one minute, I'll be right with you one minute.
I believe we do have a letter from the RCO, correct?
Yes, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
We did receive a letter from the RCO today indicating their support.
Counsel, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly, Meredith Ferliger, F -E -R -L -E -G -E -R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Certainly.
My client is Temple Properties LLC, and that entity is the owner of the property.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do agree to waive the reading. I do not stipulate to the accuracy. The description
has the wrong number of units. It lists 16 units. It's actually 14. Otherwise, yes.
Okay. 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
thank you you may proceed and your screen's up perfect thank you good afternoon uh mr chairman
members of the board again meredith ferlger with delworth paxton uh my client today is temple
Properties LLC, the owner of the property that is represented here today by partners Rick Biddle
that is represented here today by partners Rick Biddle and Michael Alton. We do also have
and Michael Alton.
representatives from Gnome Architecture if there are any questions that I am not able to answer
for you. The property before the board today is located at 1314 North Carlisle Street. As always,
our exhibit packet includes at Exhibit 4 a copy of the deed as well as tax clearance at Exhibit 3.
The exhibit packet includes a total of 19 exhibits, some of which I will walk you through.
At Exhibit 2, just received this morning, you do now have a copy of a letter of support
from the newly formed United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association, which the developer worked
with for the last several months on this proposal. As a brief overview, this proposal is for a new
luxury multifamily building with 14 units. The board has seen significant proposals come before
it in recent years for developments in this immediate area, which you will see throughout
the presentation. By way of overview, this proposal includes the consolidation of three lots
into one new lot, totaling around 3 ,100 square feet. The consolidation plan at Exhibit 6
shows that one of the lots is just slightly deeper than the others, creating a new lot
that has an ever so slight L shape to it. An existing, I'm sorry, there's somebody not on mute.
Some feedback in the background. I think somebody from planning, maybe.
Thank you. An existing alley that exists between two of the lots will be relocated
to the south of the property line. This alley benefits the adjoining property to the rear
here on 15th Street. You can also see
at Exhibit 12 site maps and a zoning map which shows that the properties are zoned RM1 multifamily
and sit roughly between West Thompson Street to the south and Master Street to the north.
Now, turning to the aerials at Exhibit 13 for a little bit more context, you will note that North Carlisle Street is just one block west of North Broad Street.
Now, as I scroll through some of these aerial views here, you will notice that this property sits directly behind the historic Blue Verizon Boxing Road building, which is immediately next to a new apartment complex known as the Nest, and you'll see that in the photograph here.
Now, looking at the property from the west, you'll see a useful view that shows the continually evolving skyline of this particular area.
Now, at the photographs at Exhibit 19, you'll see that this is an existing vacant lot.
But Carlisle Street is quite narrow and predominantly services the rear of these structures that front on Broad Street.
Parking is only permitted on one side of the street.
Now, I'll first explain the proposal and then we'll turn to the particulars of the variances requested.
As mentioned, this proposal requests a new six -story structure for a 14 -unit luxury multifamily project.
I'll zoom in for a moment on the original zoning plan chart.
Just so that you can get a sense of some of the modifications that were made throughout the community process to the exterior envelope of the building.
Now, as originally proposed, the height was slated to be just over 76 feet and included two pilot houses with a common roof deck for resident use.
The open area was just over 8%.
Now, in looking at the zoning plan, you will notice that the south side of the building ran parallel to the property line along this new common alley.
On the rear of the building, you'll notice that the original design hugged that L shape and included a small rear bump out.
At the top of the building, the building came to a straight right angle at the highest point of the elevation.
Now, as I turn to the revised plan, you will see when it loads that the rear bump out.
you will see when it loads that the rear bump out has now been removed.
Just bear with me for one moment.
So you'll see that that rear bump out has now been removed.
Now on the south face of the building,
you'll also notice that the side of the building has been pulled in slightly from that side
property line, with only a very small bump -out portion remaining, which I will explain momentarily.
Most significantly, the height has been modified in two ways. From a code calculation standpoint,
the height has been reduced to 72 feet 6 inches. However, from a visual standpoint,
the top elevation of the building has now also been slanted.
In addition, in response to discussions with the community,
the entire usable roof deck has been eliminated,
leaving only one pilot house for mechanical access only.
Exhibit 8A provides an excellent visual representation of these modifications,
just so that you get a sense of exactly how this project was changed during the community process.
Now, the units themselves include four one -bedroom, one -bath units of roughly 730 square feet,
as well as 10 two -bedroom, two -bath units, ranging from 1 ,100 square feet to just under 1 ,400 square feet.
Several of the units are bi -level units.
The project includes a fitness center in the basement, as well as an on -site management
office on the first floor, which is consistent with its goal of bringing a luxury, non -student
oriented project to this area.
As I alluded to a moment ago, the south face of the building was pulled in slightly.
As you can see on the first floor plan here, which is at Exhibit 10, this trash management
room is slated to occupy that small bump out area. The building was pulled in here to further
ensure that a commercial trash disposal company can easily access the trash area in the rear
and will further ensure trash is stored and disposed of efficiently and with no impact to
the surrounding area. The building will have an elevator. As the renderings reflected Exhibit 9,
This building is beautifully designed
to engender a dominant street frontage.
I'll just scroll through here briefly
so that you can get a sense of what the building
is slated to look like.
Now, with respect to the refusals,
allow me first to address some of the minor
dimensional refusals that stem from
our unique hardships here.
I'll start first with the rear yard refusal.
If you refer to the revised zoning plan at Exhibit 8, you will notice that the rear yard varies quite a bit in its depth, and that stems from that L shape.
So at the widest point here, the rear yard is actually 13 feet, which is far more than the zoning code would require, which is 9 feet.
It then narrows sort of in the middle to 5 feet.
However, because of the presence of this alley, L &I measures the rear yard at the narrowest point to the alley, which is why that refusal shows that the rear yard is only two feet, despite the large portion of the rear yard measuring much larger than would be required by code.
Regarding the open area, open area is required at 25%.
As originally designed, the open area was proposed at eight feet, but was revised to increase to 15%.
So we do submit that this is a de minimis request and will ensure a structure that has maximum efficiency and functionality.
We also received a refusal for failure to provide parking on site.
Now, this parking requirement stems from the North Central Philadelphia overlay.
not the rm1 zoning which would not require parking this lot has several factors that
lead to a hardship in providing parking on site first as you can see in these photos
the site is mid -block with no rear access scroll up real quickly so you can see that
this property is significantly too small to accommodate the drive aisles and circulation
that would be necessary to safely accommodate for vehicles on site.
that would be necessary to safely accommodate four vehicles on site.
Furthermore, when you consider that North Carlisle Street is only 20 feet wide
and allows for parking on the opposite side of the street, the usable amount of the street is
only about 12 feet, sometimes potentially even less. So not only would several on -street parking,
not only would several on -street parking spaces have to be eliminated if parking were provided
on our site, but it would also create quite an unsafe ingress and egress condition given the
narrowness of the street and the potential conflict with these back -of -house functions
for the structures on North Broad. Alternatively, the owner is working to arrange parking for
residents in one of the area parking garages. And fortunately, this property benefits from
incredible access to public transportation in the immediate area. I'll turn now to the height
and density refusals, which I can address together. Now, broadly speaking, this property
is located in an extremely dense area, the character of which has been significantly
altered over the course of the last several years. Accordingly, we submit that it would
represent a significant hardship for the owner to erect a code -compliant structure on this lot
which would be inharmonious with other surrounding projects and units, many of which have received
similar variances to that requested here, including for height, unit density, open space,
yard measurements, and parking. At Exhibit 16, I do have copies of many of the permits
and corresponding refusals that I will reference on the next two maps.
If you refer to Exhibit 11 here, you will first see a map reflecting the comparable densities in
the immediate area. Those marked in the darker reddish -orange color are examples of cases where
the board has recently granted a variance for additional density. You will see that the
density of many surrounding structures is considerably higher than the 14 units proposed
with this application. And just to give you a sense of that, 193, 208, 63, 12, 30.
so many of these comparable cases were granted variances for similar increases in density
some for even more such as 1324 north broad street which was granted a variance for 180 units
where only 40 would have been permitted similarly with regard to height the next
map shows a comparison of buildings in the area whose height exceeds 38 feet. Properties that
received height variances are also marked, and the board will note that these variances were not
exclusively for broad street -facing properties. On this same block of North Carlisle Street
were two buildings granted variances for far exceeding the 38 -foot height minimum
in just the last several years. Again, referencing 1324 North Broad, that newly constructed project
was approved for 188 feet, where 55 feet was the limit. It's also relevant to note that many of
these new developments were approved without parking. I will not drone on with a property
by property analysis unless the board so desires it. However, the proposed height and density here
are consistent with the shift in the project character in the area, which is exclusively
multifamily. The rendering showed that this property was designed to blend to the maximum
extent possible with the evolving North Broad Street corridor. The proposal here is also
consistent with the comprehensive plan for the Lower North District, which expressly supports
density around commercial corridors, such as the North Broad Street one, as well as supporting
density near public transit locations that can provide quick access into Center City.
This project achieves both of those goals, and I did include just snapshots of that plan at Exhibit 15.
We do submit that these are the least minimum variances. The new developments in this immediate
two -block area have fundamentally altered the character of this area, particularly those that
have received variances from this or former boards. Now, this is not to suggest that prior variances
that prior variances should dictate the board's grant of future variances.
should dictate the board's grant of future variances.
Yet in this case, given the mid -block location of this property, which is also directly to the rear
of North Broad Street, this property is uniquely impacted and burdened by the mass, the changing
mass of the surrounding neighborhood as it relates to the prospect and viability of a new project
to fill in this last remaining vacant lot. The proposed height and density are well in line with
and in many cases significantly less dense and high than other recently built structures
on North Carlisle and North Broad Street. We would further submit that the dimensional variances
requested are de minimis and relate directly to unique property considerations. We submit that
this proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and air.
In fact, the additional height will ensure that the residents of this new building will benefit
from the maximum light and air possible, given the extreme height of many surrounding buildings.
Further analysis, as always, is provided in my memorandum of law submitted to the board at
exhibit 17, and I would be happy to touch on any point in particular detail. Now, with respect to
the community, as noted, this developer worked very closely with this new community group over
the last couple months, and we're very pleased to have received their letter of support this morning,
which is now at tab two. So at this point, I would call Rick Biddle to adopt my testimony
if the administrator can find him.
Mr. Biddle, you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Unmuted.
You're muted, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Rick Biddle, R -I -C -K -B -I -D -D -L -E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
thank you uh rick have you heard all of the testimony and information i provided to the
board today i have and would you agree that that testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt
it as if you had given it yourself i would thank you we're happy to take any questions questions
from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience? Yes, Chair, we have Thomas Griffith. Okay. Hi, sir. Could you state your name and
spell it, please, for the court reporter? Hi, my name is Thomas Griffith. That's T -H -O -M -A -S -G -R -I -F -F -I -T -H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
um yes proceed sir so um excuse me if i'm not sure about the procedure this is kind of my first
time engaging in civic type things like this um i live directly behind the proposed development
and i hate to be one of those like not my backyard people but i do have a couple concerns
about this being issued and how this is proceeding sure um
um i guess i would have liked to see this whole pdf document sooner just would have had no idea
where to find it to more like prepare remarks for today um a little bit concerned about this
back alley and how wide it will be um just for safety reasons like for example being able to
exit in an emergency um i i can address that question if you would like
sure sure so so the um the alley is being uh revised in in conjunction with the city plans
unit and mr griffith do you own the property behind or you rent there i rent there but i did
tell the landlord i was attending today okay because uh i believe my client was in touch
with the owner of the property as it related to relocating this alley. So the alley is going to be
three feet wide, which is the standard size of an alley in Philadelphia. That's what's required by
the fire department. So, you know, this alley will be more than sufficient to provide safe and proper
egress gotcha um and sorry i'm just having a hard time seeing i video meetings right um
looks a little blurry um is this alley going to be on the left or the right side of the building
looks a little blurry um is this alley going to be on the left or the right side of the
uh depends it depends which perspective if you're standing the front if you're standing
on carlisle street the alley will be on the left hand side i feel like it might make more sense for
it to be on the right just because um that's where it's like more accessible to both this property
and the neighboring property? So it already was on the left -hand side. And that's why when it was
revised, the city plans unit specifically asked that it be moved in this location. It already
was there. So the only change to that alley is essentially to add a portion of the alley in the
rear yard. Gotcha. Additionally, I'm concerned about the whole parking situation. I hear what
you're saying about the difficulty of implementing that, but just as a result of some other recent
developments has added a lot of additional parking pressure on the streets around here
over the last few years. While I know it's not so fair for them to be able to get away with this
sort of thing uh i am concerned about how that could make things more difficult for anyone who
lives within a three block radius um and also i guess like some of the parking provided by the
other large apartment buildings tends to be very overpriced and then people decide not to use it
we certainly appreciate that and that was i i don't believe that you attended the community
meeting that you know went through this project but that was one of the topics of discussion
and that is why this owner did commit to the community that you know he was going to do
everything in his power to work with one of the nearby garage owners to ensure that there are
spaces provided for these residents um who are the nearby garage owners uh because if this is like
several blocks away i don't think it makes much of an impact on the current situation
Well, as you know, this property has many, many public garages in the area. It was not something that the owner was in any position to be able to start those negotiations until after this hearing.
But again, I mean, that that was something that we we did discuss with the folks that attended the community meeting and and, you know, they understood that this property does have unique challenges as it relates to providing parking.
so we certainly appreciate that it didn't seem like it was so much of a problem for
a similar development that's about one block north of here
i can't comment on any other developments especially we do we
we understand we understand your position with parking is there anything else you would want to
state um yeah so just kind of wondering about what times of day and at what point is this
construction going to start just because i don't think anyone living in any of these surrounding
properties would like to be awoken very early in the morning or be hearing very loud development
happening late at night so i i i would say that most developers notify the neighbors of when
construction is going to start and when it ends. And I don't think you'll see this project
going late in the night. So it's as simple as that. You're correct. And there's also certain
code requirements as it relates to construction. And Mr. Griffith, if you would like to reach out
to me after this, I would be very happy to put you in touch with the owner of the property
so that you can coordinate with them directly for any advance notice.
Okay. Thank you. Is there any way you could send me that contact information?
um i don't know if i can put that into the chat i can try
if she can get it in the chat she'll put it in the chat thank you mr griff thank you very much
is there anyone else in the virtual audience this is hillary i also wanted to note that
the contact information for the applicant should be on the zoning poster at the site as well
that is that is true thank you hillary anyone else in the virtual audience
good afternoon mr chair i do not see any further hands at this time thank you thank you planning
commission thank you mr chairman good afternoon david vecto city planning commission the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multi -family zoning at this location
the applicant is asking for 14 dwelling units where seven are allowed the dimensional variances
sought could be reduced if the allowable seven units were built the applicant having failed to
show that a hardship exists in units the city planning commission recommends that the board
units. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the use in dimensional
deny the use in dimensional variances
variances. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I just want to quickly respond to that. That position
is inconsistent with positions the Planning Commission has taken on several of the other
developments. In fact, I did include some of the staff comments for Civic Design Review on some of
the other projects that were recently built. So I did want to just point that out. We do believe
that we've more than established our case here so mi 2022 mr chair sorry this is hillary um
if if the chair um and members are inclined to um vote in support of this project i wanted to note
in addition to a proviso for revised plans um given the error and then creating a consistency
on the refusal um the board would uh should do a proviso maximizing the number of units
just for clarity thank you
and that max unit is 14 14. okay that that is how many is being requested but it's
Incorrectly listed on the refusal in one part as 16.
Correct.
MI 2022 -003 -275 -1314 North Carlisle Street.
I vote yes.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA on October 5th, 2022.
And additionally, no more than 14 units.
Carol Tsunari, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Solomon, my boot is yes, with provisos.
James Snell, yes, with provisos.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, excuse me.
This is the court reporter.
Could I ask...
Is, could you go over that one more time?
You've trailed off a little bit.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, with provisos.
Thank you.
thank you thank you counsel mi2022 -003 -458 -1727 south street darlene treat is the attorney
letter of non -opposition from the center city residents association
okay sir mr street will be coming back in as a panel soon thank you
good afternoon commissioners darling how are you please and spell for the court reporter
Darlene Threat, D -A -R -L -E -N -E, Threat, T as in Thomas, H -R -E -A -T -T.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Well, my client is really a corporation, SJ Enterprises, but I have the purveyor of the
businesses, Mr. Don Salarelli, with me today, as well as the architect, Justin Myers.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Hi, Ms. Threet. Do you agree to waive 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 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?
All of those are yes, except I may not have submitted the package exactly five days in advance, but I did submit all the materials.
Okay, you may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Can you see my screen?
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Darlene Threatt, and I'm representing 1727 to 1729 South Street.
I have submitted an exhibit package.
My exhibit package contains 45 documents, which I won't be going through all of them,
but I will go through the pertinent ones.
Commissioners, I want to give you a little background about this application.
We are asking for an expansion of a tattoo shop.
Previously, three years ago, we came in from the board to get a variance for 1729 South Street, which is an existing tattoo parlor.
1729 has been in existence now for about three years, operating pretty good within the community.
1729 has been in existence now for about three years.
I'm just going to scroll down to the pertinent parts of my presentation here.
I wanted to just show you a history of 1727 South Street. It's always had commercial use.
Actually, the use now is a little less than it was before.
Previously, you'll see the use was a flower shop and a three -family dwelling.
Currently, we're asking for a commercial on the bottom, and I believe there's only a two -family dwelling existing.
You can see from prior zoning applications that the flower shop and three -family dwelling had been approved previously.
Here is the decision from back in 2019 when we came before the Zoning Board of Adjustment asking them to approve the tattoo shop at 1729.
Now we would like to extend the tattoo shop to 1727.
I leave this on the actual decision because I want to note the provisals here.
We have agreed to the same exact provisals for 1727 that we agreed to in 1729 for the tattoo shop and body piercing.
Those provisals were no deliveries or trash pickup before 8 a .m. weekdays and 9 a .m. weekends, commercial trash pickup, trash stored inside.
Additionally, commissioners, I would like to note that we do have a trash pickup for the needles, and that pickup is as necessary by a sharp pickup agency.
Here, in fact, is the actual use permit that was granted to 1729 South Street back in 2019.
commissioners this is the existing site plan for the building uh this is existing 1729
we like to use 1727 in conjunction with 1729 uh over here in the corner uh i have a couple
pictures of how the place looks currently and you can see a little uh plot plan of where the
property sits in the middle of the block. Here we go. I'm going to scroll down a little further
for you now, and here is the actual zoning plan. If anyone has any specific questions about it,
Mr. Myers is on the line. But basically, here we have 1729 South Street and 1727 South Street.
these are the basements of both of the properties. In this room, we'll have a tattooing studio.
This room currently has a tattoo studio in here, and I'll show you some pictures in a minute.
They both have about four chairs in them. If we go over here, we have a layout of the first floor
for both properties. Currently for 1729 South Street. This is where we enter.
This is where we enter. We have a reception area on the first floor, and then we have
some tattooing rooms that we would like to do. I have put in some pictures of the South Street area.
We have a large parking garage across the street.
There are actually no businesses directly across the street from us here.
If I slide down a little more, this is how the entire two buildings look.
We're not asking for new signage at this time.
Currently we have signage here in the window, stencil signage.
it's just another picture of the property and the signage to the left on 1729 here we have the
first floor of the tattoo studio at 1729 and it is said that the next door would kind of look
pretty similar as you can see we have a receptionist area here we have a little waiting area here and
we have some art on the wall and some really fancy floor with some acrylic painting there
it's just another long shot you can actually see some of the tattoo in studio
in the back of this shot here.
in the back of this shot here
Some of the artwork in the reception area
at the existing 1729 studio.
And this is the basement.
We have two rooms and a little outside back over here
in the basement at 1729.
Some more of the floor of the artwork at 1729.
That's another picture of the basement.
We also shot the back room and the tattooing areas in the basement of 1729.
Parking garage across the street. And here is 1727, which is currently empty.
Again, it's going to have pretty much the same setup as downstairs.
We have the upstairs rooms, the upstairs room.
and these are the rooms are downstairs that are still in the process of being developed
but the shop is empty we're waiting up zoning that the stairs that goes from upstairs to downstairs
that's a little outside patio here's the letter which was circulated to
the community association center city residents association we did meet with them
on September 27th at 7 o 'clock.
And here is a certificate of mailing
and here is a letter of non -opposition
from the Center City Residents Association.
But commissioners, this new studio
will have the same hours as the 1729.
1729 has approximately 11 employees
It is anticipated that 1727 would have an additional seven employees, and they all don't work at the same time.
80 % of the appointments are by appointment only.
We have 20 % of individuals that walk in.
All of our tattoo artists have the city tattoo license from the Department of Health, as well as the blood pathogen certificate from the city of Philadelphia.
We do have just a regular lighting in the front.
We have trash pickup as previously explained.
And at this time, we don't have any plans for any additional signage.
and that that ends my presentation and if anyone has any questions myself or the architect or the
proprietor more than happy to answer you want to have your testimony adopted by the uh the owner
yes uh don salaroli are you on the line
This is someone
Oh, I have a hand up from Troy
Oh, Troy is the other proprietor. That's fine
Troy, can you state your name and address for the record, please?
uh mr temple can you hear me uh yes hi could you state your name and spell it please for
the court reporter uh yes troy t -r -o -y temple t -i -m -p -e -l right do you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed to cancel uh mr temple are you
with Mr. Salaroli, the proprietors
of the tattoo shop at
1729 South Street?
Yes, we are.
And Mr. Tim Pell,
have you heard my testimony
here today in reference to
the operation of the shop
hours and use?
And if you were to testify today,
would you adopt my testimony?
Absolutely.
Thank you, Mr. Tim Pell.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use of zoning at this location.
The applicant has shown that expanding the proposed body art services would have no more of an impact than the expansion of body art services would be expected to have.
So the city planning commission recommends the board grant the special
exception. Thank you.
MI 2022 003 468.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, this is Hillary.
Do you want Ms. Threet to pull up the provisos that were with the previous referral to incorporate them?
Do you want Ms.
Three to pull up the provisos that were with the previous?
She can do that.
She can do that.
I started to scribble them down, but I probably don't have them all.
Thank you.
Give me a second here.
Here we go.
there was no deliveries or trash pickup before 8 a .m. weekdays okay I see I see okay just leave
it up thank you at MI 2022 -003 -468 -1727 South Street I vote yes with proviso no deliveries
or trash pickup before 8 a .m. weekdays and 9 a .m. weekends commercial trash pickup and trash stored
inside. Carol Tenere, yes, with provisos. Thomas Holloman, yes, with provisos. James Snell, yes,
with provisos. Jamal Shaheen, yes, with provisos. Thank you, counsel. Thank you very much,
commissioners. Have a good afternoon. Number four, MI 2022 -003 -384 -341 North Front Street.
Rachel Pritzker is listed as the attorney. Letter of non -opposition from Central Delaware Advocacy Group. Letter of non -opposition from Council Member Mark Squiller.
Brandon Saverin will be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Brandon. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yes. Brandon Saverin, spelled B -R -A -N -D -O -N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N.
Great. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Counselor, could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. So I represent John Scorsone, who is the owner of the subject property 341 North Front. I also represent, which I'll detail, the neighboring property owner, which is only relevant because this application would affect their lot lines as well.
Okay, thank you. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, do you agree to waive 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, to all of the above, Madam Vice Chair.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Good afternoon, members of the board. So I am here on a variance appeal regarding 341 North Front Street. Just to orient you a little bit, here is Columbus Boulevard.
and we are just below Callahill Street on a block of front which has homes that actually
interestingly have two street frontages. On the west they front on Front Street and on the right
they front on Water Street. As I'm going to show you in a moment one of the elements of this
appeal is a lot line relocation which would donate if you will a little of the applicant's
land to the owner of 339 North Front Street. That owner is Urban Metro Properties Inc. I also
represent them. So to dive into the refusal, there's a lot going on in this refusal. We're
in a number of overlays, as you can see on the top here, and we generated four refusals, although
I'll note they're all dimensional refusals, no use refusals. This is an application to renovate,
partially demolish, and then put a new addition on an existing single family home. So we have a
single family home, we will remain a single family home. I will walk you through each of
these refusals in a moment. Before I do that, just wanted to point out that we have a letter
of non -opposition from CDAG, who is the coordinating RCO. We also have, I believe,
non -opposition from the district councilman. We have here a letter of approval that will be
necessary if we proceed to building, which we intend to do, from the Philadelphia Historical
from the philadelphia historical commission i'll get into that in a moment as well
Commission. I'll get into that in a moment as well.
this is one image of the front and rear elevations of the proposed project
and looking at this you might think to yourself well that's a very tall building but what i want
to show you is that thanks to the hard work of our architect here we have this graphic which i
placed in my memo of law. Oh, and I'll add, by the way, the image I just showed you of the
elevations is also in my exhibits packet. But this image is in my memo of law in the exhibits packet,
and it shows you our building highlighted in yellow and some other buildings that are
immediately adjacent on our side of Front Street. And what you'll see is that our finished product,
But if you approve this variance and if we were to finish the project, it would really put us in line height -wise with most of our surrounding neighbors.
Again, we are the yellow block labeled 341 North Front.
I'll show you quickly.
These are two of our neighbors at 343 and 345 North Front.
This photo is also in my exhibit packet.
um you know we'd basically be building to this height um this is us to the to the right of those
taller buildings here currently um we'd be sort of chopping off i think what is currently the top
floor and adding two new floors and then 339 to our right um as i mentioned i also represent the
owners of that property i have a letter in my exhibit packet um that spells out their support
for our project. So let's go back to the refusal real quickly here. So first refusal of the four
listed here is for lot area. So one of the plans that we submitted to L &I that led us here is the
lot line relocation plan. There is already a party wall that separates 341 and 339 North Front Street.
And these are already two distinct legal parcels. The problem is that due to what I assume is a
surveying error from many years ago, the two properties, the party wall between them does not
line up with the legal boundary. And this is something that the survey district and L &I
wanted to see us correct. So while this is not really the crux of the project, if you will,
In the process of building this addition, we're going to fix the lot line by relocating it so it does run under the party wall.
And I believe that we'll be, therefore, seating about 40 square feet of space to 339 North Front in order to get that done.
As a result, in the refusal here, what the refusal tells you is that our lot at about 350 square feet would be smaller than it is now and well below the required lot area, 1440 square feet.
There's a hardship there in that if you look at the parcel map, which is also in the exhibit packet and is shown here on Atlas, you know, we really both before and after this relocation are pretty much the average sized lot on this block.
In fact, we may even be a touch larger than average.
Point is, on our side of Front Street on this block, only one of the 19 lots meets that 1440 square foot minimum.
So this is a very difficult code provision to comply with in this neighborhood.
It would basically cause the consolidation of these lots to be able to conform to that.
Therefore, that's a harsh. The next two items in the refusal are actually closely related.
So John Scorsone, who I mentioned is the owner of this property, owns a company called Solar America, and this is his home.
So John would like to put a solar collector on the roof to provide his own power for his electricity that he consumes in the house.
This is his business. It's also his personal passion and sort of the main driver in his life at this point.
So this is this is a passion project for him. And it's also about sustainability.
It just so happens that, as I showed you in my memo, you know, the amount of height that is required to sort of match up with the tallest buildings on the block would allow us to collect enough solar rays to provide meaningful power to the property.
to the property so the hardship with regard to height is that if we do not go above 38 feet
um so um the hardship with regard to
the codes maximum will be well below the average height of the block we also would have no
practical ability to collect sun rays with regard to the lack of the adequate solar collector setback
What I'm going to show you here is that we were asked on the top floor to hem in, basically put setbacks into the fourth floor, the planned fourth floor.
That request was made by the Architectural Committee of the Historical Commission.
Because we complied with it sort of for technical reasons, that meant that the solar collector was closer to the extremes of that fourth floor and it no longer conformed to the setback requirement for solar collectors.
And our initial proposal, it did conform to that requirement. But by listening to the demands of the Historical Commission, we were actually brought out of conformity with that rule on the setback of solar collectors.
And finally, with regard to the last refusal, we did not plan initially to have a roof deck.
In our initial proposal that was taken to the Historical Commission's Architectural Committee, we had no roof deck.
Instead, back to this zoning plan, the fourth floor came out flush to the building.
They asked us to push in that fourth floor in the front and rear, as I mentioned.
So that sort of created a dilemma. We were going to have space on top of the third floor roof on both sides. And we could either kind of make it uninhabitable or we could use it because it's going to be there anyway.
And we decided to turn that into roof decks. That's what triggered the fourth refusal. The hardship with regard to that refusal is the only way not to get that refusal, but to comply with the historical commission's demands is to make this unusable space.
That just seemed wasteful. Further, and I have some aerial photographs in the exhibit packet.
This is an aerial in front of you. If you look to both sides of our property, here we are.
I believe our building would be here. You can see that our neighbors have roof decks,
with the exception of 339 right next to us.
They seem to come out kind of very close
to the extreme front and rear building lines.
Sorry, extreme front building lines.
So our refusal there again
is that our roof deck wasn't set back far enough.
But our neighbors don't seem to conform to that rule.
The Historical Commission,
upon reviewing our revised proposal had no problem with how we were designing our roof deck.
Last thing I'll add, you'll see on this aerial, and you can also see on the zoning map in my packet,
that behind us is a very large parking lot, which I believe is slated at some point for the
construction of a condominium tower on at least part of it. In any event, it's zoned CMX3. So
So this means that the height of our building is not going to disturb anybody to the rear
because right now what's there is nothing and what would be allowed there by code would
be a much taller building.
So that's my presentation.
I have Rustin Aller from the architectural firm that designed the plans.
He can answer any questions you might have.
I have more architectural drawings and if you'd allow me, I'd like John Scorsone to
adopt my testimony okay let's get your client to raise his hand thank you john are you out there
could you could you raise your hand on zoom
mr scorzone has been allowed to speak sir okay could you state your name please and spell for
the court reporter yes it's john scorzone j -o -h -n -s -c -o -r -s -o -n -e right do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel
thank you mr chair john uh were you able to hear the full extent of my testimony today
i did and was it true and accurate yes and would you therefore be willing to adopt it as if it
were your own i would okay thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the
No, Mr.
virtual audience see 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
multi -family zoning at this location the unusually small lot sizes on this block present a clear
hardship for the dimensional variances being sought. The proposed lots and development
would be substantially in keeping with the other lots and buildings on the 300 block of North
Front Street. So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use of
dimensional variances. Thank you. MI 2022 -003 -384 -341 North Front Street. I vote yes proviso.
Her amended refusal dated 5 -25 -22.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2022 -003 -399 -1716 North Bodine Street.
Jennifer Tintifas is the attorney, letter of opposition from Old Kensington Neighborhood Association.
Hillary, do we have anything else?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I was just going to jump in.
We did, the applicant did provide a petition in support of three units signed by approximately 23 neighbors,
the majority of whom were on the adjacent street the 1700 block of North 3rd Street
we also received a letter of opposition from the 7th District Council Office. Okay thank you.
Good afternoon members of the board my name is Jennifer. Could you state your name please and
spell for the court reporter? Yes my name is Jennifer Tintinfoss J -E -N -N -I -F -E -R
last name is Tintin Foss, T as in Tom, I N as in Nancy, T as in Tom, E N as in Nancy,
F as in Frank, A S S as in Sam. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client,
the relationship to the property? Yes. My client is the owner of the real estate at 1716 North
Bodine and 1718 North Bodine. It's LTD 203 LLC. And the principles of that entity are on the call
today. Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions. Good afternoon. Do you agree to wave the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do subject any modifications or changes to
the refusal we might agree upon today. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership,
tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, voters 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, all of the
above. Okay, great. You may proceed and begin to share your screen. Thank you. Are you able to see
my screen? Yes. Good afternoon, members of the board, and an easy fast to those who observe
the holiday. My name is Jennifer Tittenfoss. I'm a partner with Royer Cooper Cohen -Bronfeld
and represent the applicant in this matter, an application for relief on 1716 and 18 North
Bodine Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. My address for the record is 100 North 18th Street,
Suite 710, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. We appear here before you today in connection
with our application for relief under Zoning 2022 -004 -184, meeting number 2022 -003399.
Our initial application was for four units, but after continued conversation with our neighbors,
and we have heard our neighbors, and we understand that while they would enjoy some density in this
RSA 5 neighborhood, three units would be a better fit, specifically two two -bedroom units and one
three -bedroom. We would be willing to revise our plans accordingly if the board was willing to
grant us such relief. In furtherance of our application, we collected over 20 -plus letters
of support for our project. Unfortunately, we did not receive a letter in support of our project
from our RCO, despite multiple meetings and revising our plans to meet their exact requests.
We hope that the 20 -plus neighbors, some with properties adjoining our subject property,
show that this project does in fact have community support.
Some of these neighbors also mentioned that they had trouble accessing the RCO meeting Zoom.
Some of these neighbors also mentioned that they had trouble accessing the RCO meeting Zoom
despite attempting to attend. In connection with today's application, of course, you'll find our
submission, which was submitted per the requirements of the board, confirmation of all of our submissions
to the L &I, including the initial application, all applications for appeals, completed accelerated
review, and confirmation and receipt of the same. I've also included our project information form
and copies of the vesting deeds, along with releases of deed restrictions related to
the prior ownership of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation.
As we're representing the applicant, there's no requirement here for us to
include any authorization letters. Of course, we included tax compliance and copies of the plans
which had initially been submitted to L &I. As you will note, all the plans submitted include
the four -unit development initially contemplated here, three -story building with roof deck,
the exterior, which you can see here, which we thought was a nice placement, especially with
the facade alongside the other neighborhood, the properties in this neighborhood.
I'd also like to just for a quick moment show you photos of the exterior, the thought, which
course, is a vacant lot. And as you'll notice, all of our zoning hearing notices were posted
well in advance as required by the code. You can see our zoning notice.
So as you know, we sent out notices in advance of our meeting with our RCO and we held multiple
meetings. Second meeting, revised series of plans, proof of bulk mailing for all of our recipients.
And as mentioned, though we were unable to receive a letter in support of our application here today, we did receive significant number of signatures by those neighbors in support of our petition.
This petition in particular would relate to reducing the unit size here to three units, two two -bedroom units and one three -bedroom units.
As you'll see, there's quite a number of signatures, and even in advance of this meeting, I received additional signatures and support, which I would be happy to provide with the board, including Heather Rice, who is actually the individual who sold the property to the applicant and owns a property that's directly and sits right behind our property.
um just a little bit more information location of our property and some additional photos here
of various and very available street parking in and around the neighborhood
and somebody's very cute dog here in this photo um another thing i just wanted to note um
is that in here there should be a photo showing all of our oh sorry right here so this is the
petition, letters of support from all of our neighbors, which you just saw. But I'd like to
get to the very last page here if you just bear with me one moment. So this little chart will
show you all of the individual neighbors who have signed a petition in support of our project,
which is located here at 1716 and 1718. So as you'll notice, it's not even just our near neighbors,
but rear neighbors located here. And we feel pretty confident that this really is in line
with the type of density and development
that these neighbors would expect
and hope for within this neighborhood.
Also, just a quick list
of some of our testifying witnesses.
And I'm happy to go into additional depth
with respect to the design plans and ideas here.
But at this time, if it's okay with the board,
I'd like to introduce one of the principals
of the applicant, Ben Reese.
Sure, he's going to adopt your testimony?
Yes, he is.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Reese has been allowed to speak, sir.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Ben Reese, R -E -I, sorry, Ben, B -E -N, Reese, R -E -I -S -S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Hi, Ben.
I understand you've heard my testimony here today.
Do you accept that it is true and accurate?
Yes. And further, do you accept my testimony as your own?
Yes. Thank you. And Ben, just for the record, can you note your current home address and your
location as it is to this property, subject property? 1763 North 3rd Street. If you were
on that map, the Atlas map, I am the top left corner at the corner of Montgomery and 3rd Street.
Okay, thank you, Ben. Also on this call, we have our architect, Logan Dry from KCI Design Associates.
um also on this call we have our architect logan dry from kca design associates um if the board
needs to hear anything i think i think we're okay with the design factors so so uh i'm gonna have
questions for the board but here's my first question for you on the block where this is
your side of the street how many more multi -family units are there man are you still on
yes i'm i'm on um on bodine street how many how many multi -family units uh on bodine street there's
only currently three buildings uh 1712 which is uh bert's home uh who is a neighbor that is a
single family there are two current uh zoning variances for duplexes at 1706 and 1708
okay okay excuse me mr chairman questions questions for the board yes yes mr chairman
what does he mean by current variances
he mentioned that i know i you're saying you know of people that applied for variance is
that what you're saying no uh there are currently uh zoning permits my apologies there's a currently
a zoning permit at uh i believe 1706 and 1708 i believe are the two and they're both duplexes
yes sir thomas is anything else
other questions from the board
no mr chairman no
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time, sir.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Let's see.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Let me revise that.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change to residential multifamily at this location.
However, in 2021, a community requested zoning map change recommended, and the commission supported a change in this block to residential single -family.
And so that's why we now have single -family zoning on this block.
The applicant has two lots, both undersized for residential single -family use, but still buildable under the code if they remain separated.
If combined, the lots equal 1 ,176 square feet, large enough for only one dwelling unit under the zoning code.
So there's no unique physical condition of these lots that will prevent them from being used for one dwelling unit each or one dwelling unit as combined.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the use variance for the three dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -003 -399 -1716 North Bodine Street.
I vote no. Harold Tenere, my vote is no. Thomas Hallamon, my vote is no. James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no. Say that again as you trailed off. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Number seven, MI 2021 -004 -009 -322 West Coulter Street. Bernard Studevan is the tenant applicant pro se. Letter of non -opposition from Solo Germantown.
yes mr chair this is hillary we also um we did receive a letter of support from the coordinating
rco 12th board democratic committee um and a position of support from councilwoman tindy bath
thank you mr studevin
mr studevin if you're still a part of the virtual audience please raise your hand
Okay, Mr. Chair, Mr. Studevan will be rejoining us as a panelist soon.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Studevan.
Could you unmute yourself?
good afternoon how are you hi hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
bernard studovan b -e -r -n -a -r -d s -t -u -d -e -v -a -n right do you swear firm to tell the truth the
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do
Yes, I do.
I don't know.
Do you have your camera?
There you go.
Okay, perfect.
Thank you, sir.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, okay?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of 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 I do okay this is an application for a personal vehicle repair
and maintenance in an existing garage on the same lot with all other uses as previously approved
there's one use refusal the proposed personal vehicle repair and maintenance is prohibited
in this zoning district so now you may proceed and share your screen please okay um green button
at the bottom yep i'm in can you see it oh not yet no chair here we go we're good we're good okay
so the okay so now you're going to have to go and do the individual documents you have there right
Yes. I need to get rid of you guys over here.
Let's see.
I don't know how to get rid of this.
How do we close this over here on the corner?
Right there. Okay.
Okay, so what we have here is, okay, so here is the property.
Okay, could you open it for us, please?
Okay, so this location of property, 322 West Coulter.
But we need to see it.
It's not opening yet.
Sir, what you're displaying is your files. You will have to basically stop sharing and
then once you have the file that you're trying to present open, then you can start sharing
again.
Okay. Stop sharing. Okay, there we go.
And now click on the document that you want us to see.
okay this does only notice um you haven't started sharing again
so you will go back to the um green button at the bottom of your screen
click the share screen button
and once you click the uh green share screen button click on the document you want us to
see and then hit share no i don't even see it
can you see it something comes up now um and we're looking at your zoom
Okay. All right. So, let's do this.
Okay. Let's try it now. All right. So, this is the address of the property. Can you say it now?
Yes. Okay. Here we go. Okay. So, this is the
address of the property, the photo of the front of the property. All right. This is from the
atlas okay all right so let's close that let's go into this is your poster
uh talking about the zoom meeting that we're having today i assume okay so let's get out of
that. Okay. This is, what is this? This is not one. Okay. Let's get rid of that.
Yeah. This is the image of your posters.
Okay. That's where you posted, right?
yes okay all right all right so go back go mr student and go back to the property shelf show
All right.
All right.
Thank you.
me the property again okay let's see are you still there can you see it yeah i'm here i'm here okay
all right so the property is the property all right this is the property from inside the back
of the shop. All right. Leave that on a minute. Okay. So tell me what you, what you, have you
had this property for a while? This property has been in my, my father's owned this property for
over 50 years. Okay. It has been a garage since 1927 prior to my father. It was a blacksmith shop
in 1927 then it turned into a mechanical shop my father has owned this property since the 70s
okay it has always been an auto repair shop um uh we had a l and i person come by here
and we got a bunch of fines okay things to do which we complied with okay um we need a
change of use right okay property all right so so you're here today to change the use
correct this has been a garage for 50 years correct you went to the rco correct you presented
to them and the RCO agreed with you. Correct. Okay. Also, the council person had somebody at
the RCO meeting and they agreed with you. Correct. Okay. Okay. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands mr chair okay planning commission thank you mr chairman david vecto
city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single
family zoning at this location however this auto repair shop is a long -standing non -conforming use
purpose built as a garage the property is shown as a gasoline service station on the 1942 works
progress administration land use map for the city of Philadelphia. So the continuation of
this non -conforming use will not impair the use of surrounding properties and the city planning
commission recommends the board grant the use variance. Okay so MI 2021 -004 -009 -322 West
Colter Street I vote yes. Carol Tenere my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman my vote is yes. James Snell
my vote is yes thank you mr student and good luck and congratulations thank you so much i appreciate
it thank you have a great day okay um mi 2022 004 843 15 16 18 north marston street
brandon saffron
mr saffron's coming back in as a panelist
hello again mr chairman all right you've already been sworn just state your name please
sure brandon saffron okay could you identify your client in relationship to this property
Yes. My client is the owner of the property. That is 1516 -1518 Marston, LLC. And Matt Mullen, who is its principal, is here today to adopt my testimony.
I understand also Brewery Town Shardswood Civic Association has sent a letter of support.
Yes, that's correct.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
My name is Mr. Savron. Do you agree to raise the reading of the refuse once to feel it to its accuracy?
Madam Vice Chair, I do agree to waive the reading. I can't stipulate to its accuracy for one
relatively minor reason, which is although the reason for the refusal is correct, it cites the
wrong code section. It's really not particularly relevant to the issue at hand, but that's why
it's not 100 % accurate. 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 hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all those
questions okay great you may proceed and begin with sharing your screen thank you okay thank you
Okay. So I do have a parcel map in my exhibit packet, so you can see it on Atlas, a little bit more zoomed out. The subject property is on Marston Street. This is in North Philadelphia between 27th and 28th Street, just above Jefferson Street.
okay um so uh i do have a
you can see that as compared to most of the other block properties but not all on our side of the
street it is a double wide lot the address with the dash in it indicates although I do not have
proof that it perhaps used to be two lots so we are here today as this refusal indicates
looking to turn it back into two lots the refusal is correct when it says that the required lot
areas are 1440 square feet each our proposed lot areas would be 1399 square feet each as i mentioned
the only reason that the refusal is not accurate is because it its citation indicates that the
requirement comes from the base zoning but in fact the requirement is established by the zoning
overlay, the fifth district zoning overlay. So here is the lot line relocation plan that we
submitted. This is in the packet and on the left hand side is the existing conditions. You've got
about a 2 ,800 square foot lot. Here are the proposed conditions where we would separate that
into two parcels. The only thing that really makes this a particularly interesting,
Oh, I'm sorry. Before I move on to that, here is the letter of support that the chairman mentioned from Brewery Sharswood Community Civic.
This, I think on the first page, there you go, they indicate that there is a total vote of 13 in support, zero in opposition, and one person in non -opposition.
I attended that meeting along with Matt Mullen, who is here today.
So what makes this application interesting, and I'll keep this short, is also the reason for the hardship, which is the homes, and that's homes with an S, there are two of them on one property, are already there, and you are looking at them.
And we are proposing, members of the board, to draw that subdivision line right down the party wall.
Why are they there?
Well, it's a little difficult to say exactly what happened, but my client, before he engaged me, and my client is an experienced builder in Philadelphia, applied for zoning permits to construct those two homes.
And they were granted. On your screen right now and in the packet is a zoning permit for the home on the left -hand side. There you go. You can see 1516 Marston Street indicated for the new construction of a single -family home.
here is his zoning plan stamped by L &I it clearly shows both homes and a subdivision line down the
middle here's a separate permit for the home on the right hand side also got a stamped plan for
that it's the same plan but with a distinct stamp to make a long story short for some reason and it
It may be because the requirement comes from the overlay, which is a relatively new overlay.
Ellen and I initially permitted the construction of these homes, even though they do fall just short of the minimum lot area requirement.
So after getting those zoning permits, my client proceeded to get a building permit for each property.
I'll try and be even quicker, but here's the building permit for the left -hand side home.
There are, I think, 17 -page building plan sets.
Every page is stamped by L &I.
So he got all the way to the point where these things were largely built as per his building
permits, and then what happened, and I'll go over here to my memo of law, which I'm
going to discuss in a moment.
What seems to have happened is when he got to the OPA stage of getting new tax parcel IDs at the very end of the subdivision process, OPA noticed that his zoning permit didn't specifically say the word subdivision.
And then Al and I, when approached, noticed that they shouldn't have issued those zoning permits to begin with.
So I think that there were mistakes, innocent mistakes made by the city and by my...
mistakes, innocent mistakes made by the city and by my client. But to make a long story short,
there's two homes on what is still one property. And my client thought he had permission from the
city to subdivide them. He did not, lo and behold. So he's seeking that permission today.
So why don't we have your testimony at Dr. Brink?
Sure. That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Matt Mullen, again, is the principal's name.
so mullen if you're in the audience please raise your virtual hand
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
it's matthew m -a -t -t -h -e -w m -u -l -l -e -n all right do you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel matthew um were you able to hear
the full extent of my testimony in your case today? Yes. And was it true and accurate to the
best of your knowledge? Yes, it was. And would you therefore adopt it as your own? Yes. Thank you.
And Mr. Chair, last thing I'll add is that the deficiency of the lot area for each lot that
we're discussing is 3%. So while I do believe there is a hardship, even if there is not,
The board is, in theory, entitled to grant variances under the de minimis variance standard.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see anything else, Mr. Chair.
Community Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
David Decto, City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this
location the applicant is proposing to create two single -family lots each of which will be within
three percent of the required lot area the proposed lot sizes are within the range of average lot
sizes on the block the proposal substantially conforms with the recommendations of the
comprehensive plan as the buildings already exist and were built with permits the strict adherence
to the code would cause a hardship for the applicant. So the City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the dimensional variances. Thank you. MI 2022 -004 -843 -1516 -18
North Marston Street. I vote yes. Harold Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
jane snell my vote is yes thank you very much my vote is yes thank you thank you council so we
have one more case left uh before the 3 30 list i'm going to do this we'll take a five minute
break after that and then we only have one or two cases left okay so number 10 mi 2022
22 -003 -274, 1231 -33 Walnut Street. Alexander Barth is the attorney, coordinating RCO,
Washington Square Civic Association, advised applicants through email that the board had
vote in non -opposition of this proposal. Also, there's a letter of non -opposition from Councilman
Mark Squilla. Council Barth. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. We did receive the formal recommendation
of non -opposition from the coordinating RCO. Thank you. Thank you, Council. Thank you very
much, Chairman and members of the Board. Alexander Barth of Cohen, Seglius, Palace,
Green Hall, and Furman here on behalf of the applicant in this matter, which is Midtown
chocolatiers llc we are i'm here with laurie smith on behalf of the applicant as well as scopic
kett of kilwins the franchisor for this space um and jamie mcdonald from the contractor just
for the sake of the record could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
sure it is alex alex barth b is in boy a r t is in tom h is in harry right do you swear
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Our vice chair has
a few questions. Good afternoon. Do you agree to leave 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 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? Affirmative to all
of those. With the exception of the letters, the two letters, both from Washington Square West and
from Councilman Squilla's office came after the submission of our packet. Okay, thank you. You
may proceed and begin to share your screen. Thank you very much. Let me just
all right, members of the board.
all right members of the board um let me just get in here
so we are here on a referral for a special exception based on the supplemental use controls
of 14502 the property we are discussing today is 1231 through 33 walnut street
that is a first floor retail space at the corner of walnut and 13th fronting on 13th street um
just as preliminaries going through this packet you have submitted to the board our initial eclipse
application for zoning approval for the operation of midtown chocolatiers will be proposing to
operate a Kilwins chocolate shop. That is a retail space that will sell both custom -made chocolates
made on site, as well as pre -packaged chocolates, candy apples, nuts, other confections, as well as
handmade ice cream that will be made on site. Some stuff will be delivered, other stuff will
actually be made on the premises in this location. Exhibit B is the refusal, as just stipulated to,
for the proposed eating and drinking establishment and a takeout restaurant. This initial refusal
was given because of the takeout component and the nature of the business that's going to be
done. It's a chocolate shop. Some people could eat in there, but generally people are going to
picking up goods and walking out the door with it. Ellen and I saw fit because of the nature to
give it the referral for a special exception. Exhibit C is our application for a special
exception, and D would be the project information form as submitted. The applicant today is a lessee,
the tenant of the commercial space on the first floor of this building. We have attached as
exhibit D a copy of, or exhibit E is a copy of the lease with Empire Building Partners for that
space. Exhibit F is not applicable. I apologize for the error from our copy center. G being the
tax clearance certification for the applicant Midtown Chocolatiers. H is a copy of the plan.
This is an internal diagram or a plan of the internal components of this store to the right
of that plan as you are looking at it is the frontage on 13th Street. Council, we're just
still seeing your content. Why don't you put that up? What you're saying now, why don't you put that
up for us? You can't see that? No, we don't. We're still seeing your table of contents.
Sir, this is Pauline from IT. Do you have two screens or one? I have one up.
so you can try um unsharing opening up the next exhibit or the next page and then resharing
all right let me
my screen
let me just see
why is this can you guys see the exhibits that i'm seeing right now that i'm scrolling through
no no this is frustrating so if you just open an exhibit one of the exhibits
and then click share and click on that exhibit when it asks what you want to share
it's just it keeps defaulting to the same it's giving me the option to share multiple screens
And what I'm going to do here is, unfortunately, close out of these screens.
And maybe try closing this one.
Over on the left -hand side, all those exhibits.
Right. Yes.
can you click on any of those and open it are you seeing these if you scroll down i think we will
what i'm looking at is i'm i'm scrolling right now that's that's it that's that's where you're
gonna have to go that's nice you're going to scroll right now okay we're good all right
perfect all right so you i'm i will quickly accelerate through this so not to to waste
any additional time um what he just shows the picture you talked about so we have an internal plan
of the existing space there is going to be no change or alteration to the physical layout
internal of this existing commercial unit this is 13th street the frontage on 13th street there
will be an entrance coming in off of 13th street where you're going to see what are essentially
the internal components of this chocolate shop a preparation area to the right upon entrance
a preparation area to the right upon entrance that you'll be able to view across countertops.
that you'll be able to view across
You're going to have an area for concessions, essentially display cases. These are additional
display cases on either side for a traditional retail shop to sell confections. In the back
is going to be preparation areas where they will have ice cream, cold ice cream that they have
produced available for sale, as well as other preparation. This is not a heavy industrial
kitchen, just a basic kind of a smaller grade facility. They have a freezer in the back,
mechanical rooms, an office, and wash sinks. So this is utilizing the existing space as you
see it today. And in that space, as it appears today, conforming it just to be a chocolate shop.
It was an existing retail space prior to this. I believe it was a boutique. And its adjacent neighbors are consistent with this up and down both Walnut and on 13th Street, Insomnia Cookie, Sampan, restaurants, other facilities of that nature.
going to exhibit j
um i will say we did submit and attach to for the purposes of this hearing today
a small proviso plan an adjustment from our original plan um that would just incorporate
um a single
flat top table for four person seating to allow a guest to sit here the original refusal is for
for food preparation, dining, this would just incorporate the idea of allowing us to have
one single table to allow guests or members of a family who's wandering around to be able to sit
while others are shopping in the store. Additionally, an addition of a hand washing sink
and a separation door to keep patrons out from going in here. I don't believe those two are
part of zoning though. Just for the internal seating component of it though, that is a proviso
So that we have submitted for the board's consideration are posting photographs again are exhibit J posting at the property exhibit I apologize for the delay in this.
um sorry k is the interior photographs of the existing space this was the prior boutique it is
what i would consider right now to be a plain vanilla box um this is the existing space looking
out towards 13th street um again the the layout the interior format obviously will be configured
to be the shop um and so the board members can see when looking at the um posting of the zoning
photographs this is the existing storefront so when you are on 13th street facing east
you are facing the empire building um this portion of the store of the building this commercial space
is the space we are looking at down to the right over here is an alley owned by the commercial
building owner that is to house external trash which will be done by commercial pickup um for
this facility um so this is the the general nature of 13th street in the area we believe that a
Kilwin's Chocolate Shop will be a valuable addition to the street commerce on the existing
street frontage. Exhibit K, again, are the interior photos. Exhibit L is the documentation
regarding our zoning hearing, our RCO meeting. We met with the Washington Square West RCO on July
26th via a Zoom meeting. We provided in this exhibit all of our proofs of mailing of all the
notices together with that and the councilman's office um giving them uh advising them of the
community meeting um where we addressed questions and concerns directly with the neighbors um to
which there were no additional questions um so mr barth why don't you have your testimony adopted
all right sure um if laurie could you raise your hand laurie smith on behalf of the applicant
hi laurie could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter
Yes, it's Lori L -O -R -I Smith, S -M -I -T -H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Lori, were you able to hear my testimony in full today?
I did.
Was the testimony I gave before this board truthful?
And to the extent of your knowledge?
yes would you adopt your my testimony as your own if you were speaking today yes i would thank you
Would you adopt my testimony as your own if you were speaking today?
Yes, I would.
very much okay questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
no further happens mr chair okay planning commission thank you mr chairman and good
afternoon david testo city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the commercial mixed use five zoning at this location. The applicant has shown that the
proposed takeout restaurant will have no more of an impact than a takeout restaurant would be
expected to have. The city planning commission recommends that the board approve the special
exception. Hillary, we have no enforceable provisos, right? We've had no requests for
improvise those on this case now okay MI 2022 003 274 1231 to 33 Walnut Street I vote yes
Harold Tenere my vote is yes Thomas Holland my vote is yes James Snell my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you thank you counsel thank you very much
So why don't, why don't, was that, was that with the proviso plan allowing for the four
additional seating?
So I, the question I raised are Hillary, Hillary.
Yes, I'm here.
So that was the question I had, but we don't think that's an enforceable, right?
The table.
So let me ask Mr. Barth, were there changes?
So were there plans submitted to L &I with this application?
This is a change of use, correct?
This is a change of use that received the referral based upon the use.
Okay, so there were no plans that were required to be submitted.
That internal plan that you are looking at, the component plan, was submitted to L &I, just for the board's understanding.
The original plan without the seating was submitted.
That is why we are here today.
it was resubmitted to the board um in a secondary application by the applicant um previously that
is actually scheduled to come before this board for the seating in december okay so that is a
separate application with the seating okay all right then we're fine thank you thank you okay
so we're going to take a five minute break and then we should have a short period of time we'll
Thank you, Mr. Barth.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Lekesha, how do we look?
Mr. Kelly, are you back?
Yes, I am.
okay i think we're ready to go let me know when
here we are good to go whenever you're ready yeah why don't we start oh i'm sorry
oh we are recording sir okay good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this
330 ZBA hearings. With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair. Present, Mr. Chairman. Ismael 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 with us is our board
attorney Hillary Emerson and Lakeisha Dandy, our ZBA supervisor. Our virtual format, be advised
the proceedings are being recorded. By participating, new knowledge agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at philo .gov. For benefit of our
court stenography, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testify. If you are
participating in my 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. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is now for
It's not for comments or testimony. Any comments should be directed to our Executive Director,
comments or testimony. Any comments should be directed to our executive director.
Tanya Sumpit. So let's look at this afternoon's continuances. Number two, MI 2021 -005 -086 -5900
Harveston Avenue. That case is continued. And number four, MI 2022 -002 -962 -4213 Germantown Avenue.
That case is continued. Mark, must be tried. Are there any other requests for continuances
or comments about the two cases that are continued?
i do not see any hands mr chair okay i also have three cases that we do not have exhibits for
number one mi 2022 002 951 2683 roberts avenue michael powell is the owner we do not have
exhibits. This is the first listing. Mr. Powell. Mr. Chair, Ms. Hilary Langer has her hand raised.
Okay. I'll allow her to speak. Sure.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
This is Mr. Hilary Langer. I didn't understand that.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter?
H -I -L -A -R -Y -L -A -N -G -E -R.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And you were involved with 2683 Roberts?
Are you from East Falls Community Council?
Yes, I am chair of East Falls Community Council Zoning Committee.
Have you met yet?
Yes, we did meet and we are providing a letter of support for the project. Mr. Powell is the owner of 2683 Roberts Avenue. He's not very familiar with this process and he communicated with me in an email that he sent me the exhibits and he failed to send it to you.
okay all right so here here's what mr mr langer this is what we'll do we're going to we're going
to continue the case and what i want mr powell to do is to call the office there are people
in the zoning board office who can help him and make sure he has everything to to go forward the
next time okay yep and mr langer thanks for calling in and offering that support to us
okay okay thank you sir so mi 2022 002 951 2683 roberts that case is continued
number five mi 2021 005 277 221 east waldie street uh estate heart and colin trainer are
listed owners. We have no exhibits. This is the second listing.
Any hands? Mr. Chair, I do not see any hands. Okay. So MI 2021 -005 -277 -221 East Wilder Street.
This case is continued. Mark must be tried.
Number six, MI 2021 005281 7054 Rutland Street. Guillermo Moran is the listed applicant,
no exhibits, second listing.
Anything?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, who was the individual's name again?
Guillermo Moran is the listed applicant, and there's also Junbin Lee and Lee Guangli, listed owners.
Okay, I do not see them in the virtual audience.
Okay, so MI 2021 -005 -281 -7054 Rutland Street. Cases continued. Mark must be tried.
We're going to go to our regular list here. Number three, MI 2022 -003 -391 -1538 Wadsworth Avenue.
Brandon Saffron is the attorney coordinating RCO 50th Democratic Board did not.
um coordinating rco 50th democratic ward did not take a position
brandon
going back in as a panelist sir okay good afternoon
uh good afternoon brandon um could you just state your name for the record yes my name is
Brandon Saverin. And I apologize, my baby son is crying in the background, just in case.
Definitely, you can have that. Okay. Could you identify your client and their relationship to
the property? Yes. So I represent the tenant in this case, who is Soiree's LLC, and the
managing principal, Shanice Allen, who is here today. Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Brandon, do you agree to waive 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 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. And I
have a lease in the packet since Shanice is a tenant. Okay. You may proceed and begin to share
your screen. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon again, members of the board. So this is a
application for a special exception. On my screen is a copy of our referral to the ZBA,
which as it says, is for assembly and entertainment use. This is a tenant space in a block that has
no residences. It's actually, you know, we're up in sort of like the West Oak Lane area.
And this is the type of block, as I'll show you in a minute, that has single level structures that
are purely commercial, so all businesses on this block. And in this space, Shanice operates an
event space and that use falls under assembly and entertainment and requires a special exception.
I'm going to actually go through my exhibit packet in the classic style here, but we'll try
to do so quickly. I just breezed by our application and our project information form. This is Shanice's
tax clearance cert. Said she's a tenant in this property. Here's her lease. We're going to fly
through that. Here's the zoning map. Shows that the parcel is CMX2, which again means that this
use is permitted but by special exception. These aerial photographs show you that there is
actually a parking lot that serves this side of the block that Shanice and her customers have
access to. So I'm not going to walk through all of the requirements for a special exception as
those are laid out in my application and memo, but sort of not impacting traffic and causing
congestion is one of those qualifications. And having access to this parking lot is certainly
very favorable to us in terms of not causing those problems. Here's another aerial map that
kind of indicates the names of some of the businesses on the block. Again, you'll see that
parking lot in the rear. This is the front of her property. You will see our zoning posters in these
photos. And in this one in particular, you can kind of see what I'm talking about. These are all
low -level structures with tenants, no residences. So the chairman did mention the letter that we
got from the RCO. I'm going to come back to that in one moment. We'll address it though.
We have about a half dozen letters of support. I think one is from a nearby resident, but the others are from the other business operators and or property owners on this block.
So Shanice is really supported in her efforts here by others who run businesses on this block.
This letter, just to pick one at random, is from a doctor, Dr. Harris, who practices on this block.
and Shanice actually has a couple business owners on the line in the event you'd like to hear from
them they're attending this hearing today I have a link in the packet to a video of the interior
of the tenant space but just to save time I actually pulled out still images from the video
Still images from the video. So here is that rear parking lot at street level.
so here is that rear parking lot at street level
Shanice has a rear door with direct access to this parking lot.
This is the back of her space, which is sort of a preparation area.
It has two bathrooms off to the right here. There's one, there's two.
This is the same space, but from the opposite angle. So you're looking at the back door.
This is a kitchenette.
This is not a full kitchen.
It's not for cooking, but it's just for food preparation and service.
And this probably is the most important photo.
This is the front of house.
This is the event space.
So there's that kitchenette I showed you.
She has a really nice decorative wall that separates the front of house space from the back prep space.
Has put a lot of time and effort into renovating this.
this was last an office. It was unfortunately not permitted as an office. So Shanice is sort of
playing the role of fixing the permitting here. That's why we're here. But this is what she has
built out. And now let me go back up to that RCO letter. And that'll be the last exhibit I touch on.
So this is our RCO letter. The RCO, as the chairman mentioned, chose not to take a position
or as they put it, they did not reach agreement. I attended the RCO meeting with Shanice. Letter
notes there's 17 people that were in attendance. I have no reason to believe that's not accurate.
And there are really extensive comments made by the RCO zoning chairwoman on the second and third
page. I honestly believe that these are comments that really lean in our favor. I will try not to
read them word for word, but just to sort of pick through some of them. This comment mentions the
back parking lot and how that is useful. This talks about the tenant Shanice's experience in
this area as she already has an event venue in Germantown, a couple miles away that she's
successfully run for a couple years, six years. There you go. I believe that there are comments
on the hours that she runs. There are comments on the fact that she does not have a liquor license
so that if somebody wants to serve alcohol, she provides a state certified bartender who is there
to serve. Her father owns a security company. So this comment number 10 speaks to that and says
that one of her employees whether or not they're bartending would be at every event and this is
never a problem because she can tap into her father's company to get a security guard if she
can't be there herself or provide one herself you know that that's sort of the gist of the comments
I did not find them particularly negative I think that the no position was perhaps taken just because
the vote was sort of a split vote. But this is a special exception. So unless you find that
the proposed venue is going to operate in a way that is abnormally hazardous or disruptive to the
community, the law says it should be approved. And this last paragraph here, I just want to point
out, the chairwoman herself was a little upset that Shanice had already been throwing events in
this space. So her landlord nor her understood when she signed this lease that a special exception
was required. It's a hardship to the landlord not to collect rent while we waited for this hearing
for a great many months. As such, the landlord and Shanice decided that they were going to throw
these events with the community you know process going on at the same time um that's what's been
happening and i'm happy to answer any questions about that she has rave reviews of the facility
there's been no sort of bad occurrence that's happened at the property um it's it's been a
smash hit so far been very successful and safe and calm um so as i mentioned um i can walk through
any of that the letters of support we gathered i do have at least two folks who uh live at or
operate businesses nearby who would like to testify why don't we why don't we have your
testimony adopted sure okay so shanice if you're out there could you please raise your hand so the
board can call on you he's been allowed to speak sir okay could you state your name and spell it
please for the court reporter?
Nath Allen, S -H -A -N -E -S -E -A -L -L -E -N.
A -L -L -E -N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Shanice, were you able to hear my testimony about your case today?
And was it true and accurate?
And would you be willing to adopt it as if it were your own testimony?
Thank you very much.
And Shanice, Mr. Chairman, really is happy to answer any questions.
okay all right so questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
so there's a mr david simmons whose hand was raised i have a lot of time to speak
hi sir could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter
uh yes good afternoon my name is david sims and it's d -a -v -i -d -s -i -m -m -s right do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed sir
so i am the proprietor and artist of eatable delights catering and i reside i don't reside
I own the building right next door at 1540 Wadsworth Avenue.
I'm also the president of the Wadsworth Avenue Business Association.
And I just wanted to testify on behalf of Shanice to say that since she has been there, she has been a wonderful tenant, a wonderful neighbor.
All the businesses on the block are in support of this banquet hall being there.
There's a separate entrance that comes out to the back with a multiple parking space slot in the back of our buildings.
We have a lot that has 129 spaces.
So parking is not an issue.
And she has a dumpster behind her building.
And as far as I know, that she's done everything that she's supposed to do.
And there have been no nuisances or outbreaks.
so we welcome her as a new business into our corridor. Okay thank you Mr. Simms thank you
very much for calling in and thank you for your comments. Is there anyone in the virtual audience?
Anyone else? I do not see any hands at this time Mr. Chair. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon I'm Paula Brumbelow -Burns with the Planning Commission.
I have not been sworn in. Okay could you spell your name for the court reporter please?
b -r -u -m -b -e -l -o -w right and then b -u -r -n -s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed uh this property is indicated for
commercial use on the city plan given the documented evidence of this site conditions
and surrounding use context we recommend that the requested special exception be granted
Thank you very much. MI -2022 -003 -391 -1538 Wadsworth Avenue, I vote yes.
Harold Sinner, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. Number seven, MI 2022 -002 -961 -2920 -North 21st Street. Letter of support from Upper North
neighbors. Jeffrey Young is the attorney. Mr. Chair, I also wanted to let you know that we
received a letter of support from Swampoodle Neighborhood Parcels Association and affected
rco um requesting um provisos we also were notified that councilwoman cindy bass is in
non -opposition to this application um hillary did we did we receive the information on the tax
clearance yes the the tax issue has been straightened out okay good good mr young
yes uh good afternoon board uh for young i hear representing the owner 2920 north 21st street
mr tyrone stooks um i share my screen hi mr young could you state your name and spell for
the court reporter sorry can everyone hear me we can oh yes jeffrey young uh j -e -f -f -e -r -y
y -o -u -n -g do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes could could you identify your client please yes my client is mr tyrone stooks owner of the
property okay and and our vice chair has just a few questions for you hi mr young do you agree
Hi, Mr. Young. Do you agree to leave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
away with the reading of the refusal and stipend.
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?
So an exhibit packet was emailed out. However, in the exhibit packet was not the tax clearance. The tax clearance system was down. However, as Emerson indicated, we did have the opportunity to tax clearance and submit that to Ms. Emerson. We did meet for the RCO and we do have a letter.
Okay, you may proceed and begin sharing your screen.
Thank you.
The board, my name is Jeffrey Young.
I'm here today to present a variance request for 2920 North
21st Street.
The owner of the property again is named Mr. Tyrone Stukes.
This property is located in the North Philadelphia neighborhood
of the city. Just want to skip forward. Here is the deed to the property indicating my client
became the owner of the property in 2018. Here, I just want to start off with a petition in support
of our use. We have a total of 48 signatures from folks in and around the neighborhood
where the property lies. Here is just a copy of our letter that we sent out to the neighbors
letting them know that associated with our variance request. And to get to our variance,
we have applied for a multifamily use particular property that is designated as RSC -5.
We are refused because multifamily household living is prohibited in this district.
Specifically, again, we are asking for five units in this current existing structure.
I'm just going to run through real quick.
This is just proof that we mailed the notification letters out.
And I'm going to get to the presentation.
So there currently exists, there currently is a permit for a single family home, single family use rather, on this particular property.
However, my client, Mr. Stukes, obtained this permit because of the when he bought the property.
Um, given the fact that, uh, you know, the property is so large, um, my client, uh, in trying to save, uh, you know, time and money, um, uh, you know, renting this property, um, he realized that a single family home, uh, was just, was not feasible, uh, given the size of the property.
So if I may, the board, endorse the board, this property is approximately, the lot size rather, is 2 ,550 square feet.
And the structure itself is well over 3 ,000 square feet.
This property has never been used as a single -family home dating back to the 1930s.
In fact, this property was used as a nightclub since 1936. Again, these are just permits for the board's recollection, you know, to show that it has been used as a social club or a nightclub since, you know, the almost 100 years now.
um here just to give this
at the height of the club um there were a total of 322 persons
a lot gives them a sense of the size
to afford uh you know over 300 people um inside
again this is the property description uh just to show the board again the improvement area itself
is uh 3 476 uh square feet again later
excuse me sir um we're losing you a little bit if you want you could turn off your video and keep
um we're losing you a little bit if you want you could turn off your video
and keep screen sharing and that might help
screen sharing.
Jeffrey did you hear that
Why don't you shut your video off and just try to talk?
Jeffrey?
It seemed like we lost him, Chair.
Yeah, I'm wondering if he's trying to call back in.
I noticed. Yes, can you hear me now? Yeah, we can. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm going to continue. So can you see my screen? We can, sir.
Okay, thank you. So again, the proposed use is five units. The breakdown is two units on the first floor. The first floor front unit will consist of a studio. The rear unit will be a two bedroom.
You know, the third floor will be three studio units. Again, my client is from this neighborhood and spoke with folks in the neighborhood to see which type of housing was desired.
And to be honest, there were a lot of single folks looking for affordable units in this area.
So, and in keeping with the configuration of the building regarding where the bathrooms are, or where rather it was better to provide these types of units at the property.
To give the board a sense of where we are, again, this is the North Philadelphia neighborhood.
We're close by the 22nd Street Commercial Corridor.
So, again, the added units here will help support the 22nd Street Commercial Corridor.
given the sense of the zoning, the zoning for the entire area is RSA5. And as I'll show on some
pictures, there are no, every use on our side of North 21st Street is a non -conforming use. There
are no single family homes on our side of North 24th Street. Here's a picture of our property,
again uh to the to both sides to the north and south of our property uh our vacant lots
further down the block is a warehouse and an auto shop use again just gives a sense of the block here
directly across the street there is another auto shop along lines with the single family homes
This just gives a view of the looking south. I just want to bring the board's attention to just a couple of uses here that are non -conforming. This is a church that is zoned RSA 5. Across the street from this church is a medical facility that's also zoned RSA 5. This is one block south of my client's property.
In this particular area, there are a lot of RSA 5 zone properties. However, there are a lot of non -conforming uses on this block. Parking isn't an issue. This is a rear driveway where the properties on Cambria have rear parking, and also the properties on 21st Street has rear parking as well.
So here's the picture of our zoning notice.
And again, we did not have the ability to submit the tax clearance at the time.
However, but we do have the tax clearance now for Mr. Tyrone Stooks.
That was acquired yesterday when the tax clearance system was working again.
Here's a meeting summary from the RCO.
there were about 18 folks at the meeting itself. However, you know, no votes were taken.
And again, in their letter of rationale, they just outlined exactly what we presented at the
meeting. And as Ms. Emerson mentioned, Councilwoman Bass has no opposition.
uh councilwoman uh bass um has no opposition uh to our um uh variance request um and with that
you know um i'd like my clients to adopt my testimony and take any questions okay
we're going to bring them on to adopt your testimony yes mr tyrone stooks
I've already been about to speak.
Hi, Mr. Stooks, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Mr. Stooks?
Jason, do we see him?
He's on, but he's on. He's unmuted, but I don't know what's going on.
Mr. Stoops?
Not sure what's going on, sir.
Jeffrey, you're an officer of the court. We will accept your testimony.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Go ahead, Thomas.
Counselor, how many square feet per unit for five units?
how many square feet each unit each unit varies in size so the average studio is about 300 square
feet for the the front floor rear I'm a front floor first for a front excuse me and then on
The third floor where the studios are, each studio, again, is approximately a little bit, they vary in size, but they're about 400 square feet.
That's one bedroom, 400 square feet?
No, they're studios.
Are they all small apartments?
Yes, yes, sir.
So they're like efficiencies?
Yes, ma 'am, yes.
So do you use the basement?
there's no the basement use is just for storage and utilities there's no units
in the basement whatsoever how do you handle trash trash right now
will just be that there's no using this city system so the trash is be taking
anything in the house yes thank you any other questions from the board mr.
mr chairman no questions or comments from the virtual audience
mr chair i have a hand raised from a person with the number ending in 3552
i have allowed them to speak sure all right could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes my name is adrian fernandez my last name is spelled f -e -r -n -a -n -d -e -z
neighborhood process association rco hi do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes proceed okay um we have sent our letter of support in
for mr stuke's project and um i just wanted to um ask for actually now four provisos um
with reference to mr holliman's comment we would like one proviso with no basement living
and also a limit of five units and trash stored indoors and then the fourth one is really
important because he's a block over from the business district 22nd street and trash collection
starts like 6 a .m from the city which is the quietest type of trash collection so we're asking
that the trash collection mr stooks explained that he could manage the trash collection and
we're asking that he managed the trash collection and not commercial collection because it's just
too loud and too dirty and it's once a week um he's going to manage that he explained it
um to our satisfaction i don't i forgot exactly his details i don't have you don't want commercial
that's what it is right right because they dropped the dumpster and all that noise put
it's neighbors across the street yeah i talked to hillary about this earlier thank you i appreciate
you're calling okay thank you okay anyone else in the first audience
i do not see any hands at this time mr chair hi planning commission
Hi, this is Paula Brumbelow -Burns, and our recommendation is that this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
hi this is paula brumbalo burns and our recommendation
Given the documented evidence of the site conditions and surrounding use context, we recommend that the requested variance be granted.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
MI 2022 -002 -961 -2920 North 21st Street, I vote yes.
No basement living, a proviso.
So no basement living, maximum five units, trash stored indoors.
Trash will be managed by individual and no commercial trash.
And that's it.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell yes with proviso
yes with proviso thank you thank you Mr. Young thank you okay uh is there anyone
in the first wardens whose case the 330 list was not called
i see no hands okay thanks everyone thank you