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