Thank you.
Okay, Chair, we have 35 attendees, and we can start as you wish.
Okay, good.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ishmael Shaheed.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and also our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testify.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
To win an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
Any comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
So let's look at continuances that we have for this morning.
Number three, MI 2022-006-537-1028 Lindley Avenue.
That case is continued.
Number six, MI-2022-006-363-6229 Christian Street. That case is continued.
you. Number 10, MI 2022-006-705-2000 Larry Street. That case is continued, attorney moving party.
And number 11, MI-2022-006-365-1535 Deal Street. That case is continued. Does anyone have any
questions about the cases I've just listed? Good morning, Chair. This is Fatina L. I'll be
your co-host for today. Thank you. You're welcome. I see no hands, Chair. Okay. Number seven, MI-2022
006-367
Germantown Avenue.
Oliver Cooper is the owner.
Would he please come forward?
Excuse me, Chair. A hand went up
right after we spoke.
So do you want me to allow
them to speak in reference to the continuance
as Brad? Sure. Let's see who that
This is Van, last name NNNW.
Yes. Hello. Hi. I am calling in regards to 6229 Christian Street. I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with the language. I just want to be clear when you say continue. This is proceeding for today's meeting. I just want to be clear.
six. Let me see here. Six. Okay. So this case has been continued. The property is not properly
posted. The applicant has been advised of that. So when that case is posted, it'll be re-listed.
Okay. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, can we have the speaker identify themselves and be sworn in?
Sure. Sure. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
uh yes this is vandalin waring
spell your name please for the court reporter sure it's v as in victor a n d as in david e-l-y-n
last name w-a-r-i-n-g right do you swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth are you a neighbor yes okay so that case has been continued okay it wasn't posted
Okay. So that case has been continued. Okay.
It wasn't posted properly and the owner has been notified to post it and we
properly in the
will bring it back in front of the board.
Okay. Thank you.
Let me go back to case number seven.
MI 2022 006 367 4226 Germantown Avenue.
Oliver Cooper, please.
i see no hands at this time chair okay so that case is uh we have no limit uh exhibits it's the
first listing the council person bass is also and the coordinating rco have requested continuances
so 7 mi 2022 006 367 42 44 26 germtown avenue that case has been continued to continue are there
any other requests for continuances? Chair, we have Andrew Goodman. Okay.
Hi, good morning, Mr. Goodman. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Andrew Goodman, A-N-D-R-E-W-G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the office of Third District
council member jamie gaudier right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do what case sir just checking to see if 1003 south 51st street will
also be continued um i'm getting ready to call that right now that we have no exhibits for that
case so that was going to be my first case i'm calling so okay all right so you you you will
hear in one minute. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sure. So cases what we were looking for exhibits
for number two, MI 2022-006-702-1003 South 51st Street. James Donnelly is the listed owner. We
have no exhibits. This is the first listing. I see no hands, chair. Okay. So MI 2022-006-702-1003-South
51st Street, that case is continued. Number five. Excuse me, chair. We have a hand up.
okay jared last name ended in l as in line okay uh yes hi could you hi good morning could you
state your name please and spell for the court reporter sure it's jared is j-a-r-e-d
last name is lauderbach is l-a-u-t as in tom e-r-b as in boy a-c-h right do you swear or
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do what case are you interested
there uh 1003 south 51st street okay so this is the first listing of the case we have no exhibits
at this point the council person is in opposition to this appeal we have continued the case and you
will be notified are you neighbor i'm i'm the owner actually jim james donnelly i bought the
property from him it's just at the city of course he's listed the owner okay well so we have no
exhibits as at this point. Okay. I don't know what's an exhibit. And that means you have to
send all the paperwork in to the zoning board. We haven't received your paperwork yet. And so,
and also the council person is in opposition to the appeal, but we still need all your paperwork.
Okay. All right. So what I would recommend to do, the easiest thing is get ahold of our office.
They will tell you exactly what you need to do. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. And thank
Thank you for calling in and explaining that.
Okay, thank you.
that case has been continued. Are there any other requests for continue, which is or withdrawals?
I see no hands, Chair. Okay, we're going to go to our regular list. Number one on the list,
MI 2022-006-423-1733-67th Avenue. Jermaine Harris is the attorney. We have a letter of support
from the 10th Ward Democratic Committee, RCO, and a letter of support from Council Member Phillips.
Mr. Harris is coming back in as a panelist. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Harris. Good morning, Mr. Bergman. Good to see you.
Could you state your name, spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, my name is Jermaine Harris, and I'm the attorney for the owner, applicant Cinderella
realty llc my name uh is spelled j-e-r-m-a-i-n-e last name is spelled h-a-r-r-i-s
do you swear or for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do our vice chair has just a few questions for you sir sure good morning counselor do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed all the
required documents and exhibits five days in advance to proceed with this case?
Yes, I have.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Just want to make sure my screen is now shared and it can be seen.
It is up, sir.
All right.
So this is concerning the property at 1733 67th Avenue.
And what my client, Cinderella Realty, is seeking to do is to legalize the use of this building.
It is in a RSA 5 zoned area, which is a single family area.
And it has been used as a three-family prior to my client's purchase.
My client purchased the property in 2021.
So right now, what we have here is pictures of the exterior of the building right here that you can see on the screen.
You'll note that it is three levels and there are three levels of egress in this property.
It has the first level of egress is the front door.
The second is this fire escape right here on the second floor which was installed by
the previous owner.
actually it's four levels four manners i'm sorry four uh levels of uh egress it's the side
the side the fire escape and the front front door
and then there are rear windows in the first level
so if we go to the exhibit packet here we have uh again pictures of the building the front of
the building this is where there was posting of the zoning uh notice the hearing notice for today
And this is the zoning notice itself that was posted in the front of the property right here.
Now, this property, I opened by saying that this property has been, my client purchased the property in 2021, September 2021.
And this is the ad that was used that my client relied on when he purchased the property.
And if you see it from the realtor, from, I guess, Redfin, it has that the property is the end of a row.
It's been used as a multifamily for over 30 years.
And the property was also rehabbed.
So, since my client purchased the property, it's not currently being used as a three-family. It's only being used as a one-family, which is on the lower level. The other two levels are completely vacant and unoccupied.
the other two levels are completely vacant uh and unoccupied this is the first floor that was
that is occupied you know what before i get to that let's let let me get to the actual
the drawings of this so uh you can see what the layout is
so the building is laid out as a three family uh this is the first floor and it's two bedrooms in
the front two bedrooms in the front living room and a kitchen in the rear all of the this all of
these are two bedrooms one bath this is the second level living room is in the front two bedrooms
in the rear then we have the fire escape of the second floor uh and this leads to the exterior
to the to the exterior steps of the fire escape third floor is roughly the same layout uh except
there is no fire escape but there is a uh two bedrooms uh a living room in the front of the
building and then two bedrooms
as you go towards the
side and go towards the rear
of the building
as far as the
interior
which I was touching upon
earlier this is the base
this is the first level
this is the second level that's unoccupied
again these are two bedrooms that were this place was rehabbed before my client bought it
but this is what it is and that's the current condition of it
And this is the third floor leading up into the third floor, which is the same, again, the same layout of two bedrooms, one bath.
We just went over the plans.
we had a presentation uh we had a presentation on uh march 30th in front of the rco uh which was
the 10th war democratic uh committee and it was a pretty good turnout for it to be a zoom
it was 17 people there uh we did our presentation and after concerns addressing
any concerns that the neighbors had and questions uh there was a vote in favor of this for 13 of 4
uh for granting uh for granting the use variance that's requested and it has it right here
Also, what I have here is the rental history of this block has a significant number of residential multifamily dwellings on that block.
We have seven multifamilies starting 1701, 1717, 67th Avenue, 1719, 1725, 1731, which is right next door to this particular property.
1734, which is directly across the street from the 1733 property, and 1801, because this is the end of the road, right at the next block, at the very beginning of the next block, is also a multifamily as well.
So we have the tax clearance of this particular property, as well as the evidence of ownership showing that this property was bought a year and a half ago, September 14th of 2021.
one. And then we have the notice of refusal that it's in a RSA five district. So single family
is not permitted under that zoning classification and the refusal on the application.
And we would submit that this would be a significant hardship for
We would submit that this would be a significant hardship for Cinderella Realty to convert this to a single family.
We understand that the zoning classification is that. But as you can see from the layout of this building, it's already been chopped up into three units, has a fire escape.
it would be to convert it back to a single family could not be done without great significant
expense. And that would be a significant hardship. We would just ask that this board
allow for the use of this property that has been used for 30 years as a multifamily for it to be
legalized. And I would open it up for any questions that the board may have. Also, I have the owner
on online as well, Mr. Lamont Thomas, who is the owner of Cinderella Realty as well.
Why don't you call, Mr. Harris, call the owner and he can adopt your testimony, okay?
Okay. Mr. Thomas, can you raise your hand? Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Could you please
state your name, sir, and spell for the court reporter? Lamont Thomas, L-A-M-O-N-T-T-H-O-M-A-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do. Proceed, counsel. Yes, Mr. Thomas, did you hear the testimony that I just presented to the
uh to to the zoning board yes sir is there anything you want to add or do you agree in full
with what i presented to the uh to the board i agree in full okay thank you thank you okay
what questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission good morning chair bergman david fecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u
with the city planning commission do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank you thank you sir thank you uh good morning chair
and members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single
family zoning at this location. This property has been a duplex since 1952, according to the
zoning archive. The split into three dwelling units appears to have been done relatively recently.
There may be a hardship if the applicant were required to remove the third unit. So the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the use variants for three dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022-006-423-1733-67th Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, I vote yes. James Snell, I vote yes. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Harris. Thank you. May I be excused? You can, sir. Okay, take care.
Number four, MI 2022-006-536-800 North Carlisle Street, number T1-143764.
Brandon Savron is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from the United Franciville Civic Association and Streets Department prerequisite approval has been received.
Mr. Saverin is coming back in as a panelist here.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Saverin.
Mr. Saverin?
Tina, do we see him coming in?
I don't see him, Chair.
I promoted him, but I don't see him anymore.
he's not listed as a panelist or as an attendee okay why don't we do this why don't we move on
and we'll come back to that okay okay all right
Number eight, MI 2022-006-504-758 South Front Street.
number eight
We'll be right back.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Letter of support from Queen Village neighbors and letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. It's Vern, V-E-R-N, last name Anastasio, A-N-A, S-T-A-S-I-O. It's 2016 Spruce, Philadelphia, 19103.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes, I represent Sonny Shekawala, who is the recent owner of 758 South Front.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits into our offices five days in advance to proceed with this case?
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed. Share your screen.
Thank you. My screen should be up. It's 758 South Front.
We have it.
In Queen Village. What we're looking to do is just basically, this is a legalization of a pre-existing non-conforming use.
It's two separate homes on one lot, which was built, as you'll see, many years ago, but legally compliant since 1992, per the archive.
This is Fortune, as you can see.
This is Front Street.
This is the interior layout.
We've got additional layout here for the side street, here's the kitchen, open space, second floor, and then the third floor is just a master bedroom with a master bath.
102 Fitzwater is the side residence, and that's here.
So you've got the Front Street property that I showed you previously, and then the Fitzwater
Street property is back here.
there's the front street
and there's additional photos here's interior photos as well
I started this application under the ownership of Bob Potterfield
long-time owner, sold it to Mr. Shakawala who fully understood that we were going through
this process to legalize the two-family dwelling. He also understood that it was not a guarantee.
But there are two electric meters. There are two PGW meters. There are literally two structures.
There's proof of posting on both sides of the property.
I've included the deed, the original agreement of sale.
I've also forwarded to Attorney Emerson the updated HUD-1.
Here's proof of our meeting to Queen Village Neighbors Association on 8 February, along with proof of mailing.
And, of course, the archives that shows clearly that this became legally a two-family dwelling from a single family in 1992.
This was granted by the zoning board via variance.
But, as you can see physically, the properties were two separate units on the same lot for quite some time.
So, because of the history of this property, because of the separate utilities, not only
electric but gas, and because of the physical manifestation of the two units on the same
lot, in addition to having the support of both the council office and the registered
In addition to having the support of both the Council Office and the Registered Community Organization, I do respectfully request that this appeal be granted.
Could you have your client come on, please, and adopt your testimony?
Yes. Mr. Sonny Shackawalla, if you could please raise your hand.
Sir, please unmute yourself.
i'm sorry could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter
sure mr chair my name is sunny shakawala s-u-n-n-y last name s-h-a-k-h-a-w-a-l-a
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. Sonny, did you hear my presentation to the board
this morning? I did. Thank you, Vernon. And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you. I have nothing further,
Mr. Chair. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chair. No, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments
from the virtual audience. I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location. This appears to be a
legalization of a duplex approved by the Zoning Board in 1992, so the City Planning Commission
recommends the board grant the variance for two dwelling units. Thank you. MI 2022-006-504-758
South Fern Street, I vote yes. Thomas Tallerman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Could you please stay on,
sir oh sure right so number nine mi 2022 006 360
um 2507 north 19th street verne is the attorney we do not have an rco letter at this point um
i did forward it last night very late okay all right yes mr chair this is hillary i was just
going to say, we did receive a letter of support from all in the family, RCO, with some provisors,
but unfortunately, none of them are enforceable by the CBA. Thank you. Mr. Anastas, could you
just state your name for the record, please? You wrote it. Vern Anastasio. All right. And our vice
chair has just a few questions for you, sir. Before we start, I represent Mr. Darley Caba,
who is the owner of 2507 North 19th.
And that's an LLC, right?
He is the principal of the LLC.
Okay, fine.
Okay, thank you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed all the required documents
and exhibits to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
2507 North 19th is a two-family dwelling in an existing structure.
This property has long been abandoned, and you know what?
I have to stop sharing and reshare because I'm getting some blanks, at least on my end.
That's fine. Do that.
Okay. Thank you.
You can see that now, Mr. Chair.
We're fine, sir.
Is that blank to you?
That's blank.
Let's see how it goes.
So it's 2507 North 19th.
What we are proposing is here's the property
as far as plot plan is concerned,
not touching the envelope of the property at all.
It is an existing triplex with a truncated third floor.
Our proposal, this is the first floor
to have a, you come in through the front door, there'll be a bedroom in the front,
a restroom, part of the living room space, and a bedroom in the rear, full bath, and a yard in the
back, accessible to the first floor unit, which will be for trash storage.
We have the second floor coming up the stairs, a large kitchen. We were asked to put a closet in
the kitchen for trash, and my client has agreed to do that. It's a large living space and a bedroom
off the back of the second floor, and then a master bedroom at the top of the third floor
with a master bath and closet, because it's much shorter up there on the third floor.
This is the property in question. It has been long neglected. Unfortunately, like 13 other
properties on the block. It is completely vacant. We've got 2511, 2515, 17, 21, 2504,
24, 14, 25, 22, 24, 25, 32, 25, 38, and 25, 46, all vacant or empty lots.
This property was left in pretty bad shape, but my client does plan to do a complete internal
renovation. There is a history of two electric meters, although there's no history in the
data archive of any legal two-family dwelling. Do want to make sure that that's clear. We
did meet with the Registered Community Organization, 2nd of March, and 2nd of the March 28th was
a follow-up. We have proof of mailing, 242 individual households. And I believe we have
everything else submitted for the exhibit. The RCO did produce a letter of support so
long as we had a trash plan and some other minor issues that we have communicated with
them and will be willing to work out. Because the first floor has a trash plan and the second
floor has a trash plan. Because of the history of the two electric meters, because there's 13
vacant properties and empty lots on this block itself, which communicates to my client that if
he were to rehab this as a single family home, it would not be a marketable product for anybody
who's living in that neighborhood, who wants to be on that block. By breaking it up into two
separate residential products, completely brand new, he's offering two quality residential
products that are a little smaller and more approachable as far as price point is concerned,
far more marketable for the neighborhood. For all those reasons, we respectfully request the
granting of the of the variance. I know there's a lot of vacancy on the block. Are there other
multiple units on the block? There are more than more than a few. However, even though they have
electric meters that are separate, we could not find any legalization of them. Thank you.
Thank you. Is your client here? Yes, Mr. Mr. Kaba, Darley Kaba.
Mr. Cava, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court report?
Dali Cava.
Spell your name, please.
D-A-R-A-Y-C-A-B-A.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir proceed counsel thank you mr chair mr kaba did you hear my presentation to the board
this morning yes is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and do you adopt it
Yes. And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
as your own testimony yes sir
Thank you.
Questions from the board? No, Chair. No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planing Commission. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chair and Board
Members. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to
the residential single-family zoning at this location. There is no unique physical condition
or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with
the zoning code. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the use variance
for two dwelling units. Thank you. MI 2022-006-360-2507-North 19th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes
Thank you, counsel
Thank you
Number 13 on our list
MI 2022
006 538
1941 East Pashonk Avenue
Matthew Monroe
is the attorney
Letter of support from East
Passion Crossing, letter of non-opposition from Councilmember Squilla, letter of support from
East Passion Avenue Business Association. Mr. Monroe is coming back in as a panel.
Good morning, Mr. Monroe. Good morning, Chairman Bergman. Hi, could you state your name,
please and spell for the court reporter. Sure. It's Matthew Monroe, M-A-T-T-H-E-W-M-O-N-R-O-E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you identify your clients and the relationship to this property?
Sure. I represent the business owners, Juana Tamales, and appearing on behalf of the business
today, I'm pleased to be with Chris Fehrer, who is one of the co-owners of the business.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good morning.
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Do you have your screen already shared?
Please proceed.
All right, Chairman Berman, members of the board, pleased to be here with a well-loved business, Juan de Tamales, which has some of the best beer and tacos in the city, among others.
They're at 1941 East Pasadena Avenue.
And just for some context, here is the zoning context.
We're right here on this block of East Pass Yonk, just east of Broad Street and just west of South Juniper.
You can see here some historical photographs from Google Maps.
You can see the sign as it existed in 2014.
In 2016, it's the exact same sign.
And here again, with a subsequent tenant in October 2019, the last tenant that was there
before one of Tamales took over the space.
As noted, and here you can see that there's a number of other businesses in the area.
This is just to provide some context.
There's a number of awnings, other projecting signs, and this, again, just simply maintains
the status quo.
We have full support of the RCO and near neighbors, as well as the bid, the East Pasadena Avenue Business Improvement District.
Those are those letters are included in the package. And here's the tax clearance.
With that, I know that a lot of these presentations can be generated more by questions, but we're happy to answer any questions.
and Mr. Feer is on the line and can adopt.
Why don't we bring in one and adopt your testimony?
Mr. Feer, could you raise your virtual hand?
Sir, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
yes it's christopher fear that's c-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r last name f as in frank e-h-e-r
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir proceed counsel okay uh mr fear did you hear the factual statements that i made for the
record yes sir were they accurate yes sir you adopt them as your testimony i do thank you
questions from the board no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission thank you sir good morning chair bergman
and David Fecteau, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
This is a request to legalize an existing non-conforming sign.
Legalizing this sign will not impair the use of adjacent properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board
grant the use and dimensional variances.
Thank you.
MI 2022-006-538-1941, East Pashonk Avenue, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thomas?
Counselor, you have your three votes.
Thank you, Chairman. I have no further business.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I want to go back to number four.
MI 2022.
0-0-6-5-3-6-8-hundred North Carlisle Street, number T1-1-4-3-7-6-4.
Brandon Saverin is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from United Francis Civic Association Streets Department.
Pre-requisite approval is received.
that we had support of the RCO. Sure, sure. I saw
the streets department prerequisite approval has been received. Okay, thank you very much.
I'll share my screen. Firstly, let me say thank you to the board this morning. When the case was
called, moments before, as I was watching Mr. Harris's presentation, I lost power at my house.
So that was the delay. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you. So this is the subject property. It will be known simply as 800 North Carlisle Street. The T dash number, number, number that you read, Mr. Chairman, is just a result of a recent consolidation still being completed with the Office of Property Assessment.
and I'll show you what was consolidated in a moment. So the subject property has been owned
by the church, who is my client, since 2003. And you see it here, both in an aerial photograph
and on the Atlas parcel map. It is just off of Broad Street between the following four public
streets, Brown, Burns, Parrish, and Carlisle streets. And we believe that it has been a
surface parking lot since at least 1985, as confirmed by aerial images that don't go quite
that far back, but go to 1996 on Atlas and show it as a parking lot back to 1996. And here is our
notice of refusal, which has some interesting information on it. I'll actually start at the
bottom. So it says in the notes to the ZBA that the examiner drafted, firstly, that last year,
at the end of last year, that we consolidated some lots to create this lot, as I mentioned.
And then the second note is that in 1985, a three-year temporary variance or certificate
was granted to allow a public parking lot here. So my suspicion is that that three-year
variance or certificate simply was not renewed, but the owner continued to use it as a parking
lot, eventually came into the ownership of the church in 2003. So why are we here today? It is
to legalize that use. But in the process of doing so, we're going to make some improvements
that are going to benefit the community, which I'll detail in a moment. We're also going to
formally obtain permission from the city to allow the public to use the lot. And we plan to do that.
It's not as though the church is going to sit on this as a private parking lot. It's going to be
open for public use as well at reasonable charged rates. So if I can just show you the zoning map,
here's the zoning map. And this is interesting for a couple reasons. One is it just shows you
in the portion not highlighted where my cursor is, these were small lots that the church also owned
and that last year it consolidated into the main property. So this should give the board some
reassurance that without further variances, my client is not going to chop off those former
lots and develop them and result in a different parking lot that you didn't approve. What you see
today is what you're going to get. And the consolidation sort of backs that because we
can't just unwind that consolidation very easily. I'm going to go quickly into the letter of support
that we received from United Francisville Civic Association. There were actually two meetings with
UFCA. There was a preliminary meeting with their zoning committee that I attended online. And then
there was an in-person meeting with the public that my colleague Rachel Pritzker attended at the
local recreation center. And there was, at the second meeting, unanimous public support for the
project. I have to say, I think the neighbors were thrilled that given the RM1 zoning, we are not
developing an apartment building on this site, which we probably could under the zoning, and that
we're going to formally open the parking on this large lot for their use. There's not a neighbor in
world that wouldn't like that. So let me show you the plans. This is the zoning site plan.
I'm gonna zoom out a little bit here. Okay, so basically what this shows you is a couple things.
Here's the lot turned horizontally. The layout's pretty simple. There's going to be a curb cut
In the middle of each end, one on Brown Street and one over here on Parrish Street, two-way, I believe it's a 20-foot curb cut that will meet streets department with requirements.
in the middle of each end, one on Brown Street and one over here.
And we're also showing landscaping here on the perimeter that is to code and doesn't currently exist.
that landscaping allowed us to get the planning commission's approval for landscaping specifically
and let me go back to the refusal for one moment that landscaping and the other features of the
lot meant that the only refusal we had was for the parking use there are no other refusals for
the form or the layout of the parking lot being improper for it not having adequate landscaping
or fencing. We have met all of those requirements with the help of our engineering firm. The only
thing we're here before you today in terms of relief is just the use of parking. And really
quickly further to that point. Okay. I'm just going to show you some additional plans and then
I'll wrap up. This is a lighting plan. We're going to be adding lighting to the site. The lighting is
designed so that it does not cast the light beyond the property boundaries in the sidewalk. That's
what these bars show you here is the extent to which the light will reach from each light pole.
And then I'll also show you, as the chairman mentioned, we have streets approval for this lot for the zoning phase.
When you develop a parking lot or legalize a parking lot, you then go back to streets when you get your building permit, which we're also going to get in order to install those features I showed you.
And streets will have another look at it then.
But insofar as this phase of the project goes, streets has given their approval.
I'll also say that those rebuilt curb cuts are going to be a big benefit to the community
because right now they're smaller and they're on the corners of the nearby intersection.
So we're putting them in better locations.
That is the extent of my testimony.
Ah, sorry.
One last thing.
I'll also just mention to you that if you look at the zoning map, because I want to
speak to hardship for one moment. You know, these surrounding districts are some commercial,
that's the pink and the dark red. And then you have residential, the yellow and the orange.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because none of these districts permit surface parking lots
for non-accessory uses by right. And by non-accessory, I mean, it's not like literally
attached to the church. So the reason that poses a hardship is because my client can't go out and
say, well, we don't want to get a variance for this site, so we're going to buy another parking
lot. Because unless that parking lot already has a variance, it's not going to be legal in any
nearby location. So in order to have parking for its congregants, this is at least equal to the
least offensive thing we could do in terms of complying with the law. We can't go out and get
another lot that doesn't require a variance. Okay. So with that, I'll ask you to accept my
exhibits into the record. I'll stop sharing my screen and I'll ask that Robin Eaglin raise his
hand, um, to adopt my testimony. Brandon, I'm going to, I'm going to recuse myself from this
Board. No, Vice Chair.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have a little trouble there with the button. No question.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commissioner.
Thank you, sir. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from residential
multifamily to industrial and residential mixed use non-accessory parking would be allowed with
a special exception under the proposed irmx zoning the city planning commission recommends
the board grant the proposed variances okay thank you one second is pulling it all the way up
that's number five right chair four four m i m i dash two zero two two dash zero zero six five
three six eight hundred north carolina street my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called from the 930 list?
I see no hands, chair.
Thanks, everyone.
See you at 2 p.m.
See you, chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman. I will be chairing the 2 p.m. hearing for the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holliman.
Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sundar.
Here's a virtual format. Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded. The video will
be available by contacting tanyasunkett 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 and 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. Lastly, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comment
or testimony. Any comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumpkin.
Let's look at our continuations for this afternoon.
Number six, MI 2022-006-900-9100-Frankford Avenue.
That case is continued.
Thank you. Number two, MI 2022, 006-335-3848-Frankford Avenue.
I vote yes, proviso. Use of rear addition limited to personal storage accessories to single family dwelling.
Thomas Tollman, my vote is yes, proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, proviso.
If you know, Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Number three, MI 2022, 005-915-90 Red Lion Road.
I vote yes to consideration and rehearing.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes to rehearing and reconsideration.
James Snell. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Ishmael Shaheed. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Number four, MI 2022-004-466-1401-South 13th Street. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing
James Snell my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing
we're going to move to our regular issue we're going to start with number 13 which is a pro se
MI 2022-002-349-1129 South 51st Street. Kong Fon is the applicant. This application is for a
multifamily household living, three dwelling units, in an existing structure. The proposed
multifamily housing living, three dwelling units, is prohibited in the RSA-3 zoning, whereas the
The RSC3 zoning district requires three accessory parking spaces and zero spaces are proposed.
There is a letter of support from the Southwest District Services.
Mr. Pham has joined us as the panelist.
Please unmute yourself, sir.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
My name is Kwong Dinh Pham, C-U-O-N-G, middle initial is D, last name is P-X-A-M.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, sir. Have you emailed all the documents and exhibits that are required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed and share your screen and please turn the camera on as well.
Yes, sir.
so how many bedrooms on each on each location on the first floor is only one bedroom
uh second floor is one bedroom the third floor is also one bedroom is this is this building
three stories high? Three plus the attic, sir. Okay. And the rest of the block, are there other
multiple units, houses on this block? Yes, sir. I own the one next door to this. I bought them
maybe 10 years ago. That's what three apartment. And then the one right next to that is also a
three apartments. There are
three,
four houses in the block that
had three apartments
in all these
buildings.
How long was your property vacant before
you bought it?
To be honest,
I have no idea. I bought
it from the sheriff.
there are people that come and go through
there during
Is the house
situated in the three apartments now?
Yes, sir.
Did you do that or was it like that?
It was like that.
I cleaned it up and then I
painted and
I spackled and things like that inside
the house.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Proposed sushi bar right here would be new.
Everything else is existing.
The water station, men's and women's restroom.
We have the existing kitchen area, existing utility area.
We have a dedicated trash enclosed section
right off the kitchen across from the walk-in cooler
and the walk-in freezer.
Let me show you some interior photos for the record.
Here's some interiors, your three basins in a typical restaurant equipment.
There's a Boston Market right next door and as you can see, it's just a standard strip
mall on City Line Avenue, which there are lots of them.
there's the side of the property there's a starbucks next to the boston market
there's the parking lot starbucks actually has a drive-through
uh this property will not uh it's more geared towards sit down
rather than takeout, which even the salad works is sort of more takeout oriented,
but this will not be. There's a posting of the property.
We have the lease. Several other items that I'll move into the exhibits. We do have 78 pages of
exhibits of 60 individual households were mailed. We did in fact meet with the registered community
organization. There's the vote they voted to support and here's a letter of support.
There were some immediate neighbors who had some general concerns about the property owner
and what they have or have not done in the past with respect to litter. So my client has agreed to
in addition to the City Avenue Special Services District has agreed to engage the owner to make sure that the general area in and of itself is kept up as far as litter is concerned.
We believe the sit-down sushi restaurant will result in a vast reduction of litter because it's not takeout oriented per se.
Okay, so with that, I'd like to call my client, Maggie Lee, who is the principal and owner
of the sushi restaurant, to raise her virtual hand.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Ma'am, please unmute yourself.
All right, state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter.
Yes, my name is Yao Ming Li.
First name spelled is Y-S-S-A-E as I call it, O-S open, M for Mary, I for ice cream, N for Nancy, G for George.
Last name spelled is L for Larry, I for ice cream.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Lee, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
Yes, sir.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, sir.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have no further questions.
Questions from the Board?
Board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family
and auto-oriented commercial split zoning at this location.
However, the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022-006-899-4600 City Line Avenue.
I vote yes, proviso.
Use limited to Unit C.
This is Hillary.
this is hillary i just want to tweak that proviso um briefly because the refusal um states a use
I just want to tweak that proviso briefly because...
that isn't in the zoning code eden restaurant um so the proviso instead could read use limited to
sit down restaurant in unit c that would be make things clearer thank you so proviso use limited
to sit down restaurant in unit c thomas holliman my vote is yes whip proviso
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Number two, MI 2021-005-225-120 North 53rd Street.
Bart Levy is the attorney.
Letter of support from the 44th Ward Democratic RCO.
So, Mr. Levy is coming back in at the panel.
Good afternoon, Mr. Levy.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
I'm Bart Levy for Angel Fund Group.
Okay, just for the record, could you spell your name for the court reporter?
B-A-R-T-L-E-V-Y.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
our vice chair has just a few questions for you certainly good afternoon counselor do you agree
to weigh the reading of the refusal and stimulate to its accuracy i do sir have you emailed all the
required documents and exhibits proceed with this case in advance of this hearing i believe we have
including the most recent notice thank you please proceed to share your screen thank you um i'll do
best I can. So, this is, uh, hang on one second.
This appeal is as a result of a refusal, which I've got to ask because it doesn't come on my
screen. Is that on your screen now? Yes, it is. The property was purchased by, uh, the applicant
In October 2019, and actually October 2nd, 2019, the proposal is to turn an existing two-family house into a properly zoned two-family house.
The plans for this, let me see if I can do this.
Do they appear on the screen now?
They are.
All right. Essentially, these are the plans that I've submitted to the board.
The entranceway here, which I'll show you with a picture in a moment, was at one time for a single family home and entered into a normal foyer or a vestibule.
And we're now, if I can guide you down to the middle exhibit, we're going to use the front door as essentially a leader to this hallway.
where you gain access to a stairwell that right now that goes up.
Essentially, it's not going to involve any major alteration of the property.
Like I said, more just granting a permission to officially use the property
the way I believe it was intended or has been intended to be used.
if Mr. Dunn is on the line with us
Mr. Levy, why don't you show some photos
certainly
this is the front door
that I spoke of at 120, that's the one on the left.
And show you a wider shot.
Could you show us that, please?
Certainly.
I can show you on the plans if that's sufficient.
No, I'd like to see photos, if you would.
Of the inside of the house?
I'd like to see what it looks like as a duplex, yeah.
i'm afraid i unless mr dunn has uh other photographs these are the only ones i have of
it yeah they have side of the house are there separate utilities yes
two meters and you don't have photos of the separate utilities right
i apologize no i don't no no okay and how many houses on the block are multiple families
Most of them are two-family dwellings.
Why don't you have your client come on and adopt your testimony?
Certainly.
Mr. Dunn, can you?
Mr. Dunn, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello?
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
uh stevenson dunn s-t-e-v-e-n-s-o-n-d-u-n-n
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed mr levy mr dunn um can you tell the board uh how the property is being used right
now? The property is being used right now as a single family. All right. And the structure that's
in place for the entrance, do you have any photographs of that or can you describe that
to the board? The entrance is a single door, a protective gate with a entrance door behind it
leading into a secondary door that leads you into the unit.
Is that the one at the end of this hallway here
that I'm showing the center of the first floor?
Yeah, those are the projected plans once we get approval.
What's there? I'm sorry, I apologize.
What is there now? Is the entrance there now?
What is there now? It's a single family with two doors before you access the space.
The third door is a security door. That's the first door.
The second door is the entrance.
And then there's a Vesabue door that leads into the structure.
So, Mr. Levy, right now he's using this as a single property.
OK, I apologize. I thought it's OK. Could could you could you have him adopt your testimony?
Mr. Dine, if if there's any errors I made in my testimony, could you either put them out or basically adopt the testimony I've given the board side for the correction on the occupancy?
Do you agree?
and aside from the entrance of the occupancy everything i've said so far has been correct
yes questions from the board
no chair no chair no mr chairman
go ahead questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
Thank you, Chair. Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning at this location. The
appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances
or conditions of the property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny
the variance. MI 2021-005-225-120 North 53rd Street, I vote no. Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no. Thank you. Thank you. Number three,
MI-2022-007-246-4435 Sampson Street.
Justin Crick is the attorney for the owner.
Letter of non-opposition from the Spruce Hill Community Association.
Mr. Crick is coming back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Yes, Justin Crick, J-U-S-T-I-N-K-R-I-K.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yes, the applicants are Brian and Stephanie Clark.
They are the record owners of the premises.
All right. And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents needed, documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, members of the board.
We are here for the property located at 4435 Sansom Street.
The applicant is seeking approval for the legalization of a roof deck that is at the
rear of the property facing Ionic Street.
It is attached to and above a single-story garage.
the fact the structure will continue to be used as a two-family dwelling and as
a little background for you Brian went to fix the deck back in 2021 having
purchased the property with the deck existing on it and when he went to do
that learned that the approved deck from 2006 was not properly closed out as a
permit and so the city system did not have record of it so that is why this is
a legalization although I will show you later the permit that it was properly
granted in 06 just not closed out or finished by the prior owner and then
there are violations on the property for the deck being not approved or unapproved
because of that that failure to close it out by a prior owner as you can see the
the refusal as I indicated the roof deck though that is proposed is supposed to
have a five-foot setback so this proposal does not have any setback and
as you'll see there is no front building line this this street Ionic
Street is situated in between more of an alley but it is an actual street so the
property here essentially has two frontages zoning wise this is in an RM1
district and for a little bit more clarification you can see that the front of the house is on
Sansom and the rear on Ionic without really although it's a wider street than an alley
kind of plagued by the two frontage problem when it comes to the the rear yard setback
this is a photo of what exists now and exact same footprint as what was approved and placed in 2006
Mr. Clark, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Clark.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, good afternoon.
Excuse me.
Brian Clark, B-R-I-A-N-C-L-A-R-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Clark, have you had an opportunity to hear my statements made to the board today?
Would you agree that those statements are true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt those statements as if they were your own testimony to the board?
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The roof deck dimensions are consistent with nearby properties.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location.
And the City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI-2022-007-246-4435, Samson Street.
I vote yes.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number four, MI 2022-006-907-5227 Chancellor Street.
Rachel Pritzker, Brandon Saverin are the attorneys involved.
Letter of support from the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Counsel, you've already been sworn today.
Could you just state your name for the record, please?
Yes, my name is Brandon Saverin. Last name is spelled S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N as in Nancy.
Right. Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is LMG Capital Investments, LLC.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
an adjacent block to 52nd street the big commercial corridor here in west philly
there are plenty of other multi-family or at least duplex units on this block i've listed
seven addresses here that atlas confirms have two or more dwelling units on this block and there are
probably more but these are the ones i could confirm because the two or three unit zoning
permit was recent enough that it's captured digitally on Atlas. So let me show you our RCO
letter real quickly. The coordinating RCO is West Philadelphia Economic Development Council.
It's a short letter, so I'll read an excerpt of it. It says, quote, Dear Chairman Bergman,
prior to the RCO community hearing, I personally spoke with the block captain of the 5200 block
of Chancellor Street. The block captain spoke favorably of the project and the developer.
Skipping ahead, the developer assembled a vast number of near neighbors to participate in the
Zoom. There was overwhelming support for the project. The neighbors spoke well of the developer
and his dedication to a clean site, end quote. The chairperson, Kyle, of this RCO reached out to
my firm after this meeting and said that his group never supports variance requests like this,
but that our client, Luis, who's on the line, just really got on a human level with the residents of
this block, made them feel like they know him and they can trust him and that he is going to take
care of this property and rehabilitate it. I do just want to bring up that the zoning code
for use variances does say that there's a few extra requirements for use variances.
So one of them is that where my cursor is, there's unique physical conditions in the property.
I believe there are due to the vacancy. I'll show that in the photos. Down here at C,
it says that the use variance can't alter the character of the neighborhood. I believe it does
not thanks to the other duplex properties that are already on the block. And then here at B,
it says that there must be no possibility that the property can be used, in our case,
as a single family home. But there have been court cases recently, and I highlighted one in
a memo to the board that basically says that that is a little too strict of a requirement
to be kosher under state case law. And in fact, quote, the property can be conformed for a purpose
permitted by, I'm sorry, I'm going to reread that, quote, the property can be conformed for a
permitted use only at a prohibitive expense, end quote, that that is an acceptable justification
for a hardship in combination with the physical factors. So it doesn't have to be literally
physically impossible to use the property as a single family home. Demonstrating that only
prohibitive investment allows the conversion is enough. The case I quoted is Marshall versus
City of Philadelphia, which is referenced in Ray Appeal of Garcia. Okay, so moving ahead,
let me show you those photos real quickly. Basically, this is the first floor, I believe,
like right around the day Luis and his company bought this property, which was last summer. So
looks okay, but these walls in the back are not to code. They are flimsy, temporary,
dangerous walls. They're going to be removed or reinforced. And that's the best looking room in
the house, if you sort of go through the rest of it, now we're upstairs, you can kind of see just
the disarray evident in these photos. There are multiple places where there's holes in the hardwood
floor. So the floor has to be totally rehabilitated in several places. Here are more holes in one of
the bedrooms and, you know, it's just bad. Holes in the wall, more substandard doors and walls,
the basement, which is a wreck. The walls probably need to be parged. So basically my client can't
attract enough commercial financing to fix this place up as a single family home. Two units is
the minimum project that is going to allow him to attract that financing and fix this up. I mentioned
that the property was rezoned last summer. I'm not going to read the whole zoning bill to you,
last summer. I'm not going to read the whole zoning bill to you, but here it is at exhibit 13
but here it is.
in my packet. And I'm going to go way to the bottom after all these maps, just to show you that
the bill was passed by council on June 23rd of last year and signed by the mayor on August 31st.
Why is that important? Because this property was listed on August 31st. So my client and everybody
involved in this transaction on both sides had no idea that this property couldn't be turned into a
duplex. And I'm going to show you a little bit of further evidence of that. And Exhibit 14
is an email from my client's expediter to one of his other lawyers. And she wrote,
I'm not going to read this to you, but we all thought this was RM1 because Atlas says it was
RM1 that would have allowed for a duplex. It turns out city council voted to change the zoning in
June, but Atlas hadn't been updated when she had checked it out for him. And here exhibit 15 is a
page from the appraisal of the property that my client got when he was under contract. Again,
I circled down at the bottom here. It's the appraiser wrote RM1 zoning, which would have
allowed the duplex. So in summary, the sort of funky timing of this transaction,
the history of vacancy and the poor conditions with which my client didn't cause and his
inability to attract sufficient funds to rehabilitate this as a single family home
are the basis of his zoning case. And we hope that in combination with the RCO support and the
other duplexes on the block, that's sufficient for you to grant a variance to allow conversion
as a duplex. So I'm going to stop sharing my screen. My client's representative and really
the principal of the LLC is Luis Arroyo, if he can raise his hand.
Sir, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Arroyo, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Luis Arroyo, that's L-U-I-S, last name A-R-R-O-Y-O.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Luis, were you able to hear my testimony in your case this afternoon?
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
yes would you adopt it as though it were your own testimony yes and luis can you confirm that
you're authorized to speak on behalf of lmg capital investments llc yes that's your company right
that is my company i can't confirm that okay thank you questions from the board
no mr chair no mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2022, the zoning map was amended to residential single-family zoning at this location in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
However, the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022-006907-5227-Chancellor Street, I vote yes.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, but I would simply note that the ownership has changed from Post Brothers to KREMREG City Ave Owner LLC.
Duly noted. Have you emailed all the documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
one moment
are you seeing my screen we're good
is everyone seeing my screen yes we're good okay great i have technical difficulties sometimes so
i like to confirm all right uh good afternoon once again um members of the board we're here
seeking special exception relief to allow a group medical practitioner use where there is an existing
sole medical practitioner use at this location. As mentioned, I represent Rogers Behavioral Health,
which is an outpatient clinic that offers therapy services for a host of mental health conditions,
and they're an established company with 21 clinics nationwide. As noted, we did meet with
the coordinating RCO, which is Winfield Heights Civic Association. We met with them on February
22nd and received this letter of non-opposition dated February 26th. And we also received a letter
of non-opposition from Councilman Curtis Jones Jr. dated March 29th. So Rogers Behavioral Health has
an existing facility at 3600 Neal Drive, Suite 106, and the building is actually part of the
presidential city complex. I'll zoom in, and I've encircled the subject building. So this is a four
acre property near City Avenue and it's bound by Neal Drive, Winding Drive, and as you can see it
has significant setbacks from all street frontages. So here are some exterior photos I'll zoom out so
you can see the entrance for the complex that I mentioned. It shares a driveway with those other
buildings within the complex but it is the Monroe building that I'm showing you here and it's a
two-story, 74,000-square-foot building with 16 office suites. The office suite for Rogers Behavior
Health is located on the first floor, and they opened their doors in 2016. So they currently
operate under a previously issued ZBA approval for a sole medical practitioner use, as I mentioned,
and I'm showing you that permit here, and that is under ZP 2022. Excuse me, that is under
permit 725761. And sole practitioner means that it's known to only have one practitioner doctor
and one assistant. And we're back here today because, as mentioned, they're seeking to expand
to a total of three psychiatrists, which converts it to a group medical practitioner use. And on a
zoning code, these are two different use subcategories. We received this notice of
referral on November 4th of 2022 because the use requires special exception relief in the CMX2
zoning district where the property is located. Here is the floor plan as you can see and I'll
zoom in if you'd like. As you can see they have a series of staff offices, individual rooms,
group rooms. And here are some interior photos.
So as for hours of operation, the days will be Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., serving roughly
100 patients who visit the clinic on various days at various times for individual and group sessions.
There'll be a total of 32 staff members, and there's no medical waste due to the scope of therapy services. The office building has plenty of parking, 181 spaces to be exact, which is more than enough for all of the tenants at the site, in addition to public transportation, which is also available.
And the group practitioner use would have a total of three psychiatrists, two psychiatric nurse practitioners, and they're seeking to ultimately have 20 additional patients added to their current patient base.
So I'd conclude by saying that Rogers has been an asset to the community, filling a current gap in specialized and individualized treatment options for local mental health patients, including children, teens, and adults.
And as for the special exception relief, which does not require showing hardship, the proposed use will not be any more negatively impactful for the surrounding area than any other medical use, and that is not the case.
use, and that is not the case. So the use is within a large complex, as mentioned. It's not
on any street frontage. The building has been historically used for medical-related uses.
The proposed use is consistent with other tenants of this office building,
and all therapy activities take place inside of the building. There's more than adequate
on-site parking, and the new patient base won't increase congestion in public streets or parking,
no impacts to city avenue or any surrounding neighborhood and the landlord is okay with the
use as you know they wouldn't allow any use that would conflict with the surrounding tenants or
substantial development upgrades that they recently made at this complex so that summarizes
my testimony on the application and i'll have my client brian hanley adopt my testimony
mr hanley please unmute yourself
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes good afternoon my name is brian haney b-r-i-a-n last name is haney h-a-n-e-y
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed counsel thank you brian did you hear the testimony that i provided this afternoon
yes i did do you affirm that my presentation was accurate i do and do you adopt the testimony as
your own i do and do you um would you confirm that the hours and days of operation are monday
to friday 8 a.m to 9 p.m yeah okay is there anything further that you'd add beyond what i've
stated no i do not thank you questions from the board board no mr chairman no chair no chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
thank you chair berkman sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission
Thank you, Chair Berkman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the comprehensive
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing split commercial mixed use and
plan recommends no change to the existing split commercial mixed use and residential
residential multi-family zoning at this location the proposed use will not cause detrimental
multifamily zoning at this location.
The proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might
impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected the city planning commission
recommends that the zoning board grant the special exception. Council, before I vote,
this is suite 106? Correct. Okay, thank you. MI 2022-006-901-3600, Neal Drive. I vote yes.
Proviso, use limited to suite number 106. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snow, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snow, Shaheen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number seven, MI 2023-000-674-7777R, State Road.
Okay. The property is here, 7777 R State Road. We admit to being a little confused. We've been told that we were not able to operate at this property because it was not permitted to exist as a junkyard.
we are not a junkyard we are a scrap metal yard and we have been a scrap metal facility
at the same location 77 77 r is here right across the way here is my client's property
7345 milner street and we have been there operating as a scrap metal yard in the city
of Philadelphia since, I believe, 1974. So, Mr. Greller, are you asking for any variants to do
anything differently than what Morris Iron has been doing at this location for the last 50 years?
No, we're not. Is Morris Iron a family business? Four generations. I'm the third. I have two
daughters and a son-in-law. And how long have you been in the city of Philadelphia? My grandfather
started in 1934. What exactly is the difference between, what's your understanding? We are a
scrap metal dealer, but why have we been called a junkyard, to be the best of your understanding?
My best understanding is the license and inspection, the only complication they have for
our kind of facility is a junkyard we don't handle cars we don't handle any retail we mostly handle
all industrial scrap and we needed this property to be able to move our material through barges
and each barge takes 150 trucks off the road presently we have we've done about 200 barges
and we employ 70 people both unions teamsters and local 57 who support the project and we did
had the zoning that was passed by uh city council and with an overlay they said you're not allowed
to have a junkyard there we we are not a junkyard now if you can uh chair bergman can you see my
we see it very well yeah okay that's is that a barge mr griller okay so what you're doing is
you're taking the scrap from here and you're putting it onto the barge and then you're floating
it down the river and you're taking again you're taking cars off the road you're taking trucks off
the trucks off the road right okay um there's there's really not much more uh that we do other
commodities besides us okay there's really not more to the case than that members of the board
we've been doing this for an awfully long time here uh and uh we would like to continue what
we were doing i think this is i've been uh appearing uh before this board for 40 years
And I think this is the only time that I have ever appeared before an RCO where the client was given a standing ovation after they left.
Remember from Councilman Driscoll's office was there.
Now, Mr. Grell, just to be accurate here, when you purchased this property, what was on the property?
We purchased the property five years ago.
It was banned in 13 years.
We actually had over $500,000 of trash.
It was basically a community dumping site.
We spent over a million dollars to clean the property and approve it.
And because we were able to get the property and the zoning change,
we were able to stay in the city of Philadelphia.
We almost were forced to move to Delaware or Virginia.
And correct me if I'm wrong, during the community group meeting,
that was one of the things that they were most appreciative of,
the fact that you had cleaned up the...
cleaned it up, and we also donated 1A
for the River Board.
Members of the board, really, that's it.
So, questions, sure.
Okay, questions from the board.
Questions from the board.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shahid, I vote yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, members of the board. Have a great day.
MI 2022-006904-7353 Oxford Avenue.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from the Burholm Town Watch and Civic Association.
Mr. Consul is joining us as a panel.
Good afternoon.
Mr. Consul, state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter.
My name is Joseph Consul.
That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client, your relationship to the property?
Yes, my clients are Albus Rosario and Bissette Durham.
They're the owners of Rosario's Trucking, which is the owner of the property.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to attack proceed?
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir. The RCO letter came in yesterday.
No problem. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
OK, did that screen share work? Yes. OK, so the property in question is 7353, also called 7353 through 7355 Oxford Avenue.
And if you go back to 1960, which is the permit on the screen, it was called at that time the the South Corner Bly and Oxford Avenue.
Now, the reason why I went back to 1960 is because this is the oldest permit I could find on record. It was a refusal at that time to permit the erection of a gas station at this corner lot.
And as you can see, what's also relevant is at the time that this was permitted to be a gas station in 1960, the property was also in a C residential district.
And if you go through the zoning archive forward through time, you'll see that it was owned by Gulf Oil and by Sun Oil as a gas station.
And as we get a little further into time, I'll scroll down on my packet here to my deed.
the transfer prior to my client buying the property was in 1983. And that was from Sun Oil
to the Zivognics, who are the folks that my clients bought the property from. And then if
you go back and see in 1983, the Zivognics started using this property as a motor vehicle repair
and maintenance center. And when my clients, so that was from 1983. And so when my clients
went to buy the property from the Zvogniacs, here's what it looked like, was called Brothers
Auto Service. And that was in February of 2022, when they purchased it. So they purchased it in
February of 2022. And I'll just give you a real quick idea of what it looks like now.
Sorry. Here's what it looks like now. It's across from the auto zone. And yes,
there are residential properties that's surrounded on the other side. Get you another view.
here is it uh from this angle here looking at it um so they bought it in february of 2022
and in april of 2022 my clients applied for and received a motor vehicle repair retail
mobile dispensing license for the property which is still active um but they weren't aware that
there was a use permit required at this property as well. So they got the license. They thought
that that allowed them to begin operating, and they were operating. In May and June of 2022,
as my clients will attest, there was a series of catalytic converter thefts on their property.
And so in June of 2022, they put up the fence that you can see in the shot here.
That fence is six foot high. The guy that installed the fence, thinking it was a commercial property, put the fence in at six feet.
And so the refusals that we're here to discuss today are, there's three of them.
And so the refusals that were were here.
One is the fence can't be six feet. It can only be four feet in a residential district because this is RSA 3 that requires a four-foot fence, and my client built a six-foot fence.
Two, personal vehicle repair maintenance is prohibited in the RSA 3 residential zoning district. And three, one parking space is required for every 1,000 square feet. We've got 13,000 square feet, and I'll have my client attest to the fact that they have parking spaces for 15 cars available.
Unfortunately, when they had applied for their use permit, they did not specify the number of parking spaces that were being provided. I wasn't available. I wasn't around at that stage. So I believe that initial application didn't include what it needed to regarding the parking, but the parking is there.
So that's that. So they put the fence up and then L&I came out and issued violations for putting up the inappropriate fence and noticed that there was no use permit, even though they do have an active repair license, there was no use permit on file.
And so the issues arose, which led to them filing the application, getting me involved for the appeal.
now um here's the older brothers auto service motor vehicle repair license
we couldn't find a use permit ever issued for for them either but they were operating there
um as you know at least since 2009 but going back to 1983 if you look at the older archive
um it goes back that far that they operated as motor vehicle repair which is what we're seeking
um so uh generally before i discuss our situation with the rco um we believe that a hardship
clearly exists if you pick through the archive you'll see that several times in the 60s and
70s there was uh oil tanks and gas tanks buried on the property uh to allow for these gas stations
to exist. It's just not a property that's suited for residential use. So we don't see how a 13,000
foot property that's been commercial as a gas station and as the exact use we're seeking to
have approved here for 63 years, how that does not present what we believe to be a clear hardship
here today. Now, in March, we went in front of Burlholm Civic Association. What I thought was
started off at least as a productive meeting. There seemed to be a neighbor who was really
pushing to try to get these variances disallowed. I spoke to them about what their issues were with
my client operating on the property. And the three notes I had was, one, he wasn't covering
his tires that were kept on site. Two, he was parking cars obnoxiously outside of his fence
while they were on the street and parked legally on the street. As I understand it, there was just
more cars than the neighbors wanted parked on the streets. And three, his employees were playing
music at night. So he has told me, and I can at least confirm from a photo, and I'll have him
confirm, or I believe Bissette will confirm in her testimony, that he's corrected all these issues,
his employees no longer play music at night, and the cars are no longer parked outside of his
building and that he has covered up the tires uh that were existing on site um so that that's our
case uh we had you know suggested provisors from the community and we just weren't met with uh
any kind of uh desire to to to talk it out so we have a letter of opposition as as you saw um
So if I could call my client to adopt my testimony and add a little bit of her own, it should be under Bissette Durham, if not Albus Rosario. Could you raise your hand?
Ms. Rosario, please unmute yourself.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Alvis, A-L-B-I-S
Last name Rosario
R-O-S-A-R-I-O
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed, counsel. Mr. Rosario, would you discuss with the board briefly? Actually, first, would you adopt the testimony that I gave already as your own? Do you agree with what I said? Yes. Would you testify briefly about the thefts you were experiencing and the installation of the fence?
Proceed, counsel
Mr. Rosario, would you
Yes, like you were saying in the beginning, it was a lot of deaths.
I have a police report, a lot of cuddly computers in this area has been stolen.
Also, it was one of the cars inside was stolen.
And I have video footage of that, too.
So it was like a safety concern for my clients and also for myself, because my dad was here one day.
And as you can see in the pictures, some cars, they don't want to wait in the light, and they tried to cross over.
They almost hit my dad one day, so it scared me really bad.
And that's why I decided that I need some protection.
Even though I called the police, but you know it's really hard when you're not here to protect someone else properly.
You don't have to pay them.
I can talk to my clients, okay, I got something wrapped yesterday.
I can pay, you know, they get mad.
So that was the reason why I installed the things.
All right.
Thank you.
And then on the next issue, at the RCO meeting, there was several complaints regarding covering
the tires, parking on the street, and your employees playing music.
Did you address those concerns?
Yes, I did.
Philadelphia E&T Charter High School to Logan Hotel, and also the Center City District signage
was approved by the Art Commission. Brandon, you have testified several times. They've been sworn.
Just state your name for the record, please. Sure. Brandon Saverin, spelled S as in Sam,
A, V as in Victor, R, A, N as in Nancy. Could you identify your client and the relationship
to this property?
So my clients are the owners of the property.
The owners of the property are a group of tenants in common.
I'll read you the LLC names.
BP, GFP, LLC, 1429, BFP, LLC, 1501, BFP, LLC, and 1515, BFP, LLC.
Reed Slogoff is here to speak on their behalf.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chairman.
I agree to waive the reading, but I do not stipulate to its accuracy simply because the notice of refusal calls these use refusals.
And as I will explain, they are certainly dimensional refusals. They are not refusals.
Understood. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Hello again, members of the board.
So we're here to talk about signs.
That is what this refusal and the zoning permit application that triggered it are about.
And here, I'll zoom in a little bit just so you can see.
It says that the application is for the erection of three flat wall signs and that our signs are too big.
Depending on their location, we have three signs.
they're either permitted to be 100 square feet in size like this way as if you drew a box around
them to measure them or 160 square feet or all three of the signs are the same they're each 321.3
square feet so those are clearly dimensional issues the type of sign is allowed it's their
locations are allowed um they're just too big right so under state law and sort of common sense
Those are dimensional refusals. They're not used refusals. But otherwise, let me show you the sign
so you have a sense of what we are talking about. Here is one of them. So this is sort of a well-known
building at 18th in the Parkway. It's got a cylindrical tower that rises from its base.
It used to be for a while a hotel called the Embassy Suites, and it's now called the Terrace.
So here is one such sign. There's three of these. So I'm going to show you real fast a couple.
That's a different one than the one I just showed you. And here is the third. And then we have a
site plan. And I'll go back to those photos in a minute so you can have a better look at them.
But here's a site plan that shows where those signs are located on the tower. This is our
zoning plan. So Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that we have art commission approval. So I'm going to
show you that approval and briefly use our submission to the art commission as a way to
talk about the history of the property. So here's the art commission's approval letter.
And we also have approval from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Both of those agencies have
I'll call it prerequisite approval authority over signs on the parkway. So one thing I want to make
clear from the outset to you is that your decision today, contrary to what the RCO letter may have
said, is really not precedent setting because every sign on the parkway, whether it's by right
or it's not by right like ours requires art commission and dpr approval before it can get
to you and further as you know if you do grant a variance that would of course not pertain to any
other properties and it wouldn't pertain to future signs on our property but we do have
art commission approval certainly won't read this but here's a letter that was submitted to the art
I certainly won't read this, but here's a letter that was submitted to the Art Commission, and I'm just going to then scroll down to a couple of building permits that we recently pulled and use these as a sort of base to talk about history.
Commission.
So the ownership group purchased this building in December of 2018 and planned a renovation to improve the look of the ground floor and find a replacement tenant for the former TGI Fridays.
I'll just go down really quickly, and I am in Exhibit 12 here.
Here's the Friday space on the parkway.
I'm sure you've all seen it, maybe remember it.
And here is a rendering of sort of what that was replaced with. Now, that space and its sign are not a subject of the refusal, but I bring them up to talk about what happened here.
So my clients sort of get underway here on the left is their building permit to renovate that Friday space to prepare for a new tenant.
And this permit, this building permit for that renovation was issued in late February of 2020.
That was about the last few weeks of normalcy in our lives before COVID came to Philadelphia and turned the city into a silent still frame.
Um, and my clients were really in trouble because they were getting underway with that
renovation of the ground floor, but that hotel upstairs was no longer seeing any clients
and was getting to the point where it was soon not going to generate any revenue for
itself or the building owners.
So my clients had to think really fast or else they were going to be stuck with a closed
ground floor space that was going to be a sort of a vacant concrete wall to the parkway. So what
they decided to do, because before it was a hotel, that tower was an apartment building.
They decided to take it back to apartments. They thought that would do better during the pandemic
than a hotel. So they got the hotel out of there. They pulled, here's on the right, a commercial
permit from October of 2020 that allowed them to do that use conversion from hotel to apartment
and some related structural renovations. In the process of, you know, making that change happen,
the embassy suites signs had to come down. So I'll just go back to that photos, those photos now.
Now, here are the old signs.
There were only two of them as opposed to three,
but those two were sort of in a similar location
to two of our three.
And what the charter annotations say about that role is that, quote, I'm sorry, is that the Art Commission has jurisdiction over, quote, the most important and expensive properties of the city, end quote.
So that's just to say that the Art Commission has design experts on it and decades of experience trying to determine what is appropriate art for our public spaces.
And they worked with my clients to design these signs and then approved them.
I think that's very important to keep in mind in the face of the RCO opposition, which I'm going to talk about in a second.
Because this may be a case where the city's own in-house experts should have, you know, a higher say than one RCO group.
I'm going to go to some of our letters by our near neighbors.
So although this is in the Logan Square neighborhood, the immediate area is not, you know, is mostly not residential, right?
To the west and the north are residential neighborhoods, but what's around us is a lot of office buildings, some hotels.
So this map in the blue stars shows where the letter writers are from in comparison with us.
We're the red star. This is the map at Exhibit 9.
And I'm going to quickly go through pieces of these letters and tell you who they're from.
This letter on my screen right now, page 63, is from Brandywine Realty Trust.
They own three office buildings that all surround our property, one of which is on the parkway,
one Logan Square.
And they wrote, you know, in support of the signs, quote, the purpose of this letter is
to offer our support for the design and signage changes,
which the terrace is seeking approval for, end quote.
Next page, page 70 is a letter from a charter high school
that is directly across the parkway from us.
So like it or not, they have to stare
at our building all day.
Won't read any of this,
but it really mirrors the last letter from Brandywine.
It is explicit support for the three signs
we're talking about.
Next letter on the following page is from the Logan Hotel, which, again, the same sentiment, quote, we feel strongly that the signage is additive, end quote, to the parkway and helps attract locals and visitors to the parkway.
And finally, and maybe most importantly, this is a letter from Paul Levy, the CEO of the Center City District, which is a private organization that the city contracts with to maintain its own spaces.
So Dilworth Plaza is probably the most notable of those spaces, but CCD also maintains several green spaces on the parkway.
So again, CCD and Sister Cities Park, which it manages, they have to look at us all day, like it or not.
And again, Mr. Levy supports the signs and says, quote, that they help ensure the continued viability of the building and the vibrancy of the parkway, end quote.
So let me compare that really quickly with our experience with the RCO.
So I met with Mr. Slogoff from the ownership group with the RCO on Zoom.
They did allow us to make a lengthy presentation explaining why these went up without the zoning permit. It was a mistake of law. My client thought that the Arc Commission approval was sufficient, but they didn't really engage in discussion with us.
They basically said, we're really not pleased that you put these up before speaking with us
and the zoning board. So please go home and let us think about this. We're not happy with you.
So we parted ways and they sent us a letter, I think a couple of weeks later. And that letter
is on your screen on their letterhead. And you can see for yourself the three things they requested.
I'll summarize briefly.
Number one, to give them an inventory of other signs on our property.
No problem there.
Number three is about trash, which I'll discuss in a second.
And number two in the middle is that they want to make sure that if you were to grant
a variance, that it would not allow us to put up other signs or change these signs.
But if you seek the counsel of your solicitor, I can promise you that these approvals, if you grant them to us, would not allow us to put up any other signs.
So number two is taken care of.
taken care of. That basically leaves the trash. And Reed, who you'll hear from in a minute,
That basically leaves the trash.
And read.
wrote back about 10 days later, and this is his email to the author of that letter from the RCO,
and explained that he had fired the private trash hauler of which the RCO complained,
signed a new contract with waste management, increased the number of pickups,
and installed a new system where waste management can come into the property so that they don't
leave dumpsters outside. These were, you know, prompt, significant actions to address the RCO's
concern. What followed is an email from the RCO. The zoning board was copied, so I'm not showing
you anything that they didn't intend for public eyes. And it basically says, sorry, but after all
that, it's not about the trash and it's not about, you know, the other things we brought up. In
reality, they're just too big. And we're afraid that this is going to set a precedent for big
signs. So I'm going to call our expert witness to talk about why these signs have to be the size
they are. But suffice it to say, again, no sign is getting by on the parkway that's anything close
to this big without you, the ZBA and the Art Commission and DPR saying yes every time. So
So with that, I'd like to call first Reed Slogoff to adopt my testimony, and then Morris Clark, who is the architect.
Mr. Slogoff, please unmute yourself.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Reed Slogoff, R-E-E-D-S-L-O-G-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. Reed, are you authorized to speak on behalf of the various
in common I named earlier that own the building? I am. Okay. Did you hear my testimony just now?
I did. I did. It was very comprehensive. Thank you. Was it true and accurate testimony to the
best of your knowledge information and belief yes it was would you therefore adopt it on behalf of
the ownership group as if it were the owner's testimony i would yes i would um you know keeping
in mind that i've already spoken for a while i'm going to bring morris on next is there anything
else you want to add to what i said no i i appreciate your giving all the background that
we have we've worked very hard to um do everything the right way we've done that for many years we've
developed several properties in the heart of center city including the logan square neighborhood and
um you know we we feel that um everything you outlined accurately indicates this situation
which was really a technicality that um we feel is unfair okay all right um thank you so um
mr chairman my uh next and final witness is uh morris clark okay mr clark could you please
come on state your name and spell for the court reporter
Morris, Clark, M-O-R-R-I-S-C-L-A-R-K-E.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
So, Morris, I have Exhibit 13 on the screen.
If you can see this, can you confirm that this is your professional resume?
Yes, it is.
Okay. Can you briefly summarize for the board what you do for a living and your experience or training that sort of led to that?
Yeah, I'm an architect at EAS Architects. I'm the director of operations and a partner here.
I'm sorry, Chair.
Mr. Clark, I know. I don't, John. Mr. Clark, could you get closer to the mic? We're having a hard time hearing you.
Yes, I'm sorry. Is that any better?
Maybe try a little bit more.
just really speak up more in a forced way okay can you hear me that okay great um so i am a
partner i'm the director of operations and project architect with das architects and we are located at
1628 jfk boulevard in philadelphia uh i've been uh with das for over 18 years uh i've been in the
here in the city and up and down the east coast on projects similar to this high-rise projects
been in front of the art commission as well as the zoning commission for signs and several other
projects as well within the city. Thank you. So Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the board accept
Mr. Clark as an expert in the design of signage. We will listen to his testimony as an expert.
Okay. Thank you very much. So, Morris, are you familiar with the three wall-mounted signs that I've been speaking about in this hearing?
Yes, I am.
And were you familiar with the Embassy Suite signs that predated them in similar locations?
Okay. What's the basis of your familiarity with both the new and the old signs? Do you live near there? Do you walk by? Just how do you know them?
Yeah, I walk by the site twice a day on my way into the office from the parking garage
that I park at and on my way back out.
Okay, so based on that, is it fair to say that you're also familiar with this area of
Ben Franklin Parkway around 18th Street?
Yes, I am.
Okay, so I'm going to bring up those same photographs just as a reference for you.
And I'm going to ask you a couple questions. So based on your experience with both the new signs and the old signs, do you think that by right-sized signs, such as the old signs, which I will put up one of now,
do you think that by right sized signs would be legible to pedestrians or motorists beyond our
own block no okay um do you think that by right sized signs would potentially cause drivers to
strain to see them yes um can you expand on that a little bit for the board you know what
yeah i mean um you can see in this photo that you have up uh the signs are quite small they're not
legible um if you are driving i know this post speed limit's 25 on the parkway but um the cars
are not doing that people are driving a lot faster like i said i crossed this road uh twice
at least twice a day um and people are moving at high rates of speed and uh sometimes distracted
um smaller signs would uh the smaller signs that were there um are not you can't really see them
from from a distance so if someone's trying to find where they're at they're paying attention
they're looking around they're not uh completely concentrating on both driving and and the signage
um it's hard to find and uh the the new signage i think is is much more proportional to um allow
people to be able to see them at a safe distance to be able to pull over if they're driving um or
you know make any required turns um to be able to pick up drop off or or come to this location
okay um morris the image i have on my screen right now which is in exhibit 14 and it's page 95
Can you, do you, is this the southeastern corner, which is to say the far corner of 17th and the parkway?
Okay. So we're looking at our property from that vantage point?
And would you say that from this vantage point that the old Embassy Suite sign that I'm showing you is legible?
It is not.
And just the same question really quickly, I now I'm at page 93 of our exhibits.
Is this the far corner?
So this would be the northwest corner of the intersection of 18th Street and the Parkway?
Where the campus?
And we're looking at the old embassy suite sign that was opposite that corner.
Is that right?
Is this a photo of the new terrace sign on this corner?
Yes, it is.
Do you find that this sign has substantially improved legibility and visibility versus the old sign here?
Yes, I do.
Is this sign similar to the other two wall-mounted signs that we're here to talk about today?
Yes, it is.
And do you also feel that those two signs present an increase in visibility from what was there prior, if anything was there prior?
Yes, they do.
Okay. And finally, to conclude, quick questions.
Number one, do the signs pose any sort of safety hazard to the public, the new signs?
Okay. Do you think they degrade the quality of life of the public?
No, I think they're nice looking signs. I think they add to the building.
And last question, just to attempt to summarize your testimony, is it fair to say that our signs are about the minimum size at which they would be legible to pedestrians and vehicles off of our own block?
Yes, I believe. I believe so.
Okay. Thank you.
So, Mr. Chairman, that is our presentation,
and I'm happy to have Morris or Reed take questions.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Dennis Boylan.
Hi, Mr. Boylan. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Dennis Boylan, D-E-N-N-I-S-B-O-Y-L-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Boylan.
Good afternoon, Chairman. Thank you for your time. I, too, have a deck, but I,
unless it's required, will proceed verbally. I disagree with a number of the items presented in
the testimony of the applicant, but I will start off by saying that the Logan Square
Neighborhood Association unanimously opposed this request. The vote was 30 to 0. Not only does it
violate the letter of the law. The signs are too big. And just to make very clear, too high.
The council mentioned that they were placed similarly. They're one whole floor above. And
his photographs, if we went back and did it compatible with the previous signs for embassy
suites, would show that. And the spirit of the law. These signs were erected. And then now we're
seeking approval. The refusal under consideration is to permit the erection of signs, not to legalize
an existing situation. And let's make that very clear. You know, this is we're putting the cart
before the horse here. And the Art Commission, notwithstanding, and the Parks and Rec, I would
be fascinated to read the testimony before the Art Commission and whether the question was asked
about the square footage of the signs when they did their evaluation of it. I would be the most
interested to hear if they understood the concept of signs that are 321 square feet, which is what
these are, each one of them, versus the permitted 100 or 160. I don't think the Art Commission asked
that question. I would be happily corrected on that if the other side would like to point that
out. This size discrepancy, even though it's taking place at the beginning of COVID, is not
a rounding error. This isn't a clerk just making a mistake here. 321 versus 100 or 160. It was a
decision to go big and to go high. That was what the decisions that were made. And as the developer
clearly stated, they're experienced in signs around the city. And with the four letters of
support that they had, each one of those entities, each one of them, because I have the photos of
their properties nearby, has code compliant signage. So they may have written a letter
saying, oh, the signs are great, but they complied with the law and adhered to what is the parkway
buffer zone. So it's very important to understand that, that we're now allowing signs along the
Benjamin Franklin Parkway, an area that we not only have a zone that regulates the signage,
but also the height permitted in the area, that we're now going to allow something that breaks
that. And there's future development planned in the parkway area, so we're setting a precedent.
And there's future development planned in the Parkway area. So we're setting a precedent. And we're saying basically ignore the law, put the sign up, and then come back and plead for forgiveness later on. Somehow that just doesn't seem to make sense to us as an RCO.
And that's why it's not something that can be negotiated, because it is part of the Parkway's fabric. All the other entities on the Parkway adhere to the signage code. This one doesn't. Let's also talk about what it was previously. It was an Embassy Suites Hotel. That sign was 92.05 square feet. This again, 321.
one. Embassy Suites seemed to be okay with that. And they were a hotel that had to have people
find their building, contrary to the expert testimony, and people pull into their driveway.
This is not a hotel. It's an apartment house. It does have, I think, one of the sonder floors in it,
but it doesn't have the same requirement as a hotel to have signage for directing customers in.
it's an apartment house. So in the end, what we believe is that the ZBA should deny this request
for variance. And we have the support of Council President Clark standing with us. And we believe
that these signs should be removed, and that code compliance signs should be replacing them.
Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, I will do these things very briefly, I need to cross
examine Mr. Boylan, and I need to bring on Morris to redirect him. It should take a couple minutes.
Okay. Mr. Boylan, are you speaking on behalf of Logan Square Neighbors Association?
Yeah, that is correct.
Okay. Can I ask about your personal experience with these signs? Do you
do you live or work somewhere where you can see them from these locations or you just see them
in the course of traveling the parkway? I've lived for 42 years in this neighborhood just
off the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. And so I would question, you're questioning my ability as a near
neighbor. I am a near neighbor. And just because you brought it up in your presentation, I work
closely with the business entities down there. One of the entities that wrote you a letter of
support, we work very closely with on issues regarding the parkway. I deal with the Logan
Hotel on issues of noise coming off of their building. So yes, I'm very-
Mr. Boylan, let's try to stay to his questions. And I think your answer was,
you've lived there for 42 years
and you're well aware of it.
My last question
is for establishing standing
in the event of a court of appeal
is whether Mr. Boylan
can see the sign from his home.
That's a yes or no answer.
And now I'm done.
The answer is no.
Thank you.
So I'd like to bring Morris back on.
Wait a minute.
Thank you, Mr. Boylan,
for coming in and testifying.
Morris...
can you hear me yep we can see okay perfect hey morris i'm just going to bring that photo on one
photo series on one more time so um did you just hear the um testimony that mr boylan gave
on page 94 here's the new one on page 95 here's the old one could you approximate
the difference in the positioning in terms of height if there is any
uh go back down to the existing they're at a different angle i don't think it's even the same
It might be a floor, but probably less.
Okay, thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'll just conclude with two of my own remarks.
Brandon, why don't we see if there's anyone else in the virtual audience, right?
Okay, that's absolutely fine.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience that has a comment?
I see no hands, Chair.
Proceed, Brandon.
Okay, thanks.
Sorry about that.
Let's see.
So I just wanted to show the board the refusal one more time. You know, here we are, reason for refusal. The proposed signs above the second floor windowsill is prohibited in this zoning district. And I know how that reads.
And so I understand I'm going to give Mr. Boylan the benefit of the doubt that he believes the signs are too high per code.
But what the examiner meant, if you look at the zoning code, is that if the signs are higher than the second floor, that these size limitations exist.
size limitations exist i don't believe that the code says that they are too high period okay i
I don't believe that the code says that they are too high, period.
OK, I just wanted to clarify that.
just wanted to clarify that um and then the last thing is and i'll stop sharing my screen
And then the last thing is, and I'll stop sharing my screen, you know, if you're if you're a scoff law, if you're out to put up some signs and break the law and have no regard for the city's requirements, you don't go to the art commission before you do so.
And, you know, if you're if you're a scoff law, if you're out to put up some signs and break the law and have no regard for the city's requirements, you don't go to the art commission before you do so.
My client simply made a mistake, as many do.
My client simply made a mistake, as many do. It thought that that was the only permitting required. That's it.
OK, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX 5 zoning being located on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
This property is subject to art commission approval for all building permits, including signage.
The three signs proposed for the tower portion of the building, along with others on the ground floor, were approved as designed and installed by the art commission.
Therefore, the city planning commission has no opposition to granting the variances required to legalize these signs.
Thank you. Brandon, we've had a lot of testimony on this. And I would really like to sit with the board members and go over and take everybody's point of view in. And then what we'll do is next Wednesday, we'll vote at two o'clock.
OK, thank you. Thank you. And thank you to planning commission on that comments, too.
We're going to move on to the next case. Number 12, MI 2022-006-980-241 South 6th Street.
David Feynman is the attorney. Letter of support from Society Hill Civic Association.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Mark Squilla. Signage approved also by the Art Commission.
Hi, Mr. Feynman, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
S. David, F-I-N-E-M-A-N, counsel for both one Independence Place Owners Association,
as well as two Independence Place Owners Association.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
approximately 500 separate units. I also want to take this opportunity initially
to thank Ms. Emerson, who we spoke to yesterday regarding certain issues that involve condominium
associations. Let me also indicate that I have with me Gary Crimstock, an attorney in our office,
who's probably the expert in the city in regard to condominium associations and condominium law.
So should the board have any questions, we can address it to him, as well as Rachel Rempel,
an associate in our office, who has helped us with this matter. Let me begin by going through
the notice of refusal and indicate to you that you'll see that in the notice of refusal,
it goes back to certain provisions that existed back in in the early 90s which was why it was
refused at the same time that one independence place had a sign that existed for a long period
of time we estimate over 40 years and i think we can pull off that old sign for you just for a
minute and then explain how we got so you see the sign on on the left hand side one into independence
place with the address on it that sign came down when independence place then did a renovation
Mr. Feynman, Mr. Feynman, do you have, we're seeing the complaint, we don't see the sign.
Oh, there it is. Okay, thank you. Okay, that sign came down when Independence Place did an entire
renovation of its outside area, and that was because the underground parking needed to be
renovated. So in this case, since you've heard all the testimony about the last case, in this case,
what occurred was that our builders went and applied for new permits, and when they applied
for the new permits, it was indicated that we needed to get permission to put up the signs.
So this was the application that we filed for the appeal, and the location of the sign
is the same exact location that existed before.
We then have gone to the RCOs,
and you'll see all the notices that are made to the RCOs,
and we then revised our plans
as different from the previous sign,
um and and this is the revised the revised plans
um eventually we met with the rco and the rco asked us to revise the plans again
which we did and you'll see a letter of support from the rco
which is signed by Mr. Bonnie we just received actually an email from Mr. Bonnie indicating that
he's he he was on the zoom for some period of time and he had to leave but we if he's not back on
he wanted the board to know that he apologizes for not being able to describe his full support
personally, and he hopes the letter is sufficient to understand that the RCO is in support.
Please make sure that the board approves the plan referenced in my letter. And the plan
referenced in his letter was then we had received approval from the art commission for the initial
plan. The RCO asked us to actually make the letters a little smaller. We agreed.
Mr. Feynman, who's the president of the RCO?
Paul Boney, is that Bonnie?
Paul Boney is the chair.
Okay, fine. That's what I thought I saw.
Yeah, and we did that.
We have gone back to the Art Commission to receive approval of the revised plan.
We're putting that in front of you, and we just received, you'll see the date here, 4-11, which is yesterday.
We just received approval of the revised plan.
And the last thing that we have is just to show you that the appropriate posting.
that the appropriate posting was made in front of the condominium association.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to take them.
The only question I would have, you went by a little quick, could you show us what the final sign looks like?
you'll see it right there just the address okay no oh i oh i see it okay fine fine thank you
there and what we've done this sign actually the letters are going to be a little smaller
Okay, fine, sir.
And that is my case.
Why don't you bring your client on?
We'll have your testimony adopted.
Let me ask Mr. Deshefsky, if you're here, if you could sign on.
Mr. Meyerson.
Mr. Deshefsky, please unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, sir.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Sir, you will have to unmute yourself.
Okay, Mr. Chairman, can you hear me now?
I can.
Just state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter, please.
Yes, Richard Dashefsky. My last name is spelled D-A-S-H-E-F-S-K-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir?
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Dashefsky, you've heard me testify, and I'd ask you whether or not you would adopt my testimony as your testimony, and it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge.
I do adopt your testimony as mine. Might I make one comment that might be helpful to the commissioners?
The view of the sign does not clearly indicate that the numbers are not on 6th Street. The numbers are on the side of the driveway to the plaza. So the only signage on 6th Street is the stacked Independence Place name.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Can I ask Mr. Meyerson if he could appear as well?
Mr. Meyerson?
Mr. Meyerson, please unmute yourself.
Okay, I'm unmuted.
Hi. Hi, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Sure. Stanton Meyerson, S-T-A-N-T-O-N-M-Y-E-R-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Meyerson, you've heard both myself testify and Mr. Dyshefsky take a couple of comments regarding the sign.
Would you adopt both of those as your testimony?
And it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge and information, I believe.
Yes, it's true and correct.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chairman.
Right. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Paul Boni.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Mr. Boni might not be.
That's fine.
Mr. Boni, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Paul Boni, P-A-U-L-B-O-N-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
I see you, counsel.
Mr. Boni.
Thank you.
could you inform the board as to your support of this project yes uh i'm the chair of the zoning
and historic preservation committee of the societal civic association i apologize for
i'm sort of walking through an appointment right now um i hope you can hear me um yes we
very much support this proposal um you know we want to thank the applicant for working with us
uh we thought that the letters were too big um and we asked that they make them smaller and they
agreed um so we're really happy with that and well we are in full support of this project thank you
thank you thank you very much for taking the time to call in right and i thank you i would like on
behalf of my client to thank him as well mr thank you thank you mr fine all right any other one else
an adverse audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman,
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City.
In 2020, the zoning map was amended to split commercial mixed-use and residential mixed-use zoning at this location with the support of the community.
The proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance.
MI 2022-006-980-241 South 6th Street.
I vote yes.
I vote yes.
Proviso.
Revised plan, one page, stand by ZBA, April 12, 2023.
Thomas Howellman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, we're going to go to number 14, MI 2022, 007-101, 934-44 Pashonk Avenue.
Stephen Pollack is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Bella Vista Neighbors Association, and there's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
There's also approval received from the Streets Department.
I think I hit all the unmutes and video.
I'll have the video.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Mr. Powell, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Stephen, S-T-E-P-H-E-N-G, Pollock, P-O-L-L-O-C-K.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
I am representing the Asian bank that is the owner of this property at 934 to 44 East Pass Yonk.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulating to his accuracy?
I do, Mr. Vice Chairman.
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case, five things in advance of this hearing?
We forwarded everything but the tax clearance, but we're able to get the tax clearance yesterday and forwarded it to counsel Hillary Emerson.
And I hope that was that is sufficient and that would complete everything that we would have needed to have as a prerequisite to be heard today.
Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Okay, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I have with me today, Mr. James Wang, who is the CEO of the Asian Bank, Mr. Chris Nardo, who is the COO of Asian Bank, Philip Rogers, who's our project architect, and also, if I may, Mr. Chair, as I always do, I have my associate, Nico Realbuto, if we could get him promoted to panelist, because he's going to share his screen for us.
Nico, I think raise your hand.
He's coming back in as a panelist.
Great. Thank you.
The overview is, this is an aerial view.
We have pre-marked exhibits A1 through A13.
It's about 145 pages, Mr. Chair.
We do have a letter of non-opposition from the Bella Vista Civic Association.
We also have a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
They say that there are several conditions they want, and we will show you that we're applying and going along with everything.
But this is a, it's a, it's a piece, it's a, it's the old Napoli pizza place.
And as you can see, the property is, has a building that's a pizza slice.
But we're replacing the pizza slice with a bank. The Asian Bank has two other locations. One, their headquarters is in Chinatown at 1023 Race. They have another branch up in the northeast on Castor Avenue in the 6500, 6800 area. And this would be their third branch in the city of Philadelphia.
you um if you could go to the pictures that are um and this is napoli pizza and if you go through
these pictures one through our a1 through uh 20 show you um the pass young that's the this is the
seventh street side of the building and we also have a pass young side of the building this area
in the back just stay in that area in the back nico uh go back one more this is where we want
to put parking um for many many years uh napoli pizza i guess parked there with their pizza
with their pizza pizza vehicles delivery vehicles and allow patrons to park there
pizza vehicles delivery vehicles and allow patrons to park there but they
but they didn't have the benefit of an officially approved um parking space so mr chairman what
we're driving for is this and if you could get the refusal nico up for us
if you get the refusal up for us uh we're being refused for two things that are we can impact
they're impacted by the hardship of the property.
It's an irregularly shaped pizza pie sliced lot.
We are preserving the existing building and converting the existing one story
building into the bank.
We already do have approval of cause of for a bank and we already have a,
and your board will be happy to know we already have a approval with the sign
permit for signage that will allow us for signage within the limits of the
zoning code. So we're not dealing with signage.
We're just dealing with the parking. We are unable to accommodate having the space that is required for an aisle space of 18 feet. We only have 15 feet, six inches. If you want to go to the parking lot plan, we'll show you that parking lot plan.
there's the streets approval here's the plan so that as you can see right where the big arrow is
in between the two cars we only have 15 six uh the only and i'll have phil rogers our architect
testify to this or affirm my testimony uh the only way we could ever comply with the 15 six
would be to have to tear down at least two feet six of the building uh and to make way just for
accessory for accessory parking spaces the other refusal is for that we only be also again because
of the regular shape of the lot we only have we have a an accessible space but what we aren't
able to provide is a aisle width of 96 inches we are providing 60 inches so again we are limited by
the requirements of the and dictated to by the physical characteristics of the property as an
improvement if you want if we could show you again the pictures of the lot but you can see that we
have landscaping along 7th to the left and landscaping along pass yonk as approved by the
streets department parking will you'll have to come in off of pass yonk and go out 7th also it's
a function of how the streets are one way, you know, that direction.
So this is the best way to flow it.
We have provided for sufficient aisle space and walking ability.
And if we go to some of our pictures again, you can see that's along the 7th Street side.
That would be where the cars would be coming out, and go ahead, keep going.
You can see there's keep going.
Now, this is also that side.
This is looking back towards 7th and Carpenter.
This is coming towards along 7th Street where we'll be going out.
This is also along 7th Street.
Keep going to our other shots of that.
That's the library across the way.
Go ahead. Now, this is the parking lot view from along Pass Yonk. Go back, go down.
That mural is not the mosaic that we're going to preserve this mosaic because it's not on our wall.
It's on the adjacent properties wall. Then if we keep going, you'll see that on our side, that's also part of it.
We had asked for a drive-thru, which was going to compel a variance because we didn't have enough stacking.
We totally gave up on the drive-thru because of the concerns of the neighborhood and the Nebinger School principal because Nebinger School is right around the block.
We have gotten rid of the drive-thru, as you can see.
We also were going to demolish the old existing building and build a two-story.
We've done that.
We've limited ourselves to using the existing.
Also, we had showed an ATM on the outside where people had to stand out on the sidewalk.
the community asked us to make it so it would be an internal vestibule where people would have to
come in to go to an ATM. We've done all that. That's shown in our plans that we have at page
66 and 67 of our segment two. Segment two, you have to go to segment two, I think, not on,
here you go. If you go right here up the top on Passy Yonk Avenue, or I think that's where it is.
Phil, you can correct me if I'm wrong. We have the where it says Pass Yonk Avenue is going to be a walk in for the for the ATM.
So we've addressed all those concerns. And so we do have it as part of our package, the already existing permit for the bank, the already existing permit for the signage.
And that is where our days and hours are going to be Monday through Friday, nine to five, Saturday, nine to three.
We will be closed Sunday. Another concern of Bella Vista was controlling the parking after hours. We're going to use a chain just to chain it off so that we won't have people trying to park there or use it for any purposes other than when we're open.
Again, so we believe that we are in keeping with the neighborhood and the development scheme and not ordering the essential characteristics of this neighborhood because we're zoned CMX2, and a walk-in bank like this is permitted as of right, as shown by our exhibit A2 that we have, or A, I get my list out.
the permit as a right is A3. The permit as a right for the signage is A4. So with that,
I'd like to call up first, Phil. Why don't we have your client come on, Mr. Pollock?
Okay. And adopt your testimony. That's good enough. I would appreciate that. So if I could
have James Wang, who's the CEO of the Asian Bank. Mr. Wang, please unmute yourself.
Hi, Mr. Wang, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. Hi, my name is James Wang, J-A-M-E-S, last name W-A-N-G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
Proceed, Mr. Powell.
All right, James, you've been on and listened to all of my testimony before the board today, is that correct?
Yes. And do you attest that it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
I do. And do you adopt what I've stated as your testimony as to the hardship that would befall
on your necessity for parking for the bank? Yes, I do. Okay. With that, Mr. Chairman,
I would move for the admission into the record of all my exhibits. I would have had Mr. Rogers,
Our plan architect just testify again that the necessity of having to tear down the building.
All right.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time.
Plain and Commission.
Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. I apologize for that delay. Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Okay, in 2015, the zoning map was amended to commercial mixed use at this location in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the van accessible parking requirements of the code.
City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022-007-101-934-44, Passchalk Avenue.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Mr. Milfahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Powell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman May.
Be excused and have a good day.
You most certainly can, sir.
Thank you.
Take care.
Is there anyone on the 2 p.m. list whose case has not been called?
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break and then we're going to come back and we'll get through the 3.30 list.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and this is the 3.30 list for the Zoning Board hearings.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and this is the 3.30 list.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, Hillary Emerson is our attorney, and our Executive Director is Tanya Sunken. Both are present.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify
themselves before testifying. If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call
267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded and a video will be available by contacting
TanyaSunkett at phil.gov. And lastly, the question answer box on the screen is not for
comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett.
Let's look at continuances on this afternoon's list. Number two, MI 2022, 1708 West Erie Avenue.
There's a request.
This is a request for continuance.
That case will be continued.
And number four, MI 2022-006-562-4229 Otter Street, that case is also being continued.
Is there anyone who has questions relative to the two cases I announced that are continued?
I see no handshare.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no handshare.
We're going to go to our list and we're going to start with number three.
MI 2023-000672-929-North 29th Street.
Tabaja Anderson is the tenant applicant.
There's a letter of support from the Fairmount Civic Association, Wood Provisos.
Chair, they're coming back in as a panelist.
That's fine.
good afternoon
please unmute yourself
can you hear me now we we can could could you also put on your uh that's perfect perfect
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please good afternoon everyone i am
to Baja Anderson. That's T as in Tom, O-B-I-J-A-H. Last name is Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Affirm. Right. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
And I'm going to read that. Let me read this first, Ish. The application is for visitor
accommodation and existing structure. The proposed use visitor accommodation is prohibited in the
CMX2 zoning district. Proceed, Ish. Good afternoon, sir. Have you emailed all the required documents
and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
yes i have one uh the cert i actually emailed today so they have everything that they need
okay thank you please proceed and share your screen all right
and please just bear with me this is my first time doing this green button at the bottom
yes so i'm sharing i just want to make sure i'm sharing my desktop
you guys let me know if you can see we don't see anything yet
do you see anything now no no the uh green share button at the bottom of your screen
so i do the share screen and then it's going to ask you to click on your documents to share
No, I don't see that.
I see desktop system preferences, mail on-
Desktop, system preferences, mail, unknown.
I thought I could potentially share my desktop and then just pull up the documents from here.
But it's not allowing me.
I would suggest, like, opening your documents first and then try to share that particular thing.
Your documents first.
All right.
So I have...
I'm trying this document.
May I have to open and share your screen?
This is interesting.
he's unmuted chair I'm not sure
Mr. Shillet
could you unmute
it's looking like he's having
like a connection issue
so he has to go back
and come back in
why don't we
let's see if he goes right back in
All right, why don't we go back to Mr. Anderson, okay?
MI 2023-006-672-921-North-29th Street.
Mr. Anderson.
He's coming back in as the panelist.
Thank you.
Mr. Anderson, how are we making out?
Are you able to hear me now?
We hear you very well. We need to see your documents.
Got you. Now, so I'm actually sharing on my job computer to get back on, but I don't have the documents on my job computer. I only have it on my Apple.
Is there a way because I sent all. I didn't know that you guys would need to see the exact same documents that I have forwarded.
So on my personal computer, not my job computer, if you guys want to, if there's someone that can go in front of me and I can transfer them to my job computer.
In this particular case, it's a visitor accommodation.
I know.
Well, we're ready for the case.
I'm just trying to figure out how best way to do this.
Let me let me try.
Let me ask you, if we continued this, can we get him in quicker than normal?
Lakeisha?
I'm sorry, say that again, Chair?
If we were to continue this case, can we get him in quicker than putting him way back in the line?
Yes, Chair, I can work with him.
But if he just wanted to, like, go from his job computer and just pull up your email, if you sent it to us, so it might just be in your email.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
Maybe I could just pull up my email, just send it, just forward the email and pull it up.
All right, give me one second.
I'll send it to you right now.
And if we don't just want to put this case on pause, we have the other gentleman available now.
Okay, no problem. Sorry, the camera backed me out.
Okay, we'll be right back to you, sir.
All right, give me one second. It's coming into my job computer, and I apologize. I wasn't aware.
No, that's okay.
and sir it should be a green share button at the bottom of your screen okay yep it's coming
okay are you guys able to see my screen it says you're sharing we need to see what you're putting
in it now yes okay do you guys do you guys see my screen now the documents we see your we see your
yep we see your your taxes okay okay so we are applying for a change of use at the property of
111 East Girard Ave it used to be a hair salon and we want to apply for a restaurant takeout
restaurant the reason for this hearing is because we needed special permission yeah we have a
referral here for the departmental license and inspection we also had meetings with our RCOs and
they had an approval. I believe, I don't know if they sent the letter yet to you, but I have one
of the letters and here's the vote count that they had. As you can see, 56 supported, eight opposed,
six recused and abstained. So in majority, they approved our application. Thank you.
And the reason why we're applying for takeout, because simply the size of the place just doesn't
suffice for uh dining at 700 total square feet but there's only 600 use 600 usable square feet
and that wouldn't uh with the concept that we're trying to bring to fish town that wouldn't be
sufficient for us to have a good uh traffic flow of dining and take out so we run down the take
He's coming back in as a panelist chair.
Can you hear me now?
How do we think we stand?
Can you hear me now?
We've heard you. Yes, we hear you.
All right. Well, thank you guys for bearing with me.
As I said, this is my first time. I'm not sure which documents you guys want to see, but I'm going to share my screen now.
All right. Proceed, sir.
all right all right good doing um so this is from the yeah meeting that we had
And I was fortunate enough to receive support for the visitor accommodation.
I just wanted to give a little bit of background just before, unless you want me to show you some very specific exhibits, that's the certification, that's the project form.
As you stated, the only difference for a visitor accommodation, so intermittent individuals staying in the property. Right now, we have a business license for 30 days or more.
in this particular property. This is the lease, of course, but this particular property is
a father's property. He's been a longstanding member of North Philadelphia in the community
since 1970, and he's been a standing community member of this particular neighborhood since the
1990s. He is a retired veteran and on a budget, so this particular income would assist him,
And I have stepped into a system with his property management. He is 80 years old. So the visitor accommodation would allow him to not only supplement his income, but would reduce kind of administration, long-term administration, which includes marketing for new tenants, repair concerns, proceedings for termination of tenants.
If you guys are aware of the eviction diversion program, he actually had a tenant for a long time that would not leave in another situation, which affected his income.
So this is a little bit more turnkey for him.
And some of the other reasons, I've actually operated this particular spot for intermittent since 2017 without any incidents.
And now I'm just asking for approval based on the ordinance.
And, of course, I stopped in between since I received the pictures of the property.
Yes, I do.
Show me the photos of the property.
One second.
Every time I go to touch it.
There we go.
Okay. So this is the property on the corner. Okay. And these are the two. Right. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no handshare.
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. Property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan or adopted district plan and recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conforming with the code requirements. Therefore, we recommend the requested variance not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2023, 000672, 921 North 29th Street. I vote yes, with proviso. Second and third floor apartments only. Temporary variance expires April 13th, 2026.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Okay, we're going to go.
Number one, MI 2022, 006361, 7115 Tarsdale Avenue.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Taconi Civic Association.
Hi, Mr. Ward. How are you, sir? I'm very well, Mr. Chairman. Good to be with you this afternoon.
Hope everybody else is well. My name is Sean, S-H-A-W-N, Ward, W-A-R-D, Esquire, Attorney for
Owner Applicant on 7115 Tarsdale Avenue. You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I most certainly don't. Could you identify your client and the relationship
to this property? My client is RJN, A-R-J-A-N, Begay, B-E-G-A-J, owner applicant of the premises
known as 7-1-1-5 Tarsdale Avenue. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusers
to his accuracy? I most certainly do. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits
that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, indeed.
Thank you much. Please proceed to share your screen. Okay, very well. Mr. Chairman, I've
submitted my typical exhibit packet for RJN Begay, commonly known as GINO, for the property
at 7115 Tarsdale Avenue. On the screen now is a copy of the cover sheet. I will blow that up so
it's more readily available for review. Again, A1 is the notice of refusal. This is an application
or a permit for business and professional office at the first floor with previously approved two
family dwelling above. It is not permitted in the RSA3 district and requires a variance.
A2 is the CBA application, A3 project information form, A4 proof of ownership, A5 proof of tax
clearance, A6 is a site location map, A7 photographs including proof of posting, subject property,
aerial view, street views, as well as interior. A8 is the letter of support packet submitted by
Tacony Civic. If submitted, I would ask that Councilman Driscoll's letter be marked as A-10.
I'm not sure if Stan Sawinski from Councilman's office is on board today. In any event, I have
heard no opposition from that office. A-11 is the relevant zoning history. Back in 1953,
it was a vacant store in one family. In 1962, it changed to a retail bakery in two apartments.
For those of us that remember Fran Weston, God rest her soul, our former state rep from
the area, it was her office in 1981, together with two apartments.
86, it was a travel agency and two apartments.
89, a beauty salon and two apartments.
And most recently, it was an auto tag agency and two apartments.
However, I saw no permits on file for that.
However, as you can see in the photographs, that auto tag agency moved to the property
Here's a photograph of the front door open leading into the office space.
It's a relatively small office space consisting of two desks and a powder room.
Here's a view back towards the front door.
That's the powder room.
On the block, we are located at the far left here, indicated by my cursor.
Sanuti Funeral Home is located on the corner.
across the street uh you have a dental practice with some other commercial establishments
with apparent residential uses above this is my notice of the rco meeting which was sent on 1214
for a meeting on january 31st it included a copy of the refusal the mailing address is also attached
our certificate of mailing, indicating that it went out to 128 different addresses on December
14th of 2020. The RCO, nobody attended the meeting. However, the chair of the zoning committee was
familiar with the property and the history of it, and the committee voted to not oppose this
application. They did supply a letter of explanation. They included several provisos
owners expected to keep the sidewalks clear and passable obviously that's a requirement under
city code so we you know obviously we comply with that um they're requesting that we install
security cameras and register them with the safe cam network the applicant has agreed to do that
and they're asked to install a timer on the site on in the sign let me go back to that photo just
so you can understand what they're talking about uh this sign which is on the side of the building
tends to provide glare to the adjoining properties, so they've requested that we put that on a timer
so that it shuts off at a certain time at night, and we will obviously, I don't know if that's
an applicable proviso, but we will work with the RCO, Tarsdale Civic, to accommodate that request.
This is our zoning map. It's in the RSA3 zoning district. It is a mixed-use block. Here is an
aerial photograph, again, showing located between Princeton Avenue to the left on the map
and Friendship Street to the right. And again, the applicant owner is R. Jan Begay. It's an RSA3
district. We're looking for a home health care business office together with the previously
approved two apartments. We went through the zoning history. It would have one employee,
the owner operates out of that and may maybe in the future may have an assistant
disregard the seating that's from a that's from a takeout restaurant or something
but the days and hours of operation would not exceed 8 a.m to 6 p.m
and accordingly we seek a variance for the business office
Gino is currently working on job sites today and unavailable however I did review the entire
exhibit packet with Gino, Mr. Begay, and he would, if present, verify the truth and accuracy of my
representations, and he would certainly adopt them as his own representations, and I submit that as
an officer of the court. Let's accept it. Questions from the board?
No, Chair. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair planning commission sorry ron bednar city planning while his property is
currently indicated for residential use on the city plan given the physical circumstances of
the site in this documented use history we have no objection to the granting of the parents
thank you mi 2022 006 361 71 15 tarsdale avenue i vote yes
my vote is yes
James Snell my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes
thank you Sean
thank you Mr. Chair I'll see you at the end of the list
all right thank you number five
NY 2022
006 695
6801 Ogons Avenue
Henry Clinton is the attorney
letter of none
opposition from
Council Member Phillips
and the support from the RCO
with unenforceable provisos.
Mr. Clinton is coming back in
as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Clinton, how are you, sir? Could you
state your name, please, and spell for the
court reporter? Sure. Henry Clinton,
C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm 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? I do.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Ming, M-I-N-G, Zhu, Z-H-U.
Okay. He is on the call.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Everything when we just got in the tax certification from the real estate department.
It's actually a printout from the Department of Revenue.
Understood.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, Mr. Shaheen.
Thank you.
so chairman is that visible it is sir it was wait a minute zoom just took it over
you can just minimize that you could you and then the document is behind it or you
could click the document behind it. So minimize the error. There we go. Thank you for that
tutorial. I appreciate that. So good afternoon again, Chairman, members of the board. I'm
Henry Clinton. I'm on behalf of the client, Ming Zhu, who's owned this property for about five
years. This is a request to continue the permission of automobile repairs at a gas station
that's been in effect. It's been at this location, frankly, since 1960. And I'll show you that with
zoning records. So basically what the client is doing is using this for auto repairs, but not
selling gas. That's the only change over the last 60 years. So the table of contents contains AA
through A-10, which I ask to be admitted into evidence as we move forward. This is my appearance
statement, and this is the refusal. Again, it's a use refusal. We're in the CMX2 zoning district,
and the L&I examiner concluded that the proposed use personal vehicle repair and maintenance is
prohibited in this zoning district. We do have an RCO letter of non-opposition from the 10th
Board, Democratic Committee, and at the meeting, their main concerns, frankly, Mr. Chairman,
not so much the use, but what was going on on the lot, illegal parking. There's no fencing around
the property. There never has been. And there's a number of residential properties nearby, as well
as commercial properties, and individuals in the evening are parking on the lot. So it was very
upsetting to the neighbors. They've asked us to basically develop a plan to try to have those
cars that shouldn't be there removed in a timely manner. And it's kind of a difficult task only
because their neighbors and the individuals doing the repairs don't want to alienate their near
neighbors. So we're trying to work that through in a neighborly fashion rather than just asking
the police to come and ticket and tow cars. So I think the community group is sensitive to that,
but we do want to follow through and try to keep any cars that should not be on the lot in the
evening off the lot and one of the things the community group asks us to do to help with that
process is to have a gate or a fence put around the property which my client is willing to do
because he also doesn't want going with this issue and he really doesn't want to fight with
the near neighbors. These are photographs. My cursor is going east to west on 66th Avenue and
Ogontz is my cursor is going north to south. The parcel is here where I'm circling. It basically
contains a 10,000 square foot building and there were historically three automotive bays in the
building and a small office area. The other area to the left of the building is a pavilion under
which the gas pumps were located. And you will see from my plans that this area where the gas
pumps used to be located will be used for parking. This is a shot of the rear of the building. And
this is a thoroughfare, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, which runs to other apartments in
the back and that's why sometimes these dwellers end up parking on my client's lot. This is the
This is the overhead pavilion. Again, the pumps used to be located before there. I mean, underneath the pavilion. Now it's simply used for parking as people drop their cars off and then the cars are worked on inside the three bays.
overhead pavilion. Again, the pumps used to be
You can see the bays in the rear. Again, the parking pavilion. Here's a better shot of the three automotive bays and the office to the right.
and then we have the posting of the signs
around the perimeter of the building.
These are the plans.
Again, pretty nondescript in the sense that we have a building
and I'm calling this pavilion or overhead structure
below which sat the gasoline pumps at one time.
The next is a diagram showing that the turning radius are certainly ample to get in and out of the lot and also in and out of the three stalls or bays where automotive repairs are accomplished.
And then we have parking underneath the overhead pavilion, as well as some ADA parking adjacent to the building.
Here's our tax certification.
And then, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to show the board, besides the typical document you would see in a presentation like this, the deed, the notification to the neighbors, and the 250 feet radius within which notices are sent out.
I wanted to show everyone the zoning records indicating that from 1960 through 1996 and beyond, the property was used as a gas station.
This is 1996. Going from the most recent backwards, this is the gas station.
1990, excuse me, 1979. This is when the tanks were replaced, but it was still maintained as a gas station.
It was an Exxon at that time. In 1970, it was a Humboldt oil. That's certainly a name from the
past. Again, used as a gas station and three automotive repair bays. And then the Genesis
is 1960, S-O, E-S-S-O, a gas station. And then it was called a gas station and service station.
um so basically in conclusion uh this corner lot at 68th and ogonts has historically been used as
a service station uh for about 60 years my client's tenant wants to continue to use
the location for what it was originally used for in fact we have less of a use than
a service gas station because my client is not selling gas. Basically, I keep saying client,
but the tenant is using this location simply for automotive repairs, no selling of gas,
no selling of retail sales of any type. We are not affecting the development of any other
properties in the area. In fact, if you look around the surrounding area across the street,
is an auto repair and towing facility across the street is a mini market. So there's ample
This is Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
While this property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan,
given the physical circumstance, we have no objection to granting advance.
Thank you, sir.
MI 2022-006-695-6801 Oguns Avenue.
I vote yes.
Thomas Elliman, my...
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have a great day, everyone.
Great. Number six, MI 2022-006-694-7040-48 Castor Avenue.
Gary Perkis is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from the community on the rise.
and also the applicant provided a petition
with approximately, signed by approximately 20 neighbors.
Mr. Perkis has joined us as a panelist.
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Perkis.
Could you state your name, please?
And spell for the information, please.
My name is Gary Perkis, and I'm an attorney,
and I represent 7040-48 Castro Avenue, LLC.
Mr. Perkins, could you spell your last name for the court reporter, please?
P-E-R-K-I-S-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, please?
Yeah, my client is 7040-48 Castor Avenue, LLC.
And our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Do you have my screen?
We see your screen, but you're going to have to open up the documents.
Well, I see on my screen that they're open, so.
I mean, can you see the the list? Could you open up 70,
34 Caster Avenue? No?
In other words, what we're seeing is all your documents and messages. We're good now. We're
good now, sir. You're good? Okay. Yeah, we're good. All right. First of all, the property in
question is, it's a two-story office building. It has one commercial tenant on the first floor,
an appliance store, along with a non-profit education facility on the first floor.
And then it has a very large parking lot.
And I'll show you in the pictures exactly what it looks like.
My clients purchased the property March 12th of 2020.
It's owned CMX2.
They had a problem with trespassers into the parking lot.
They did construct a fence that was six feet in height.
The ordinance requires that fences along the street front, in this case along Caster Avenue and Princeton Avenue, be only four feet in height.
However, my clients believe that a four-foot fence would not keep out the trespassers who also were leaving, they were leaving a lot of trash, they were doing drugs in the parking lot, and it was a mess.
and also this right here along along the along castor avenues castor avenue here this is princeton
avenue here um these are photographs of the zoning notice that was posted uh they were it
was originally posted on the 15th my client's been there several times including today and it's still
there this is the fence in the in the back of the property this six foot fence in the back along
along where this car is parked it's that that's not what's at issue that the zoning for that is
eight feet and it complies with that the the this and this is facing princeton avenue so it's it's
it's the portion of the fence the small portion that's uh facing the street so it's uh apparently
four panels is what is what we're looking at um as you can see the back of the fence you can see
the neighbors across on the back, this back alleyway, all have six foot fences back here.
And this is the back fence. Again, this is the back. This is this another view of the fence on
Princeton Avenue that we're looking for the variance for. And this is the front of the
property. This metal fence in the front that is not, you know, is that you can see through the
fence is is the other fence that's in question here that's facing caster avenue
um and this is a closer book a street view of the fence on caster avenue
in the front of the building this is underneath the building it shows it's all been all cleaned
out and they've been able to maintain the cleanliness of the of the parking lot since
the fence that has been installed um this is a notice email to the rco uh community on the rise
and copy of it that was sent to the zoning board this is the notice that was sent with the refusal
this is the post office list of all the letters that were sent out this is a consent of the
neighbors. We had a petition signed by many of the neighbors. And if you compare this consent
form to the list of properties where the notice was sent, 90% of them, I believe, are on that
list. So these are all neighbors within a block or two of the property. This is the letter from the
RCO approving or supporting the petition and an email I received from the, I guess,
the zoning representative from the RCO who told me that it was approved.
And I think basically I've touched on everything. I would move for the admission of these exhibits.
I do have my client here, Eva Chen. Have him adopt your testimony.
Eva, are you here?
I'm not showing anyone listed with that name and no hands around.
Sir, you're an officer of the court.
We will accept your testimony.
I reviewed everything with Eva beforehand.
I know she told me she was in.
So if you'll accept my testimony, then...
We will.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
No, no, no. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone with the last name ending Lee.
Okay. Please unmute yourself.
recommends no change in existing zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship
is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that
would prevent it from being used in conformity with the fence height requirements of the code.
Therefore, we recommend that rest for ranch not be granted. Okay. MI 2022-006-694-7040-48
Castor Avenue, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Sorry about that, Bill. Trying to get the button here. My vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Perkis. You have your votes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel.
All right. Thank you. Number eight, MI 2022-006-413-222 Hartel Avenue. Sean Ward is the attorney. Letter of support from the Fox Chase Homeowners Association with Proviso. Letter of opposition from neighbors across the street who could not attend the RCO meeting.
Once again, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D, Esquire, attorney for the owner, applicant at 222 Hartel, H-A-R-T-E-L Avenue.
Mr. Ward, could you identify your client?
My client is Dan McVeigh, doing business as Triple Deuce Realty, owner of the premises and applicant in this matter.
All right, our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
stipulate to his accuracy? I most certainly do. Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen. Very good. This is Hillary. I just
want to note that Mr. Ward forwarded over a letter of non-opposition from Councilman O'Neill
in this matter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Very good. Thank you, Hillary. Mr.
Chairman, I've submitted my typical exhibit packet, which is visible on the screen share.
I represent Dan McVeigh doing business as Triple Deuce Real Estate LLC, owner of the premises at
222 Hartel Avenue at calendar number MI2022006413. The packet includes A1 is the notice of refusal.
This was an application for a retail grocery store under the food, beverage, and groceries
category under the zoning code at the first floor, together with an existing single family
dwelling on the second floor in an existing structure. Under the code, food, beverage,
and groceries is not permitted in RSA3. Accordingly, we seek a use variance today.
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal. A3 is the project information form. A4, proof of ownership.
A5, proof of tax clearance. A6 is the site plan. A7 are floor plans. A8 are photographs
with the first floor is a commercial space, and the second floor is the apartment.
We have floor plans showing your typical grocery-type corner store layout with the register, the shelves, the refrigerators, et cetera.
As you can see in this archive for Google, I'm sorry, this is the picture of the posting on the front of the property, a close-up view of the poster.
An angle shot from Google, as you can see, Berholm Avenue runs from bottom to upper left, and Hartel Avenue from bottom to upper right.
In the archive photos from Google Earth, as you can see, this was one of those Unity Frankfurt grocery stores that were predominant throughout the city back in the day.
Here's a side view of the property.
The apartment has its own separate entrance towards the rear of the property on the side.
We have street views, Hartel Avenue.
Hartel Avenue the other way.
Burholm and Burholm.
This is the letter from Fox Chase Homeowners, March 9th of 2023, indicating their support for the application.
This is a copy of the notice of the meeting.
We had a copy of the refusal attached with the addresses, certificate of mailing, 66 identical pieces were mailed out for the property at 22, 22 Hartel Avenue.
This is a copy of Councilman O'Neill's office dated yesterday, stating as no objection to the subject application.
Again, we have the zoning permits from the past, the zoning map and the aerial photograph.
Dan McVeigh is occupied with his other projects today.
However, as an officer of the court, I do certify that I reviewed the exhibit packet with Mr. McVeigh.
And if he were present today, he would verify my representations to the board and adopt them as his own testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
So Ron Bednar City Planning, while the property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan, given the physical circumstances of the property, and it's documented use history, we have no objection to the granting of variance.
MI 2022-006-413-222 Hartel Avenue. I vote yes, with proviso. Hours of operation, Monday through Sunday, 6.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m.
James Snell my vote is yes with proviso
Ishmael Shahid my vote is yes with proviso
you have your votes Mr. Ward
thank you very much have a great evening
all right is there anyone in the virtual audience
whose 330 case has not been called
i see no handshare um thanks everyone we'll be done a little later today but i appreciate
everybody hanging around thank you very much great job jerry one great thank you