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