Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunken and Board Attorney Shaman Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who have not yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we'll begin this morning's session by reading a list of cases to be continued.
If you believe any announced case is being continued in error,
we will give you an opportunity to respond.
If they're reading the continuance list and receiving any feedback,
we will then take any additional continuance request.
Then once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued,
Vice Chair Carol Tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session.
When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants
or other interested parties in their matter,
please identify themselves for the record.
We will then hear the applicant's presentation,
followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public,
not represented by counsel,
will then be given an opportunity to testify.
We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
At the hearing's conclusion,
We will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session.
Any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled Wednesday a .m. session.
Please note the following changes related to the virtual format.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
me. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded. Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Again, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to
unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. I'll repeat. To enter an
appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address
of the property at issue. With that said, we can begin. But before Vice Chair Carol Tenere
calls the first case, I'd like to announce that the following matters are being continued.
calendar number three nine nine three four one thousand south broad street
calendar number three nine four seven four one two eight north 50th street calendar number three
nine four one two one five four two now north 59th street calendar number three nine five four
three three four four two north 18th street pardon me calendar number three nine four three three
500 south 42nd street calendar number three nine nine two eight six one zero zero woodland avenue
Calendar number 39933, 6954 Keystone Avenue, and calendar number 39429, 3857 North Fear Hill Street.
Also, calendar number 39870 -2025 North Randolph Street and calendar number 39871 -2039 Randolph
Street will be continued to two o 'clock today to be heard with other related cases.
At this time, I will ask anyone, if you believe we called a case to be continued in Erida, please raise your hand.
At this time, I will ask anyone if you believe we called the case.
Or if you are asking for a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand also.
No hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, thank you very much.
Vice Chair Tenere, please begin.
Carol, you're muted.
Carol.
Calendar number 39924, 1920 East Orleans Street.
The attorney is Brett Feldman.
can you hear me brett i can okay name and address for the record spell your last name
and then there's two other things before you begin sure um members of the board uh good morning
brett feldman 1835 market street philadelphia pennsylvania 19103 do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you also agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. You may begin. I guess
so if I can share my screen.
Can you see my screen now?
Not yet.
Not yet.
Always an adventure on this part of it.
It's coming up.
Can you see the screen now?
Always a sigh of relief after that happens.
Members of the board, good morning.
Again, Brett Feldman.
I represent Project Home.
This is a Project Home case, Sister Mary Scullion, 1920 East Orleans Street.
I think the board has seen this case three previous times.
Back, I guess now five years ago, the board approved.
This was the former Willard School.
This was a school district school that was sold to Project Home.
And we obtained your support and the strong support of the community to convert this into 57 units of support, affordable housing.
and then we've been back in front of the board several times on signage. We started off with
300 square feet of signage. We got that approved. We then had to come back to reduce the signage
to 230 square feet of signage. Got that approved. Now we're back here for 197 square feet of signage.
The project has been developed. Residents are in the building and I'll show you some of the
picture. It's an amazing restoration job, let alone the affordable housing units that have
been provided within the building. Unfortunately, this probably should have been an administrative
approval case, but we were outside of the timeline to reduce the signage from what you previously
approved twice down even further to 200 square feet. I passed up Exhibits 1 through 12, which
had asked to be incorporated into the record. We have a strong letter of support at number four
from the Coordinating RCO Impact Services, which you should have.
And if you don't, I can also show that to you.
So let me just go through the exhibits and then just show you what the new reduced sign
package is.
Tax clearance.
where the RM1, this is a very large building, multiple sides, which is part of the reason why
the signage is in excess of what you would typically allow in an RM1 district. And then
here are the photographs. That's the size of the lot. Again, a very large elementary school,
former elementary school lot. That's what it looks like from Ariel. And here's what it now
looks like. It is a beautiful restoration. It's called the McGuire Residence. And just to give
And just to give you a sense of how magnificent this conversion is, how it didn't look like this
you a sense of how magnificent this conversion.
two years ago, let me tell you. All new windows, the brick has been cleaned. It's really just a
showpiece now in this neighborhood. Here's some additional photographs from the last couple weeks.
Again, landscaping, there's the posting photographs, the limestone was cleaned,
again, new windows. Just, I think we all know Project Homes mission, but this was,
this is supportive housing in this neighborhood and really in this
Kensington neighborhood, this is exactly what they needed. They need, you know,
more projects like this but that that's the description of what this is and I
just wanted to show you some of the other buildings the signage that we're
seeking here is basically in line with the other way finding signs that you see
on project home facilities this one the signage is important because we still
people still think this is school so we don't want people to think it's still a
school, and it's not a standard apartment building. We have obviously outside guests,
support staff, and other individuals who need to know where this is and what it is. So that's
the importance of the signage. But these are the other buildings throughout the city
that you've seen similar sign packages. I'll just go through this. These are all the prior
approvals for the building for the signage at a much at a higher level of
signage and then I'll just get right to what we're proposing today starts it at
page 72 that's the site plan we're surrounded by three streets East
Orleans East Birch and Emerald Street and then here is here is the sign
package. These are all non -illuminated signs.
McGuire Residence, the McGuire Residence sign is sign A right here, again
non -illuminated. Sign B was that 1920 Orleans Street. The third sign is the
project home sign up here, again non -illuminated. That's on the south
elevation and then the only other elevation where there is signage right
back here slightly is right here on the east elevation which is the project home
motto none of us are home until all of us are home and then the project home
logo. That's the entire sign package, not illuminated. And as I said, this is now the
third iteration of the sign package going from 300 square feet down to 230 square feet. Now this is
the smallest sign package at 197 square feet, which I think would have been approved administratively,
but we were outside of the six months or the year limit. We met with the RCO last week. They are
uh very enthusiastic how this project came out uh we're we're fine with the sign package i think
that's the Paris way to say this and that the signs are not illuminated uh and understood uh
that the way finding uh purposes uh and need for you know some sign package uh here uh that's in
line with the other similar project home um projects and signs uh within the city um joining
me today from project home is uh cassie anderson um and with that i would uh ask the board if they
have any questions uh that i can answer or miss anderson can answer as well why don't we get
miss anderson on uh we'll swear her in and then we'll ask if there's any questions
Ms. Anderson you can unmute yourself wait to be sworn in okay Ms. Anderson please identify
yourself with a record spell your name C -A -S -S -I -E last name Anderson A -N -D -E -R -S -O -N
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes I do thank you mr. Feldman sure miss Anderson you've heard my testimony
before the zoning board yes in it was it true and honest yeah accurate yes and on
behalf of project home do you adopt it as your own yes I do okay thank you
thank you further questions from the board no no nope anyone else who wishes
no no anyone else who wishes to testify please raise your hand at this time here
we have Sloan Foulkes from the council person's office mr. for morning mr.
folks mute yourself he sworn in morning chairman Chico members of the board my
My name is Sloan Fuchs, S -L -O -A -N -E, F -S, and Fire, O -L -K -S.
Councilwoman Maria Quinonez -Sanchez, Rune 508, City Hall.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Paul.
Yes, sir.
The applicant has met with the RCO and has garnered a letter of support.
Therefore, the councilwoman in her office are offering their support to this project.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And we'd like to thank the councilwoman for all of her support over the years on this project and other ones in her district.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
David Effecto, F -E -C -T -E -A -U, for the City Planning Commission.
You swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Ladies and gentlemen of the board, this property is zoned residential multifamily.
The city's comprehensive plan recommends residential multifamily.
We do not believe the addition of signs to an existing multifamily building will have
an adverse impact on the block.
Therefore, we have no objection to granting the variance.
Thank you.
Calendar number 399241920, East Orland Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
thank you thank you for your time and consideration have a good day
calendar number 39524 2022 north 5th street the attorney is isaac slepner
good morning members of the board and uh sharon's dogs um
my dogs are innocent this time all right good morning mr slepner can you put your name and
address on the record spell your name and then i have two other things to ask you sure thing
isaac slepner first name i as in india s as in sam a as in alpha a as in alpha c as in charlie
last name slepner s as in sam l as in larry e as in elvis p as in peter n as in norman e as in
Elvis, R as in Robert, with Mattione Limited, 100 North Independence Mall West, Suite 5A
Northwest, Philadelphia PA 19106. I am here today as counsel to the property owner, Dominus
Holdings, LLC, and my client, Roman Guzva, is in here somewhere. He is a principal member of
Dominus Holdings, LLC. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the
truth? Yes, I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. You may begin. All right. Good morning, members of the board. My client,
Dominus Holdings LLC, owns this parcel at 22 North 5th Street and proposes to build a duplex
on it. We are here today on, I think it's two refusals. One is for use and one is for either
lot coverage or open space but I will walk the board through our printing
materials and we can go over all of that so if you'll bear with me for just a
moment I will fire up my materials and we can get started oh no look at that
brilliant this technology blows my mind every time okay here we go I'll start
from the, well, I'll start from the top. So I'll go slow. 2022 North 5th Street. This is our
exhibit table of contents and we're scrolling through, but we'll, we'll just jump right into
it. Exhibit one is our notice of refusal from 11 -26 -19. The property zoned RSA 5. So the refusal,
it's only one refusal, and that is for use. The proposed use, the proposed construction is a
duplex, a two -family, and this is an RSA 5 zoned property. Exhibit 2 is, and I will flip this so
we can, everybody can see it properly. This is our elevations and site plan, and I can make that
larger if anybody needs, but there's the front elevation. Those are current site photos. Actually,
they're a little bit dated, but I'll show you more current site photos as we scroll through.
This is a site plan. You can see, I guess, there on the left is North 5th Street and
This is a site plan. You can see, I guess there on the left is
then that's the footprint, if you will, of the property. To the left there is the egress
well. This is all done by our excellent architect, Logan Drive, KCA Design, and I think Logan
is here with us as well, and I'll probably just have him testify briefly in a minute.
these are our floor plans and I can enlarge these it is a basement through third floor
with a roof deck and as I mentioned it's going to be a duplex so unit one or unit a will be
ground level and basement uh basement features just some large living room den space
with a powder room and then the um mechanicals in a back closet there of the basement
the first floor features uh at least one bedroom uh full bath and kitchen then the second and third
floors are i believe it's a two bedroom although i will have my client um testify to that two
bathrooms, one on the second, one on the third. And the ground level has access to the rear yard
space, as you can see right there. And then the upper unit, the second, third floor unit has
access to the roof deck. So that's the plan there. I'm going to scroll through here. Exhibit four
is, oh, exhibit four is a rendering. And I will, oh, look at that. It's in the right direction
already. Exhibit 4 is a rendering, again by our excellent architect, Logan Dry. And you can see
there's a rendering up there of the roof deck. There's kind of a rendering of the full -finished
version of the building. There's a rear view and front axonometric view up to Fifth Street.
and that so that's our rendering I might have my uh Logan Dry the architect uh testify a little
bit more to that exhibit 5 and 5a and 5p are our photos so exhibit 5a is the first of our photos
of the site so this is 2022 north 5th the empty space that you're looking at with the fence in
front of it that's 2022 north 5th to its right is 2024 north 5th which is an older um construction
construction duplex. To the left is ongoing new construction. The address of that is 2002 to 20
North 5th, and that's going to be a 38 -unit multifamily. We'll scroll down to give a little
bit more context. That's a shot from across the street, and I took all these photos.
So I've been up there. I have other projects on this block and in this neighborhood, so I've
actually spent quite a bit of time up by 5th and Norris, 5th and Cecil B, and been walking
around taking site photos. This is 2022 North 5th again. Again, the empty space with the
fence in front of it. To the left, you see the new construction project. To the right
is 2024, which again is a already built older construction duplex that's been in use as
a duplex for a while. Same shot, third photo. That's just a little closer in to show you
the current conditions on the lot. It's gated, so that's as close as I could get.
I think I just took a different angle. I can flip that for you. There you go. That's kind
of showing what's immediately to the south on 5th Street. This is showing what's immediately
to the north on 5th Street, which again is 2024, which is a duplex. Exhibit 5B are photos
of the surrounding block, and I'll take you, consider this a virtual walk up 5th Street.
So this is basically the corner of 5th and Norris, where I was standing to take this. This looks
northbound on 5th Street, and immediately there to the upper left is the fence for the new
construction, and then just beyond that is my client's property. Across the street, you'll see
a low wooden fence, and that is actually the fence of 449 West Norris Street, which is another
property of my client, which the board granted a variance for a duplex to that one a few weeks ago,
maybe a month ago. This is the new construction immediately next door to our property. Again,
this is 2002 -2020 North 5th, that previously mentioned 38 unit multifamily. This is across
the street. I guess just to show context, you've got some single families, you've got
some multi -families, and you've got some vacant lots. This is another shot across the street.
lots. This is another shot across the street again showing some occupied
single -family, some occupied multi -family, some vacant lots and some
unoccupied structures. I guess more of the same walking up the block of North
Fifth. That's looking southward back down Fifth, just kind of a block -wide view
showing the various uses on the block. That is further north at 5th and I think Susquehanna.
There's a large open vacant lot right there. And this is again further north on 5th Street
and the opposite side of the street. And that's again directly across the street from our property
and again showing the multitude of uses that are going on in the block. Zippet 5C are photos of
our orange poster giving notice of this hearing. And those were posted 14 days ago on 8 .05 .20.
And there is photo one of the orange zoning poster. Photo two, as you can see, it's right on the fence,
right at the sidewalk. And photo three, that's on its side. I can twist it around if anybody's
interested. In fact, I will just, okay. You can see it. Everybody can see it clearly, correct?
Okay, I'll move on. Exhibit 6 is our project information form, which was filed
in December prior to the current unpleasantness. Exhibit 7, 7A, is an affidavit of service
signed by Sarah McAvoy of my office and notarized from January, in which our office sent notice of
the ZBA hearing, the originally scheduled ZBA hearing, and notice of the RCO meeting
to the listed neighbors. This was our notice letter, and these were people that were cc'd,
people that were cc'd, copy of our notice of refusal. These are all the addresses to which
we sent the letter. Eyeballing it, I'd say there's over 100, probably closer to 200.
Exhibit 7b is later in the year, on March 2nd, we sent a notice of public hearing again to the
same addresses in March. And this exhibit is the same letter but sent end of
February and that was for a rescheduled public meeting on March 11th with the
RCO, the RCO being Norris Square Community Association. And again our
letter, RCCs, our notice of refusal, same list of addresses that had been sent
previously in January. Exhibit 8 is the letter from Norris Square, and the letter from Norris
Square indicates that Norris Square Community Alliance supports the project. The vote was
11 in favor, 1 opposed, out of 28 people in attendance on March 11 of 2020, virtually signed
by Elizabeth Seguera, better known as Lisa Seguera, of Norris Square.
And Exhibit 9 is the deed to Dominus Holdings recorded in November of 2019, granting the
property to Dominus Holdings, LLC.
There's the real estate tax clearances.
Exhibit 10 is our city property tax clearance for Dominus Holdings at the property, and
you can see that there are zero balances going back to 1990. With that, I will turn it over to
the board for any questions. Before we do that, do you have anyone, any witnesses you need to have
on? I do. I have with me Roman Guzva, who is a principal of Dominus Holdings, LLC. Roman, are you
here. Yo, Roman. Bear with me a moment. I'm going to text him.
Roman, you can unmute yourself.
Roman. Ahoy, ahoy. Oh, he just texted me and told me he's on.
He says he can't unmute. That might be the domain of the meeting administrator.
No it's his, he has to unmute. How does he unmute? Let me see if I can advise him.
How does he unmute?
Let me see if I can advise him.
He just did it.
Roman, you there?
Oh, hi.
I think I just figured it out.
I apologize.
Can you hear me?
Please identify yourself, sir.
Name and address.
Spell your name for the stenographer.
My name is Roman Guzwa.
R -O -M -A -N as Nancy.
Last name is G -U -Z -H -V -A.
My present address is 2015 North Fifth Street, Department 1.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Yes, I do.
Roman, did you hear the testimony that I offered to the board today?
Yes, I did.
And would you adopt that testimony as your own, as though you had given it yourself?
Yes, I would.
Thank you.
I have nothing further for Mr. Guzva.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter?
If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, I have Sloan Folks from the council office. Sloan, you can unmute yourself.
Morning again, Mr. Folks. Just identify yourself. You've already been sworn in.
Morning, Chairman. Sloan Folks, Office of Councilman Maria Giannis Sanchez, 7th District,
Room 508 City Hall. The applicant has met with the RCO and has garnered a letter of support.
Therefore, the councilman and this office are offering their support in this very request.
Thank you. Thank you again. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter? If so, please raise your hand.
We have no more hands up, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. This property is zoned residential single family.
The City's comprehensive plan recommends residential multifamily. The applicant requests a new two -unit building.
This is an approximately 1 ,000 square foot lot. Most of the row homes on this block are three stories and large enough to accommodate two units without adversely impacting the block.
This is also a very wide street with on -street parking on both sides. Therefore, we have no objection to granting this variance.
Thank you. Calendar number 39524 -2022 North 5th Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
can't hear you
i'm just keeping myself muted unmuted uh calendar number three nine nine five zero
3860 brown street we didn't get your we didn't hear your vote in that last this last case
my vote was yes thank you calendar number three nine nine five zero 3860 brown street the attorney
is Isaac Slepner. Name and address for the record, please, and you're already sworn in.
All right. Good morning again, members of the board. Isaac Slepner,
ISAAC, last name Slepner, S -L -E -P -N -E -R, 100 North Independence Mall West,
Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia PA, 19106.
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do thank you you're now married for you you can proceed frank i'm trying to be you
well that is that is the most interesting thing that's happened to me in the zoning board hearing
i think ever um i'll step on the glass after i'm done uh so um good morning members of the board
I am actually waiting for my client to join the call.
He is actually also in a hearing meeting of the Historical Commission, but I believe he's also sitting on a Zoom.
So I think he just has to switch Zooms.
I know that he is also either has with him or is bringing with him some neighbors.
But I can, I'd like to begin, but I want to, when I ask him if he's heard my testimony, I want to make sure he's heard my testimony.
So I don't necessarily want to stall and I don't necessarily want to push this to the bottom of the list
But at the same time, I don't want to just hear so you are the bottom
but at the same time I don't want to just get here. So you are the bottom of the list.
Oh well that is a pretty short list then. All right then let me text him tell him we're on
and at least he'll get on and then I can begin my presentation.
All right. I just told him he should log on. Let me get my technology set up here. Bear
with me. Okay. I can kill that. And all right. In any event, we are here today on 3860 Brown
Street. And as I mentioned, I am counsel to the property owner and developer of 3860
Brown Street, which is 3858 Girard, LLC. I will walk everybody through the exhibits. And
if my client is in here listening, he should text me and let me know that. And if he's not,
then I'm going to apologize in advance for repeating myself. But like I said, I want
everybody to testify truthfully. So he's asking me, should I switch over from historic? And I'm
going to tell him yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. Like I said, he was on the historic commission calendar
for 930. And it looks like we are actually ahead of them at this point. Okay, I'm going to get
started. Exhibit one is our notice of refusal. And there were two refusals at this property.
My client's proposed plan here is to build a six unit multifamily at the property. The property
zoned RSA five. So he's seeking a variance for use. He's also seeking a variance for minimum
open area, which as you can see in the notice of refusal, his proposed construction proposes
14 .86 % of open area. The code requires 25%. Tip 2 is our site plan and I'm going to rotate that so
everyone can see it and I'll enlarge it so everyone can see it a little bit better. All right, so
to the upper left is a site plan. This is 3860 Brown. It is not the corner property. It's the
first in from the corner of 39th and Brown on Brown Street. And next door to it is a house
and around the corner on 39th are some houses and some vacant. And then you can see that's
ours proposed at 3860. On the upper right is our side view elevation. It looks to be three stories
with a basement. The basement is built a little higher than a little higher than
ground level. Excuse me for a moment. I'm just trying to connect with my client
here. Okay, we'll scroll down. That's a couple of photos of the site. As you can
see there's ours is that vacant property right there with the low fence actually there's currently
there's no low fence there those are photos from a little while ago and our site plan that's a map
of the neighborhood to the bottom left the deeds got there's a little bit of the legal description
and a couple of other site views and surrounding views exhibit three are some photographs and i
will walk everybody through the photographs at this time. So to begin, oh, that's upside down.
Bear with me. It's never a dull moment when you're working with Zoom. Okay. First photograph,
that is 3860 Brown. And that is, as it appears, I would say more recently. You can see there's
no fence. There's a little bit of a shell of something to the rear there and some overgrown
vegetation. That's 3860. That's our property. Oh, there we go. That's again another shot of
our property. You can see immediately to the left, which is 3858, is a occupied house. And to the
right is i believe it's 7 739 north 39th um and that i'm not sure is if it's occupied or vacant
um this is another shot just that i took from across the street
i'm gonna interrupt you for a minute looking at your this photograph yes the property to the left
the property to the left i see an electric meter does your client's property go to that party wall
i see an electric meter does your client's property
I don't know.
or is that there's a an alleyway would be would there be an alleyway between the two properties
i am not probably show on the plan but i didn't see that i am not sure but i will we will have
him testify um and again i'm asking him to text me if he is uh on it'll probably show on the
plan so yeah let's see what the footprint looks like okay your client eugene is on he's okay good
um yeah let's get let's get his full name and i'll swear him in please eugene go ahead and
unmute yourself and uh you'll be sworn in by the uh board uh am i muted everybody can hear me
i can hear you yeah my name is eugene i'm the owner of the property
Mr. Odovich please spell your name for the stenographer
E -U -G -E -N -E last name is N as in Nancy
A -Y -D -O -V -I -C -H
We're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes I do
Thank you please proceed
So Eugene Chairman DeChica was inquiring
Your property obviously is 3860 Brown
The house next door is 3858 Brown correct?
uh yeah i guess yeah and um the chairman was noticed i'm sorry chair did you want to ask
the question you want me to ask the question well again it might it might be reflected in
the plan i got ahead of myself but maybe you can answer it does yes does your client's property
go party wall to party wall no uh so the house on the right there's a back it's a that was already
39th street um so there's a backyard in between and also between 3860 and 3858 brown there is a
three or four foot wide alley between the houses so essentially 3860 brown would be a completely
freestanding building okay thank you that that answers the question thank you thank you jean
i think that's what the chair was asking about um i'm going to continue walking through our
exhibits. So you've seen photos of 3860 Brown. And now I'm going to show some photos of the
surrounding properties and the surrounding block. So again, that's our property there,
the vacant, maybe the perspective isn't great. That large black SUV that's sitting there,
that's directly in front of our property. So you can see both surrounding properties,
3858 Brown and 7, I want to say it's 739 North 39th. I'm not, I don't exactly recall the address
offhand. This is a view eastward on Brown Street taken from standing directly across the street
and you can see a number of houses on either side. There are a couple of vacant lots as well
and down to the end of the block which is 38th. This is our side of brown taken just past ours.
I think I started at 3856. Brown is that red house right there and then moving on down the street you
can see some of them are clearly abandoned or otherwise not occupied. Exhibit 3C is our orange
signed photos, and I will turn that back so everybody can see those. All right, here we go.
Exhibit 3C, that is photo one of our orange poster notifying neighbors of this ZBA hearing,
and these were photographs taken again 14 days ago on 8 -5 -2020. That's our second signed photo,
again posted on a poll right up at the sidewalk. It's twisted. I can twist it back if anybody
needs or I can keep going on. And there should be a third at least one. There's another photo
of our orange poster again on a stake right at the edge of the property there.
Exhibit four is our project information form and this was filed. This was filed in
well, it'll say the date in a second, but I want to say this was filed in December. I may be a
little off. This was filed prior to the rescheduling of this hearing. It was filed in February,
February 13th of 2020. Nope. Sorry. That was my phone. I killed it. Exhibit five is our affidavit
of service. We sent notice, our office, an employee of our firm, Mattione, sent notice on
August 6th to the neighbors per the addresses sent to us by the planning
Commission and this is an affidavit of service of that notice that's exhibit
That's Exhibit. Exhibit A to that affidavit is our original letter of August 6th, at which Manitoba Civic Association had called a meeting for Friday, August 14th to hear this project as well as another project of my client on the same block.
Exhibit A to that affidavit is
and we gave notice of the hearing of the RCO meeting rather. I think we didn't have a rescheduled
hearing date before the ZBA yet at that time when we sent the notices, but we did have the
meeting set up with the RCO. These are all the people we noticed with that notice. Those are all
the CCs and here's a copy of our notice of refusal was in with the letter and all of the addresses
that were mailed um on that notice mailing which that's about two pages uh three pages i would say
that's about a hundred four pages four pages is five pages hold on i should not get ahead of
myself six pages it's a lot of pages it's a lot of addresses i would say it had to have been a good
150 addresses just by eyeballing it excuse me may i interrupt for a minute mr setner sure um we i
I just received an email from Andrew Goodman of the Councilwoman's office.
I'm just going to read it into the record.
Go ahead.
We have not seen an RCO letter for 3860 Brown Street, which is scheduled for this morning.
If a continuance is not given, please state for the record that our office opposes the application because it is poking a hole in a community -led remapping effort without true demonstration of hardship.
Quote, it doesn't fit our business model, unquote, should not be sufficient grounds for a variance.
So we ask for a denial for this reason.
That's it.
Ariane, could you just do me a favor, read the first couple lines about the RCO?
We have not seen an RCO letter for 3860 Brown Street, which is scheduled for this morning.
If a continuance is not given, please state for the record that our office opposes the application.
All right.
Understood.
Thank you.
thank you you're welcome um okay uh that is a piece of red paper and i am that would have
been where the rco letter would have gone had there been an rco letter we did have a meeting
with the rco and um i attended the meeting as did my client it was actually an in -person meeting
which i expressed my thoughts on this separately to planning um yesterday regarding the fact that
I'm not going to an in -person meeting of any RCO going forward, just due to virus protocols
and all, and I'm not going to get any deeper into that, but we did attend the meeting.
They held the meeting.
They did not issue us an RCO letter.
I don't know if the board received an RCO letter from Manchua Civic.
I did not receive a letter from Manchua Civic, nor did anybody in my office.
Did the board receive a letter?
If a letter was sent in, I can verify that I was not copied on it.
I see. Thank you.
So that would have been where we would have included an RCO letter had we received one.
Exhibit 7.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm scrolling up.
Technology is not my friend today.
Exhibit 7 is the deed in favor of 3858 Gerrard LLC from the sheriff recorded on March 29th of 19.
And that's the deed, realty transfer tax certificates. There's the legal description.
Exhibit 8 is city tax clearance on the property run for the owner 3858 Gerrard LLC for the specific
property going back to 1983. And as you can see, there's a zero balance. I have nothing
further. And I would like to call my client, Eugene Nadevich, who is a principal of 3858
Gerard LLC for testimony.
We already swore him in. So just you can ask him if he adopts your testimony.
All right. Eugene.
You heard all the testimony that I offered to the board today?
Yes, I did.
And would you adopt that testimony as though it were your own?
I would.
Thank you.
I guess my other question to you is, well, is there anyone else here that may have anything to offer?
May have anything to offer.
I'm going to ask.
I'm going to ask, I'll be asking that shortly.
I'll be asking that shortly.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
No, no, no problem, just be sure.
All right, any questions from the board?
Anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter, if so, please raise your hand.
No hands up, Chair.
Okay, based on, Planning Commission, I'm sorry, Planning Commission.
Good morning, members of the board and Mr. Chairman. This property is zoned residential single family. The city's comprehensive plan recommends residential single family. The south side of the block has two -story rows, mostly single family, except for one Philadelphia Housing Authority multifamily building.
The north side of the block is mostly three -story rows that are primarily single family. We believe that this proposal is an overuse of the property and out of character with the block. Accordingly, we recommend the requested variance not be granted.
um based on what i heard in the letter that uh sharon to let us received it sounds to me and
correct me if i'm wrong as though the council member is saying in in lieu of the fact that
there was no letter if we vote they're asking us to deny this application but it also sounds to me
like there might be i could be i could be wrong an opportunity to have a further discussion with
the councilman's office and the RCO and granting a continuance. So my question to you, I guess,
Mr. Slepner is, would you and your client be amenable to continuing this case and having
follow -up conversation with the RCO? May I ask one question? Mr. Slepner, did they take a vote
at the RCO meeting and do you know what the result was if they did they did I don't recall
I'm going to check my notes uh bear bear bear with me um if you will I'm looking at my notes I
I'm sorry is that council president Clark's council president that's um council member
Jamie Gauthier. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Goodman is her liaison, community liaison. I've met him a
number of times. He's a mensch. Anyway, I don't seem to have it in my notes, which is not like
me. Usually I'm good with notes. But with regard, Chair, to what you were saying about continuing
it, I certainly wouldn't have any opposition to continuing a conversation with the RCO.
And I don't think that my client would be.
Eugene, you still there or are you muted?
Chair, I do have someone here who wishes to testify.
Oh, let's hear that testimony first.
Yvonne West, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
All right.
Good morning, Ms. West.
Please identify yourself for the record, name and address.
Spell your name for the stenographer.
Yvonne West, 830 North 38th Street.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
Now, when we had our meeting on August the 14th with the community, the community opposed the variants.
It was 38 opposing the variants.
And we had a meeting also down at 33rd Street regarding the same matter, and I don't know what that count was, but I was told that the variance was opposed at that meeting.
Are you a member of the RCO board, or are you just a resident?
I'm just a resident of the community that attended these meetings.
Your voice counts. I just wanted to verify if you were a board member. Okay.
Anything else to add, Ms. West?
No, that's just it. I was one of those who opposed the variance and we were very vocal. I wanted to also say that two years ago, the community, more than 600 of the community members, we went through two years of establishing that only single family unit residents would be built in a Mantua area.
And we do not want to go back to, we do not want that to be not regarded because these were the wishes of the community on a whole.
okay thank you you're referencing a remapping okay is there anyone else who wishes to testify
Okay, thank you. You're referencing a remapping. Okay, is there anyone else?
in this matter please raise your hand if you haven't already done so chair um i believe that
my client has um some people with him and i don't know if they're uh physically in the same room
um i'm trying to get him to get them to raise their hands uh physically the room with me
could we get them on the record yeah
yes hello my name is william smith um i do a lot of work for gene i do his landscaping
mr smith mr smith excuse me you swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes your name again and address again my name is william smith
My address is 730 North DeKalb Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104.
That's pretty far away from 38th and Brown, correct?
No, it's like a block and a half.
Block and a half?
I'm sorry.
The same church?
My geography's off.
I'm sorry.
The same church that we had the meeting in service their lawns, too.
I do landscaping in the neighborhood.
okay thank you and mr smith um did you want to offer your testimony with regard to this project
and why you um are in support of it um i'm actually in support of the things that
y 'all do because you know you give out a lot of different jobs in the neighborhood to different
people he do like you know when you when you're dealing with
uh landscaping you're doing so much different things with houses and stuff like that
he'd give out a lot of different jobs like you know people bash him in these meetings
i don't know what for sometimes like like some people like try to make little points
but a lot of people that got voices it's not making any sense and we've got to do better than
that so i'm just here in support of eugene because i know eugene personally and i know he's a good
person and i know that some of these guys that i see they're working in his houses and stuff like
that they're not um you know i'm african -american they got mexicans they got these like different
races and things like that so i'm always here in support and then our neighborhood looks a lot
better than what it did before so i'm you know people talk about property value in texas and
stuff like that this is stuff i can't really i don't know you know i'm saying but i do know one
thing our neighborhood is not looking crazy and our kids have stuff sometimes he'll do a toy drive
or different things for the neighborhood i'm not opposed to that i'm not mad at that like you know
i can't be mad at the person that's doing stuff that we're not doing in our neighborhood as a
whole you know so you know i don't have no right with eugene i'm just here in support
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Would you say you're in support of this
proposed project to 3860 Brown?
Yes, sir, of course.
Thank you.
Is anyone else there with you, Gene?
Feel free to speak up, introduce yourself to the board.
Yes, my name is Israel Williams.
I live at 3816
Haverford Avenue
I'm sorry say that again
3816 Haverford Avenue
Thank you
You're swearing for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes I do
Mr. Slepkin
Mr. Williams
Would you say you're in support of this proposed project
to 3860 Brown?
Yes, I am.
Can you tell us
what your basis of support is?
It's based on
too many lots
is going up
in our neighborhood.
No houses are being
reconstructed.
no police
enforcement is coming around
because there's too many drugs
hanging in the neighborhood
because they're banding houses.
And I think with the houses are being reconstructed again,
it brings our neighborhood back up to where,
well, not all the way up,
but somewhere up where we can be feeling comfortable
and have all these lots.
And instead of having lots, have houses there.
Because in 10 years, five years or whatever,
As you can see, we see more houses going down than more houses being built.
as you can see, we see more houses going down.
And that's why I'm really supportive of this 38 -8, 38 -16.
You do understand, sir, that this is not a single family house that's being proposed.
It's an apartment building with six units.
Yes, I do.
Just wanted to make sure you understood that.
Thank you.
How close are you to Brown Street?
You said you were at Haverford Avenue?
Two blocks, one block?
Two blocks?
Thank you.
Uh -huh.
Mr. Slepner, anyone else?
Eugene, is there anyone else?
There are two more people here.
Something new and different.
I'm pretty sure they'll say the same exact thing.
Well, if you want, we can get their names and addresses on the record.
Let's have them at least offer their names and addresses for the record.
And I'll ask them one question.
How you doing?
My name is Nathaniel Hargis.
Address 1201 South Wilton Street.
1201 South.
Wilton Street.
Wilton Street.
Queer and affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
And Mr. Hargis, are you here today to offer your support for the variances requested by Eugene for the development at 3860 Brown Street?
Okay, thank you. And is there anyone else?
Yes, one more person.
Go ahead and offer your name and address for the board and you'll be sworn in.
Terrence Bright, 425 North Simpson Street.
Terrence, I'm sorry, can you spell your last name?
B -R -I -G -T.
Bright, okay, thank you.
You swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. And Mr. Bright, are you in support of this project at 3860 Brown in support of
the variances requested by Eugene today? Yes. Okay, thank you. I have nothing further for
these witnesses. I just have a question for you, Mr. Slepner. Earlier, you said that you
were not sure what the vote count was. There was a Ms. West who was on a few minutes ago and
testified that there was a vote
taken that night and it was 38
against. Are you?
I'm actually looking through my
notes right now and give me one second
because I think I know where it is.
All right.
Okay, there it is.
My notes have
16 in favor, 35 against.
One abstention.
Can I ask you to take another point?
can i also please make another point briefly yes so
one one big thing is that four out of six of these units are going to be low income
priced at around 750 a month also on the corner of 40th and brown street which is the 800 i believe
it's 801, 803, 807, North 40th Street, which is literally one block away. On lots slightly
smaller than this one, there was an approval for six units on each one of those as well.
So saying the entire neighborhood is single family is not exactly accurate. So on the
development on a lot that's slightly smaller, a block away, and we're doing something identical,
something that was already approved several months ago, I don't think it's really out
line or anything that different at the same time we don't we don't have any government funding uh
it's our own and we're providing these low -income units and it's very difficult to provide low -income
units if we have less units or if it's a single family house because it costs as much to build
as it costs to build so this is one of the only ways we can actually provide low -income housing
for the neighborhood which is something the neighborhood constantly tells us that they want
um i know i asked the board any other questions again from the board no
no no um not sure uh no that letter that letter still in my mind sounds like the councilwoman's
office may not be aware of all the particulars of this case so i i mean would i think maybe if
I think maybe if you would want, Mr. Slepner, I'd give you an opportunity to go back and talk to the councilwoman's office.
you would want mr slepner i'd give you an opportunity to go back
I know your client said that the economics do not allow for him to build a single family.
Maybe there's a lesser number of units that might be acceptable to the community.
Understanding the planning commission has designated this block as single family.
So, continue it if you'd like.
Don't risk this all.
what's that no go ahead yes chair I think that is something that we could
work with we would be happy to talk with the council members office and talk
with the coordinating RCO again if need be whether a meeting or whether
They're addressing the community's concern with the RCO board.
I've worked with Mantua Civic on a number of projects, and I've always found them to
be receptive to conversation.
So I have no problem with it if my client has no problem with it.
Eugene, would you be open to continuing this and going back to talk with the council member's
office and maybe with the RCO leadership?
absolutely okay uh why don't we do that all right well uh sharon we can hold this right
um yes i'd recommend that you continue it for a second hearing limited to input from the council
person's office and the rco or a report from mr slepner of his attempts to um talk with both oh
Thank you. So note that in the record. So calendar number three nine nine five zero three eight six zero Brown Street is being held pending communication from Councilwoman got the A's office and the RCO.
I think you can get that done in 30 days.
I would think so. Yeah.
I guess as long as we're at it and before the board issues any order, I would like to.
That was my order.
But go ahead.
Same client, Mr. Nadevich, has another property on that block at 3801 Brown.
Now, I don't think a date has been set, and I realize now we're getting into administrative matters,
but he has another property on that block at 3801 Brown, which we're not here on right now.
But that hasn't had a date set yet, and I guess I'm just curious if either I missed it
or it hasn't been set yet, and if so, if we could get these two. Mr. Slepner, excuse me again,
this is really something you would have to discuss with the board's administrator, Ms. Sunkett.
Okay, I'll do that later. Thank you. Thank you, members of the board. I have
nothing further on this list, but I'm back at two o 'clock. You saw that. Thank you. All right.
Thank you, members of the board. Any unfinished business, Sharon or Tanya, on this session?
no chair that's it okay see everybody back at two o 'clock
thank you good afternoon everyone my name is frank t chico i'm the chair of the zoning board
of adjustment i'll be participating in the in today's hearing along with vice chair ms carol
tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board members mr thomas hollowman and mr james snell
Board Administrator Tanya Sumkin and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I will go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we'll begin this afternoon session by reading a list of cases to be continued.
If you believe any announced case is being continued in error, we will give you an
opportunity to respond. After reading the continuance list and receiving any feedback,
we will take any additional continuance requests. Then once we've confirmed which hearings are
being continued, Vice Chair Carroll Tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for
this session. When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other
interested parties in the matter identify themselves for the record. We will then hear
the applicant's presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other
parties. Interested parties and members of the public not represented by counsel will then be
will then be given an opportunity to testify we will finally hear the recommendation of
given an opportunity to testify.
We will finally
the planning commission at the hearing's conclusion we will either vote the matter
immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session any case held for discussion
will be voted at the next scheduled wednesday session please note the following changes related
to the virtual format. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants
prior to their testimony. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by your participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to mute yourself.
finally to enter an appearance call google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue again if you wish to enter an appearance
call google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property
at issue. With that said, we will begin. But before Vice Chair Tenere calls our first case,
we'd like to announce the following matters are being continued.
Calendar number 38524, 5830 Arch Street. Calendar number 37518, 5000 North 12th Street.
calendar number three nine nine seven zero four two nine oh north penn street
calendar number three nine three eight zero eighteen hundred east moin mensing avenue
calendar number three eight five oh six one eight zero zero west ontario street
and calendar number 39963, 102 West Girard Avenue.
So I'll ask at this time if anyone believes that the continuance case was called an error,
please raise your hand at this time.
Or if you wish to ask for a continuance or withdrawal,
please raise your hand also at this time.
here we have isaac slepner you can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance
uh good afternoon good afternoon mr slepner you're still on their oath thank you um good
afternoon chair and members of the board uh i am just here to request a continuance on uh 2 -0 -1 -1
North Randolph Street, which is calendar number 39522.
Sharon, did we have some information on that case or not?
This is in the list. He's just requesting out of the list that's scheduled for the second
period he wants to continue just that one look at number two yeah the first one I just wanted to
make sure I thought I knew something else going on not really all right yes he's continuing just
that correct and I had addressed thank you and I had addressed this with Ms. Saleta earlier this
afternoon as well okay so calendar number three can I excuse I'm sorry it took me a minute to
unmute myself. There are six related cases on this property. We have five of them being heard today.
We could not move the remaining one up. It's scheduled for next week. I believe you have. I
sent all of the board members the letters. Basically, the proposal for each lot is the
same. They are all for a two -family dwelling with one accessory parking space. So I guess
the board's call if you want to separate this one out what's what's yeah well that's why i was
asking you could explain it better than i could what's the rationale for continuing this when
it's basically the same as the other cases my clients my clients asked me to continue it um so i
My clients asked me to continue it, so I am doing my job as counsel to my clients.
As Ms. Saleta said, it's the board's call. We're prepared to go forward if we need to. If not,
we'll go forward next week. If we need to go forward today, we'll go forward today.
What's the reason for continuing it?
We think, we had some confusion with the RCO, to put it delicately, and we also want to possibly have an opportunity on, specifically on 2011 North Randolph,
We want to go back and review our plan with the RCO one more time to see if we might reach a consensus with them.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
I prefer that we go forward with the case.
And if there's anything that comes up during your testimony, we can always make a decision at that point.
But as of now.
Can I have one more thing?
In the letters that I sent to the board this afternoon, the earlier letter from the RCO, they did, they sent in a letter of opposition on 2011, but they then sent a memo stating their non -opposition to the Randolph Street properties.
My assumption was that that superseded the earlier objection to 2011, since they did not single that out as having opposition remaining to that.
Thank you. Any comment, Mr. Slepner?
We don't know when this case gets continued to.
This is true. There was some confusion between me and the leadership of the RCO. I think there was a little bit of confusion between the various individuals who are running the RCO, were running the RCO, and are running the RCO, and will continue to run the RCO in the future.
So I think that there may have been a lot of moving parts. And I'm certainly not trying to pin any sort of blame or responsibility on anybody in particular. But there was a letter, Ms. Saleta, it did relate the facts correctly.
There was a letter from the RCO in opposition to 2011 North Randolph.
The RCO then subsequently issued, we never had a meeting, well, we never had a meeting
on the other properties that I'm going to be presenting on Randolph with the RCO.
They canceled a meeting on us at the last minute last week.
And then, you know, they issued us another letter early this week that stated that they had no position one way or the other, but they didn't want to block us from going forward.
My reading of it may have been different from Ms. Saleda's reading of it.
But in any event, you know, that was my – I could see how that interpretation could be correct as well.
All right. I don't want to belabor this, but I also believe that there were letters from the district council person. I've not been able to, for whatever reason, print those out. But I think there was, and correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon, there was originally letters of opposition from the councilwoman. And then subsequent, there was letters of non -opposition. Is that an accurate statement?
that's correct in that there was an original um letter of opposition strictly to um 2011
randolph street the later letter applied to the other um cases but it was based on the same
memorandum from the rcos that actually requested that you go forward with today's hearing
and stated that they were not opposed to the development on the randolph street properties
without singling out any single property.
With that, Mr. Schlepler, I think you're ahead of the game
if we proceed with that case today.
Then that sounds okay to me.
All right.
Anyone else out there who has any concern
about the continuance we read off
or do anyone out there wish to enter in
a request of continuance or withdrawal?
no hands up chair thank you tanya again carol calendar number 37519 4727 north front street
the attorney is zen jin
good afternoon mr jen can you put your name and address on the record please yes xin jen z h e
n j i n 1617 john f candy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the
applicant. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm going to go ahead and
information. So this is an application for a change of use of this property for
the creation of a individual lot that will be used for a auto repair business.
The refusal indicates that one this is a CMX2 zoning district and two parking
spaces are required and none are provided however the best way to see this property is through the
photographs what this property is it was a former essentially a warehouse building that has two
large doors that allows access by vehicles right next door is also owned by my client the the
there's a beer distributor next door but this particular building has always been kind of a
warehouse industrial type use and was at one point a auto repair business. In addition
there's still actually an existing lift left in the space from the prior occupant but again that
was not zoned properly even when it was used years ago for that. And now it's been vacated
and empty, but my client wants to make sure zoning is in place before allowing another
tenant in. The space itself is really not conducive to CMX2 type retail uses. It is
really designed more for this kind of proposal. And quite frankly, having spent about two
years trying to rent the space, my client has reflected to the RCO and to myself that the only
applicants for leasing the space that has come to his premises were pretty much all asking for
some kind of automotive repair use. In addition, the next door property is used as a beer distributor
And other parts of the block, including across the street, has also auto repair use and similar type uses.
I want to point out that we actually spent a lot of time working with the neighborhood on this because we had multiple meetings with them due to concerns of existing auto shops, parking cars on the street, and those kind of negative impacts.
But ultimately, my client, having met with the community multiple times and agreeing to certain conditions that they've asked for, we did obtain their support in this matter.
One of the main issues is the parking.
As you can see earlier from the pictures, the space actually has its own fenced -off lot in the front that is private.
and that space can actually hold easily five to ten cars if not more depending on how the space
is filled up. My client agrees to make sure that whoever uses the space will maintain the parking
inside of that lot rather than having overflow going onto the street. The interior space of the
building is over 3 ,000 square feet. They can easily put four or five cars inside this building
itself as well. So for the most part, we can guarantee the community that no cars will be
left out on the street, whether it's during repair or while customers are visiting the location.
So that is something we agree to. And also the beer distributor would not block the street to
cause a bottleneck effect. And that's certainly agreeable too, as my client is the owner of the
beer distributor and also the building. So finally, the community requested a
proviso with a limitation on the total years of the variance. We have no
objection to that. Again, we understand that they wanted to observe for a
number of years whether this space will be used according to how we said we
would do it. I'm going to jump now to the plans itself.
I'm going to jump now to the plans itself so it can better show the way this space is laid out.
So from the view of this space itself, this is a lot.
There's a 2 ,765 square foot lot in front of the space.
And this is the building, which itself is 3 ,400 square feet.
So it's two large spaces.
This is where parking, while it's not designated specifically as parking, cars can be parked here and allowing the space to keep cars off of the street.
So as a result, and due to the fact this building is more of an industrial style building rather than a commercial style building as it exists, we would submit there is a hardship to meeting all the use requirements of CMX2 in this case without having to fundamentally restructure the building altogether.
So we would ask for the board's favorable ruling on this variance request. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions.
Do you have any witnesses?
My client is here with us.
Les, I don't want to mispronounce his last name.
So I would ask he'd spell his name and pronounce it for the board.
We also have here a petition in support.
Many of the immediate neighbors, including across the street and down the street,
have no objections to the proposal itself.
Les, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself, name and address, and spell your name for the stenographer.
My name is Les Grycevic, L -E -S.
My name is Grycevic, G -R -Y -C -E -W -I -C -Z.
I am the owner of the property.
les can you also uh give the board your address 4731 north front street philadelphia pennsylvania
i'm sorry i meant to swear you in do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i swear thank you thank you um les you heard my testimony to the board
can you verify that it is true and correct and adopt it as your own yes
it's true thank you
excuse me looks like the community is asking for a two -year temporary
proviso on their letter yes they are we have we have no problem with that as it
So what we'll do, because of the pandemic and all, we'll start it off.
All right, let me ask you if there's any questions from the board.
No, no.
Anyone else wish to testify in this matter, please raise your hand.
No hands up, Chair.
Thank you again.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
David Fecto with the city planning commission. Uh, this property is zoned commercial mixed use
too. The city's comprehensive plan recommends commercial mixed use too. Um, and auto use has
a longstanding history at this location. While we have no objection to the granting of the variance,
we would ask that there be no exterior work or parking on the sidewalk. And we'd also ask that
a landscape buffer be installed at the front of the property to screen the lot from neighboring
properties. Thank you. Mr. Jin, you have any problem, do your client have any problem with
landscaping? If it's similar to what we've seen before in other properties where they can put
planters with tree, some kind of greenery to block the fence, I don't see that as being a problem.
May I interrupt here? If that is such a vague requirement, it would be very difficult for
lni to enforce perhaps okay mr jen's client could just commit to doing land okay all right
we'll give an extra six months on the on the temporary lease okay uh calendar number
three seven five one nine four seven two seven north front street my vote is yes with the following
proviso
somebody's trying to get my attention or is that
with the following proviso parking no parking on sidewalk no exterior construction without proper permitting
No exterior construction without proper permitting and the temporary variance to expire January the 1st, 2023.
Thank you.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Calendar number, calendars number 39959 -2021 -North Randolph Street, calendar number 39870 -2025 -North Randolph Street, calendar number 39871 -2037 -North Randolph Street,
calendar number 39522 -2011 North Randolph Street and calendar number 39964 -2039 North Randolph
Street. The attorney is Isaac Slepner. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the board
Isaac Slepner of Mattione Limited, 100 North Independence Mall West, Suite 5A Northwest,
Philadelphia, PA, 19106, here representing the owners of the aforementioned properties.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
So as Ms. Tenere described, my clients and I are here on five different properties this afternoon.
There are a few different owners of these properties, but all of the owners are LLCs whose primary members are the same individuals.
uh simon shane and david bedar and they are here with me today um i believe that the uh my clients
also have some neighbors of the projects who um are here in support of the projects but i will
just jump in uh on i'll go through 20 uh 2 0 1 1 north randolph first and then through 2 0 2 5
North Randolph, and I'll try to keep this as streamlined as I can with given what we
had discussed earlier.
Let's jump in.
I'm going to start with our printed materials for 2011 North Randolph Street.
So this is our table of contents.
I'm just going to scroll through.
Here we go.
All right.
Exhibit one is our notice of refusal for 2011 North Randolph.
The refusal was issued on 12 -2 of 2019. The application is for a two -family dwelling,
three stories, a basement and roof deck. It would be two apartments. Well, we'll go through the
plans, but the refusal is only for use. So that's exhibit one. Exhibit two, I will flip these so
everybody can see them. These are our floor plans and floor plans and elevation. The top here is
the site plan and you can see at 2011 North Randolph is mid block. The front elevation and
rear elevation, it's a pretty standard looking new construction row. And as you look at the plans for
the apartments you've got uh one apartment is um the first floor and basement with the basement
being general living room type area with a powder room actually that's a full bathroom uh closet for
the mechanicals and uh stairs up with an egress obviously at the rear your first floor has a
bedroom and another bath, kitchen, and has access to the rear yard space. Your second and third
floor unit is similar in layout, except it has access to the roof deck, which is right there at
the far right. So we're going to continue to scroll down here. Exhibit, that was exhibit two. Exhibit
three are our site photos and neighborhood photos. And let me take you through these.
Exhibit three. So if you can see this wooden fence where this white car is parked,
that's 2011 North Randolph. Right now it is vacant and abandoned and flat. Empty lot.
There's a fence in front of it. The house you see there is 2013 North Randolph.
There's a fence in front of it. The house you see there is 2013 North Randolph, and at some point, the property line is through the middle of that fence, and the other vacant flat lot to the other side is 2009 North Randolph, roughly where that Mercedes is sitting.
All right, we're going to take you through this. The fenced portion, that's our property, 2011 North Randolph. These are houses, that's 2013 and 2015 North Randolph. I believe those are occupied, although I've never seen any people there, but I haven't been there too frequently. I've been there a few times to take photos.
again that's 2011 with a view of 2009 and a view of 2013 and if you look behind that's new
construction on Reese Street because these lots this lot of 2011 North Randolph it actually is
a street -to -street lot it is it runs through from Randolph to Reese Street and behind it you can see
there's some new multifamily construction being put up there on Reese. When this picture was
taken, I want to say this was taken in January of this year. They've gotten further along on
that construction. But in any event, we're not here for them. We're here for my guys.
This is more of the surroundings. So here's a walk down the block, shall we say, of this block
of North Randolph. So there you see two houses, 2013 and 2015 North Randolph. As you go forward,
you see there's a junked car with some busted tires, there's a driveway, and then there's a
lot more vacant lots. I thought that was a good photo that I took. There's the street sign for
Randolph Street. This is the intersection of Norris and Randolph. They're roughly a half block
west of 5th and Norris. There's Cousins Supermarket, which is at the other end of the block.
Not sure why I took that one either, just kind of to give some context. This is what Randolph
Street currently looks like. You've got a bunch of short dumping. You've got vacant lots and
overgrowth. Over there to the left, you've got a bunch of vacant lots. Further down the street
are some structures, and we'll take a look at those as we get through this series of photos.
That's another shot of, across the street, a vacant empty lot, some trees, and then that
diagonal street, that's Germantown Avenue, and you can see the structures. Here's a shot of what's
immediately to the south of us on Randolph. I'm not exactly sure the address is here because it's
mostly open, empty, and vacant with a lot of short dumping. Here's a little bit further down
Randolph towards Susquehanna, there are some auto garages with cars in various states of
decay or non -decay sitting in front of them on the sidewalk, etc.
Here is that same truck I pointed out earlier.
This is just looking down northward towards Susquehanna on Randolph.
Exhibit 3C is the photos of our orange zoning posters, and these were posted recently, within the past 14 days, so on 8 -5 -2020 or earlier, on the wooden fence that is directly at 2011 North Randolph.
and we have one, two, that was the second photo of that. Exhibit four is our project information
form, which we filled out a while ago. This was filled out on December 19th of 2019.
Exhibit five is the affidavit of service of our original mailing notice to the neighbors on
January 15th of 2020, and there are a lot of neighbors in the immediate vicinity. I want to
say there were over 150, but as you can see, this was signed on January 15th. Well, it was mailed on
January 15th. It was signed and notarized on January 21st, and this is our original notice
letter of January 15th with the original ZBA date of March 4th, 2020. Obviously, that didn't happen,
and our original notice of the RCO meeting.
The RCO meeting did happen on February 12th, and we'll address that in a moment.
All the other people that we cc'd on this, our notice of refusal that we included with the notice letter.
Exhibit B to that affidavit was hundreds of addresses to which we mailed.
um if the if anyone needs to review that i'll go back over it but
If anyone needs to review that, I'll go back over it, but otherwise you can see that they're there.
Exhibit 6 is the letter from Norris Square at which, and you can see the vote totals there for 2011 North Randolph,
but we had addressed that previously prior to beginning this hearing.
uh exhibit seven is the deed uh in favor of 2000 randolph llc of which my clients are the uh
principal members recorded on december 5th of 2019 and it's well it was a deed granting uh
ownership to them of both 2011 as well as 2025 north randolph you know they bought them as a
package deal. Legal description and it's the deed and the realty transfer taxes, etc. Exhibit 8
should be our tax history going back to 1982 for the owners of the property at this specific
property. And as you can see, there's a zero balance through 2020. Um, are there any questions
from the board? Uh, does that complete your testimony? Uh, that does. And I, I would like
to call, um, my client, uh, Simon Shane, if I would too. Yes. And then I'll ask the board if
there's any questions. Simon, are you on? Can you hear me? Yes. Please identify yourself with
the record. Spell your name for the stenographer. Simon Shane, S -H -I -M -O -N -S -H -A -I -N.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes please proceed mr schlepner simon you are one of the principals of 2000 randolph llc
yes and did you hear the testimony that i offered to the zoning board today yes and do you adopt
that testimony as though it were your own and as though you had given it yourself yes okay um
and do you have any other individuals with you um willing to speak on behalf of the project
uh yeah i have um i i can speak myself for a minute and and i have neighbors in support of it
well yes i would ask you if you have anything else to offer to the board um now's your opportunity
um okay thank you for the opportunity everybody um i just would yeah i just want to uh just
explain a little bit that this is a very empty block as you saw in the pictures there's nothing
going on there. Uh, we did pay a lot of money for these lots. So, uh, we feel like to do a
multifamily, uh, would be beneficial for the neighborhood. We can make the, we can make the
rents lower. We'd like to rent them out for about a thousand dollars a unit. Um, you know, if we
have to do single, it'd be much harder for us. And it is a street to street lot. Um, so we feel like
this would be the best use for it, um, to have a two family. Um, we spoke to a bunch of neighbors
They're really happy about it, and we've had a nice relationship with them.
Unfortunately, this has dragged out over the coronavirus, so the good silver lining was
that we got even a nicer relationship with them, and they're really happy to have us.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter?
If so, please raise your hand, and when you're called, give us your name, spell your name
and address spell your name and give us your address here we have sloan folks from the council
person's office mr folks good afternoon good afternoon uh chairman de chico regarding um
variance request to that two zero one one i'm sorry sloan folks sloane fs of fire or lks office
of maria canina sanchez 7th district room 508 city hall and you're still on those from this
morning. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Regarding
variance request 2011 North Randolph Street,
the applicant did meet with the RCO back in February and received a letter of
opposition. This office is not supporting 20111 North Randolph Street's
variance request. Mr. Sloan, can I speak up for a moment?
Yes. Mr. Sloan, the
The development at 2011 is exactly the same as the proposal for the remaining five.
2011 is exactly the same as the proposal for the remaining five lots for which the councilwoman
submitted a letter of non -opposition. Yes. Well, she based the 2011, the objection to 2011 on the
then position of the RCO, which appears to have changed since they sent a memo specifically
asking us to go forward and saying that they had no opposition to the Randolph Street developments
which sort of assume included 2011.
I'm sorry, Mr. Letta.
I am in, it just, does the ZBA
does have the letter from the RCL?
That letter from the councilwoman,
there were actually three, maybe four letters.
The last one, if I'm not mistaken,
correct me, Sharon, was in non -opposition.
Yes, we submitted letters
on different components of this project.
We submitted letters regarding 2011 North Randolph
as one component.
They had one separate meeting.
And then we submitted letters because the project,
this various requests is going to be put together
as one for the street numbers 2019, 2021, 2029, 2037,
and 2039. And I would like to, and that's a separate, that's a separate statement that
councilman would like read on record regarding those properties. Of course, Mr. Sloan, I just
wanted to be sure that you did see the latest memo where the community seemed to be supporting.
Yes, ma 'am. I had that in my hand. Okay, thank you.
Okay. Anyone else wish to testify? Please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Dave Stoff. You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your name.
Yeah, Dave Stoff, D -A -V as in Victor E, last name Stoff, S -T -O -F -F as in Frank.
Your address, Mr. Stoff?
1949 North 7th Street, Philly, PA, 19112.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Mr. Stoff, are you here today to offer testimony on behalf and in favor of the requested variances at 2011 North Randolph?
Go ahead, if you would, briefly.
I'm in favor of Simon as a good guy, and I'm in favor of the multifamily units, the lower rent, and seems like a great idea.
Thank you.
I have nothing further for this witness.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
We have Miguel Simmons.
Miguel, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Mr. Simmons, please identify yourself.
Spell your name for the stenographer.
Hi, my name is Miguel Simmons.
Miguel is M -I -G -U -E -L.
Simmons is
S -I -M -M -O -N -S
What address?
2130 North 5th Street
Philadelphia PA
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, please proceed
Mr. Simmons, are you here today
to offer testimony in favor
and on behalf of
granting the variances requested
at 2011 North Randolph Street?
yes and and if you would briefly describe to the board what why you're in
favor of that because it's good for the neighborhood and it's gonna be it's
gonna be like a nice place and so it's good for them for all this neighborhood
thank you sir I have nothing further for this witness thank you anyone else
so does anyone else have something new and different?
I have Melissa.
Melissa, you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in.
Hello.
Melissa, good afternoon.
Please identify yourself, name and address.
I'm sorry, my volume was down.
i'm sorry my volume was down no problem
okay so what was the can you repeat the question your name and address spell your name for the
stenographer uh my name is melissa osheski m -e -l -i -s -s -a -o -l -s -z -e -w -s -k -i
osheski do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed.
And Ms. Olszewski, what is your address for the record?
426 West Nara Street, Philadelphia EPA, 19122.
Thank you.
And Ms. Olszewski, I'll keep it brief.
Did you hear my testimony before the board today?
Yes, I did.
And are you here to offer testimony in support of the board granting the variances requested at 2011 North Randolph Street?
Yes, I am.
Thank you.
I have nothing further for this witness.
Thank you.
Anyone else, Tanya?
We have Alberto.
Alberto, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself by your name and give us your address.
Alberto Papalayo.
Alberto is a sound.
And Papalayo is P -A -P -E -A -L -E -O.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I'm sorry, I didn't get your address.
525 Diamond Street, Philadelphia, PA 1912.
I'm sorry.
Sir, could you just repeat your last name, the spelling of your last name?
Papalayo, P -A -P -A -L -E -O.
Ah, thank you.
And Mr. Papaleo, are you here to testify that you are in favor of the board granting the variances requested at 2011 North Randolph Street?
Yes, I'm supportive. I actually live on Diamond Street is a close street and I see all the garbage over there on the street and the junk car.
And I think this is going to be great for the community to bring some new construction and development to the area. So I'm definitely supportive.
All right. Thank you. I have nothing further for this witness.
Okay. Anyone else?
No more hands, chair.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
Planning commission.
Good afternoon, chairman and members of the board.
These properties are zoned RSA 5.
The city's comprehensive plan recommends a residential multifamily.
We do not believe two -unit homes will have an adverse impact on the block.
We have no objection to the granting of these variances.
However, we are concerned because the applicant shows that their egress wells
will leave only a five -foot -wide walking zone on the Randolph Street sidewalk.
We would like to see the applicant's buildings pulled back
to allow for a six -foot -wide walking zone on Randolph Street.
um if i can speak up there was no refusal for that
no but it does uh there is a streets department and planet commission policy that we do need a
certain amount of clear space on the sidewalk sorry could everyone hear me yes now of course
my screen went back to my uh schedule i don't know how that happened without me touching anything
But in any event, thank you.
Calendar numbers 39959, 2021 North Randolph Street.
Calendar number 39870, 2025 North Randolph Street.
Calendar number 39871, 2037 North Randolph Street.
calendar number three nine five two two two oh one one north randolph street and calendar number
three nine nine six four two oh three nine north randolph street my vote is yes on all five
my vote is yes on all five yes to all five yes to all five yes to all five
thank you thank you members of the board i think i um finally have no more business before the
board today okay you be safe stay safe and uh sharon and or tanya any unfinished business on
this uh session no that's it for today for two o 'clock okay we'll see you all 3 30 yes thank you
Thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Thank you.
I'll be participating in today's hearing with Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere, our Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members Thomas Holloman and James Snell.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunken and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in our virtual hearings, I will go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we'll begin this afternoon's session by reading a list of cases to be continued.
If you believe any announced case is being continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond.
After reading the continuance list and receiving any feedback, we will take any additional continuance request.
Then once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued, Vice Chair Carol Tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session.
When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other interested parties in the matter identify themselves for the record.
We will then hear the applicant's presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys
representing other parties. Interested parties and members of the public, not represented by
counsel, will then be given an opportunity to testify. We will finally hear the recommendation
of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's conclusion, we will either vote the matter
immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session. Any case held for discussion
will be voted at the next scheduled Wednesday morning session. Please note the following
changes related to the format. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants
prior to their testimony. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. Fourth, for anyone participating by
phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property. I'll repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google
267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that being said, we will begin. We can begin. Excuse me. Before Carol Tenere calls our first
case, we'd like to announce that the following matters are being continued. Calendar number,
I don't have a calendar number, but I do have an address, 1512 South Juniper, and then calendar
number 39931 -2300 Washington Avenue. Those cases are being continued. I will ask at this time,
if anyone believes a case is being continued in error, please raise your hand, or if you
want to request a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand as well.
we have a renee edelman renee you can unmute yourself and speak to the continuance
hello my name yes please identify yourself and spell your name please my name is renee edelman
first name r -e -n -e -e last name e -d -e -l -m -a -n and i live at 1516 south juniper two houses down from
1512 south juniper one of the continuances do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed um i object to the continuance um this
would be a second continuance i and several other neighbors showed up at a zba hearing i believe in
January. And this case was continued for final hearing on this date. The reason it was continued
The reason it was continued is that the owners of 1512 had come to the Neighborhood Association
is that the owners of 1512 had come to the neighborhood.
Zoning Committee, and there had been considerable discussion, and the Zoning Committee asked,
and the owners of 1512 had agreed to come talk to the neighbors and work out some changes to
the plan and represent that to the Zoning Committee before proceeding to this board
with an appeal. And they never contacted us. We've had no contact from them. The house is now for
sale and they're advertising it with um approved zoning and permits as a shovel ready project
so i'm not sure what the owners of 1512 are doing but um i'm not sure why um this is being continued
and i would object to that i appreciate and hold on for a minute is sharon and or tanya do we have
any uh uh information in a file as to why it's being continued is there an attorney
representing the applicant there is not an attorney representing the applicant i
have that the continuance was requested but i don't know by whom
in any case if they had agreed to go back to the community to um to present revised plans
it would probably be best that they do that before um having a hearing and in any case if
going to they will not have any approvals in hand until they do that and they come back
so what is the calendar number i don't have a calendar number on my sheet
it is three eight seven oh nine three eight seven oh nine yes and there's nothing from
pass young neighbors correct um no there were no exhibits at all submitted
tonight um okay so with that i mean they got the house up for sale so obviously they're not we have
another person if you would oh i'm sorry tanya uh whoever's on the other line raise your hand
please there henry moss you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn hello can you hear me yes
please spell your name and give us your address dare henry moss it's d -a -r -e h -e -n -r -y hyphen m -o -s -s
your address my address is 1514 south juniper directly adjacent to the um 1512 property and
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do. Thank you. Please proceed.
I'd like to second Renee's objection. The owners of the property did appear at the community meeting and assured us that they would return with some revised plans regarding their proposed demolition of the property.
we have significant concerns about their ability to execute a demolition of the property safely
given their treatment of the property so far they've left it um excuse me i'm sorry but
yeah we're not getting into the case but you're objected to the request for continuance is that
correct yes they haven't provided any additional information yeah we don't mean to cut you short
but if we get into that, then we're actually getting into the merits of the case, and that's
not what we're here for today. Can I make a recommendation that it could be marked as a
must -be -heard for the next hearing, and we could contact the appellant and say it will be expected
that they return to the RCO before then? My understanding is it must be heard today,
and they have not appeared. Normally, I'd agree, Sharon, but they now have the house up for sale,
which tells me that they're really not interested in whatever it is they were coming to this board
for. There is no harm in not going forward. They will not be approved for it, but I believe they
were told that the case would be continued. They are not here. And we have no exhibits. We can't
go forward. We can deny the continuance. Well, denying the continuance would mean that you are
then denying the variance because you would have to dismiss it since they are not here and they
have not submitted exhibits there would be no dismissive okay they shouldn't be able to have
it listed with a realtor saying that they have zoning approval well that that would be a concern
for the buyer it isn't doesn't affect the fact that they do not have the zoning approvals
we can vote to dismiss if you vote to dismiss i assume they would object since we have told
them it wasn't necessary to be here and it was being continued well i think the burden
Well, I think the burden should be on them and not on the community.
should be on them and not not on the community
So I appreciate your comments, Sharon.
I appreciate that.
All right.
Any other, is there anyone else to, Tanya?
No, that's all.
Are we leaving that case continued or dismissed?
I'm going to, I'm making a motion to dismiss it.
So if that's okay, if that meets with the approval of the board.
Sounds good to me.
Calendar number 387091512 South Juniper.
My vote is to dismiss.
Dismiss.
Dismiss.
Thank you.
Thank you, ladies.
Any other requests?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Sorry, Frank.
Any other requests, Tanya?
we have mary jones mary you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
good afternoon ms jones please identify yourself for the record and uh proceed
yes uh good afternoon my name is mary jones um council uh representative for
Council President Daryl Clark, City Hall, room 496.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I'm not sure if this continuous request was already made, but I believe there's a case
listed today, 2455 West Montgomery Avenue.
They haven't met the RCO yet.
case number three on our list Frank yeah it's not case number three do we have
anything in the file yes no actually I've talked with the applicant twice
today they wanted to go forward because they had not met with the RCO I told
them it would have to be continued that is that's the request of the
Councilman's office? Yes, yes. Okay, we will continue that. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
So calendar number 38640, 2544 West Montgomery Avenue is being continued.
Anyone else?
no more hands chair okay carol calendar number sure calendar number three eight four zero six
one seven zero nine north 26th street the attorney is zen jin
hi mr jin good afternoon can you put your name and address on the record please
Ben Jinn, Z -H -E -N, J -I -N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103,
here on behalf of the applicant.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Sounds like a purring mason line.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. This is an application for a use variance for the property. I'm going to share
the screen. So this is an application for a use variance to use this property as a multifamily
dwelling. It is zoned RSA 5 single family. As you can see, the sole refusal is the use itself,
which is a triplex use. What I want to do is go ahead and go to the
property photographs itself. I'm sorry, let me move down some more.
This property actually is located right near Cecil B. Moore on North 26th Street.
The property here, this is the Cecil B. Moore properties, the backside of their properties.
And this one is essentially on the corner, but not quite the corner of Cecil B. Moore.
One interesting thing about this block is that my client's property has been left vacant, but occupied, without water or electric for some time.
so it took a lot of work to clean up this blight and it is also sandwiched in the surrounding
in the surrounding by uses that are similar to what my client is proposing. So what you see here,
by uses that are similar to what my
this is across the street, and this is going down the street from the property. So 1711, 1713,
and then 1715, which is a vacant lot, you move to 1717, all those properties are multifamily used.
they are actually recorded as such in the city records with permits 1713 for example goes back
quite a while as a triplex use so because of the way the building is situated between these
multi -family buildings and also the commercial mix used and multi -family buildings on Cecil B.
Moore when my client acquired the property he felt that a extensive renovation of the property
preserving its exterior because it is a nice enough looking exterior, but adding an addition
to the third floor and changing the units into three individual apartments would be the most
financially viable use, especially considering the next door buildings are also rented out as
multifamily as well. We do have the plans here for the board's review. Because the way this
building is set up, my client is not looking to put anything into the basement. The basement
would be left for utilities. Then each floor would simply be a two -bedroom apartment with
living room and kitchen. That is essentially the proposal. There's no rear yard or open area
requirements that are not met because the building footprint itself meets those requirements.
Now, as far as the addition itself, it would simply be an extension of the rear of the third
floor to kind of square off the property. But because there are already existing rear yard
and side court. That addition itself does not trigger any issues with regard to having
additional refusals being triggered for open area or rear yard. When we met with
the neighborhood, the meeting took place right before the pandemic kind of shut down meetings.
it was attended by my client and some neighbors they didn't really reach an agreement so to speak
the main issue is not so much the use but the addition itself one of the neighbors had some
objections to the idea of an addition even though it was pointed out that the addition itself even
if we keep it as a single family house is a by right addition it's not itself a refusal item
So that was the main concern, which kind of was left as a discussion, but no final result was reached from that discussion, because that is the main objection that was raised.
But again, my client feels that it's important to have the addition as part of the overall expenditure into this property.
the there was additional information that I just submitted with my latest
exhibit to the board I'm not I can go ahead and share that separately if the
board would just bear with me I thought I opened the latest exhibit I must have
open an older one. Okay, I see it here now. Let me go ahead and re -share.
So, I wanted to point out that 1711 going back a long time has been a triplex. 1713
is a duplex and 1717 is also a duplex now 1715 is not here because it's currently a vacant lot
but again this building is kind of sandwiched between multi -families on the one side further
down 26th street and also um sees there'll be more properties which generally are mixed use
and multi -family as well so that is part of the reason we're asking the boards i mean there's
I don't think there's any problem I'm sorry I really you were you're not
muted I know I know I'm sorry did I miss a question no I didn't ask one oh okay
sorry about that dog okay so based on that situation we would submit that this
Based on that situation, we would submit that this use would be consistent with the makeup of the neighborhood and would ask the board's consideration in this refusal.
use would be consistent.
I'm open to answering any questions from the board.
Jen, you said that 1713 and 1717 are duplexes, two units?
Yes, they are permitted as duplexes on the permit records.
And the physical size of those buildings is similar to your 1709?
I believe so.
I don't have the addition, without the addition.
Possibly, yes, without the addition.
Do you have any witnesses?
I believe my client is here.
Mr. Jim Bennett.
Sister Bennett, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
oh boy
Mr. Bennett
we hear you
can you hear me
yes Mr. Bennett please identify
yourselves your full name
and your address
James M. Bennett
J -A -M -E -S
Amazon Matthew Bennett
B -E -N -N -E -T -T
West Euclid
Avenue, Suite 200, Downingtown, PA, 19335.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Bennett, you heard my testimony to the zoning board.
Can you verify that it is true and correct and adopted as your own?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you.
anyone else questions from the board can can I make a can I make a comment
please all right Zen Zen touched on it but I wanted to clarify that the
immediately adjacent property 1711 North 26 is currently a triplex so we feel the
use of 1709 our property as a triplex is in keeping with the neighbor. The other
thing I should mention in checking many moons ago through zoning records there
was actually submission quite a few decades ago for this property to change
it to, I believe, both a duplex and a triplex. And that triplex use was actually approved,
I believe, in the 70s. But for failure to pay a $25 fee, it was never accomplished.
The other thing I should state, the prior owner of our property has actually been using
1709 as a duplex with a first floor apartment and then the second and third being a separate
apartment. Admittedly, it was more of a family arrangement and they never got legal approval.
We're trying to do things properly.
Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify? If so, please raise your hand.
i have covington you have been allowed to speak speak you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn
in yes good afternoon everyone my name is mr covington property manager one of the property
managers for 1711 north 26th street um the other property okay so you have to be sworn in
we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do thank you there's a little bit kind of irregularities with the communication
I'm trying to hear and see all the parties involved I'm getting a kind of a blocked
screen with a silhouette for the uh the host but i hope you can hear me we can hear you
The host, but I hope you can hear me.
We can hear you.
So the property that's adjacent to a 1709 North 26th Street is wanting to add an addition in the rear of their property that would, I presume, extend it to make it an additional attachment to the property.
The problem that Ms. Bunch and I are having is that we lost you.
Excuse me.
Yes, can you hear me?
Excuse me.
You said the problem we're having, and then you faded away.
Can you hear me now?
The problems that we're having are the addition that is requested by the parties for 1709 are going to impede my ability to market the unit that I currently have as an efficiency.
Right now, there are two windows facing the side where the addition for 1709 are being requested.
it. That addition would impede the tenants that's there and any future ones that I might
try to have any ability of any light whatsoever. It's going to be basically a brick wall there.
And there's very little light there as it is in the back. There's three bay windows, which
faces an
alleyway and the adjacent
properties on the street
in the back and then there's
these two windows on the
side where they're
which gives
a pretty nice view of the skyline
towards Center City.
If that addition is allowed
that will happen. It will be
totally dark on that side
and it's
kind of
heartbreaking to me, because I spent, you know, along with the other property, a great deal of
time renovating this property, and now have a developer come over and just put a brick wall
there. Seriously, my ability to... And you're referencing, what is the address of your property?
1709? 1711. 1711. Okay, because they kept saying 09. I was wondering,
happened to 11 okay thank you oh not a nine is the one that's requesting the addition that was
mr zen i believe and his partner so i meant to say uh what happened to 11 i apologize all right
before we go any further tanya hold on sir tanya confessor saying he's not being he cannot hear
anything we're saying so i don't know if you can help him or not but before you do is there anyone
else who wishes to testify. We have a caller ending in the number 338. You can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in.
Caller ending in 338.
Unmute yourself.
Good afternoon.
My name is Angela Bunch, property manager and owner for Maplewood Financial, 1711 North 26th Street.
You're swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
part of the reason for objecting to this erection of the building um it seems as if mr bennett is
trying to infer that uh since we have a multi -family a three family that he would be
consistent with what we already have in place which is not true
um this the buildings currently are what we call a three and a half story they're three story in
the front and then the back is two and a half stories.
And as Mr. Coguton has already enlightened everyone, he's one of our property managers.
For Mr. Bennett to erect a structure on the rear of the building, we're now going to have
three stories from front to back.
I have a multifamily of three units currently.
I have a multifamily of three units currently now.
My rear unit is an efficiency.
So I do understand why Mr. Bennett wants to erect a building on top of the rear of the building
so that he would now have a one -bedroom versus an efficiency.
But the problem is that no one has brought up is the fact that our properties are less than six feet away from each other.
So when my tenant looks out of this side window, we have exactly five windows in the back.
When he looks out of that side window, he is going to be looking at a wall.
It's going to empty that unit to the fact that it's going to be no daylight because you're talking about,
instead of looking out the window and seeing the roof line, the skyline to the city, he's going to see a wall.
And not only will it impact 1711, but every building thereafter for the whole entire block, not just my unit, my building, I'm sorry, but the entire side of that street.
Because anyone that looks out their window, where they used to be able to enjoy the skyline, everyone is going to see this wall now.
except for um his building because when he erects this his tenants will be able to enjoy the skyline
his building which is 1709 the second house from the pro the second property from the corner and
the uh first property on uh 26th street will be able to enjoy any views no one else will
understood thank you thank you just bear with me for one moment um and and in addition to that
i have a tenant on the first floor um who's trying who tried to get onto the call as well
who has a lung condition okay and this would not only um impede her light from her kitchen
on her side windows it's already shaded by the building but putting up a third um addition on
that rear is going to greatly impact her daylight as well.
And I do understand why he wants to do it, because efficiencies as it is are difficult
to rent.
We've just been fortunate to have a tenant with us, and by I add, also, we've been there
since 2009, 11 and a half years, and I'm on my second renovation.
And like Mr. Bennett, I have goals and dreams, too.
And I've worked very, very hard for where I am now.
And to have all of that wiped out, you know,
because he wants to have an addition on the rear,
I really think is not considering anyone else.
You know, and the financial impact it would have on that property.
Who wants to rent a dark, dreary unit?
It's difficult enough, as I said, with it being an efficiency,
But now it's an efficiency that's in the dark.
And I just would like to ask Mr. Bennett, did he...
The questions are directed to the board. Thank you.
I'm sorry. Oh, I see. Okay.
Well, I don't think there's been any consideration
on the impact that this would cause on the entire block.
It just seems as if...
How can I say this?
It's basically for the benefit of 1709, this addition.
I don't see anyone else benefiting from it.
First of all, it's on the rear of the building, and I'm all for the improvement in the area.
We greatly need that.
But there have been other property owners, including myself, who have found the way to make it a multifamily without putting an erection on the building.
So it can be done.
1713, next to me.
I'm going to cut you short, but I think we got your message.
We were familiar with the other problem.
Very well.
Thank you for taking the time.
Is there anyone else?
I see Mary Jones.
We have a caller with the last three numbers, 006.
you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in.
Phone caller
ending in 006
you can press star 6
to unmute yourself
and be sworn in.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please give us your full name and address.
Yes, my name is Sheila Parson Pope. I live at 1711 North 26th Street.
Parson Pope. I live at 1711 North 26th Street.
And ma 'am, would you spell your name for the record, please?
P -A -R -S -O -N hyphen Pope, P -O -P -E.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes. I have a great problem with this building next door.
First of all, it was feces out there.
It smells all in the apartment and my apartment.
No one has been there to cut that grass because when I come out my back door,
I have to have someone to cut that down because now it looks like a tree.
It's been people back there just trying to get in the place,
but so happens I cut the light on and the lights come on in the back,
So that way, that person, whoever it is trying to get in there, they leave.
The smoke detector, it comes on all the time, but then it goes off.
No one has been over there to check about this apartment, about this house.
I have lung problems.
I am a sick woman.
And certain things that's going on over there,
someone should have been there to try to see what's going on over there
or to see what is smelling over there because it is a smell out of this world.
But in the same token, I did speak to the gentleman that was at the meeting,
and he was telling me about all the lime that he has put out there.
But the lime is really going away, I guess, because some days I can smell it.
I can smell it all through my apartment.
And that's not fair to me, and it's not good for my lungs.
And it's also not good for me to pay rent somewhere where I'm not comfortable in.
And that's how I feel about that.
I don't know if he put anything up there or the roof or whatever,
but right now it's dark
you can't hardly see anything now
thank you for taking the time
to be with us today
okay chair we have Taylor
Taylor you can
unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in
first name
my name is Taylor
White Welchen
T -A -Y -L -O -R
last name White
as in the color w -h -i -t -e hyphen w -e -l -c -h -e -n address um address is one seven five five
north 26th street we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed sure um so my husband and i recently purchased a newly renovated
home on the street. It's towards the other the end of the other side of the street near I believe
Montgomery Avenue. Our new home has a rooftop deck which we really appreciate and like and we
just have some concerns regarding the addition of the unit potentially obstructing all of the views
for our rooftop deck if we could potentially get more information about
the floor plan regarding to the the extent to which the new addition would
obstruct the center city views that would be great or yeah yeah that's all
I've said thank you anyone else
no more hands up chair mary jones i see mary jones i don't know if she's still here from the
council president's office she didn't have her hand up to okay and mr jen to explain i think
there's some note i saw that said the community did not reach an agreement yes as i indicated in
my initial presentation part of the issue here is that the community's concerns focus on this
addition portion of the application. I'm going to reshare the screen of the application itself. So
this is the addition that is being discussed at length with the testimony of the neighbors.
One of the key points here is that these buildings, when they were built, and we're
maintaining the existing footprint of the existing building, when they were built,
They were built with a side court and nine foot rear yard. So they do actually meet code requirements for open space, as well as rear yard depth, which means it did.
code requirements for open space, as well as rear yard depth, which means the addition itself does
not trigger a refusal. So there's no refusal for this. While this is part of the application,
and I know my client tried to explain this to the neighbors, anyone who acquires this property
can choose to do this addition, and it is not really a zoning refusal item to be -
Right. It is by right. The only issue here is the number of units.
Correct. The only issue here is the number of units. And again, we understand that everyone's concerned about light and air with regard to this.
And again, there is a side court already in existence, both on 1709 side.
And I believe looking at the aerial map on the 1711 side, their side court is on this side.
So yes, it is only about six feet, because these courts tend to be three foot wide. But 1711 can also do the same extension that we're asking for by right. So it is, we're not taking away their right to have that space utilized.
I understand they don't, but this addition in and of itself is not going to cause a refusal item in the future.
Even if we were to accept not to do it at this point and this building transfers hands, someone who comes along can still make the and build the addition at that point.
So I just wanted to make that clear.
And again, I also want to point out that I don't believe there was an objection at all from any of the witnesses as far as the use, because it is consistent to the next door's use. Thank you.
Anyone else, Tanya?
No, that's all.
Questions from the board?
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, board.
Peter, did we swear you in yet?
I forget.
Not today.
Okay, so please spell your name.
Give us your title.
Peter Bernard, Community Health Planner for PCPC.
My name is spelled B -A -R -N -A -R -D.
we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed this property is indicated for a single family residential
on the comprehensive plan this application represents an overuse of the property
accordingly we object to the granting of the variance at this location
Thank you.
Calendar number 38406, 1907 North 26th Street.
My vote is yes with proviso, maximum two units.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Calendar number 39651, 1932 North 4th Street. The attorney is Rachel Pritzker.
Good afternoon.
Hi, Rachel.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your name?
Rachel Pritzker, R -A -C -H -A -E -L, Pritzker, P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R, Pritzker Law Group, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
you may proceed thank you okay so i wanted to i want to bring up um ron dibiase who is the
owner of the property i believe he's also on this call and scott woodruff who's the architect for
Does this matter?
Hello, is this Scott Woodruff?
Only Scott has his hand up.
Okay, we have Ron and Scott available to speak.
Okay, can Scott be promoted to a panelist
so that he can show the plans when relevant.
when relevant okay scott has been promoted to panelists thank you so much
okay can you put your name and address on the record
scott scott that you have to unmute yourself there we go
Scott Woodrow. Thank you. Can you put your address on the record as well? Sure. Design Blends
Architecture, 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA, 19127. And do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Okay. So before you go
into the plans, I'll just briefly discuss the project. This is an application for the construction
of a three -unit, three -story multifamily residential building on a long -standing
vacant lot at the corner of 4th Street and Houston Street. As you'll see, it's sort of a
triangular -shaped parcel, about 1 ,088 square feet, and we propose two three -bedroom apartments and
one three -bedroom apartment. I think the plans were slightly changed floor plan -wise. Scott can
go through that after meeting with the community. Our application requires relief for two variances,
a variance allowing multi -family use in RSA 5 zoning district, and a variance allowing no rear
yard at the shallower side of the property. You'll see it's oddly shaped, so we are actually providing
a nine -foot rear yard. So Scott, if you want to go into the details of the project, and then I can
talk more about the refusal and our hardship in addition to other elements of the project.
Yeah, sure. Thanks, Rachel. As you can see, we're at the corner of 4th and West Houston Street.
We have vacant properties on either side of us. I believe there's one that's built down
down the road here a little bit. The Planning Commission designated North 4th Street as the
frontage for this property uh given that as the frontage our rear yard is technically classified
as this line um that's on the opposite of north 4th street uh we uh felt it was important given
that the vacant you know vacancy really on this block to hold the corner um and produce a building
that was more rectangular in nature as opposed to a really weird triangle leaving this big gap
that's kind of open towards the rear. We are still providing relief towards the back of the
property. There's a 13 foot 9 and 3 eighths inch yard that kind of stretches towards the point of
the actual lot. We do comply with open area calcs of 80%, so we're only occupying what we need to
at 80 % of the lot. It's just the rear yard, again, which is calculating from 4th Street,
whereas here in this nature, obviously, we're still providing a good portion of that.
I can go into as well. So this is the exterior of the building. We worked and changed a few
things based on some community feedback, which Rachel can go into here further. But really,
again, trying to create something that kind of held the corner and visible on all sides,
had materials that would be complimentary and visually appealing as there is a bunch
of vacant lots obviously around in this area.
As you can see from the plans, we have one unit that is basement first floor and then
there are flat units on the second floor and third floor.
the first floor has its own private entrance and then the two units above
have their own entrance on 4th Street again one of the things you wanted to
try and stress is that these these residents would be more long -standing
at least so providing separate entrances trying to create a little bit
more space obviously are things that we want to have for the residents so it
feels much like an apartment building necessarily. And then again just looking
at the height of the building, we are
the height of the building we are under 38 feet in height three stories and comply with any other
regulation that way we don't have any roof decks proposed just front balconies
to provide outdoor space for each unit as well as the rear yard
thank you so um just to get into again the hardship and the variances that we're requesting
first again um is the just to keep it simple is the rear yard setback again um because the
oddness of the shape of the lot um we weren't able to and and having fourth street be designated
sort of the frontage and this being a corner property it made more sense to put the rear
yard to the back right of the property. So again, we are providing a rear yard actually, as Scott
said, over 13 feet instead of the nine feet required. Additionally, as far as the multifamily
use, although this property is zone RSA 5, this property is on a corner. It's quite large compared
and oddly shaped compared to the other properties. And it also has a significant amount of multifamily
that has been approved by this board over the last couple years, specifically 1338 North 4th
Street's a duplex, 1946 North 4th Street's four -room unit with a commercial space, 1947 is a
duplex, 1949 is also a duplex, 1952 is a duplex, 1955 is a duplex, and 413 West Houston is a duplex.
One of the reasons that we did not provide for a duplex was because we do have a larger corner lot
And also we were asked by the community and in conjunction with sort of the council offices
planning for this area and initiatives on affordable housing, we wanted to provide a
mixed income housing development. Specifically, these are three affordable condo units, given
the community was very interested in homeownership. And that was something that our owner was
willing to do either rentals or homeownership. Just to give the board an idea of the price point,
the first unit, I believe, is at $175 ,000. The second is at $190 ,000. And the top unit,
which is the largest, it's double the size of the two, is at $325 ,000. So two of them are really
well under even the workforce housing price point for the city of Philadelphia. And that was
important. Just to get into the 2035 district plan before I speak about the community,
I'm just going to share my screen as we actually pulled directly from the 2035 plan.
Okay, so basically the 2035 plan shows that the property and surrounding blocks be used for high
density residential development. This is right near 4th Street, is on 4th Street and next to
Biss Street and Near American Street. As you can see, page 57 of the plan kind of describes,
you know, their ideas for residential development and higher density in this area in particular,
in addition to the amount of vacancy in this area alone, as you can see from Scott's
aerial. As you can see, the star is sort of where this project is, and it's really surrounded by a
of RM1 on a lot of the neighboring blocks. It also has some of the highest vacancy in this area so
as you can see trying to construct something that can provide for a little bit more foot traffic
and buying power to support the goals of North American Street and Fifth Street in addition to
providing enough density to help with the sort of vacancy and blight that we're seeing in this
neighborhood. Again, we believe this project, in addition to the mixed income housing component of
it, aligns with the city's comprehensive plan and the goals of sort of mixed income housing
development in the city. As you can see from the Atlas aerial, this is the amount of vacancy just
on these surrounding blocks. I think that's probably why the board and neighborhood have
been relatively supportive of multifamily in this neighborhood, again, to help support the
goals of Fifth Street and North American Street. Just to talk about the community meeting just
briefly, we actually met with the community twice, which is the North Square Civic Association.
We met with them not only at a board meeting that they held, but then we also did a full
community meeting in which Sloan from the council office was there as well. We probably only got in
to speak for like not even five minutes. They were not open to hearing about the project. They were
not open to discussing much about the project, although we did make changes and submitted
to discussing much about the project, although we did make changes and submitted changes that they
changes that they requested.
requested related to homeownership and related to the side facade of the wall facing Houston Street.
They were worried, given the amount of vacancy, that they wanted that wall to be made of a lot
nicer material than we had originally proposed, so we made that change. We were then asked a week
before this hearing to come back again in front of them. They acknowledged that sort of the meeting
didn't really go in a in a fair manner and that they wanted to kind of reset with us that they
worked up new protocols however at this point we've been waiting um and we we did more than two
we did two meetings with them we felt like it was more important um at this time given uh sort of
the features of this site that we try and move it forward if possible to not have another meeting in
which uh it may not be productive so um we've reached out we've made the changes that they've
asked for. We've spoken ad nauseum to the council office to make sure that we're kind of going
about this the right way. I'm always a fan of trying to make sure we get as much input as
possible so that, you know, people who live there can appreciate the projects. But we really would
like, you know, to get this voted on the record today and do believe that this is a good project
that will add to the need for affordable housing and help the redevelopment of this neighborhood.
I would like to just have Ron, who's the owner, just put his name and address on the record if
board has any questions for him he'd be happy to answer any of them but i don't have any other
questions besides just putting him on the record it's spell your name for a record name and address
please uh it's ron dibiase jr d as in david e as in edward capital b as in boy i a s s e
201 south 18th street philadelphia 19103 from the swear to the firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes thank you ron have you heard my
statements on the record and do you adopt them
as your own yes i do is there anything that you
want to add or you can let the board ask any questions that they may have and i
know that uh sloan from the council office is here as
well uh as far as i'm concerned you covered it
thank you
uh questions from the board
I have a question. Rachel, do you just give me the break. Give me the breakout of the number of units that you when you started your presentation. How many one bedrooms, two bedrooms, whatever.
It's still three units. I think that we have two two bedroom units and one three bedroom unit.
That's correct.
Okay. All right. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? Please raise your hand at this time.
Long folks, you can unmute yourself and testify.
Good afternoon again, Chairman DiChico, ZBA board.
Salome folks, Office of Councilman Maria Quinones Sanchez, room 508, City Hall.
You have already been sworn in, so please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
The Councilman wants this written to the record.
The applicant has met with the RCO and has garnered a letter of opposition.
In light of this letter, we have asked the developer to continue the hearing in hopes that the RCO would re -engage and a resolution could be found.
We have asked the developer to resubmit changes to North Square Civic Association, which is the RCO, and they have not gotten a response.
In the last few months, North Square Civic Association has had a leadership change and is revamping their process to include more education and information.
Our office is encouraged by these actions.
In a post -COVID world, given the nature of the ZBA, we would like the case to be heard and a decision to be held for two weeks to see if NSCA Norris Square replies to their changes.
We continue to encourage the developer to engage the RCO and appreciate their due diligence. Thank you.
Thank you. That's pretty much where I was going to land on this one. Anyone else who wishes to testify?
no more hands at this time so rachel uh listening to what i heard and i know there was some back
and forth about the the meetings with the rco your your client obviously made a lot it seems
like a number of attempts to to address their issues the councilwoman's office is obviously
uh reaching out i think to see if we can come to some further adjustments what they are i don't
know. I know you want to get this over with, but I would recommend, suggest rather that maybe we
hold this for two more weeks, have further conversation with the councilwoman's office
have further conversation with the councilwoman's office and see if there
and see if there were any other adjustments.
are any other adjustments that are amenable to the project
um we'll do whatever the board thinks is best in order to move forward we were
just happy to be able to put our case on the record
um i i do want to note um to sloan's point we did submit changes that were
requested to the rco and did not hear back
besides them saying they wanted to maybe have another meeting
and they appreciated those changes so if it's just two weeks and they can um you know try and be
productive and helpful with a meeting then we're you know all in favor of doing doing that yeah i
think that at the end we'll have some uh more better direction the board will have a better
direction as to how they may want to vote okay so we'll hold this calendar number 3965 i'm sorry
may i interrupt for one moment and if we could announce that the record will remain open for two
weeks we will come reconvene in two weeks for the limited purpose of hearing of any progress that
has been made okay rachel yep okay yep okay thank you all thank you calendar numbers three nine
39404, 39405, and 39443, 5113, 5122, and 5138 Randstead Street. The attorney is Leo Mulvihill.
Leo, you have been promoted to a panelist. You can speak and share your screen as necessary.
Mr. Mulvihill, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Certainly.
Leo Mulvihill, that's M -U -L -V -I -H -I -L -L.
Address is 2424 East York Street, Suite 111, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19125.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
That was very quick what you did.
Thank you.
Certainly. Good afternoon, members of the board. Again, Leo Mulvihill on behalf of the applicant for 5113, 5122, and 5138 Randstead Street. On the line with us today is our architect, Logan Dry, that's D -R -Y, as well as the principal of the companies that own these properties, LaVar Clark. For the record, that's L -E -V as in Victor, A -R -C -L -A -R -K.
What everybody should be seeing on the screens right now are my zoning material packets which
I previously submitted. I won't go through all of them this very second but I will run through them
for purposes of the record. We have the refusals appeals and project information forms in the
packet at page one. Area zoning map at page 19. For the record members of the board this is a CMX4
district. Deeds are at page 20. My client's commercial activity licenses are at page 37.
tax clearance at 38. Our zoning notification letters of the near neighbors went out
at page 42. A letter of support from the RCO, Walnut Hill Civic Association, is at page 45.
I have photos of the property at page 47. And towards the end of the packet, I have the floor
plans, which I'll go immediately to, because I think those are the most important things that
we should get to. So let me just page through everything members of the board, and we'll get
there. So in any case, what we have today are three vacant lots on an otherwise residential block.
I'm showing you just for purposes of the record page 19 of my packet off to the left -hand side
of the screen. You can see the area indicated to the upper left. This is Randstead Street. It runs
in between 51st and 52nd Street, just north of Chestnut, and the lots are all located on this
block CMX4. Why the block is zone CMX4? It's mainly a residential block. I don't recall seeing
any commercial businesses on Randstad itself. Let's see. Pardon me for one moment, members of
the board, so you don't have to watch me page through everything here. I'll scroll to the end
where we can see the photographs of the lots so members of the board right now
I'm showing you paid 47 and 52 this is a lot of 5113 Randstad as you can see
This is a lot at 5113 Randstead. As you can see, these are the residences on either side.
these are the residences on either side
The purpose of the record, page 48. This is 5138 Randstead and 5122 Randstead. As I mentioned,
these are all empty lots. These photos that I just previously mentioned were all taken from
Google Maps. I have now up on the monitors beginning at page 50, the purpose of the record.
pictures of the lots as they exist today with the zoning notices posted upon them.
Paging through to page 51, again with the zoning notices, and page 52 with additional notices.
Because this was a COVID project, we did also post notice of the community meeting on the
properties themselves to ensure that everybody was able to attend remotely. And in addition to
letters that were sent out we did provide uh several hundred copies of the zoning meeting
notice to the rco at their request who i believe then went around and delivered to near neighbors
as well just going to change my viewing so we only see one page up at a time members of the board
so we're having all these three heard together only because they're all basically the same floor
plan. What I'm showing you on the screen right now is the first page showing the rendering for
the properties, three stories, brick, and the proposal for each of these properties is to be
two units. They're going to be 32 feet, nine inches tall. Each of them has a 10 foot rear yard.
Moving to the next page showing the zoning plan that was submitted. We can see the elevation of
the building, which I'm zooming in on right now. Again, here's the height indicated by my cursor.
brick front, balcony on back, and the overhead site plan view as well. These are existing lots.
We're not touching lot lines or anything like that. Zooming out now and moving to the next
page, members of the board. And what I did is I just included each of the zoning plans for each
of the properties, even though they're essentially the same. What should be loading now is the
proposed duplex interior plans for the properties. Each of them are exactly the same.
Starting on the left -hand side of the screen, we have the cellar.
We have a rec room, mechanical, half bath, and a living space in the basement for the first floor unit.
The first floor unit is about 1 ,200 square feet, one bed, two bath.
The first floor itself does have the bedroom right to the front, bath in the middle, kitchen area to the rear, and then dining area all the way in the back.
We then have the actual rear yard presented here.
To get into the second story unit, you'd simply go up the stairs and here we are
in the second story unit B, 1 ,250 square feet, three bedroom, two baths. On the
second story, we have living space in the front, kitchen in the middle, bathroom
behind that, bedroom to the rear. Third story, we have two beds, two baths. We are
intending to rent these units out. The approximate rental price for the two
bedroom units. It's going to be around $1 ,600, $1 ,700 new construction. For the one bedroom unit,
we're looking for around $1 ,100, $1 ,200. My client specifically looked to the AMI for this district
and targeted these rents at 80 % AMI, which to the best of my understanding is about similar to what
the city would ask for if this was a workforce housing project. My client's committed to
maintaining housing that people can actually afford even with new construction. That's
essentially what we're looking for here. The refusals are simply because this is a CMX4
district and we're looking to put residential with no commercial. Logan, if you're on the line,
would like to raise your hand if you have anything to add about the plans.
Just wait to make sure that you are sworn in before doing so.
no i mean uh i don't have anything to add logan dry uh kca design
sir sir sir excuse me please identify yourself for the record name and address
Logan Dry, 6525 Tulip Street, KCA Design Associates,
for the architect of record.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I don't have anything else to add to what Leo said.
He pretty much hit the nail on the head.
And on the line as well should be my client, LeVar Clark.
LeVar, if you're there, please raise your hand so we can unmute you,
and I can ask you a question or two.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes. Let's get you sworn in.
Name is LeVar Clark.
Address is 1112 South 27th Street,
Address is 1112 South 27th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 101.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
All right, LaVar, you've heard everything I've testified to today?
Do you have anything you'd like to add at this point for the zoning board to hear?
And my testimony, as you heard it, is true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And you adopt my testimony as your own for purposes of this hearing?
Yes, I do.
All right. Thank you, LeVar. I don't have any other questions for you.
Zoning board, we're happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter, please raise your hand at this time.
no hands chair thank you very much planning commission
good afternoon board
peter just identify yourself that's uh for the planning commission
you've already been sworn in correct
The property is indicated for single family residential use
on the comprehensive plan,
but has not yet been remapped from CMX -4.
The adjacent properties were built
and have been maintained as single family properties.
The proposal is more appropriate than the allowed density
and does not propose any negative impacts
on the surrounding area.
Accordingly, we have no objection
to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
I also believe if it hasn't already been mentioned
at the Walnut Hill Community Association
sent a letter of non -opposition.
Calendar numbers 39404, 39405, 39443,
for 5113, 5122, and 5138 Randstead Street.
My vote is yes on all three.
My vote is yes on all three.
yes to all three yes to all three yes to all three
thank you calendar number 39409 and 39410
5143 and 5154 irving street the attorney is leo mulvihill
and good afternoon again members of the board leo movahill 2424 east york street suite 111
philadelphia 19125 i'm here today you've already been sworn in do you agree to wave
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do okay great start and in these
i didn't mean that gosh i apologize so now with the board's permission i'll start
So members of the board, it's the same owner, LeVar Clark, same architect.
They've been previously sworn.
This is for the properties at 5143 and 5145 Irving Street,
located only a few blocks away from the previous properties that we discussed on Randstead Street,
right off of the 52nd Street corridor, commercial corridor, that is.
What I have up on the screen right now, and I hope you all can see,
is the table of contents for the previously submitted packets.
with all the requisite materials, including the refusal appeal and project information forms at
page one, area zoning maps at page five. When we filed this application, members of the board,
this area was zoned CMX3. It's my understanding that as of today, one of the parcels is zoned
RSA5, while the other is zoned CMX2 .5. I don't think that affects really our proposal for today,
but I think it's important for the board to be aware of that change in the underlying months.
The deeds for the properties are at page six.
Commercial activity license is at page 15.
Tax clearance at page 16.
Zoning notification letter is at page 19.
And again, we handed out several hundred copies to Walnut Hill at their request so they could
personally flyer the neighborhood in addition to the letters that went out.
As you'll notice, there's no RCO letter attached.
I'll address that.
Although this was presented to the community at the same time as the previous projects
for Ranstead Street.
there remains one underlying issue which is not related to zoning but I'll get
into that with the board in the moment see photos of the property begin at
page 22 members of the board what I'll do now is I will change my view I'll get
to the zoning area map first so members of the board you can see this is the
block that we're discussing. These two lots right here, the lots at issue, the one that is
these two lots right here the lots at issue the one that is highlighted here
is 43 this is 45 as I said when we initially submitted the application this
was also in CMX 3 you can see that underlying zoning has now changed this
is an overhead shop of an area 52nd Street corridor is right here it's at
page five of the zoning packet members the board I'm just moving forward to the photographs of
the property itself so members of the board what I'm showing you now is page 22 of my packet showing
the building at issue and the lot directly next to it. The upper left hand side, this is a view
looking westbound at 52nd Street. The photograph on the upper right hand side is another view
looking westbound. The picture to the bottom left is the structure as it currently exists
and the zoning signs that I posted are also on the property. Moving to page 23, we just see
additional photos of the lot and the surrounding area. The photo of the upper right is directly
across the street. The photo to the bottom left is also directly across the street looking slightly
eastbound. You see there are garages here. My understanding from speaking with neighbors is
that these two windows above the garage are currently occupied as apartments. And then this
photograph to the bottom right, members of the board on page 23, is looking eastbound. You see
the residences here with porches off to the north side of the street. These commercial garages with
potential apartments above them and then other residences further down. I'm now
showing you the next page of my packet members of the board. This is a proposed
rendering for the two properties. What we're essentially asking to do is take
the two lots, consolidate them into one, and build a total of nine units plus a
roof deck. The building itself is four stories and will be about 42 feet, four
inches tall. We received variances for not providing all street parking and for
the side yard. We'll get into that in a minute. The reason we didn't want to provide all street
parking is that the lot size and shape isn't really conducive to doing so, especially for
this number of units. In addition, we're located so close to the 52nd Street L -stop that it didn't
make a ton of sense to take curb cuts and privatize parking when residents on the street
are already enjoying parking on the street. The side yards itself, when we get to the overall
plans we'll see we have a side yard here so that we are giving space to the property that is facing
52nd street we also have an area to the east of the property so we're not tying into the houses
that are directly next to it as well i'm showing you the zoning plan at this point members of the
board you can see on the upper left hand side this was the previous zoning for the property itself
I'll just zoom in to the elevation and give it a minute to load.
So we can see here's the four story proposal, it's about 42 feet 4 inches tall as I previously
discussed and we do have balconies for each of the units to allow for some outdoor space.
The reason that we did this, in addition to allowing for outdoor space, is that the other homes on the block all have front porches, and we wanted to kind of provide that sort of outdoor feeling for these units, just as all the other houses on the block already enjoy.
This is the rear, with the additional balconies that are available to the rear -facing units.
And this is a side elevation of the property as well.
Going to the bottom of the page, members of the board, we see the actual zoning overhead map showing the site plan.
To the front, off to the left of the street is Randstead Street.
This is the alley that I was discussing previously, rear yard area.
And we have this secondary alley, so we're not tying into the property to the east, which is to the south, pardon me, to the bottom of this drawing.
So members of the board, this is the floor plan showing the cellar first and second floors.
I'll zoom in on each of those independently so that we all have the opportunity to review.
Maybe, okay.
So what I'm showing now, members of the board, off to the left of that page is the cellar
plan where we have mechanical, trash, and bike storage for each of the units.
towards the middle we have dining living and kitchen space and dining living
We have dining, living, and kitchen space, and dining, living, and kitchen space for two bi -level units.
Go into the first floor plan.
To the front, we have unit number one, which is about 650 square feet.
The proposed rent for that unit is the same as what we proposed for Ranstead Street,
so around, give or take, $1 ,150, $1 ,200 per month, one bedroom, one bath.
Units two and three, as I discussed previously, are bi -level. Unit two is 1 ,261 square feet,
two bedroom, one and a half bath. And unit three, about 1 ,905 square feet, two bedroom, one and a
half bath. Moving up now to the second story, we have units four and units five. Unit four is 1 ,000
square feet, two -bedroom, two -bath. Unit 5 is 950 square feet, two -bedroom, two -bath.
To the bottom of the plan, you can see the balconies, as previously discussed,
then also the balconies to the rear. Zooming out and moving to the next page,
members of the board, we have the third and fourth floor plans. These plans are essentially
identical to what we had on the lower floor on the second floor unit six thousand square feet
unit seven a thousand square feet unit eight a thousand square feet unit nine thousand square
feet and each of those are two bed two baths we do have roof deck as well which would be accessible
to the top two units it's set back sufficiently from the street so that there's privacy
for the neighbors and it's set back from the rear yard area as well to allow for privacy from the
rear. That'll be for the use of Units 8 and 9 on the top.
Members of the board, as I discussed before with the previous properties on Randstead,
my client looked specifically to HUD data and trying to price these units because it is new
construction and we aim to have these units be at 80 % AMI for affordability. The biggest issue
that we had with the community group was the issue of rents. And the last conversation we
had with them was the community group basically not giving us an approval letter because what
they wanted us to do is make two of these units affordable in their minds, which is essentially
half of what we were looking to offer these units for. And frankly, if we were to offer these units
at half of two of the units, rather, at half of what the proposed rents would be, this project
simply doesn't work, and we're not able to do what we want to do with the project.
that's the only reason at this point that as far as i understand that we don't have
a letter of support from walnut hill we had a meeting with them in person i had a pre -meet
with them months ago we've had continuing conversations with the community group
since the actual meeting itself we spoke with their board my client lavar has been in contact
with them but with if we try to make these units any less expensive with new construction prices
is what they are right now. And the cost of simply building the building, we just can't make this
work. Logan, are you still on the line? Yep. Logan, now you did the design for this property?
Correct. Can you tell me specifically, when looking to this parcel, when you were doing
the consolidation plan, what were your considerations when designing this property
to be in line with what at the time was CMX3 zoning?
I mean, just kind of speaking briefly without, you know, repeating too much of what you said,
one of the first things we tried to do was see what made the most sense with multifamily and providing parking.
So, you know, our first sort of step was to see if we can do any sort of on -site parking to facilitate, you know, the number of units.
And what we found was that the width of the property in order to do parking spaces that were, let's say, on the ground floor level, where you'd essentially have a garage that faces the street.
The two problems that we had was basically there wasn't enough width in the lot to do parking spaces inside the building and have the required drive aisles that are needed for clearances to actually get into those spots.
And then we kind of looked back and said, all right, well, what if we just had cars pulling into the front?
And what we didn't like about that was, you know, generally you don't like to look at the back end of cars that are lining the whole front side of the property.
Not only that, the streets department wouldn't give us a curb cut that large.
So what we did is we said, you know, hey, let's design something that's more in keeping with RM1 versus CMX3, since at the time the other properties in the block were RM1.
So, again, we tried to keep the massing to four stories, whereas CMX3 would let us go probably up to about five or six stories.
We didn't think that was appropriate.
We didn't think that was appropriate.
So, again, what we did was, you know, kept everything close to that.
So again, what we did was kept everything close to that 38 -foot height that's cohesive
with RM1.
We did keep the existing alley between this property and the other houses in doing so
and not doing the parking.
That curb cut gets closed up, so there's about two street spaces now added to the street.
And then the only other thing we did that we got a refusal for, but we felt it was in
the better interest of not only our building but the adjacent buildings that are fronting
the other street leo i don't i don't what street is that but it basically the backyards that back
up onto the left side of our property where we're creating that three foot side yard
yeah so the houses that front 52nd street their rear yards back up onto our property so again
rather than building our building right up against and having to deal with fence lines
and things like that you know we wanted to create a little bit more breathing room there so we
created the side yard on our property and the other side sort of again twofold for additional
egress from the back but also just to give a little bit more breathing room from you know the
existing homes property lines and fences and rear yards that exist back there. Other than that we
just sort of look to some of the context in the area in terms of the front porches we you know
I wanted to integrate some eyes and ears on the street.
So we integrated some small balconies into our design as well.
And then again,
another thing with RCO groups and neighborhoods that we typically do
developments in is, you know, the roof deck,
we didn't feel a need to make it a community roof deck for all,
all of the units to use.
We kind of gave everybody their own individual outdoor spaces,
whether it be through a balcony, the rear yard,
or in the case of the upper two units, their own private roof decks.
So we really tried to design something that was more in keeping with an RM1 zoning, which at the time is what was, you know, attached to us, as opposed to kind of going off for CMX3 zoning and putting something there that really, you know, wasn't appropriately sized.
Thank you, Logan. LeVar, are you still on the line?
Yes, I am. Can you hear me?
Yes, LeVar. LeVar, you've been previously sworn. Do you have anything you'd like to add at this point?
No, I do not.
And you've heard my testimony?
Yes, I have.
And it's been accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And for the purpose of today's hearing, you adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Members of the board, the last thing I'd like to add that if we were even looking at today's
underlying zoning for these lots is CMX 2 .5 and RSA 5.
had we were to build a single family home
and a CMX 2 .5 compliant property
that also wouldn't address the issues of affordability
with the neighborhood
considering the cost to build a new single family home
which would put a price point of around $400 ,000.
For a CMX 2 .5,
there's a little bit more flexibility with that
but the rents would still essentially be the same
for similar size units
only because construction costs are basically the same
if not more expensive if you were building two buildings
rather than just one building like this in addition that would require some sort
of commercial use on the street and given the fact that this is a
residential street for the most part and we're right off of the 52nd Street
commercial corridor it simply doesn't make sense from our perspective in
context so for purposes of this application my testimony is complete
we're happy to take any questions you have thank you
questions from the board no no no no anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter please raise
your hand chair we have katherine katherine you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
Hello, can you hear me?
Hi, my name is Katherine Kaplan and I live at 5137 Irving Street, apartment number two, Philadelphia, PA, 19139.
Hello, can you hear me?
now we can okay um i hit mute by mistake do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed ma 'am i live a few houses down from the proposed
development at 5143 5145 irving street the 5100 block of irving street is a small one -way street
The 5100 block of Irving Street is a small, one -way street where you can only park on
where you
one side.
Parking is a huge issue for residents.
There is already significant congestion on the street every day, with people parking on
the sidewalks, double parking, and delivery vehicles blocking the street.
The proposed development is nine units and will offer no parking for those nine units.
There will be an undue burden on many longtime residents who live here.
some of which who are elders or differently abled people who need to park close to their house.
The developers offered no solutions for the issue of parking during a community meeting with the
Walnut Hill Community Association, only stating that it would be possible that some residents
might not have vehicles, when in fact it is also possible that the addition of nine units could
add 18 more cars to the small block. I want to say that there was significant questions
and opposition about the parking during the meeting with the Walnut Hill Community Association.
This development will be problematic, adding unlivable parking congestion from added vehicles
and delivery vehicles coming onto the streets. As to the side yard width portion of the appeal,
all the buildings in the area are two -story and this proposed structure is four stories.
The smaller side yard they're requesting does not provide a proper buffer for neighbors on both
sides. I end with the conclusion that the fact that they cannot fit the required parking and
side yards means that they are proposing putting too many units on too small a site. Thank you so
much members of the board. I am finished. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Anyone else? May I
respond to Ms. Kaplan's comments? Yes please. I just I urge the members of the board to consider
the testimony of Logan Drive with respect to our considerations when it came to parking initially.
Moreover, if we were to provide off -street parking on this lot, then what we would essentially be doing is deleting legal on -street parking on the street because we would have to install curb cuts on the street itself.
As noted by Ms. Kaplan, if parking is already difficult, adding parking on this lot would only serve to make it more difficult.
We feel that due to its location by the 52nd Street corridor, being so close to so many bus lines and the 52nd Street L stop, that this would be, hopefully, something that would minimize the parking congestion, which, as the members of the board know, comes off very often at these community meetings and at zoning board hearings because everybody likes to have parking.
But the fact of the matter is, due to the size and shape of this lot and the scope of the project, providing off -street parking in a way that would assuage Ms. Kaplan's concerns is just simply not possible.
And the owner faces a hardship in doing so.
Thank you.
Anyone else who wishes to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
No hands are up, Chair.
Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Board. Peter Bernard, Community Health Planner for PCPC.
This property is indicated for commercial use and residential use on the comprehensive plan.
The density proposed is appropriate for the location. Accordingly,
we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
thank you is there any letter from the council person's office in a file
i've received no correspondence from the council person members of the board
i don't believe so um at least not before this morning but i could check if you give me one
minute.
i don't have any letter in our records okay i have a letter that came in this afternoon from
andrew goodman saying only did you receive rco letters for the irving street addresses set at
3 30 p .m i know an rco meeting was held that's all that it says
that letter right from the rco
members of the board there was no as to the best of my knowledge there was no letter sent
There was no, as to the best of my knowledge, there was no letter sent. Based on the discussions that we had with the RCO, their sole issue at this point was the pricing for the units.
based on the discussion
As I stated before, they were asking us to market the one -bedroom unit at $600 per month, the two -bedroom unit at $800 per month, with some sort of stipulation that it be adjusted to inflation.
I note for the record that that's half of what we're proposing to market these units for.
And due to construction costs, if we were to do so, it's simply not feasible for this project.
My client's dedicated to continuing to provide housing in the neighborhood.
He has a nonprofit that he works with local youth to try to work towards homeownership.
We're open to working with city council on future workforce housing projects.
My client, as I stated before, specifically targeted pricing for these at 80 % at AMI for affordability for this area.
So we're doing everything we can to address affordability for these units in this area for new construction.
Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
All right. Calendar numbers 39409 and 39410, 5143 and 5145 Irving Street.
My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
i'm sorry could could i just ask that we put on the record the correction
is 51 54 irving no it's um i believe that's not true it's actually 51 43
yeah it can't be an odd and even of the other to the other side of the street it should be 51 43
and 51 45 and okay that's because i had it wrong on the summary
all right no problem uh any unfinished business on this session
um no but i would ask i sent out a zoom invitation it will only take a few minutes
everyone uh the board members you i think everyone got the sharon's uh invitation
yes all right see you in a couple minutes thank you
Tanya?
Did they all leave, Pauline?
Oh, Paul, is it adjourned?
Yes, the meeting is adjourned and we are now complete.
Thank you.
I didn't know you were finished.
I think so.
Hold on.
They're all logging off.
All right.
I will stop the recording now.
Thank you.