And could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
The client is the owner of the property is Royal Real Estate of Pennsylvania LLC.
Principal is Sonny Ho, H-O, which I'd like to have promoted as a witness today.
And our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance?
of this hearing? Yes, I have. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Great. Thank you.
Okay. So, this regards 6331 Castor Avenue. It's at the corner of Castor Avenue and Levick Street,
which is right here. The property is this blue building, which was formerly a bank.
It's vacant.
It was a bank with a drive-thru.
Next to it is a Dunkin' Donuts store, which Mr. Ho currently operates from.
It has no drive-thru.
It's been there for 30-plus years.
And Mr. Ho probably has more than 40 stores in the city.
He purchased the property next door, the bank property.
to move the Dunkin' Donuts from the current location next door to this location.
The property is located in a CA commercial zoning district.
In November of 2022, I filed a zoning permit application
to initially move the Dunkin' Donuts from next door to this bank building.
And that application applied for both as a takeout restaurant and as a drive-thru.
We received our referral letter.
We filed a zoning appeal.
We also received streets approval for the drive-thru.
We had met with the civic group back then in May of 2023, take back your neighborhood, and they supported the application.
While we were waiting for the zoning hearing, we went ahead and parallel and filed a building permit application.
That triggered another streets department review.
The zoning permit application triggered one for the parking and the curb cut location, which were already pre-existing.
And during that review, it involved, through the developer services meeting, it involved traffic, highway, and also PennDOT.
But I would say incredibly, even though we had approval on the zoning plan, the streets department would not approve the same plan now because of curb cut issues.
We were unable to resolve it, and hence what I did is I withdrew that application and filed a new one, this application, which was solely for the takeout sales and no drive-through.
And as I mentioned in the beginning, I'll show you a picture of the Dunkin' Donuts next door did not have a drive-thru.
So filed that appeal, and so here we are.
There's been no issues with the Dunkin' Donuts at the next door address at 6323.
There were no adverse impacts then.
nor do we expect them to be any now.
We may have considered some for a drive-through,
but there's not going to be any greater density here
then there would be next door. As evidenced by the community group's position, they submitted an email letter in support back in January.
than there would be next door.
As evidenced by...
They chose not to meet again because we had met in May of 2023, and here's where their conclusion rests, that they support the application.
And so we believe that there's be no greater impact here than it would be at the bank operating, since we're not far from where we're operating currently.
With that said, I'd like to ask Mr. Ho a few questions.
Mr. Ho?
You can unmute yourself.
Mr. Ho, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello, my name is Sonny Ho, S-O-N-N-Y-H-O.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Hi, Sonny, good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
You've heard my presentation.
Would you agree that it's true and accurate?
Yes, it's true.
Thank you.
Would you adopt this if it were your own?
yes oh yes okay great thanks um few questions do you expect the same usage here then you experience
next door yes it will be the identical pretty much okay and what are the hours of operation
you're proposing we open about 5 a.m to 9 p.m okay seven days a week yes and how many employees
uh possibly about 20 the most okay and trash stores uh trust you know we'll have a dumpster
similar you know the same like you know we have with currently okay thank you mr ho that's all
i have all right questions from the board no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or comments
from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the
I do not see any further answer, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
David Effecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial area one zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that the proposed takeout restaurant will have no detrimental impacts beyond what might be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the special exception for a takeout restaurant.
M-I-2023-005-883-6331-41 Castro Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Moore Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Thank you. Have a good day.
All right.
Number 13, M-I-2023-006-589-1933-35, North Lithgow.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
No RCO letter at this point, but a meeting was held on 214-24 by the Norris Square Civic Association.
There are also three letters of support from neighbors.
Mr. Nockamson, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Alan Nockamson.
And could you identify your client?
And the relationship cost property. Yeah, my client is RCH 1933 and let gal LLC. And then the virtual audience is.
Ramit far, far, who is it's member.
Our vice chair has a few questions. Council, do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right, so I'm here to present 1933-35 North Lithgow Street, a pretty straightforward
project. We're going to review this. Originally, we were looking to do three units on these two
lots that were combined. After looking at the project more carefully and after community input,
we believe that two units is the appropriate amount of units. We did do a proviso plan form
plan form where we revised the site plan to indicate two units. We would also ask the board
where we revised the site plan to indicate two units.
to, not only if they're so inclined to grant this variance request, to have a proviso for the
revised site plan, but also to indicate a proviso maximum two units. We do have letters to support
of nearby neighbors in this North Square area. And it's not uncommon for the zoning board to grant
of variances for RSA 5 properties for multifamily use.
If you look at the Philadelphia 2035 plan, this property is slated
to be R1, which will allow
this property's use of two units
to be a matter of right. Then we'll review maps of the area,
photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting
notice, our application for a PLRD to the property,
and our Certificate of Tax Clarence.
At the conclusion of my presentation,
I would ask that Ramit virtually raise his hand,
be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him.
As I indicated, what we're looking to do
is take these two lots, each RSA-5 properties.
Given the configuration and dimensions of these properties,
it would be rather difficult, if not impossible,
to make functional floor plans for these RSA-5 properties
as single family. We think it's more appropriate to combine and consolidate these lots and have
two units in them so we can have functional floor plans and such. And so our refusals are
for the unit count where these are RSA 5 properties, each one. And instead of having
two single families, which I don't even think are buildable, we're going to ask for a two-unit
building. And then secondly, just where the pilot house is located in the rear, we have a technical
refusal with regards to that. Again, just how our staircases are running and given that this
property is not that wide even combined, it's rather difficult to fulfill that obligation
under the Philadelphia zoning code. Just so for your information, each of these lots are only 421
square feet. That's why we're looking to combine them and make them
into a two-unit building. And then
again, we have not received a letter from the community
group, but again, we've asked them repeatedly.
I think that based on the community input, I think that two units
is the appropriate use for this property. And given the 2035 plan
as well, that has this as an RM1 property, which
two units would be allowed as a right. We ask that the board vote on this matter and grant the
variance request. And again, what we're doing some cleanup here is that our site plan indicates that
this would be a triplex. We changed our site plan to confirm that we're only seeking two units.
So if this board does grant this zoning variance request, not only should there be a proviso for
this revised site plan, but also to indicate two L&I maximum two units. And then we did, you know,
we did, you know, circulate a petition and letters to support to surrounding property owners, and we
have, I believe, a few here. And then it's not out of character for this board to grant variances
under similar circumstances. 409 West Houston Street was granted, and that was granted to allow
for two family dwelling units. 411
West Houston Street, actually that was for three dwelling units.
413 West Houston Street
was two units. And then, you know, Norris Street,
which is, again, one of the more major streets, allowed
for three units. And then 1812
Germantown Avenue also allowed for multifamily use
of nine units. And then 1917 North Lawrence Street as well, three
units. And then the 2035 plan, where
this is pointing, this would be orange, which would be RM1 for our property.
So the Philadelphia Planning Commission also believes
that RM1 is the more appropriate zoning
classification for this property or properties. And then
maps of the area, we're an outlier, and I think that's why
you know, the zoning is, you know, going to change for these properties. And by combining two
properties into one, we're asking for two units. So we just cannot build two single family homes
here. They're just too small. And then some photographs of the property, you know, proof
of posting for these properties. And then this property has been vacant for some time.
And then this property has been vacant for some time.
This is the oldest photograph we can find on Google Earth.
This is the oldest photograph.
But as you can see, you know, there's not much been going on here.
And then in terms of not much going on here, this is an aerial view.
And you can see on Lithgow, there is not much going on here to increase the use in eyes on the street for Lithgow Street.
And then this is Lithgow Street for the left and right.
And then our plans and drawings, this is just a survey, which shows the consolidation.
And then this is some presentation materials from Apartment Deutsch, the architect for
the project, kind of similar in look to what we showed you here, showing that the massive
amount of vacant lots for this area.
And then again, we're not asking for a height variance.
We're not asking for any dimensional variances.
We're just asking to allow to use two lots, combine it for two units.
And then these are the floor plans for the triplex.
We did not update them.
This was after we met with the community.
But, you know, there'll be three floors above grade, one below grade.
And we're doing two bi-level units.
And then all trash will be stored outside.
because every unit owner will have access to that as well.
We met with the community on Valentine's Day at 6 p.m.
We emailed that notice a few weeks beforehand,
emailed it to the community groups,
but we also mailed it that day to 187 addresses,
listed the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our applications for appeal that we followed on behalf of our client
are RCH1933N with Gal LLC.
the deed to the property, showing that it owns the property, and its tax clearance.
Again, $14.73.99 is technically owed, but that's for the 2024 tax year, and that is
not owed until March 31st of 2024.
With that being said, I would ask that Ramit virtually raise his hand.
They've been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court's sonographer?
Yeah, Ramit for Waha.
So that's R-A-M-I-T-F-A-R-W-A-H-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?