will suffer an economic detriment if required to comply with the rear yard depth provision
in the rsa 5 zoning district the city planning commission recommends the board deny the proposed
dimensional variance for rear yard depth. Thank you. So MI2025, 000459, 1627 East
Ear Street, I vote yes. Michael Johns, my vote is yes. Charles Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes. You have your vote, sir. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, it looks like board member Wynn is present. Okay. Yes. Hi, everyone. Good
Hi, everyone. Good morning.
morning hi good morning can we just revote that the one app
Hi, good morning.
Can we just re-vote that one add-on?
I believe it was number five, Annan Street,
now that board member is here.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024-007-299-609-Annan Street.
I vote yes, with proviso.
So, temporary variance expires 6-5-28, approved for the approved use visitor accommodation
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with provisals.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisals.
My vote is yes, with provisals.
Thank you.
And my 20, 25, 0, 0, 1, 8, 5, 0, 9, 1, 25 academy road.
Morning council.
Morning.
Morning.
Would you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Stephanie Magana, S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E.
Magana is M-A-G-A-G-N-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
My client is BSI Construction, Inc.
They are the authorized agent and designated contractor by the school district of Philadelphia.
The property is owned by the city on behalf of the school district.
Do you waive the reading of the refusal that you agree with, Zach, or see?
Yes, I do.
Will you start your presentation? Yes. I'm joined today by our landscape architect, Sarah Leaper. She's going to share her screen. So while she pulls that up, I also wanted to mention that Chuck Calvinise from BSI Construction is here to answer any questions as well as Kate Weiss. She's our project engineer from Dynamic.
um this application is in regards to 9125 academy road it is um the property itself
occupies most of the triangular block bounded by willits academy and home ev and the southern
portion of the site is the location of the thomas home elementary school it's um and the northern
portion is the the park area the school itself um is was approved for a redevelopment project
last year pursuant to a by right zoning project after the site was rezoned to the sp civic district
see the site here and this application specifically you can go to the next slide
seeks approval to remove certain heritage trees from the property
as i mentioned as i mentioned the school redevelopment project itself was designed by
right the zoning permit was issued last year after we met with the community
thankfully got their support and the project was presented to the civic design review committee
this is a rendering of the school that's it's currently under construction
and that was approved following that process last year as i mentioned this application
specifically seeks removal to remove certain heritage trees from the property and this
application was presented again to the upper holmesburg civic association on april 17th and
letter of support is included in exhibit two in our full exhibit packet these are just additional
renderings of the school project the application you know as we're presenting it despite the removal
the trees will remain mostly consistent with the renderings that are shown here so these are for
reference and the next slide sarah is the original landscaping rendering plan that was presented to
the community and again much of what's being proposed here is consistent with this plan
um so specifically um there were nine heritage trees that existed on this site prior to the
reconstruction of the school seven were identified as you know to remain based on our arborist report
at the time and prior to the beginning of construction we put proper tree you know
protection measures in place um before construction began despite those best efforts five of the trees
were compromised during excavation work and were identified by a new arborist in an updated report
that they were unsafe specifically three of those trees created immediately unsafe conditions so
they were removed and two of the trees remain on site go to the next slide next one
this is our letter of support from the rco here we go um so trees two three and four shown on
this plan were the ones that they created unsafe conditions in an immediate sense on site so
they've been removed and seven and eight are proposed to be removed based on the recommendations
of our arborist but in connection with those recommendations you know so we are seeking
approval to document the removal of the trees that have been removed to eliminate those unsafe
document the removal of the trees that have been removed to eliminate those unsafe conditions on
conditions on site and also
site and also get approval to take down trees number seven and eight shown on the right side
of the screen um we are proposing replacement trees in connection with this removal obviously
the replacement trees that are going to be planted here well exceed what is required
based on the zoning district um and then our updated landscaping exhibit which sarah can
speak to if anybody has any questions is relatively consistent with what was originally shown
at cdr as well and does provide for the extensive replacement trees so while we're removing trees
from the site we do feel that the replacement trees here are going to provide more and ultimately
exceed the benefits that were originally proposed and they'll also remove safety conditions
on the property okay do you want to have your testimony adopted by your client yes i do
chuck if you could come up here
i just get close to the mic if you could that's all right could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer okay my name is chuck calvinese last name spelled c-a-l-v-a-n-e-s-a
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
please proceed counsel thanks Chuck did you hear the statements I made to the board this morning
yes are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt them as your own
yes thank you um before I give it to the board just for information Michael Johns one of our
board members recused himself because he was part of the the CDR process understood questions from
the board I have a question um so the replacement trees uh if you can go back to one of the the
The renderings had the numbers.
So all of the replacement trees are in and around that area.
I think they're spread out over the site,
but there are street trees that are proposed along Academy and Willett.
Sarah can better explain that.
Sarah, you're going to need to be sworn in.
Could you please state your name as Bill for the stenographer?
Sarah Lieber, S-A-R-A-H-L-E-E, P as in Paul, E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yes. So the replacement trees are spread out throughout the property, but there are significant canopy trees that are being put in the places where those trees have been.
Okay. Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands at the sound chair planning commission thank you chair and good morning
david vecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the prior recommended no change to the prior rsa2 residential single
family zoning at this location however in a subsequent zoning change the city rezoned this
parcel to sp civ civic educational and medical which is designed for schools and other public
facilities the appellant has shown that this project cannot be practically redesigned to
protect the heritage trees for this critical public infrastructure the city planning commission
recommends the board grant a requested special exception for heritage tree removal thank you
mi2025 001 850 9125 academy road i vote yes
Oh, Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes.
Thank you very much.
Have a good morning.
Thank you, Counselor.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2024-001-169-10914, Nadina Court.
Morning again, Mr. Chair.
Just for the record, please state your name.
My name is Vern Anastasio on behalf of Sherzad Alamov, the owner of the subject property.
And I see a letter of opposition from the Somerton Civic Association. So why don't you start your presentation, sir?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, the initial application was for a three-family dwelling with at least the refusal came back noting a rear addition. We have removed the extra dwelling. We've had several.
So, Chair, the initial application was for a three-family dwelling.
Vern, we can't hear you. Vern.
he knows he's got a problem
can you hear me now we can sir very good i was saying that the initial application was for a
three-family dwelling and legalizing the uh what they was considered an addition in the back
we had several meetings with the rco and as a result we've reduced it to the by right two-family
household living, bringing, making us just here for the de minimis, what is ostensibly a shed
in the back. It is not necessarily, it's really not an addition. And we'll explain how that
happened. Alex, the architect is here. We're going to have him testify as well. So as you'll
see, it's relatively de minimis at this point.
here's the property in question.
You can say here is the,
what is ostensibly a shed in the back now.
There'll be no access to this shed
from interior of the house
and it will be used solely for the storage of,
here it is here,
solely for the storage of yard equipment,
You know, a leaf blower.
Here's the property here in question.
A lawnmower, trash, leaf bags.
Because the shed is attached to the structure, however,
it is deemed an addition, a rear addition,
when in fact it is not.
This is the basement garage.
It's a walkout.
Here's the first floor of living space
and the second floor of living space.
Here's a cross section.
Here's the storage shed.
And again, there will be no access
from the interior of the house to the shed.
So there'll be no living space
or anything like that this is a picture of the cul-de-sac these are primarily twins
with ample side and rear space as you can see here the the addition of the shed is
not adversely impacting anyone's lighter air there it is
and ostensibly we are here for this shed at this point there is no other reason
for a refusal the opposition letter was based on a much larger scale
and with that i'd like to call alex the architect
if you could raise his virtual hand
will be rejoining us as a panelist sorry that's okay i'd like to move the 52 page documents uh
52 pages of exhibits into evidence okay that includes the uh letter to the rco the proof of
mailing we uh on separate separately we sent over proof of all taxes paid and the deed
and if alex is here we could i guess swear him in thank you alex could you please state your
name and spell for the sonographer good morning my name is alex duller a-l-e-x d as in david
u-l-l-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Alex, before we get into the actual structure, you have been with the client at the RCO meetings
and throughout this process from when it was a much larger scale until now.
Can you please, in your words, explain that journey?
So originally, I was brought in after this shed was built.
We I was brought in after this shed was built to help the client legalize the shed.
We realized we would have to go through the full zoning process due to the way it was built.
And we we then basically we initially had it applied for a third unit after speaking with the RCO.
We were told there was no way that would be approved, so we removed that and reworked the space to be, as Vern has explained, now a rear storage area for all of the equipment for maintaining the lot, and then a common area to the rest of the building,
um which is essentially what the space was prior to him taking taking you know kind of going and
doing these updates um and and we went to the neighborhood um met with the neighborhood uh
definitely had mixed results with that hearing and now we are here today thank you
and the uh do you want to talk about the plan the diminished de minimis nature of the of the
addition um the basically the this is the way it was built um we it is essentially the minimus
um the lot itself is extremely large um we aren't even close to you know overall coverage
essentially if it wasn't built so close to the rear yard this could have been approved
so if it was positioned in a uh you know in a different spot along that property
it would have been a buy right is that correct yes thank you yes thank you i have nothing further
for this uh unless you have anything else to add alex i don't think so thank you i'd like to call