Let us know when we're ready, Lakeisha.
Yes, I will.
and you're good to go chair thank you good morning everyone my name is frankie chico 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 members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator, Lakeisha Dandy, and our Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Saletta, are also in
attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or
otherwise. Third, 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. Pardon me, 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 at issue
I'll repeat that as well. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. And I'd like to remind everyone,
please do not attempt to testify in the chat. All questions and concerns should be directed
to our board administrator, Ms. Lakeissa Dandy. With that, I will read off a list of the add-ons
before we get into our regular 930 list. MI 2021-001233, 1800-02 Benton Avenue,
MI 2021-001234
1808-10
Benton Avenue
MI 2021-001235
1812-14
Benton Avenue
My vote is no on all three
My vote is no on all three
My vote is no on all three
that's all that we seem to have from the board pardon me um you three are the three that i see
on from the board yeah i don't see jim again all right but it was unanimous vote so we'll when jim
catches up we'll we'll work with him then uh number two on the add-on list mi 2021 that's
zero zero one one zero four four nine one seven north 13th street my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no
carol the items three and four i was not here for but let me do number five
first we'll go to
Mr. Chair
we won't be doing three and four
because we need three of the people
who were here to be voting
and confessor was one of those
Jim was not here
was was jim here for that um i believe i'm sorry i have that three members were present
was Jim here for that
and confessor was one of them so oh okay regardless regardless okay so three and four
will not be here called on number five mi 2021-001-577-3519 hamilton street has been
withdrawn uh i will now read off a list i'm sorry excuse me chair i'm sorry to interrupt um i have
not officially received um the email from the applicant confirming that that has been withdrawn
i apologize if we could announce that later in the session oh i'm sorry paul boney is available
if you wanted to lack of weight mr bonnie please identify yourselves by your name i'll swear you
Good morning. My name is Paul Bonney. My office address is 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1109, 19106, and I represent the Appellant, Appellant Village Civic Association.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
um we uh did uh email a letter um last night uh indicating that we finalized the settlement and
that we are withdrawing the case so i think a withdrawal is you can mark it withdrawn and
we thank you for that thank you all right i'll repeat that again mi 2021 that's zero zero one
577-3519 Hamilton Street has been withdrawn. We'll go to the regular list. Item number two,
MI 2021-002-025. 1314 North Broad Street, request for continuance by the applicant's attorney.
number six mi 2021-001-316-3451 wellington street continuance request by the applicant's attorney
and i believe those are the only two well i'm sorry number 10
MI 2021-001-325-5734-38 Old 2nd Street, a request for continuance by the applicant's attorney.
If anyone disagrees with the three continuances I read into the record, please raise your hand.
Only if you disagree with the request for those continuances.
here i have a jason greenspoon
good morning sir please identify yourself with a record spell your full name and i'll swear you in
good good morning my name is jason greenspawn i'm an attorney for the city of philadelphia
i just wanted to enter my appearance you spell your last name please spell your last name
sure i'm sorry it's green g-r-e-e-n-s-p-o-n greenspan do you swear for him to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed thank you again my name is
jason greenspan i'm an attorney for the city of philadelphia i'm here just entering my appearance
on on the last matter that you just read into the record relating to uh 5734 old second street
i have no objection to the continuance request but i just want to enter my appearance because
the city will be opposing and protesting any um variance request thank you so noted all right
that case is continuing anyone disagree with any of the other cases that have been requested to be
continue. Chair, we have an additional request for continuance from Andrew Goodman of Councilwoman
Gauthier's office. It's number 11 on your list. We have no exhibits. It is the second listing.
Mr. Goodman says our office requested continuance because no RCO meeting has taken
in place, I'm happy to contact the individual to walk them through the responsibility.
So second listing.
It is.
I'm going to make a motion to dismiss MI 20, thank you Sharon, MI 2020-003087, 800
South 60th Street, 60th Street.
my vote is to dismiss um chair excuse me could we first check to see if anyone is here representing
My vote is to dismiss.
Chair, excuse me, could we first check to see if anyone is here representing
the applicant all right is there anyone here representing the applicant for 800 south 60th
street if you're representing the applicant no hands at this time chair so my motion to dismiss
still stands thank you uh my vote is to dismiss my vote is to dismiss dismiss thank you now i'll
ask is anyone uh would anyone request is anyone going to request a continuance or withdrawal at
this time please raise your hand if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal for the
9 30 list please raise your hand no hands at this time chair okay having said that we can go to our
first case MI 2021-001-277-1133 Leopard Street. Mr. Notkinson is the attorney of record and
there's the RCO letter in support from Fishtown Neighbors. Mr. Notkinson, can you hear me?
And as a panelist now. Okay. Mr. Notkinson, can you please put your name and address on the
record and spell your last name oh yes uh good morning mr chair uh members of the board my name
is alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n one two three south broad
street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or
referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this meeting and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter yes in all respects uh with with exception of a tax
clearance we're still working through that issue so we're asking that we present this matter
especially since communities in support of it for the board to hold it under advisement and then
AND GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE TAX CLARANCE AND THEN THE BOARD CAN TAKE A VOTE.
THANK YOU.
YOU MAY PROCEED.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN?
ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT.
SO WE'RE HERE FOR 1133 LEOPARD STREET.
YOU'LL SEE THIS IS A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED FOUR STORY STRUCTURE, SINGLE FAMILY IN NATURE PROPOSED.
You'll see my basic packet of materials.
There's a deed to the property showing that my client owns it.
Second one is the certificate of tax clearance or where it should be.
We're still working on it.
We do apologize for the delay in that.
Third exhibit will be our notice of refusal.
Fourth exhibit, our application for appeal.
Fifth exhibit will be our maps of the neighborhood from a zoning perspective
and a general Google Maps perspective.
six are photographs of the property as well as the surrounding area including similarly situated
properties. Exhibit seven will be our plans and drawings and exhibit eight most importantly is
our letter of support from the Fishtown Neighbors Association as well as a letter of support from
the next door neighbor at 1131 Leopard Street. All right so our deeds of property
shows that JJ Management Group LLC owns the property at 1133 Leopard.
card. Next, again, we are working on getting the tax clearance certificate. Third is our
notice of refusal. This is an RSA 5 property, and all we're trying to do is put a single
family structure here. We have essentially two refusals. We have three, but two of them
are related. We're just trying to put a front-loading garage on this property where parking is not
allowed on our side of the street, where similarly situated properties on that block, actually
on both sides of the block also have off-street parking. The neighborhood was not in opposition
to that and simply because there's no parking allowed on that side of the street so we're
taking a car off the street for all intents and purposes with that garage. The second refusal is
a dimensional refusal where we're required to have a seven-foot setback in the rear and we're only
proposing 4.6. That's really a misnomer. Our lot is irregularly shaped. At the greatest
point, we still do not meet the dimensional requirement of 7 feet, but we're almost there,
it's about 6.5 feet. If this was a regular shaped lot that was square in the back, we
would meet that. So really, this is an undue hardship argument. Application for appeal along
with our notice of refusal and our project information form is exhibit four exhibit five
again is a map of the area again as you can see here it's a regular shape in the rear we are on
It's a regular shape in the rear.
We are on Leopard.
Leopard,
We have Durston in the rear of our property.
We're right between Girard and West Widely.
And then just a map of the area from a Google Maps perspective.
And then photographs of the property.
So right now it's a vacant lot.
Let me just make this a little bit smaller so it can fit on one screen.
or a vacant lot in between single-family structures.
Here are properties to the right of the property on Leopard,
the view of our property to the left of the property on Leopard,
and then just, again, nearby front-loading garages,
1125 and 1127 Leopard, 1123 and 21 Leopard,
1117 Leopard, 1108 and 1110 Leopard, which is across the street,
1107 Leopard, 1120 and 22 Leopard, and then are just our plans and drawings. Again
we want to it's a little bit industrial look in nature this area so we kind of wanted to have our
building facade kind of have that feel with the you know the big bright windows but keeping
obviously single-family you know property in nature. And then as you can see this is where
the refusal on the rear is, essentially four and a half feet here. It's a regular shape.
It goes almost to six and a half feet here. But if we were just straight across, which
is typical, we would not have that variance. And then the second and third variance deal
with off-street parking. And we're proposing to have one parking spot within that structure.
then in terms of the floor plans you know the first floor you can you know there's the garage
uh in the rear there is like you know a basement area just for a powder room
you know and then just an open air area for storage you go up a flight of steps
it is an open concept with the living room and the kitchen go up a flight of steps two bedrooms
a bath, a laundry facility, and then the fourth floor is the master bedroom, plus a roof deck
on the roof. Most importantly, letter of support. You know, Fishtown Neighbors has a two-step
process. We first meet with their executive board, and then we meet with the community,
both the executive board and the community-voiced support for this project.
and then just a letter of support that was signed by Besmir Kripa the owner of 1131 Leopold Street
he's in support of this project as well and then just proof of our mailing of our community notice
and with that being said um I would like to have um Jose Fiera like adopt my testimony
jose can you virtually jose can you virtually raise your hand
good morning mr fierro please identify yourself spell your fill spell your full name please
and i'll swear you in i'm sorry he hasn't raised his hand
all right mr notkinson you being the officer of the court would stipulate your client would
have adopted your testimony any questions from the board no
chair this is sharon i checked the tax compliance status and there are more than eleven thousand
dollars owed in back taxes uh for 20 and 2020 and 2021 the status is listed as in collections
and that's why we're trying to reach to the law firm that's handling that in order to rectify it
that's what's taking us a little bit longer if we were had to deal directly with the city we've
been able to do it by now so just communication issue we're going to need to do a resumption
hearing strip or do we just need a letter sharon sharon i'm sorry i was muted um just just a letter
or some proof of uh tax compliance or an agreement reached with the city we don't we won't need a
resumption no we will not we'll just hold the vote on this until we have the tax clearance
certification and the record otherwise closed all right mi 2021 that's zero zero one two seven seven
one one three three leopard street the record is closed um excuse me chair i don't believe we've
heard from the planning commission or anyone inattentive right i apologize anyone else
would like to testify in this case please raise your hand sorry about that no hands at this time
chair planning commission good morning david fecto f e c t e a u with the city planning commission
he a you with the city planning commission where it's from it's all truth all truth nothing but
the truth yes sir i do thank you sir uh mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive
plan recommends no change in the existing single family zoning for this property this is a 611
square foot lot adjacent to other small lots many of which have off-street parking on a street with
no legal on-street parking.
The lot is uniquely sized,
so applying the zoning codes,
open space requirements would be a hardship.
We recommend approval of the parking
and rear yard variances.
We recommend disapproval of the variance
for not setting back the roof gap.
Thank you.
So as I said, the record is closed.
We'll be waiting a tax clearance
before a vote is taken on this matter.
All right, thank you.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2021-0013242111 West Berks Street.
This was the first listing.
Did we have exhibits?
anyone here for 21 11 west burke street
i see no hands at this time chair thank you this just being a first listing we this case
will be continued thank you uh number four on our list mi 2021 that's 001 313 25 herman street
mr mulvihill i believe is the attorney of record uh there is a letter of non-opposition
or support from the faith community development corporation with a proviso regarding trash being
stored in the rear yard i'm sorry chairman good morning chairman members of the board leo mulvihill
m-u-l v as in victor i-h-i-f-l address is 24 i'm sorry address is 215 green street philadelphia
19125 do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed your exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral vote is under plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
Yes, I have not received a copy of the letter, but as I was logging in, I understand that the board has.
Is that correct?
It is correct.
And that was a letter of support?
With a proviso.
So you may present your case now.
Certainly.
So members of the board, I'm now sharing my screen for my zoning packet for 25 East Herman Street.
My client, Brandon Ross of BR Realty, is on the line.
I'll show my sidebar.
At the Refusal Appeal of Project Information Form at page 1, area zoning maps at 7, deed at 9, client's commercial activity license at 13, tax clearance I do not yet have.
We're still working on a tax assessment issue with the city. I have correspondence from the city included with that.
Zoning notification letters at 15, the RCO letter support I don't have in my packet, but I understand this board does.
Photos of property at 18 and floor plans at 37.
So members of the board, now I'm showing you page three.
What we're asking for is two family dwelling and an existing structure.
The structure, when we go to go see it, caught on fire a few years ago.
Mr. Ross recently picked it up.
There were some tax issues that he was clearing up after, I believe, a sheriff sale.
And that's what we're still kind of working on with the city right now.
We don't have our tax clearance information.
But in any case, he wishes to do a renovation of the property.
This is where our property is located on Herman Street, right off of Germantown Avenue.
It is an RSA 3, RSA 5 mixed zone area.
Here's an area shot.
Our law in particular is indicated by that blue pen.
My client's deed here is at page 9.
My client's commercial activity license is listed here at 13.
and then correspondence dated July 15th, indicating that everything would be linked for BR Realty.
This company that owns the property would be linked to this prior commercial activity license, which I'm showing now at page 13.
With respect to the taxes on the property, I have correspondence from Ms. Leah Harper, that's L-E-A-H Harper, H-A-R-P-E-R,
from the Office of Administrative Review Tax Review Board
with regard to an adjusted tax bill
having to go having with regard to an adjusted tax bill that we're working on with Mr. Ross
that we're working on with
towards the total amount balance due so we can be on our payment plan which we aren't there yet
he had a hearing we're waiting on the final assessment as far as I understand that in order
to get that final bill to get him on this plan to get us tax clearance I'll have Mr. Ross testify
as to any of that if that's necessary for the board
there's a zoning notification and a proof of mailing members of the board this property here
which you can see it previously been on fire this is the structure that we're talking about
that's showing now on page 18 of my packet it's the rear of the property
this is herman street looking uh westbound now we're going to just do a 360 of the block
there we go these are some other multi-family properties that are located on the block
it's three units it's three units three units off to the left
that's that same building from page 31 these are photographs of the posting
so members of the board very simply this is two family dwelling the first family dwelling
the first unit is on the first floor in the basement there are no bedrooms in the basement
the second unit is on the second and third floors in the basement we have a lounge area
utility area and a full bath we have washer dryer and storage area as well that's for the first
floor unit. If you were to go in the front door, hang out to the right, you have living, kitchen,
bathroom, and a bedroom to the rear of the property. Going up to the second unit, you go up
your stairs, come up the stairs, you get up out of the stairs in the kitchen, living area, bedroom
to the front, bathroom to the rear. Then on the third story, for that second unit, you have two
bedrooms up top. So it's three bedrooms for the second unit and one bedroom for the ground floor
unit. Mr. Ross, are you available on the line? And if so, would you please unmute?
Ross, are you available? Mr. Brandon Ross.
mr okay he just raised his hand one second there we go thank you mr good morning sir
when you and please identify yourself with the record spell your name and i'll show you
yes good morning uh members of the board my name is brandon ross uh owner of br realty i'll see
spell your full name please yes uh b-r-a-n-d-o-n and last name ross r-o-s-s
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Great.
Well, thank you.
Mr. Ross, you've heard my testimony today?
Specifically with respect to the taxes outstanding on the property and that issue?
Is there anything you'd like to add today with respect to this?
No, the taxes, they were initially like $17,000.
I paid $13,000 to get the property removed from the sheriff's sale.
That was done.
Then I had a hearing.
The remaining balance was $5,500.
I had a hearing, which I was granted.
Granted, they waived 100% of the interest and penalty, and they waived 75% of the principal,
which left a balance of 2300 and that's the um that's the new assessment that i'm waiting on
from the tax board so that i can once i receive that i'll take that down to the um department
of revenue and then i'll get on a payment plan for the 2300 great thank you no problem
thank you would you adopt my testimony as your own otherwise mr ross
i'm sorry would you otherwise adopt my testimony in this matter as your own
oh yes sir thank you any questions from the board no anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand yes mr charles richardson mr richardson you can unmute just
good morning mr chair identify yourself and i'll swear you in charles richardson from the office
of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall for him to tell the truth nothing but the truth i do
councilwoman is not opposed to granting this variance
Councilwoman is not opposed to granting this variance.
There are two provisos that I don't know, you know, if both can be applied, but at least I know one can.
The trash from units is to be stored in the backyard of the property.
They were also asking no blocking of the driveways during renovations, which I don't know whether that can be actually applied.
But the councilwoman is not opposed.
Mr. Richardson, I did see that second proviso.
So it's not something that the board can add as a proviso, but maybe Mr. Mulvihill could get his client to confirm on the record that the driveway will not be blocked during construction.
We'll do our best. If there are any blockages, it'll be intermittent at best.
Sometimes you just have to unfortunately stop a vehicle somewhere, but we'll do what we can.
We won't permanently block the point of egress because as for a business, it's actually located behind our property.
so we don't want to do that right and i'm um can you guys hear me yes yes i'm sorry and i also um
introduce myself to my surrounding neighbors as well as um my neighbor that
that uses that business it's a garage couple garages back there um one gentleman name is kyle
and the other lady her name is uh shaman and um you know we we're friends already and you know
if any issues were there, you know, she would call me if I'm not already in the area, you know,
monitoring the construction. So we will not be permanently blocking the driveway, you know,
denying access to anyone that comes and goes. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to
testify in this case?
there's no more hands here thank you planning commission good morning david facto city planning
commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends this property for
residential single-family use this is an existing row home there is nothing unique about the property
that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the code we recommend that the board deny the
requested variance. Thank you. MI 2021-001313. 25 Herman Street. The record is closed. The board
the board will make a decision on this matter once we have proof of the tax clearance. Thank
you members of the board. MI 2021-000964-3133 Lanville, please.
Is there anyone here on Landville?
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Vern Anastasio on behalf of the owner
Mark Mastrangelo for Landville. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name? Yes, please. Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006, Philadelphia,
19107. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. And have you
email the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance copy of the refusal and referral
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the
RCO and do you have a letter yes to everything I did not meet with the RCO I spoke with them
their position was this is such a minor issue that they just sent a support email
okay you may proceed thank you please permit me to share my screen
mr chairman members of the board this is for the removal of a front window
erection of a front deck with access door on the front first floor as part of an existing
single-family home. It's actually not a deck, it's more like a Juliet balcony, but for L&I
purposes, they're calling it a deck. Here are the plans that show the deck. Here's the front elevation.
Here's the deck framing, here is the
Here's the deck framing.
Here is the double doors that replace the window. Now they'd like to do a
little Juliet balcony just for protective purposes.
That constitutes a deck with respect to the L&I examiner.
We have universal support from everybody on the street.
signatures of that effect we have an email from Barbara Kaposi who's
Packer Park Civic Association board chair saying that she's reviewed the
materials and she's not even sure why we need to go through the process full
support proof of posting and again there's additional photos there's the
flyer. And I have nothing else. With that, I'd like to ask my client, Mark Mastrangelo,
to identify himself. Mr. Mastrangelo, please identify yourself. Spell your full name, please.
Hi, it's Mark Mastrangelo. It's M-A-R-K-M-A-S-T-R-A-N-G-L-O.
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. May I proceed? Yes, please. Thank you. Mark, did you hear my presentation to the board
this morning? Yes, I did. And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes,
it is. And would you adopt it as your own testimony if need be? Yes, I would. Thank you
very much. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. I'm here for questions. Questions from the board?
no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good morning david fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing single family zoning for this property
there is no unique physical characteristic of the lot that would require a front deck to be built
The proposal is also out of character with the rest of the clock.
We recommend that the board deny the requested variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021-000964-3133 Landville Place.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you all.
Case number 7, MI 2020-001-841-3469 Crystal Street.
I believe there was a notation that the applicant must be represented by council.
Is there anyone here for 3469 Crystal Street?
Yes, I have two hands up.
I have a Stanley.
And he's coming in now as a panelist.
Mr. Stanley, are you for this case?
okay i have also uh carlos mr carlos you can unmute yourself are you for this case yes ma'am
please identify yourself spell your first and last name my name is carlos
Carlos Diclo
C-E-L-O
Carlos Diclo is D-E-C-L-O
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
What is your involvement regarding this case?
I'm part of the
owner.
You are the owner?
Excuse me, Chair.
The owner is actually a corporation.
the attorney whose hand was raised is Stanley.
I'm sorry, I didn't get the last name,
but if we could check if he is representing the applicant.
Yes, I am.
Hello.
Yeah, please identify yourself.
My name is Stanley Perry.
I'm the attorney and I represent IB Realty LLC.
You swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
please proceed uh mr chairman members of the board i think as someone just stated at the last
appearance my clients uh the board wouldn't go on because as an entity they
The board wouldn't go on because as an entity, the applicants are an LLC, so they need an attorney.
So that's why I'm here.
All of the exhibits have been submitted except for the tax compliance, which was submitted Tuesday past.
So it wasn't within the five-day period, but it has been submitted.
Okay, so let's go forward with the case.
Okay, so this is for a corner grocery store at 3469 Crystal Street.
And Mr. Perry, pardon the interruptions.
If you can share your exhibits, that would be helpful.
Well, and that's the problem because I was just recently retained.
While I have all of the exhibits, I don't have it in the format as the other attorneys presented to you.
And so there's one of two ways we can proceed because I have my client has everything, RCO approvals, pictures, all of that.
And so if I can't share my exhibits in the way that previous council did, I would ask for a small or short continuance so I can put this together so I can share it like other council did.
well correct me if i'm wrong sharon and or latisha um obviously there's no way of getting a short
meaning a uh hearing uh if we continue this it's going to be a while before they get a hearing
uh sharon i believe that's true i don't think there's any way we can hear the case correct
without exhibits because we'd have to go through it again
yes i think that's true excuse me excuse me mr chairman yes yes can he just can he show it
just show it it doesn't have to be a format i don't think he has the exhibits am i right
mr prairie yeah i don't have all of it okay yeah that's right and if we
if we just can't set a precedent if we said we were hearing the case and then get the exhibits
it's like hearing the case all over again once we have the exhibit so this case is going to have to
be continued okay MI 2021 I'm sorry MI 2020-001841-3469 Crystal Street will be continued
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MI-2020-000118-4715 Green Street.
This is a per se case I believe. Maria James.
there's a letter of opposition from the uh solo germantown civic association
yes they're coming in now as a panelist okay
maria i'm maria james hi can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name please daja maria james my last name is spelled j-a-m-e-s
your address 47 15 green street g-r-e-e-n-e philadelphia pennsylvania one nine one four
for do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes and have you
emailed the exhibit packet in with proof of ownership tax compliance the copy of the refusal
or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you
met with an RCO and do you have a letter? Yes. She may proceed. Okay. The RCO is stating
opposition, but it's misrepresentative of what occurred. The near neighbors were in support
and we're not counting.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but
if she's supposed to speak, she would have to be sworn in.
What is your name, please?
Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Taja
English. I am Zsa
James' daughter.
is spelled T-O-D-
Z-S-A.
My last name
is English, like the language
E-N-G-L-I-S-H.
You swear
from the tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
yes sir thank you i'm sorry carol please proceed that's okay sorry about that
um so i was just saying that in the rco meeting
Um, so I was just saying that in the RCO meeting, um, the RCO letter is in opposition, but it's misrepresentative.
Excuse me. I'm sorry, Ms. Sharon, this is the property owner who will have to present.
She's just, I'm right here. She's like, that's my daughter. She's representing me in the case, please.
No, she can't represent you. You represent yourself for an attorney. Um, I'm afraid she will have to give the explanations.
James you will have to do the presentation
also we have Patrick
Jones on the call could we allow him to share his screen as well with you all
your mom has to she's the one that has to testify
okay we weren't told that
okay so I'll just have to tell her what to say she's not I mean you know
we understand that but unfortunately that's okay just tell them why we're doing while we're doing
the um well while we're doing the hair and have the zone and changed back to what it was and have
the apartment we went um my daughter's helping me out with the um getting the zone and change
back to commercial because we want to change it into apartments but so she can live there and I
do you have do you have any exhibits you can share with us
i'm sorry to interrupt again this is sharon but i'm going through the exhibits um which
were submitted by mr jones yes jones can you confirm that you did submit a deed you were able
to obtain one yes i sent that deed to you chair okay thank you
okay please proceed
and so um you know just tell them that let me put you back on here that um
we need the zoning change back to head the commercial front and to add a apartment to
the bottom so that we can all live there because the taxes have become too much for you okay we
want to change the zoning back to commercial for non-profit so that we can put an apartment
on the front because the taxes have become too much for me.
So that we all can live there. Do you have any floor plans you can share with us?
Yes, the floor plan should be in it. There we go. Okay, we have them now. Okay. So if I may just be
able to explain the floor plans um the in the past the the the the property was a mixed-use
residential just a lot very long time ago there was a dentist office in front but my mother
had never used the commercial space and the taxes were you know higher based on that zoning so she
had the zoning changed to try to you know better afford the taxes um but she cannot afford you know
to upkeep at a house or to Texas either way. And therefore, you know, she was going to lose the
house to sheriff sale. And so, you know, we talked about it. And I said that perhaps we could help by
moving in and putting an apartment on the basement floor for her and my brother who currently
live there. And then myself and my wife and child could move in. And I have a nonprofit that I run.
And so I just, I need the space to continue to do that.
I teach self-sufficiency and such like that to the community, mostly children, but also
adults.
So the reason to have this, you know, happen would be to prevent my mother from losing
the house because we can't afford to, you know, just pay, you know, we don't basically
move in and all kind of cohabitate.
We can't afford to do it.
And it's necessary to have the apartment separate and the zoning to reflect so that she can still have separate utilities because she has programs like LIHEAP and things of that nature.
Otherwise, you know, those programs wouldn't be still accessible to her if it's not a separate unit.
and then for insurance purposes obviously the front would have to be
you know for the commercial space in the front so that I can have proper insurance and things
like that when I have different you know when the children come to learn different things and
the different things that I teach with the non-profit and I sell some things for the
non-profit just to raise funds. If I'm hearing you correct the first floor would be converted it'll
be a mixed use it'll be residential and commercial that's correct so the first floor where are the
bedrooms for the first floor you the first floor doesn't hit so the first floor and the second
floor half of the first floor is is already separated as a commercial
is already separated as a commercial space because originally that's how the house was
zoned and how it was separated. So it wouldn't change in any way as far as the first and second
floor will remain how it currently is and how it has always been. So the first, the back half of
the first floor contains a living room and a kitchen. And then the second floor, of course,
has the bedrooms and bathroom the front half of the first floor has the original commercial space
so it used to be a dentist's office years ago so it's just separated like there's a dark room in
there and an office space and that kind of thing and then the basement would be the only part of
the house that would actually be changed as far as doing any construction and that we would like
to convert to a two-bedroom to accommodate my mother and brother who currently live there now
You want to create bedrooms in the basement, you're saying?
That's correct.
Do you have any photographs of the house?
No, we do not.
The house is not in a great condition and needs a lot of work as far as the inside is concerned.
We have pictures there of the outside.
I did consult with a few contractors, and there is either in the front or the back, and there's room on the side.
As you can see, it's a corner property.
so we can put and um i'm not sure what the right where would the entrance to the commercial space
be it's the it's on the first floor when you go up the steps to the porch when you go
and then there's once you walk all the way through like i said it's about half of the
first floor there's a door there that leads you into the living room of the home but also
So the back door is where, you know, usually you would come in as far as if you kept this front as a commercial space, the people, we would go in through, you know, the back door to get into the home.
But we would be using the commercial space ourselves.
So also we could walk through just, you know, it's like a partition wall that was created to separate the dentist's office that was originally there.
But I'm not looking to make the front like a storefront or anything.
Like I said, I run a nonprofit, and so I would need that space to conduct my nonprofit and have people come in to learn.
You know, I do different classes and workshops.
I do sell items to obviously raise funds to continue the nonprofit.
So we would be looking to put an egress, I guess.
I don't know if, you know, but another door would be added.
to the basement to enter into the basement apartment that we're looking to create.
Where would that door be located?
It would be in the front.
As you can see, there's a small front yard.
And there are one or two other homes on that block that also have basement entrances that
they, and I'm not sure if they're original or not, but maybe they dug out.
I don't know if they the front yard is there's a door in the front yard basically that goes down
into the basement as you can see the house the basement is partially above ground so it's no
you know it's no trouble to put a door on the outside of the front back or side of the house
to enter to the basement apartment we're looking to propose you add a door to the side of the
building you're going to have some lni issues i i don't know tom do you have anything to weigh in
on this i'm unfortunately mr chairman the drawings are just not clear enough
to make a decision about yeah we're not we're not looking to put the door on the side i was just
letting you know what the different contractors said to me but we would like to put the door on
the front or the back of the house to enter the way you're the way I see you being laid out and
I could be wrong is that you're basically commingling the residential and the commercial
your people will be going into the commercial then you have a staircase going down into the
basement for two bedrooms I no no no no Sharon excuse me for one minute I just if you're able
to access your email i just forwarded the um letter from the rco and if i could just read
part of this um neighbors were sympathetic to the family's plight but questioned a need for a
commercial and or family multi-family designation they were also confused about the exact exact
spatial configuration between the private quarters and the non-profit commercial space
um so they had exactly the same concern i have i'm not clear on it yes if i could
Yes, if I could be allowed to explain, I was trying to explain that in the beginning, that the RCO letter is stating opposition, but it was misrepresented.
uh be allowed to explain i was trying to explain that in the beginning that the art
The near neighbors were.
You have a petition from the near neighbors?
I have. The council can attest to what I'm saying if they could.
but the council office can concur, but that the neighbors agree, and they also said that there could be a proviso that would only allow my nonprofit to be there.
So that they were mostly concerned that like another corner store may be added later, let's just say, if we didn't want to use it anymore.
So a proviso.
Excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, is there an application here for a nonprofit?
No, we're not looking to make the home.
Or wait, excuse me, or would there have to be another application for her?
I believe that they described it as a commercial use. Could you pull up the refusal again, please?
One of the, well, I think one neighbor brought up, they were concerned about if we were trying to make the building for nonprofit use.
So in other words, it wouldn't be paying taxes anymore. And that's not what we're doing. It's literally just for the front of the house that has the commercial space for me to use as my nonprofit space.
So I'm not looking to make the building for nonprofit use.
I'm just saying that I have a nonprofit and I need the space and the description that
Ellen and I put in after, you know, explaining to them the plan use, they were saying that
it would be deemed for commercial use.
Excuse me, but the only use that was described was sale of consumer goods on partial first
floor.
because this would not exactly but this would not cover the um use that you're describing
i'm not sure as as far as lni is concerned i just know that's what they told us that would be
the proper way to put the application in because i do sell things as most non-profits do to raise
funds for the non-profit but it's not like a retail store or anything like that um but that
That would be what you would be obtaining a variance for.
You would not be able to use it as a non-profit as you're describing it.
You would only be able to use it for sale of retail goods.
I'm just, I don't, I, this is the first time that I'm hearing it.
Ellen and I said something completely different.
Usually I think speaks for itself.
Anyway.
So if I could just, you know, I'll just do a recap quickly.
The house is, the main part of the house, nothing in the house will happen.
Let me, let me, let me, let me just say this.
Ms. James, let me just say this.
The second floor is occupied by your mom?
The first and second floor right now are used as the home.
Anyone else living, anyone else living here beside your mother?
My son.
Okay, so you have, you're showing four bedrooms on the second floor, correct?
yes so why is it not why cannot the four bedrooms current the current four bedrooms
accommodate your needs as far as living space you want to create a six-bedroom home i'm sorry
you had the the connection went out for a minute i didn't hear part of what you said
why you have four bedrooms on the second floor yes you have your mom and your son
yes living there yeah you want to add some bedrooms my point is are not why would not
the four bedrooms be enough to accommodate your your needs yes you're looking to create a six
bedroom home with a with commercial space yeah that's correct so we're looking to create the
two-bedroom apartment on the basement level for my mother and brother because in order for us to
afford to take like over her house and help and pay the taxes so she doesn't lose it me and my
wife and child will have to move in and also why can't you and your wife move in to the second
floor right so I explain so I explained that before for my mother's income and for her to be
able to remain on LIHEAP and the programs that she has to keep her utilities down and things like
that there would have to be a separation and it would have to be a legal separation so that she
can still have her own utilities. We can't afford, you know, to pay the entire cost of the home. So
my mother and brother would obviously still be responsible for their own utilities. Separating
it allows for her to do that. She also has arthritis in her back. So going up and down.
to do that she also has arthritis in her back so going up and down the steps you're still going to
need a separate meter for the commercial space so you'll have two separate meters that has nothing
to do with her my mother and brother are a separate household okay all right okay if you understand
what i'm saying to create the apartment allows them to keep the programs and keep her cause
we got it we understand i'm sorry mr chair but i think we understand yep i think so all right uh
questions from the board no no what else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
yes we had mr richardson mr richardson good morning again mr richardson uh you're still
on their oath, please identify yourself. Good morning again, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson
from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312. Notwithstanding the issues that have been
raised by board members at this point, I was just going to actually address the letter that was
received, actually the meeting summary from the RCO. I was tuned into that meeting and the numbers
are off. They're really kind of skewed. As far as I recall, the number of individuals, I did not
count because I was driving at the time, but the number of individuals who were actually supportive,
including near neighbors, was much higher than the number that were opposed,
except most of them had voted for a proviso at that point in time. So, you know,
depending on what you guys want to do. The councilwoman is not opposed to granting the
variance based on a three-year proviso. Excuse me, Mr. Richardson, I'm sorry to interrupt, but
that proviso could not be added in this case. Anything that requires substantial
renovation of the property to conform, yes, it can't be a temporary use.
right um could i just say there would not be any changes to the property other than the basement
apartment being added the property is already in the state that as far as the first and second
floor the original zoning of the property was for mixed use commercial there was a dentist office
there at the point in time that the house was purchased i think you made that point a few times
so i was just i was just commenting on what the one i don't know her name had just mentioned as
far as the proviso there will be no renovating of the commercial space it already it's not the
commercial space but you will be renovating and just for the basement apartment nothing else
can you let the attorney finish speaking sure adding another entire apartment with
two bedrooms is significant renovation. I'm concerned about access to that. Anyway,
all right, Mr. Richardson, I'm sorry. Are you have you concluded? I'm concluded. Thank you.
All right. Anyone else to testify in this case? No more hands. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing single-family zoning for this property.
There is documented history of a medical office on the ground floor of this building
dating to 1958. The applicant seeks to convert the office into a residential unit.
We recommend that the board approve the requested variances.
I'd like to suggest that the record be closed
and the board will discuss this
at our next Wednesday's executive session.
Next case is MI2020-003043,
5423 Larchwood Avenue.
Mr. Mulvihill. Mr. Mulvihill, you're still under oath. Please identify yourself and proceed.
Carol will ask you questions.
One second, Chair. He's going to come in as a panelist.
Good morning again.
Hi, Mr. Mulvihill, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yes, Leo Mulvihill, M as in Michael, UL, V as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L.
Address, 315 Green Street, first floor, Philadelphia, and then 123.
Address, 315 Green Street, first floor, Philadelphia, 19123.
You're still under oath, but do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Okay, you may proceed.
All right, so members of the board, Leo Moldehill again,
And Albert Wu, that's W-U, my client, will be on the line for LDC Realty, LLC.
He actually lives in this building at 5423 Larchwood.
They're seeking the legalization of a two-family dwelling at this location.
Here's our refusal.
Our refusal, pardon me for one second.
We received a refusal because this is an RSA 5 district.
We're seeking to have two-family living legalized in that district.
At page 7, here's the area zoning map showing us largely RSA 5 CMX 2.
We're right here in the middle of Larchwood.
At page 8, this is my client's deed.
Page 11, commercial activity license.
Page 12 is his tax clearance.
Page 13 is the notice of community meeting that we sent out.
Page 15 is West Philadelphia Economic Development Council's letter of support
for our application, signed by President Kyle Sampson for a two-family dwelling.
Beginning at page 17, I'm now showing photos of the structure.
So this door down to the bottom right, that's actually just to get into the basement.
That's for use by the first floor unit.
There's a little vestibule area here as you enter the structure to get into the unit upstairs
and then the unit on the ground floor.
As I noted earlier, my client does live at this property.
Let's do a quick 360 degree view.
These are interior photos of the property, beginning at page 31.
on. This is that basement area that I discussed. This is the rear yard that's for use by the
ground store unit. Okay, so members of the board, here's what the floor plans are. I'll
zoom in on these a little bit. So Larchwood Street is actually at the top of the page.
If you remember that photo that I showed everybody with the door that was actually kind of built into the foundation, that's this area here.
That's basically for storage.
Basement is basically going to be used for storage by the ground store unit.
In order to get into the structure, you go in through the front door, which we saw on the photographs that I had.
You go in this main area.
You hang a right to get into the entry area for the downstairs unit.
Living room to the front, kitchen to the middle.
behind that's a bathroom and a bedroom all the way to the rear with access to the rear yard.
If you were to go upstairs, you go into the second unit, again, small one-bedroom unit,
decent size, affordable, bedroom to the front, bathroom in the middle, kitchen, and living to
the back. The ultimate goal in this case is that my client wishes to have this legalized because
it's converted. The plan is to have this be affordable for people who are moving into the
neighborhood. So rather than affording, having to afford a whole brand new renovated single family
dwelling, instead you have a nice renovated one-bedroom structure. And again, my client
does live in this parcel himself. Albert, would you mind unmuting yourself?
Hello? There we go, Albert. You there? Please state your name and spell your last name for
the record hi my name is albert a-l-b-e-r-t-w-u you swear and firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes all right albert you heard my testimony today yes and you live in
the property correct correct do you have anyone living in the second unit at this point yes okay
um now you are at the community meeting that was ultimately a letter of support that we received
from west philadelphia economic council yep okay if anything you'd like to add at this time mr
no thank you members of the board i'm happy to turn it over to you questions from the board
no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands thank you planning commission good morning
Thank you. Planning Commission. Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission,
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. The comprehensive plan recommends this property
for residential single-family use. We are aware of two other legal two-unit buildings on the north
side of this block. The remainder of this block appears to be single-family. We recommend that
board deny the requested variance. MI 2020-003043-5423 Larchwood Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Great. Thank you members of the board.
Thank you. I believe that completes the 930 list. Is there anyone who
is waiting for it to be heard on the 930 list?
no hands chair thank you unless there's any other business uh we will see everyone back
at two o'clock sounds good okay thank you thank you everyone okay thank you bye-bye
you and uh we'll wait for uh lakisha to give us the go ahead you can start oh okay good
Good afternoon, 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 Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman, Mr. James Snell, and Mr. John Modlack.
Board Administrator Lakeisha Dandy is also in attendance, as is our Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Saleta.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some
of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual
participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding
is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise. Third,
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 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 at issue i'll repeat that as well to enter an appearance
statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at
issue and i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat any comments
concerns or questions please direct them to our board administrator ms latisha dandy
uh with that uh we do not have any request as of yet for continuance so i will ask that question
now if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand at this time
if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand at this time
here we have miss pritzker
good afternoon miss pritzker you know the drill please identify yourself spell your name and i'll
swear you in this will be a surprise because this is brandon saverin in lieu of miss pritzker i
might be logged into her account i apologize oh no worry so let's give us your full name
spell it and i'll swear you in sure um brandon b-r-a-n-d-o-n saverin s as in sam a v as in
Victor R-A-N. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. I do. I think you're here for Knox Street? That is right. Are you requesting a
continuance? Yes, we got the RCO letter on July 15th, which reflected a two-to-one vote
in opposition by those affected who received mailers. This concerns an existing fence,
And rather than slug it out on here over whether that fence should remain, I think we can reach some sort of compromise to modify it in some manner, given the sort of, you know, close vote.
So we'd like more time to flesh that out with the RCO and neighbors.
Okay, no worries. All right. Without any objection, MI 2021-001572, 5028 Knox, KNOX Street is continued. That's number 10 on our list. Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Is there any objection to the request for the continuance I just read into the record?
Please raise your hand if you're object.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you again.
Case number 1, MI 2021-001-613, 1132 North 41st Street.
I believe the attorney of record is Mr. Marioni.
There's also a letter from the RCO, Viola Street Residents Association,
and Centennial Parkside CDC, letters of support with one proviso.
um chair you might also want to call the um next case with that they're related mi 2020
thank you mi 2021 that's zero zero one six one five one two one three north 41st street
both are represented by mr marionni
mr marionni can you hear me
Mr. Mattione you're muted there you go sorry about that hi how are you can you put your name
and address on the record and spell your last name please thank you I am well Michael Mattione
that's the federal reserve that's m-a-t-t-i-o-n-i federal reserve bank building 100 north
independence mall suite 5a northwest philadelphia 19106 do you swear a firm to tell the whole
truth and nothing about the truth i do do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy i do and lastly have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof
of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos and plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, yes to everything.
On both of these cases? On both cases, yes. Thank you, you may proceed. Thank you. Again,
and I am representing Eugene Nidovich on both of these cases. He's the end developer and like I
said, he submitted the tax clearance certificate and a change in plans form as requested by the
RCO on both cases, whoops, that's 12-13. Okay, so for 11-32, we have again their letter of support.
There's two different RCOs, Viola Street residents, and they had one proviso that we have six units
and 38 feet in height. We agreed to that. We submitted change in plans form. As you can see
from the summary, there was 13 attendees with those changes who all supported it, and no
one did.
The same is true of the Centennial Parkside CDC, so we completed that.
We have the revised plan form, we have the revised site plan.
this project is in the RM1 zoning district. We're seeking six residential units where four are
permitted. Again, we met with the community. They supported this with the changes that we made.
We have six units at the lower level. We have bi-level units on the lower level on the first
floor and then upstairs we have one bedroom units. These are two bedroom units at the lower levels
and then at the second and third floors they are one bedroom units or approximately 500 square feet
each. The height will not exceed 38 feet as requested by the RCO. Everything in this area
is multifamily. There are as many as seven units in structures in the neighboring this or nearby.
We have two vacant lots next to us. Across the street is multifamily. The buildings next to the
where there are buildings near us, they are all vacant and dilapidated. The building across the
street does have multifamily in it. And we have our floor plans as well. Again, at the lower level,
We have bi-level units upstairs.
We have one-bedroom units on each floor.
We meet the open area height and rear yard requirements.
And my client has a long track record of responsible development in this community,
as shown by the unanimous letter of support.
The area where the property is located does not have much development in it.
The area where the property is located does not have much development in it.
These are not that...
These are not that far off from Gerrard Avenue. The density will add to the development of Gerrard
Avenue as well. It won't alter the character of the neighborhood. It's a multi-family area.
It won't endanger the public health, but it'll benefit by getting rid of this vacant lot that
is an area where dumping happens and make it less likely and bring life to this part of 41st Street
that doesn't have any, and it will not have a negative impact as shown by the support
we receive from the RCO.
I would like to bring up, and this is similar as well, on 12-13, we have a support letter
again, 13 in support, we've changed down to six units, we agreed to that, the plans reflect
that we have revised site plan that shows again units and again this this property there there's
basically nothing around it except for a couple other multi-family structures
it's got a long history back to 1952 as a multi-family structure so
you know surrounding it is basically vacant properties and again we have a similar type
type development of bi-level units on the lower level in the first floor and then in second and
third floors we have two one-bedroom units each they're slightly different floor plans but similar
I would like to bring up my client Mr. Nidovich
afternoon mr naidovich when you get on would you please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
hello hi mr manadovich please spell your full name yes my name is eugene
E-U-G-E-N-E, last name is N-A-Y-D-O-V-I-C-H.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Mariani.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mariani, did you hear my comments about these properties?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct?
Yes, they are.
And have you agreed to the provisos or changes requested by the RCO?
Yes, we agreed to provisos and also one of the things that's not in there is they wanted a
better mix of one and two-bedging units, which is also something that we did as well
to get their support. And do you adopt my statements as your testimony?
I do. I have further questions for the witness. Thank you. Questions from the board? No.
no okay anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
and we have a reuben asia
i'm on for a different matter okay thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand no more hands here thank you planning commission
good afternoon board my name is nicole ozdemir from planning commission staff n-i-c-o-l-e-o-z-d-e-m-i-r
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Thank you. Please proceed.
A comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning at these locations.
There are documented histories of three-unit buildings at the properties from the 1950s.
There are two other multifamily structures on the block.
The three row homes on the west side of the block are all set back from the edge of the sidewalk to accommodate front porches.
There are no unusual conditions of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the code for units with a front setback.
The applicant could build up to two additional units by right for a total of six units if the mixed income housing bonus was used.
Therefore, we recommend that the board deny the requested variances.
Anyone else? I think I already asked that.
Nothing from Gaultier's office.
all right uh no i did receive an email from um andrew goodman but only to point out that um that
Andrew Goodman, but only to point out that Centennial is actually the coordinating RCO, not Viola Street.
centennial
Thank you. MI 2020? I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. Just a recommendation that if you should vote to approve this, each property is with revised plans, one page.
And though it's reflected in the plans, you might also want to add a proviso saying maximum six units because it will then be shown on the permit as well.
I have that in my notes. Thank you. Thank you. MI 2021-001613, 1132 North 41st Street. My vote is yes with the provisos. Revised plan, one page approved today, maximum six units.
and MI 2021-001-615, 1213 North 41st Street, my vote is yes with provisos, maximum six units,
one page revised plan approved today. My vote is yes with provisos on both cases.
My vote is yes with provisos. My vote is no on both cases.
you um so somebody will have to read the um notes um i don't think so there were three to one
it's three to one it's three one we have a majority thank you mi 2021-001497
2309-13 north broad street there's a letter from the rco the uptown entertainment and
Development Corporation, and also a letter of support from Council President Darryl Clark.
I believe Ms. Dina Bleckman is the attorney of record.
David, are you here for Dina?
Good afternoon.
Yes, I'll be in place.
Thank you.
Please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name.
Thank you.
My name is David.
The last name is Guest, G-E-S-T.
I'm at 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA1.
I'm 103 with Ballard Spar.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
You may proceed.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, everyone.
As I mentioned, my name is David Guest.
I'm an attorney with Ballard Sparr.
I'm here on behalf of YouthBuild Philadelphia Charter School,
the equitable owner of the property, and the applicant.
Here with me today is Dina Blackman, my colleague,
who will actually be sharing some slides.
if you're able to give her permission to do that that would be great thank you
also with me here today from youth build philly our executive director scott emmerich and cfo
adesanya karate we also have the project architect at canulsion shade architects
that includes sam olshin and paul abazir as well as david horner with horner and cantor associates
um as was mentioned we've submitted all of our exhibits i won't go through them in detail i'll
reference them very briefly i'd like to just briefly go through the proposal and then we have
as i mentioned scott emmerich from youth build and sam olshin from the project architect available
to go into more detail as needed in brief let me yes we have the picture there so this is the
building located at 2309 north broad street this is a rendering of the proposed condition
the proposal is to reuse this building which has long been vacant formally historically used as
pico offices many years ago and as a few other uses over the years for use as a charter school
by youth build philadelphia youth build philly was actually founded back in 1991 now has a 30-year
track record of tremendous support for high school aged youth in Philadelphia who dedicate
hundreds of hours of community service in the area.
They would be moving from their existing rented space, which is currently located farther
down on Broad Street, and they're very excited to establish a permanent home in the area
and continue to serve the local community.
As I think you heard, I'm very happy to report that we've received very strong support from
the community for the proposal.
There are actually two coordinating RCOs for this project.
One is Uptown Entertainment and Development Corporation.
the other is the 37th ward rco we held a joint community meeting with them and we received full
The other is the 37th Ward RCO.
We held a joint community meeting.
support from them we also as you heard received a letter of support from council president clark's
office just to note that the rco letters of support are at exhibit 14 in the exhibit book
and the council president's letter came in a little bit after but you received that by email
So just very briefly, to elaborate on what you see here, the proposal is to reuse the
building as classrooms and offices to construct a small one-story addition on top of the existing
two stories, which you can see somewhat here.
It would be set back to allow for the use of the area above the second floor as a garden
terrace for students.
We've got a terrific architectural firm, as I mentioned, at Conulsion Shade working on
project which has lots of experience reusing older buildings and they can show you some more
details about that. Also mentioned that the property also fronts Watts Street at the rear
and that is a smaller back street that will accommodate the loading and trash pickup needs
of the school. The design as you can you'll be able to see accounts for this. Technically there
are three refusals generated even though the site is located on Broad Street it's actually zone CMX
2.5 so technically we have the educational use itself generates a refusal the use of the portion
of the roof area for this garden terrace for students generates a refusal and the fact that
we will not be providing parking on site generates a refusal the parking just to mention briefly of
course there's an existing building there there's no room to fit parking on site or below grade
but the good news is of course we're located on north broad street we're along the broad street
line we're close to septa regional rail multiple bus lines so we know that the vast majority
of students and faculty will be accessing the school via public transit and for your reference
we have a parking study at the end of the exhibit book that shows that when you have the public
transit access combined with a lot of on-street parking in the area there's more than enough to
accommodate the needs of the school. So, you know, there are lots of other schools, there are several
other schools in the immediate area, and we really feel that the proposed educational use will be of
great benefit to the community, as shown by the support we've received. We have Scott Emmerich
from YouthBuild, as well as Sam Olshan, as I mentioned, who can go into that in more detail.
I could have them each come up and just kind of run through for two or three minutes what the
proposed program is and the design if that would be acceptable to you yeah you can do that and it
could be i think brief unless the board has any specific questions we can move quickly thank you
okay thank you yeah i think scott and sam we can keep your your testimony extremely brief
and maybe scott if you're there and if i could see you on video
i don't know if scott's uh showing up as a panelist yeah can you hear me okay
oh there we go scott scott please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
sure first name scott last name emmerich e-m-e-r-i-c-k you swear for him to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please um scott can you please just
just to confirm do you agree with my testimony as i've said it so far i do that is accurate
and you can adopt it as your own. Yes, I can. Thank you. So you can just, Dean, you can advance
the slides and Scott, you can just do a very, very quick overview of the school. Thank you.
Yeah, real briefly, young people are 18 to 20 years old. They previously left high school. They
come to us. One of the previous slides mentioned that we do a lot to focus on an environment of
love and support and respect for young people. We think that has a very positive impact in terms of
how we interact with the neighborhood and partners. David mentioned briefly, we have an
AmeriCorps 450 community service hours component of our program so in conversations with the RCOs
the Uptown and the 37th Ward the block captain on nearby streets we talked about opportunities to do
street cleanup and service that was exciting to the neighbors and all parties as you see young
people are participating in both academic training on site in the school building proposed at the
site and the new vocational workforce training at job sites around the city so we're enrolling
young people, but young people are doing a mix of academic and vocation trades across the city.
So we think that the unique combination of academics, vocation, and service is both a
benefit to young people and our community partners, and have enjoyed conversation with
neighborhood partners and the RCOs about the ways that we might connect to help bring energy and
service into the community. And again, as David mentioned, this is our coming up on our 30th year
of operations. We're moving about a mile north from our current operations at 1231 North Broad
street great thanks very much scott and i can very briefly have sam olshin come up
Great. Thanks very much, Scott. Then I can very briefly have Sam Olshin come up.
Thank you, David.
Would you please spell your last name and I'll score you in.
It's Sam Olshin, O-L-S-H-I-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you, Sam. Just as with Scott, do you agree that my testimony was accurate as you heard it?
Yes, it was. And agree to adopt it as your own? I do. Thanks very much. If you could just very
briefly run through our visuals here, that'd be great. Sure. Briefly, just about our own
credentials as architects, four years of doing renovation, restoration, historic rehabilitation
work including the met philadelphia 3000 seat concert hall at broad and poplar fluffy museum
of art working academy music etc this is a fantastic project to take a 1920s pico building
former showroom and office which is completely gutted now and take it and restore the facade
and give it a new purpose and the nice thing for us here is that it talks about electric company
but we're actually putting solar on the roof, having a garden terrace, as you can see here,
really making this a beacon on North Broad Street for some underserved youth, using recycled
materials, making this a real destination, and serving a community to learn a trade, which is
really not taught so much in high school anymore, mechanical, masonry, carpentry, etc. This is the
front living room onto North Broad Street, and is really a fantastic opportunity to kind of give
back and as mentioned this is a block and a half from the susquehanna dolphin subway stop which
was one of the reasons we chose this site to uh to put the building and very appreciative of
the community and the councilman for supporting the project thank you very much sam that was
very quick and efficient i appreciate it um i can just wrap up um by concluding that as you've heard
denial of the variances would result in an unnecessary hardship not created by the applicant
We're asking for the minimum variances necessary to afford relief.
There will not be a substantial increase in congestion in the public streets or any danger related to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
And really, in general, as you've seen, in fact, it would be a great benefit to the community to be able to revitalize this long vacant structure at a prominent location on Broad Street and provide a significant benefit to the community.
So thank you all for your time.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands share thank you planning commission thank you chair Nicole Ozdemir with the city
planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning change from the existing
cmx 2.5 to cmx 3. the proposed zoning district permits this application's use including the roof
deck as well as parking accordingly we recommend that the requested variances be granted thank you
mi 2021-001 497 2309-13 north broad street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote
is yes. Number four on our list MI 2021-001570-3161-67 Market Street. Mr. Klein is the attorney
of record Pelton Village Civic Association sends a letter of support. Chair we also now have a
letter and support from um councilwoman got the actually an email in support thank you thank you
good afternoon mr chair members of the board can you put your name and address on the record and
spell your last name please absolutely uh jared klein k-l-e-i-n from black roms 130 north 18th
street in philadelphia do you swear tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do do you also
agree to waive the reading the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i can waive the reading i
unfortunately can't step to the accuracy but it's a fairly quick clarification okay have you emailed
an exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance
photos and or plans um copy the refusal or referral all five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all of the above okay great you may
proceed and yes you may share your screen thank you very much sure um so as as we said this is
Thank you very much. Sure. So as we said, this is for 3161 Market Street. I'm here on behalf of Drexel University that owns the property. And this is the site of the old Firestone Tire Center. It's zoned I-2 and has been an industrial lot for quite some time.
The application that is before you is for the retail sale of food, beverages, and groceries.
The idea here is to create a farmer's market on the exterior portion of this lot.
There is no interior use of the existing structure that's proposed as part of this.
And part of the application is to have food trucks park on the lot and be able to serve food to people who are attending this farmer's market style business.
The reason I couldn't stick to the accuracy of the refusal is that right now there's a zoning permit for the site that is for a community-supported farm, which then would allow the accessory sale of the food, beverages, and groceries.
The intent of the application was to seek the non-accessory sale of food, beverages, and groceries at the site.
And so we believe that there should have been two refusals, one for the takeout restaurant via the food trucks and one for non-accessory retail sale of food, beverages and groceries within the I-2.
We did explain that to the RCO. And as I'll mention, as we go through, they were very supportive of that concept.
Just to orient the board to the site, this is the site here in an aerial view to give a better sense of where it is.
This is the structure here. You can see I'm circling it with my mouse.
As I mentioned, only the exterior portion of the site is going to be used for the farmer's market and the food trucks.
This building will remain vacant.
This is a street-level view of the site as it sits now.
And the food trucks will be parked in this area here, completely within the meets and bounds of Drexel's lot
and not at all encroaching on any of the public right-of-ways.
As I mentioned, we do already have a zoning permit that is for the market or community-supported farm.
The farm's being done in conjunction with PHS, Philadelphia Porticultural Society, and so they're the ones who are taking care of the growing of things, and Drexel's really partnering with them to provide some space and other logistical needs.
Here's an overview of the site.
You can see there's going to be some additional installation of landscaping.
the food trucks would go here in that area. And this is just a colorized view to give the board
a better sense of what we're talking about. These food trucks will be located here and there will
be seating for people to get things and then visit the farmer's market on the remainder of
that site. We met with Palton Village Civic Association. Their letter of support is up on
your screen now. As you can see, they did note in their letter that I had explained that there was
a second refusal that we believe we should have gotten, and the Palnton Village civic
notes that they support all the variances that would be necessary to allow this farmers
market use. So with that, I will see is either Rebecca Lasher or Don Liberty from Drexel
on if you can raise your virtual hand.
and if we don't see any virtual hands i'll be happy to uh stipulate to the accuracy of my
expected testimony yeah i was about to say no hands at the top okay um and as an officer of
the court i will represent that they would have adopted my testimony thank you questions from the
board? No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
Okay. Deborah, can you just please? Deborah McCarty from Pelton Village. Yeah. Deborah,
please spell your full name and I'll swear you in. D-E-B-R-A-M-C-C-A-R-T-Y.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Good afternoon.
I just wanted to reinforce our letter of support from Pound Village that we sent to Chairman
DiCicco and the board stating that we support these variances and we believe it's a creative
use that enhances the location while the future development for the site is explored.
and we very much look forward to enjoying this space in the coming weeks. And that was it.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
no hands at the time chair planning commission thank you chair nicole ozdemir for
your planning commission thank you chair nicole ozdemir for city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning change from the existing i2 medium industrial zoning
to cmx5 high density commercial mixed use the proposed addition of food trucks at this location
would support the surrounding institutional as well as commercial uses in this section
of Market Street and in the neighborhood accordingly we recommend that the requested
variants be granted thank you MI 2021-001570-3161-67 Market Street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes very much thank you Mr. Klein is up
Next, MI 2021-001622, 3201-29 West Clearfield Street.
There is a letter of support from the RAH Civic Association.
Mr. Klein, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
You're already under it.
Certainly.
Once again, Jared Klein, K-L-E-I-N, from Black Rome, 130 North 18th Street, on behalf of the St. James School.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and our plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of the above.
Okay, you may proceed.
And yes, you may share your screen.
Thank you very much.
So this is 3201-29 West Clearfield Street. It's currently the home of the St. James School,
and this application is seeking to expand the footprint of that school to erect an addition
with a cellar and to expand the existing educational use to create additional classrooms,
administrative offices, a library in the in the mezzanine area, art room, gymnasium, etc.
We received a number of refusals because as with many schools throughout the city of Philadelphia, it's zoned RSA 5, despite not being used as a single family home for some time.
And so we have a collection of refusals for the use as an educational institution and for the fencing, the location of the fencing, because we are a corner lot.
To give the board again some context, this is the site here.
And as you can see, it is most of this block of Clearfield Street and is zoned RSA 5 along with the rest of its surroundings.
These are the photos of posting on the existing fence line of that property.
And we are at the corner of 32nd and Clearfield.
Some additional photos of the surrounding area.
It is residential surrounding us, but not on the site itself.
Our zoning site plan shows the area where this addition is going to go.
located here. And this is the entry-level floor plan. We'll be having a new accessibility ramp.
This is the existing building over here. I will quickly run through some of the floor plans just
to give the board a sense of how this will look when it is completed. But because we had very
widespread support from the RCO and surrounding neighbors, I won't spend too much time.
this is what the second floor plan of the added space will appear to be and some exterior
renderings to the board can have a sense of how it would look it's styled with a modern design
that we think will fit in well with the community surrounding it and with the school that is there
now and here are the north and west elevations from the existing schoolyard
We did, as the chair mentioned when he started this case, met with the RAH Civic Association.
Their letter is up on the screen now.
It was 30 yes and zero no's in support of the proposed collection of variances for this
And the St. James School has a long history of working with the community and they certainly
intend to do so going forward. If I could ask is John Stetson on the line and might he raise his
virtual hand. Did you say John? Yes, Stetson.
Stetson.
Yes, you can unmute yourself.
Yes, you can unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stetson.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
J-O-H-N-S-T-E-T-S-O-N.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
John, did you have the opportunity to hear my brief presentation this afternoon?
Yes, I did.
do you agree with my statements and adopt them as your own testimony yes thank you very much
Mr. Chair we do have as I said Mr. Stetson on the line if the board has any questions about
the operation of the school but with that we will rest our presentation thank you any questions from
the board no no one else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission thank you chair
nicole ozdemir for city planning staff the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing rsa 5 single family residential zoning at this location however the accessory
uses including the library art room gymnasium and administrative offices are all supportive
functions for the school facility accordingly we recommend that the board grant the requested
special exception thank you mi 2021-001622 3201-29 west clearfield street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes you number six on our list mi 2021-001571
3600-90 walnut street there are letters of support from the 27th ward republican rco
and the west philadelphia economic development council chair we also heard from councilwoman
got the aid today that she supports the project i'm not sure if i have it on the summaries the
attorney is ira clutter yep we have that ira one ira's name is on the list
um hi mr calder can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
Sure. It's Ira Carterwood, K-A-U-D-E-R-W-O-D, 3101 Walnut Street, Philadelphia PA, 19104.
I'm an Associate General Counselor for the University of Pennsylvania.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, also, I do.
And is the exhibit packet mailed in with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of us.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman DiCicco, members of the board.
This is a pretty straightforward application.
what we plan to do is remove two existing large signage structures on Walnut Street in front of
the Annenberg Center. These are old-fashioned ones where you open up the door and put a poster
inside. We propose to remove those and replace them with two illuminated signs, one on 37th
street walkway one on walmart street and one flat wall illuminated sign on 37th street walkway we
got five use refusals because digital signs are not permitted in the spins district and one
use refusal because it is within 200 feet of an intersection even though this intersection
is a private street 37th street walkway on the south side of walmart um i think the best thing
is with me, I have Seth Cohen from VSBA Architects, who's the project architect, along with Matt
Yoder and Chloe Rison. I think Seth could just go through some visuals to show you what the
proposal is and Chloe could make a brief statement about why this is important to the SACS program
for Arts Innovation and the Annenberg Center. So if Seth Cohen is here,
I think you need to raise your hand.
Yes, he's available to speak.
Yes, can you hear me okay?
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes, my name is Seth Cohen, C-O-H-E-N. I'm a principal at VSBA Architects and Planners.
The address is 116 Schur's Lane.
The address is 116 Schur's Lane.
Philadelphia.
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
You may proceed.
Great.
Can I share my screen?
Okay, are you able to see the images?
Not yet.
One second, he's coming back in as a panelist.
Okay, can you see it now?
excuse me um you could try stop sharing and then resharing actually it was just slow but it looks
like it's coming up right now there it is okay wonderful um again my name is Seth Cohen I will
try to be brief uh as Ira mentioned this is a pretty straightforward proposal we are proposing
to remove two existing illuminated three-sided kiosks, which are located on Walnut Street.
That's location number one, and we are replacing it with one double-sided animated
illuminated digital kiosk. It's a relatively modest size. It's a 55-inch monitor-oriented
portrait or vertically with both sides. Location number two, which you can see with my mouse here,
is located on 37th Street, again a private street set back significantly from Walnut Street.
That also is a double-sided kiosk. And then finally location three, you can see this yellow star,
not even at all visible from the street is a single-sided digital monitor mounted to the
masonry wall. I should add that the Annenberg Center is a relatively solid, except for this
one image, masonry building with not much connectivity to the street and to the patrons
and pedestrians and one of the goals of this new signage is to engage those patrons and those
pedestrians for various current and upcoming events that occur within the Annenberg Center
for Performing Arts. I should note that these kiosks are located you can see here along Walnut
Street these are the existing kiosks that are to be removed and you can see this is a rendering
of the one double-sided kiosk that is to be replaced. You can see it's out of the path of
pedestrian travel. It's off of the sidewalk. It is not at all engaging with the vehicular traffic
that's passing by and is really scaled to the pedestrian. The next location, location number 2,
37th Street. This is the existing location. This entry is also very much set back from
Walnut Street, and one of the goals is to try to activate and animate this entry. And you can see
the location in red of the new proposed double-sided kiosk, and then a rendering that shows
the proposed location. Same size, same orientation, again not at all engaged with the vehicular or
pedestrian traffic on Walnut Street. And then finally on Annenberg Plaza, looking to the right
you can just kind of see Walnut Street but it's really set back. This is the existing location,
proposed location here is in red and then a rendering to show the future or proposed
location for this single-sided kiosk or display. And I'm happy to go into more detail, but that's
the general overview for the proposed locations. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
i know i have a couple questions on yeah so um the signs you said it was off the sidewalk do you
know that whether or not is out of the right of way yes it looks like it is but i i don't have a
map of the right of way nope uh that is confirmed it is set back from the property line uh will you
Nope, that is confirmed. It is set back from the property line.
Will you use it for anything other than Annenberg related activities? Will there be any
use it for any
advertising or any other kind of messages on this besides what is happening at the Annenberg Center?
I'd be happy to answer unless Ira wants to speak to that.
I think Chloe would be the right person to answer. The answer is actually no.
but it's strictly I mean Chloe can adopt that but um it's strictly related to the Annenberg
uh performances at the Annenberg or other arts um activities that are happening on campus
no commercial use. Okay and although this doesn't relate to this environment I believe you're going
to need to go to PennDOT because it's uh Walnut's uh state highway and it's visible from uh Walnut
street so you'll probably need their permit as well after you get a zoning permit from the city
no any other any other questions from the board
maybe i just have Chloe make a brief statement yes please
uh shall i stop sharing uh i don't know if if you need to for chloe to participate
no is she seeing her screen also no
then it's fine if you're still sharing your screen
okay can you all hear me yes we can now would you please spell spell your full name and i'll
swear you in sure my name is chloe chloe rizen r-e-i-s-o-n you can swear a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do yeah please proceed sure so um just briefly i'll
say that our goals for the signage are really to increase public awareness of the annenberg center
and its offerings, including more effectively communicating about programming taking place
in the building and promoting better wayfinding, as well as to increase public awareness more
generally about the arts of the university. So for example, and to answer your question,
events taking place elsewhere in the arts on campus, such as Penn Libraries, ICA, or the Penn
Museum to promote greater public engagement. These new digital signs would allow us to do that while
also reducing the footprint of the signs themselves. There will not be other promotion.
These will be used strictly for promoting the arts at Penn and not for advertisement.
Thank you. Any other questions? Is there anyone else to testify in this case?
no hands at this time chair thank you john monlike would you be uh feel a little more
comfortable if we put a proviso in i'm fine okay you can but i'm fine okay thank you uh planning
commission thank you chair nicole azamir for planning commission staff so the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing institutional special purpose zoning at this
location. The proposal seeks to update signage for the existing use. Accordingly, we recommend
that the board grant the requested variances. MI 2021-001571, 3600-90 Walnut Street. My vote is
yes with the proviso. No commercial advertisement. All subject matter would be related to the Annenberg
and Penn University activities. Excuse me, Chair, you can of course add any proviso that you'd like,
but that is already a given because it otherwise isn't an accessory sign.
So I'll withdraw that and we'll just vote as a yes. Thank you. Thank you. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes it's number seven mi 2021-001857 401 north broad street
meredith feliger is the attorney of record and cowl hill neighbors association
sent a letter of support and councilman mark squilla sent a letter of non-opposition
And she's coming in now and as a panelist.
Good afternoon.
good afternoon i'm meredith can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name sure meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r 1500 market street suite 3500 e with delworth
paxton do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i certainly do
do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral,
go to a center of plans to the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger.
I am here today on behalf of Nerd Street Gamers,
and they are represented here today by Anthony Perno,
who I will bring up a little bit later just to adopt my testimony. Before the board today is
401 North Broad Street. As you can see in the photo at tab 14 that I do have up on the screen
right now, this is an absolutely massive building of nearly 1.3 million square feet that sits
between Broad Street, Callow Hill Street, Noble Street, and North 13th Street. The historically
designated building itself is quite interesting and is known as neutrality data centers.
That is the East Coast's largest telecom server house. In fact, most of the country's East Coast
internet traffic goes through this building. More information about the building itself
and the unique history of it I included at tab 6 in your packet. Now as a result of this building's
unique capacities, it's unsurprising that a tenant like Nerd Street Gamers came knocking.
The application before the board today concerns the first floor of the building,
which is slated to be occupied by Nerd Street Gamers.
As you can see in your packet at tab five, and as I have up on the screen here right now,
nerd street is an e-sport infrastructure company that has a national network of e-sport training
centers tournaments event support and other gaming content so at this facility nerd street will be
doing a couple things they'll be they'll be producing and distributing e-sport content
they will it will also serve as what they refer to as a local host which provides state-of-the-art
facilities for high-end gaming. Finally, the facility will also offer in-person and online
tournaments and events. I'll briefly scroll through some of the renderings of what you can
expect this space to look like once it is complete. So this is an actual photo of one of their other
locations, and then this is what you can expect that this particular space would look like. So
this is of course where they would be holding events where folks would come to watch some of
the gaming and participate as they would. So the actual variance request before you today is quite
minimum. As you can see in the zoning map at tab 7 that I have up on the screen, this property
retained its I2 industrial zoning when the city remapped the area a couple years back as a result
of the unique nature of this building's predominant use. As you can see, most of the surrounding area
is zoned either CMX4 or CMX3. Prior to this application, Nerdstree was able to secure
a by-right zoning permit to accommodate some of its use, which was described as artisan studios,
office, and radio television recording services. The challenge lies with the aspects of Nerd Street's
use that involve gathering of people for events, tournaments, gaming, things like that. As you can
expect, the zoning code did not quite envision a Nerd Street type of use, so the closest use
category that the examiner could assign here was as a nightclub or private club, which isn't really
what's proposed here, but it was the closest category that they could lump this into.
That, of course, is prohibited in the I-2 zoning district. So the hardship, of course, that we've
described is simply that Nerd Street, the use is partially prohibited and partially permitted.
The use itself is well in context with the high density surrounding area and will bring life and
activity to a building that has very little active human use. It's also well in character
It's also well in character with the existing use of the building itself, with a heavy focus on technology and communication.
with the existing use of the building itself with a heavy
We submit this as the least minimum variance that ensures all of NERD Street's use is captured and permitted appropriately.
The proposal will not create congestion, impair light and air, or negatively impact surrounding properties.
My full argument is captured in my memo of law attached at tab 9.
As you know, Callow-Hill's excited letter of support is included at tab 13, and as you mentioned, we did have a letter of non-opposition from the councilman.
At this time, I would ask the administrator to unmute Anthony Perno, and I will have him adopt my testimony.
Anthony, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, my name is Anthony Perno.
Anthony, would you please spell your last name?
P-E-R-N-O
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Anthony, you've heard all of my testimony before the board today. Is that correct?
That is correct.
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Yes, I would.
Thank you. We'd be happy to take any questions you have about this relatively unique use.
any questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand and there's no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission thank you
chair nicole ozdemir with steep planning staff the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning change
from the existing I-2 medium industrial zoning to CMX-4, the second highest density commercial
mixed use zoning district at this location. The proposed zoning district would seemingly
permit the proposed uses and accordingly recommend that the requested variance be granted.
Thank you. MI-2021-001857, 401 North Broad Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes
i think carol is gone for the rest of the afternoon possibly thank you thank you thank
you have a good uh number eight and nine on our list mi 2021 that's zero zero one seven two zero
4223 Palton Avenue and MI 2021-001-612-4225 Palton Avenue. Mr. Bertil is representing both cases.
There are, we have not yet, unless it's been received recently, letters from the RCO.
That's West Palton and Saunders Park. Excuse me, Chair. We do have an email from
Andrew Goodman of Councilwoman Gauthier's office saying the Councilwoman strongly opposes these
projects. And we still have not, oh, this is Mr. Betts Hill, still have not received letters from
the RCO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I believe the RCO did actually email in a letter of
opposition um either yesterday or uh the evening before um i imagine uh that that promulgated uh
the councilwoman's email as well but i i can forward it over to uh mr leto all right i think
they don't always copy me i did um send mr goodman a request that he forward them to me if he has
them if you could send them to yeah no problem i'm more than happy to do that okay so we'll
proceed with your case okay can we swear him then also yeah mr bertill please identify yourself
and i'll swear you in uh steve bertill um from clare harrison harvey and brinsburg last name
spelled B-E-R-T-I-L. Address is 1835 Market Street, 14th floor, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Have you agreed to waive and stipulate to the accuracy of these cases?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance in advance of this hearing uh yes to all of you have met with the rco that
yes that is correct thank you
Okay. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. As I stated
earlier, my name is Steve Bertil and I'm here on behalf of the owner and applicant for this
property. Let me just begin sharing my screen. The properties in question are 42.23 and 42.25
Powhatan Avenue, which are adjacent. These are under two separate applications, but they are,
it is the one project of joining properties, contiguous and same owner.
And so just to give the board some context and some procedural background before we get into
specific property, as was stated earlier, the RCL, the coordinating RCL assigned for this project
is the West Powhatan Sanders Park RCO. We've been in continuous contact with them
up until the community meeting. I've been communicating with Ms. Pam Anderson,
or excuse me, Pam Andrews, who is the zoning chair and I believe the president of the RCO as well.
Ms. Andrews was very straightforward and honest with me and informed me on the onset when I
became involved in this matter, that the West Powhatan Sanders Park RCOs essentially has one
main mission, which is to preserve single-family housing in the West Powhatan neighborhood.
You'll see in a moment why we believe, generally speaking, we agree with that
standpoint, but while we believe that sort of hard line should not and does not really apply
to these specific properties. And in the context of this conversation that is going throughout
this application, it's essentially we're told that if it's not single families, essentially
a non-starter. Now, I did, after our RCO meeting on June 10th, we did have, I did have a phone
call recently yesterday or the evening or with Ms. Andrews that basically stated that
the RCO was willing to listen to a proposal of a lower density multifamily, which didn't
seem to be on the table prior to.
And due to that change, what we agreed to do was request that the board hear our presentation
today and hold their vote pending the possibility that the RCO would hear a lower density
proposal, which, as I stated before, wasn't really on the table before.
And so what we would ask if the board would grant is that we can put on our presentation,
you can hear the testimony of our application and whoever wants to testify to this case,
and then close the record except for hearing the results of a possible second meeting
to be held hopefully before a I'm not sure if it would be categorized as a resumption hearing or
how the board would categorize it but we would hope that we can hold the vote for a few weeks
so we can reconvene again with the RCO and see if they're even if they would consider a lower
density from our proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong Sharon this would be considered a resumption
hearing correct? It would be um unless the RCO is willing to agree that there will be no
no testimony and it would still be a resumption hearing but if you could limit it to um reading
their another letter into the record. That is what we um they originally uh asked that we uh
continue this and we informed them that we could not agree to that due to as I think everyone here
is aware how on the backlog of cases um and therefore this is what um we uh stated that
we would agree to if the board would allow us to do so um if not we're here to go forward today
could we check to see if any representatives of the RCO or any attendance um just to confirm that
they understand that doing it this way would mean no one would testify. It would simply be
their letter being presented.
Is there anyone here from West Pelton slash Saunders Park to testify?
No hands at this time, Chair.
okay why don't we do this then sharon correct me if i'm wrong again i'm sorry i have a hand now
Okay, why don't we do this then, Sharon? Correct me if I'm wrong again.
I'm sorry, I have a hand now.
oh okay i believe miss andrews is on the line
i have a miss connie
i don't know who that is
arlene
you can unmute yourself are you here for this case
why don't we do this uh well let's go forward with the case and then we get to the mls for any
if anybody has any uh wishes to testify and we'll then consider a resumption okay all right thank
Thank you. As I stated, we're here for 4223 and 4225 Powleton Avenue. We're presenting
a proposal for an erection of a three-story residential structure for use as multifamily
for three units. Before we get into the specific site, I wanted to just talk a little bit about
the context of the neighborhood in the area in question. So as you can see here from this zoning
area, we front the property in question is in this area here. We front on Powhatan Avenue. As I
stated, the main purpose of the RCO that was assigned as the coordinating RCO is the preservation
of a single family within the West Colton community. Now, we, generally speaking, don't
have a problem or don't disagree with that sort of mission, but we do believe that for these
specific properties, we think that hard line is misguided and actually works against what that
mission is and against what the sort of area zoning shows. As you can see from this area,
basically every property that fronts on Powhatan Avenue is either zoned as multifamily or mixed
use, whether it's RM1, RM2, CMX1, CMX2. And I believe there's some industrial use a little
further up on 40th or 41st. And so as you can see, for some reason that I haven't been able to
figure out, the area where our property is carved out of that and zone is RSA 5.
As you can see from this area here, the section where our properties are located,
this green, excuse me, this blue rectangle is 4223 and next to it is 4225.
But there's one residential property on our side of the street, and that property is essentially used as short-term rentals, as Airbnb and things of that nature for professors and graduate students.
And so that was confirmed by both the owner of the property and the occupants.
And as you just said, pardon the interruption, do you know how many units are in that property?
I haven't been able to confirm the unit count.
It's sort of a hodgepodge in this specific, in this property.
I'll have a better shot of it on the street view.
But as you can see on our side of the street, this is a church here.
And then everything else is the athletic sort of complex and basketball courts that are owned by Drexel University.
I know in the zoning area, it looks like it's, you know, different parcels here, but these are all, this is the basketball court, and this is the church.
Across the street, you'll see, again, it's mostly zoned ARM1.
There's a few that are zoned RSA5s as well, but as you'll see in my presentation, across the street is almost exclusively multifamily.
It was actually there, whether it was done by ride or via variants in the past.
And that includes a large multifamily complex in the middle of the block.
But I'll get to that in a second.
So, again, this is just an aerial of our side of the street where you can see, again, there's one home there.
And that's an Airbnb.
There's another aerial for the context.
And here's the street view.
As you can see, right now, the parcels are both vacant lots adjacent to each other.
We're proposing a three-story multifamily on both parcels, identical uses, identical floor plans, which we'll see in the second.
on both parcels. Identical uses, identical floor plans, which you'll see in a second.
This is the church in the residential structure that's there. This is the church in their
courtyard. This is sort of looking up Coweton Avenue. You see the basketball courts to the
right, and you'll get a better shot of this multifamily sort of courtyard-style structure
on the left-hand side. And this is looking in the opposite direction, down Pelton Avenue.
You'll see again that everything on the right-hand side of this photo is outside of maybe one
property. It's all multifamily. That ranges from duplexes, triplexes, and up the block there's a
quad. And this is the athletic facility, as I stated. So let me just jump to
some more photos of the area context as you see this is directly across the street
with triplexes uh that's a zoom with duplexes more duplexes another quad um triplexes um duplexes
um again it's almost essentially multifamily and this i haven't been able to confirm the unit count
on this building. We know it's at least eight units, but this sort of multifamily complex
that's more of a courtyard style is directly across the street from the proposed, from
our proposed site. And so we believe in addition to maintaining multifamily, we believe the
zoning sort of, excuse me, maintaining single family within the community, we believe what the
zoning attempted to accomplish here is to concentrate multifamily along the main thoroughfare
in the West Powhatan community, which is Powhatan Avenue. As you can see, everything behind the main
throughway of properties that front on Powhatan Avenue is RSA 5, which makes sense. Powhatan
Avenue has, you know, bus routes. There's the 30 and the 40 running along there, and it's also a
main thoroughfare, and if you want to limit the amount of multifamily that's peppered throughout
the community, one of the best ways is to concentrate it in one area, and therefore
concentrating it along Poulson Avenue, as we're proposing, actually goes in line with the zoning
context of what's actually there on the zoning map, but even further than that, further than
what's on the zoning map, what's literally on the ground there is almost exclusively
multifamily up and down Townsend Avenue.
Now our proposed project, as you'll see, let me zoom out a little bit here.
has no dimensional refusals. We refuse only for the multifamily use. As you can see from our
proposed elevation plans here, we're matching almost identically the materials that it's used,
the style that is used in the existing structure, even up to the historic sort of cornices that are
popular and well known for the West Powhatan area. As you would imagine, this is all at
an additional expense, but we wanted to match the existing homes there in terms of style material
as much as we can up into the front porch and the brick all the way up to the corners.
So what we're proposing in terms of the density is three one-bedroom apartments, as you can
see from this floor plan entrance from the beginning, from the front, sort of a galley
style kitchen straight back to a bedroom and restroom to the rear.
And so the floor plans are identical on 4225 and 4223.
And so the floor plan that you're looking here will be the same, just kind of a mirror image.
As you can see, the second unit, which is on the second floor and the third unit, which is on the third floor, are also identical.
Michael?
So when we met with the community group, we informed them that, well, I should say, before
we met on June 10th, we did have some preliminary meetings.
The applicant met with the RCO leadership and informed them of their intentions to build
multifamily here. At that point, that's when they inform them, look, we really only want
At that point, that's when they informed them, look, we really only want to see single family anywhere in this community, and that's kind of the line was sticking.
The applicant did go back and talk to some lenders and brokers, and it just wasn't a feasible option.
In fact, he couldn't even get lending for single family for these two sites.
the market for new build single family in this area, the price points that they would have to
sell at would just have to be astronomical. Not only that, in addition to that, we explained to
the RCO that from the time that the applicant purchased these lots, which wasn't that long ago,
from now, the cost of construction exponentially increased, which even if single family was sort
of on the line of feasibility when he first acquired it, that sort of was blown out the
water when the cost of construction changed. And so we thought considering the context
and the context of what's actually there and the specifics of these lots, that this would
be something that the RCO would look at and see, like, there is enough sort of delineation
from what's normally being requested for multifamily in this area to normal sites and these two
sites. In addition to that, we agreed to and we proposed and agreed to include 24-hour
exterior cameras. We agreed to add bike storage on the inside, interior trash storage. We
proposed working with the church on the corner to source local artists or young artists to
put a new mural on the other side of 4225 because, as you can see, there is a mural that's there
on the existing Airbnb home. And we even agreed to have a perpetual easement for that home,
4221 Pilton, to cross the rear of our yards as a way for them to bring in and out trash
from the rear of their homes. With those proposals, we thought that the conversation
was fairly balanced. There were some people that generally were just like, we don't want to see
any type of multifamily, it doesn't matter the density, whether it's affordable or anything like
that. And there are some people that asked questions regarding some of the things I just
described and that we agreed to do. And so leaving that meeting, we were under, as I stated,
we're under perception that nothing that's multifamily is a option for them. And so we
elected to go forward so we can explain to the board why we believe multifamily is appropriate.
We suggested an alteration of density, but that conversation was not able to be had at that time.
And so considering everything that we are proposing now and our availability and our openness to lower the density to units in the structures, we believe that there may be a path forward with the community, which is why we ask in the onset if we can, you know, close the record at the end of everyone's testimony,
whoever wants to testify, and hold it for a possibility that they would agree to the two units.
That said, we came here today believing and strongly believing that multifamily is actually
the most appropriate for the site. And so, our application is for the three units,
so that's what we're presenting today. If the board does not want to grant us the opportunity
to have that conversation regarding the duplexes versus the triplexes.
Two things.
Do you have your client available to adopt your testimony?
Yes, I do.
Let's do that.
And I understand there is someone from the community waiting to be heard.
So we'll do your, swear your client in first,
and then we'll get to the questions.
Okay, great.
My client's name is Saki.
I don't know if he can raise his hand if he recognized.
I'm sorry, can you say that name again?
Saki, S-A-K-I.
Okay, sir, you can unmute yourself.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Saki Karamitopoulos, S-A-K-I, last name K-A-R-A.
M-I-T-O-P-O-U-L-O-S
p-o-u-l-o-s you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
thank you mr uh saki did you have the testimony that i provided to the board
this afternoon yes do you adopt and affirm the testimony is true and affirm it is your own
sure do thanks and is there anything that you would like to add to the board i think you uh
nope okay okay any uh any questions from the board no no
is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
yes chair we have a judith peters thank you miss peters please spell your full name and i'll swear
you in i'm judith j-u-d-i-t-h peters p-e-t-e-r-s i'm a member of the church and i do not agree
with the hold on please do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i affirm sir thank you please proceed i'm a member of lumbar central presbyterian church
i'm one of the elders there and i do not agree with the information you just received from the
attorney. We were never told of another proposal. And the home that's next to the church is owned
by a single woman. It's not an Airbnb. That's not true. The applicant went up around the community
trying to bully people with a petition and making promises. But what they could do for the community
if if the um people went along with him he even approached the minister with other um promises
um so we're really i'm really really saddened by what i just heard um it's not true yes we he had
we had opportunity to talk to him but coming to us saying that they had another proposal was not
true pan andrews who's our president is on the line she's had her hand raised several times no
ones acknowledging her well we're that we're acknowledging witnesses now that's why we were
waiting for the testimony from the applicant now we open it up for comments and uh testimony from
uh witness from people in the community so uh as there is miss edwards
yeah mr bertill just briefly um i just want to touch on one thing that miss uh peters uh mentioned
I did inform the applicant that it was, and I think I stand by this from basically all of our clients, that it is generally a good idea to get out in the community, knock on doors, introduce yourself and things of that nature.
that's what they were doing um they were told um pretty quickly i mean they were able to get
some signatures of support but they were told to stop into not doing that by the rco which we
respected their wishes and we stopped immediately once we realized they didn't want us talking to
neighbors individually um and so that that's maybe what miss when miss peters is referring to
But in terms of the willingness to meet with the RCO again regarding the lower density, that communication was directly with Ms. Andrews, not with the church.
Hopefully Ms. Andrews is on.
I believe she is.
Is Ms. Andrews there?
Chair, we have a camera.
And Pamela Andrews is in the audience.
I don't believe she has her hand raised, but she is here.
Ms. Andrews, if you could raise your hand, if you wish to testify, your virtual hand.
I've been unmuted.
Should I speak now?
Yeah, please spell your full name.
Kara, K-A-R-A, Rennert, R-E-N-N-E-R-T.
and I own
21 Paliton.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes.
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
So I'm not sure
why you're calling it an Airbnb
house. I do share my house
with a nursing grad student
but I don't see how that's
relevant.
It is a single-family house, and when I bought that house, leaving where I used to live next to a multi-unit dwelling, I did not want to live in that situation again and knew that the lots were zoned.
um and knew that the lots were zoned um for single for single family houses so i stand with
my neighbors in my neighborhood um that we don't want a multi-unit another multi-unit
um in that location
i should clarify for the record chair that i don't know for a fact that um
Ms. Renner utilizes Airbnb.
I just mean short-term.
I don't know.
That's usually what.
Oh, hello.
Oh, wow.
Ms. Edwards, Andrews, Ms. Andrews.
Can you hear me?
We heard someone.
Would you, Ms. Andrews, you have to unmute yourself.
There we go.
Thank you so much.
Please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Pamela Andrews, P-A-M-E-L-A, first name Andrews, A-N-D-R-E-W-S.
Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Hello?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Before you begin, have you been listening to all the testimony?
Most definitely.
Well, I don't know if you heard the beginning part where Mr. Battelle had suggested if it's if it's meets with the West Poulton community, folks.
Let me let me let me let me finish, please.
I'm so sorry.
He's asking whether if it was possible to have another meeting to talk about revision to the initial plan.
And if that's okay, we will schedule a special hearing on a specific date to get feedback from you and your neighbors and your RCO.
Is that something that you would entertain?
Ms. Anderson, you can unmute yourself now.
I mean, Andrews, I'm sorry.
Can you hear me now?
Thank you. Well, first of all, Mr. Bertel's testimony that I heard in the beginning was incorrect. I never had a conversation with him stating that the community would be open to another hearing to consider multifamily housing with less density.
That was not a conversation that we had at all. So I don't really understand where that came from, that we would be absolutely open to that. I have to apologize. I don't know what happened that you did not receive our letter.
We have it now. It was 22 and closed. None in favor.
None in favor. And when we met back in June, the community was very strong in terms of their desire to uphold RSA 5 housing in that particular area.
The developer basically had no hardship that would prevent the property from being developed and according with the RSA-5 zoning code.
West Poulton Saunders Park RCO mission is to preserve and increase single family housing in the community.
What I also want to add is Mr. Psaki circulated a letter to the community back in April of this year, basically stating that he was going to develop this property into a multifamily unit.
That was before any variances were requested, and he wanted to get input from the neighbors, basically to determine what that construction would look like.
After that, about a few months later, actually what I want to report is in doing that meeting, the community let him know very clearly that what they were interested in, first and foremost, was maintaining single family housing in the neighborhood.
He said that he would basically go back to his developers and present us with some plans that might possibly work.
The next time we heard from this developer was on a Sunday when he and one of his partners were actually coming through the neighborhood before the variance was requested with a petition attempting to get signatures.
So, no, we did not say to Mr. Bertel that we were willing to have another conversation with him about a multifamily unit at 42.
the family unit at 4223-4225 Powhatan Avenue and that we would consider decreasing the density.
The community members of West Powhatan see no hardship and no reason why this developer cannot
build two single family houses on those two parcels.
Ms. Andrews, without putting words in your mouth, is it accurate to say that you as the chair of the Poulton Avenue folks, West Poulton Avenue, would not be willing to have a further conversation about looking at potentially reducing the number of units? Is that accurate?
That would be accurate, because we do not want to support.
Okay, Mr. Bertil.
Mr. Bertil.
Yes, Mr. Chair, if I could just respond. I mean, I have the emails of Ms. Andrews that I've sent to her requesting follow-up. And then if I could just ask Ms. Andrews, Ms. Andrews, did we not have a telephone conversation 24 hours ago about you stating that you would like a continuance for us to meet again if we wanted to propose a lower density?
well i'm hearing from her now uh obviously people have the right to change their mind
you're absolutely right i just wanted it on the record yeah i hear you i know what you're going
yeah you finish uh i just want to you know miss andrews the previous uh speaker they're all saying
that they want this to remain as single family there's it seems to be there's no opportunity
for any compromise no that's the way i'm hearing single family at this location that's that's
that's what I gather from these conversations all right yes all right so with that I will ask the
planning commission thank you chair Nicole Ozdemir for city planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single family residential zoning at
this location there are no unique physical conditions particular to the vacant lots that
present a hardship to use these properties in compliance with the zoning code accordingly we
respectfully recommend that the board denied the requested variances thank you mr chair
because what i coming into this again as i stated um i was under the impression that we were on the
same page i would miss uh miss andrews um i would request if we could uh have our project manager
put on some brief testimony about uh the the problems with being able to develop a single
family here i didn't think we would have to get into it because we would i don't i i i i heard
what you said i think you've already made a good case about that in my opinion uh about the
difficulty and the cost of labor and how the numbers are changing and it won't be not would
not be economically feasible. I think the board has heard enough of that unless any board has any
other questions. If not, we're going to take the vote. So having said that MI 2021-001720
4223 Palton Avenue and MI 2021-001612 4225 Palton Avenue. My vote is no to both.
My vote is no.
No to both.
Thank you.
Next case is number 11, MI 2021-001713, 6398 Woodbine Avenue.
Mr. Asia.
He was on earlier.
Mr. Rubin Asia.
and he's coming in now as a panelist
mr asia please i spell your full name and i'll swear you in
thank you this is uh reuben asia r-e-u-b-e-n-a-s-i-a last um and i'm with uh fagri i drinker
and reef you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Thank you. Do you agree to waive and stipulate to the accuracy of this application?
Have you read and emailed an exhibit packet with regard to the documents, including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of the hearing?
five days in advance of the hearing we have and also have you met with the rco and if so have
We have.
and also
do you have a letter we have the letter was provided earlier this morning via email
did we get that letter yet we i did i got it this afternoon it's a letter in support
okay thank you and also let the record uh let the record uh know that mr uh james snell or
other board members now in attendance. So Mr. Asia, you can proceed. Thank you. Great. Thank you. So
once again, appreciate the opportunity to present. My name is Ruben Asia, Berger, Jinker, Biddle,
and Reith. I'm here representing the Overbrook School for the Blind, which is the owner of 6398
Woodbine Avenue, Philadelphia PA 19151. Also speaking a bit later will be Todd Reeves. He's
the CEO and executive director of the Overbrook School for the Blind.
And if necessary, we'll have Jeffrey Peters from Boynton-McTavick Architects speak.
Just wanted to give a brief description of the Overbrook School for the Blind.
The campus is located at 6333 Malvern Avenue.
If you look at Exhibit 7, you can see that it's quite a large campus
in the Overbrook Farms area, and the mission of the school is to educate children and young adults
who are blind and are visually impaired with or without additional disabilities.
We've been, the Overbrook School for the Blind has presented before this board on a number of
occasions. They've operated at this location at 633 Malvern Avenue for over 100 years,
and they've owned this adjacent parcel since, I believe, 1948.
Given the zoning designation in the area, which is RSD-1, and the historic use of the property,
that's why we've been before the board a number of times.
Currently, with respect to 6398 Woodbine Avenue, which you can see...
Mr. Asia, do you have any exhibits you could be sharing with us?
Oh, my apologies, yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much for the reminder.
Great, so with respect to 6398 Woodbine Avenue, it's at the top left in this blue square.
The main campus parcel is this large swath of land right here, and actually the Overbrook
School for the Blind also owns the adjacent parcel right here next to 6398 Woodbind Avenue.
The property is currently zoned RSD1 and, as I stated, has been owned by the school since 1948.
Currently, we're requesting a variance to use the property for a personal care home,
which is prohibited in this zoning district. Just a quick summary of the personal care home use.
It's on lodging for four or more individuals who generally require assistance with certain daily life activities.
This is most consistent with the school's intended use for this property that they're requesting permission via this variance,
which is for temporary lodging for families who have family members that require extensive care when away from home.
And I'd like to give Todd Reeves the opportunity to discuss briefly the proposed use for the
property for the board so that everyone can get a better understanding of what is intended.
Todd, if you're available.
I have a Todd Reeves.
Yep, that is he.
Mr. Reid, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Yes, my name is Todd Reeves. First name spelled T-O-D-D, last name spelled R-E-E-B-E-S.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Asia?
Thank you, Todd. So if you could give a brief explanation of the intended use for the property after hopefully obtaining this variance.
sure and as you uh had already mentioned what the mission of the school is and it hasn't changed
appreciably over time uh what also hasn't changed unfortunately over time is the very sobering
under and unemployment rates that uh hover around 75 for those people we serve which are students
and young adults with who are blind or visually impaired and we think to address that head on it
really underscores the primary purpose for the utilization of this property in obtaining
uh the primary purpose for the utilization of this property in obtaining a variance that will
positively impact our students by allowing them to gain really 21st century employment skills in
the hospitality industry by operating a bed and breakfast there is a very closely aligned other
social enterprise that will serve the best interests of our community in that the first
floor of this property will be renovated substantially to provide what's called a
total care suite for children who might have very severe to profound physical disabilities
in which they could be easily transferred by their parents from bed using an overhead sling and then
an overhead transfer system into an appropriate ADA
regulated toileting and showering area,
and then be able to be transferred back to their wheelchairs.
That kind of total care suite,
obviously doesn't exist really anywhere in the country
in the context of these kinds of services
and accommodations by which families,
again with children with very substantial challenges
could visit Philadelphia and take full advantage of the tourism and tourist attractions that exist here.
Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me. You have any architectural drawings?
I can have Jeffrey Peters jump on. The architectural drawings weren't included since they're not subject to the proposed use of variants.
I can provide those separately if that's requested.
provide them how i can send them uh via email to the rco and to uh sharon as well
so you have no floor plans
jeff if you could invite jeff and let him speak jeff peters he's with the architects
do you have pictures of the proposal yeah jeff if you're if you're on
great good afternoon sir please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
spell jeffrey peters j-e-f-f-r-e-y peters p-e-t-e-r-s do you swear a firm to tell
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed tom mr holliman had a
question yes um we didn't include the architectural drawings inside this submission because we were
submitting for the use change before we developed the four plans
Tom you're breaking up would not the use change reflect in the floor plans
it would but um we can provide a set of schematic design plans that we developed for the school
to submit to the committee if that's required yeah and it was our understanding that we would
just be submitting for the proposed
use variance and then that the school would proceed
forward to more fully
develop the exact
floor plans after
hopefully obtaining the proposed
variance.
Correct.
You have interior pictures?
Correct.
No interior photos,
but we do have exterior
photos that
Ruben is showing on the screen right now.
So this is currently the
um the exterior view of the house um and the school is uh yeah these are the exterior views
of the house and as jeff or can todd can discuss more fully what the intended renovation of the
interior will look like uh in concept um and if the schematic designs will be helpful jeff i can
stop sharing my screen um and you can share those designs um yes um i could bring that up um so
the actual um interior renov well the renovations would include an exterior ramp which would be a
concrete ramp um and then the interior renovations uh todd described them as extensively but
But in VMA's opinion, it wouldn't be removing any structural walls or any kind of that type of work.
It would be adding the lift for the bed, changing some door openings.
for the bed, changing some door openings, enlarging some doors to 36 inches,
and renovating a kitchen, not moving around any fixtures, but updating cabinetry and whatnot.
Any proposed living space below grade?
No. No. And our work would be limited to the first and second floor.
Thank you.
And this, the second floor work would include finish upgrades, which is painting, plaster,
and then maybe new carpeting and items like that.
Are you subject to any ADA requirements or others, do you have to be inspected and approved?
um i know we're we're subject to um historic commission approval for any exterior renovations
the ada improvements would be um i think todd would know if he's getting any grant funding from
uh the pennsylvania then we would be under requirements to uh have ada on the first
and ground floor but not to the second floor. We'll be providing that restroom and bedroom
on the first floor as our ADA items. Thank you. Tom Holloman, do you have any other questions?
No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Asia, I think you could summarize.
yeah so um i basically just to summarize quickly as well the um the school has always had a very
good working relationship with the community of the overbrook farms club they've broached this
topic with the farms club over overbrook farms club uh over over two years ago when initially
presented the the ofc was concerned about the school potentially selling this property off at
later date with this variance that would then run with the land. The parties agreed that the school
would consolidate this parcel along with the adjacent parcel to the right into the remainder
of the campus which is currently in process. And then recently during the RCO meeting we were
requested where we were asked if we would include a deed restriction which would limit the use of
this variance to the school and anyone who used the remainder of the school campus
for a for a the education of children who are visually impaired with or without additional
disabilities um that was agreed to um the parties have agreed to the language so set forth in the
letter from the rco which has been provided to you and that is a short synopsis of the discussions
and how we got to today before you thank you all right if i could just have a todd also adopt
todd do you agree with the accuracy of what i presented i do for today yes great and you would
adopt you would adopt it as your own yes i would great thank you sorry mr chairman nope thank you
any other questions from the board no no anyone else to testify in this case if so please raise
raise your hand. Yes, we have a Mr. Henry. Mr. Henry, you can unmute yourself and wait for the
chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Henry. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in. Oh, good
morning. For some reason didn't come through. Hal Shermer, actually. S-C-H-I-R-M-E-R. Just want
to follow up with what Ruben said. You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing about the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I just want to verify that Ruben's
discussion of the communications back and forth between the RCO and the owners have been going
on for a while. Everybody seems to be okay. The only complication is that this parcel is being
consolidated, so you've got three different parcels all getting jammed into one. Aside from that,
uh my clients are fine and they support the project thank you thank you very much anyone else to testify
no more hands on the doctor thank you planning commission thank you chair
nicole ozdemir staff for the city planning commission
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single-family detached residential zoning at this location.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single family detached
The proposed personal care home complements the existing functions of the educational campus
and does not present any negative impacts on the surrounding properties.
Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2021-001-713-6398 Woodbine Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Next case, number 12, MI 2021-001-725.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be dropping off now.
Thank you, John.
Appreciate your help.
Thank you.
Have a good one.
All right, let me rewrite. Let me read that back in. MI 2021-001-725-6830 Ridge Avenue.
There is a letter of support from the Ridge Park Civic Association. Mr. O'Brien is the attorney of rec.
uh good afternoon mr chairman uh william o'brien w-i-l-l-i-a-m o'brien o-b-r-i-e-n
uh attorney for uh 60 30 68 30-32 ridge partners llc you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do you agree to waive and stipulate to his accuracy of this
application i do have you read an email then have you read any excuse me have you emailed an exhibit
packet with the required documents including proof of ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of
the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
yes all information's been also have you met with the rca and do you have a letter yes rco and do
you have a letter i apologize yes thank you please proceed thank you uh with uh us on this hearing
is Steve Oshetsky, who's going to my right. He's managing member of the LLC. And also on this
hearing is Chris Karakoff, the project architect. There is a preliminary matter, Mr. Chairman.
This is one of two companion cases. They were both filed at the same time. The other case is 6832
Two Ridge Avenue. That required an in-depth review by the Water Department, and the refusal was
delayed as a result of that review for weeks. When the refusal was promptly, when the refusal
was issued, an appeal was promptly filed, and the board was put on notice confirming prior notices
sent in March and April, that this was a companion case. As of right now, however, the board has
decided not to hear them together. I understand that Councilman Jones has asked on behalf of my
clients, as well as the RCO, which supports it, to hear both cases and vote on both cases today.
It would be efficient, but if the board chooses to hear them separately, that is, of course,
your decision excuse me mr o'brien this is sharon slett if i could just correct you on one thing
the refusal for the second just may finish please um if the board decides not to hear them together
i would ask that the hearing date for 6832 ridge avenue be scheduled it's been it was appealed as
i said over a month ago uh a separate appeal fee has been sent to the board on july 9th
$750, but there's been no scheduling of that case. And I'm sorry, now I'm finished. Please,
Sharon, go forward. Just let me correct you. The board was, the board administrator was willing to
schedule these together, and I believe told you that she would at the time you first approached
her after you'd filed the first appeal. You said that it would be a matter of a week or so before
you filed the second. That was in February. The first refusal was issued on February 16th.
The second refusal was issued not weeks later, but four months later. It was issued on 6-18-21.
These can't be heard together today. They are not on the list for today. They are not on the
online calendar. I don't believe you received posters for the second property. And as far as
the hearing date. Ms. Sunkit is away on vacation. I'm sure that she will sign a date when she
returns. We'll ask Ms. Sunkit to find you a date as soon as possible.
If I may share my screen.
Please.
So the documents, as I said, it's a companion case, so all the documents have both properties.
I will focus the testimony on 6830 Ridge Avenue.
The exhibit binder that was sent to the board includes copies of the refusals on pages two and three,
The RCO support ladder, pages four and five.
Site photographs, page six, is the site photograph of 6830 Ridge Avenue.
Prior approvals have been issued for the project, including historic streets, water.
Pages 13 through 23 show surrounding uses, and that the zoning for this property,
residential single-family attached, has nothing to do, and nothing in common,
with this block of Ridge Avenue in Philadelphia.
Let me skip to page eight.
Oh, page six, right?
So this is 6830 Ridge Avenue.
It is a one-story block building,
currently uses a nail salon,
again, which is non-conforming.
This structure is not considered contributing to the Ridge Avenue Historic District,
and the Historic Commission has approved both the demolition of the structure
and the proposed structure that you'll see in a moment.
Going through pages 13 to 23 real quick,
um this is uh the building uh one to the right of these two properties as you can see it is a
historic building it is considered contributing uh this is the building to the left of 6830 again
it is historic is considered contributing which is why the two properties that we're talking about
6830 and 32 uh receive such attention from the neighborhood and from the from the historic
Commission to make sure that this was treated properly. In terms of the surrounding uses,
these sets of twins, which are a little bit to the north in the same block,
are proposed to be demolished for a by right 77 unit structure, which is currently before the
Civic Association one design review. A little bit next to that is a Wells Fargo branch.
across the street is a shop right across the street from that is a funeral home
there's an insurance company office a little bit south of that the same block
a law office and another cpa office a real estate office
a bar and barber shop and another dental office
um so in this block there really aren't any there's there's i think one there'll be one
single family but it's not it's a it's a it's not a detached structure there's will be one single
family uh left in the block but these are not um uh the the res the the this block is not
residential single family. If I can get to page 25, and the subject of this appeal 6830
is the building on the left. This is the building that is proposed to replace the
one-story nail salon. It is a commercial use on the first floor. Café is represented in the
renderings with three dwelling units. That is a closer view of that building.
and there's even a better view that shows the porch
and it is set back the same distance
as the existing structure next to a 6832
which was a request from the Historic Commission
and this building on the left is the 6832
property. I'd ask Chris Karakoff to raise his hand and be acknowledged.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Yes, my name is Chris Karakoff.
Yes, my name is Chris Karakoff, C-H-R-I-S-C-A-R-I-C-K-H-O-F-F.
Do you swear for me to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Karakoff, if you could focus your comments on 6830.
I brought up, I believe, what is the first floor plan.
Could you describe what that represents?
Sure. What we're looking at is a proposed three-unit and one commercial unit detached structure.
We are aligning the front facade with the historic neighboring building, as well as the building to the south of our project as well, which is consistent with this street on Ridge Avenue.
We're proposing a commercial tenant to the front of the building and a unit on the ground
floor and basement level toward the rear, along with a porch on the front facade that
would serve the commercial tenant.
Second floor is the second unit.
It's a single bedroom.
It occupies the entire second floor of the building, and then the third floor is a similar
layout which has a third unit.
In terms of elevations, how is the elevation of this structure compared with the surrounding
structures?
so as you can see from the elevation we're uh we're lower than the adjacent historic structure
that was um part of the design intent as well as um you know in discussions with the historic board
their their desire as well so we're well under the required uh 38 foot right it looks as though the
height indicated on page 33 is the 68 proposed structure will be 29 feet correct uh almost 30
feet 29 foot 11 29 feet 11 inches and there's no roof deck proposed correct um the uh i don't know
i don't have any further questions for mr karakoff i don't know if the board does
you know do you need anyone to adopt your testimony well i'm going to ask mr karakoff
to do that i mean i'm mr uh ushefsky to do that now mr ushefsky is sitting here to my right
would you please give your name spell it how you doing uh steve first name last name ushefsky
o-l-s-z-e-w-s-k-i we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you mr o'brien thank you are you the managing are you a managing member of 6830-32
ridge partners yes okay did you hear my testimony earlier today during this hearing and you believe
it to be correct and accurate i do yes and you adopt it as your own as an officer of the company
i do yes thank you any questions from the board no no anyone else to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand oh hands at this time chair thank you planning commission thank you chair
nicole ozdemir for city planning staff while the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing single-family residential zoning at this location. The overall goals in this section of
Roxborough are to direct mixed-use development along Ridge Avenue. Additionally, the proposed
use does not greatly increase the existing non-conformity of the site nor alter the
essential character of the neighborhood since the existing use that is proposed to be demolished is
a non-conforming commercial use and the adjacent buildings are three-story with multiple dwelling
units accordingly we recommend that the requested variants be granted thank you very much MI 2021-001
725 6830 Ridge Avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
it is now 4 11 we'll come back here at uh 4 25.
this concludes the two o'clock list
is there any unfinished business
on the two o'clock list
no hands chair
okay see everyone back at 425
thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Let's see, Jim, Tom, Sharon.
All right, it's 425. I believe the board members are all here. John Kelly, court reporter, you
available? I am, sir. Okay, just want to make sure you're on. Jim is on. Tom, sir. Okay, Pauline,
we're ready to go. Okay, we are all set, sir. You can go whenever you're ready. You and LaKeisha,
we'll wait to hear from you. You're good to go chair. Thank you very much. Good afternoon 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 board members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Our board administrator Lakeisha Dandy and our board attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in
attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, 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 at issue.
i'll repeat that also to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue and i'd also like to remind everyone
and the address of the property at issue and i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt
please do
to chat testify in the chat any questions and or comments should be directed to miss dandy
our board administrator having said that i will read off a list of 330 list of cases to be
continued number two on our list mi 2020 dash 000214 1825 east pacific street that is the only
request we have as of now for a continuance does anyone object to that case being that case being
continue. No hands, Chair. Thank you. I will now ask if anyone would like to request a
continuance or withdrawal, so please raise your hand. If you're requesting a continuance or
withdrawal, at this time, please raise your hand. No hands, Chair. Thank you. With that, I'll begin
with the first case on our list. MI 2021-001273, 1703 North 29th Street. There's a letter of
support from the 24th Democratic Ward with a proviso. Anyone here for 1703 North 29th Street?
they're coming in now as a panelist you
hello good afternoon uh chair carrie days passed on behalf of the applicant
would you please spell your full name i'll swear you win
Carrie, C-A-R-R-I-E, last name Nase, N-A-S-E, Paust, P-O-U-S-T.
Do you swear, Affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Oh, I have some questions for you.
I'm sorry.
Do you agree to waive and stipulate to the accuracy of this application?
I do with one caveat.
i'd like to uh confirm we did have a revised notice of refusal and just want to make sure that
you have that revised refusal which is for multi-family this is sharon we do have that
revised refusal and should the board approve the um application it will there will be a reference
to it and it provides us thank you okay also stipulating okay uh have you emailed an exhibit
packet with the required documents including proof of ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of
the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and also have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes i did thank you you may proceed
great one moment while i share my screen
Can you now see my screen? Yes. Okay, great. Good afternoon. My name is Carrie Nace-Poust. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Fox Rothschild, address 2700 Kelly Road, Suite 300, Warrington, PA, 18976.
here this afternoon on behalf of the owner and applicant of the property, Spencer Flood,
who is also on the call this afternoon. This property is located at 1703 North 29th Street.
It is, here's an aerial. As you can see, it's located on North 29th Street near the intersection
of Cecil B. Moore. It is located in the RSA 5 zoning district. Mr. Flood purchased this property
back in February 2016, at which time and since that time it has remained vacant and was in fact
vacant for numerous years prior to that. This property was previously used for a check cashing
facility on the first floor, with residential units on the upper two floors, the second and
third floor. In front of you here is a photograph. This is the property in question. It's the
tannish color here. You can see here's the check cashing facility I referenced. This was a
residential and up top was residential as well. Originally, my client was proposing to use this
property for a personal service facility on the first floor with residential on the second and
third, trying to keep with the prior use of the property. We did meet.
trying to keep with the prior use of the property.
We did meet with the RCO on May 24th.
When we reviewed the proposal with them,
they were not supportive of the personal service use
on the first floor.
And in response to that,
my client did have a meeting
with some of the community members
and to discuss other possibilities.
Based on the results of that meeting,
my client did revise the proposal to eliminate the personal service facility on the first floor
and change that to a residential unit. At this time, we are now proposing,
let me just zoom out a little so you can see this.
So what we are proposing is that a one residential unit be proposed on each floor
for a total of three residential units this floor plan here you'll see there would be a kitchen in
the front a living area bathroom and then the bedroom in the in the rear here would just be a
one bedroom apartment we also are proposing to redevelop or renovate the facade of the building
previously we were proposing a different type of material the community group asked that we revise
the facade and keep it brick in keeping with the character of the surrounding area so we are now
proposing to renovate the facade again this is the property hearing in question
we did meet again with the community group once we revised our application we received
an updated refusal for multi-family to allow the three residential units we met again with
the RCO at a public meeting on July 12. Based on that meeting, they were very supportive of the
changes that were being made and did issue a letter of support, which is included in your packet
at exhibit 15. We believe that this use is in keeping with the character of the community
and are here this afternoon to request that the Zoning Board of Adjustment grant a variance to
allow the multifamily use, which is not otherwise permitted in this district. If I may, I would like
to call Mr. Flood. Ms. Faust, I'm sorry, Ms. Paust. The letter from the RCO indicates community
input sanitation plan what could you explain what that is uh with all due respect that was not
something that was discussed during our meeting um so i am not certain in terms of what sanitation
plan i do believe somebody from the rco may be here they indicated that they would attend the
meeting uh so i would certainly welcome an opportunity for them to to answer that question
chairman be able to answer where the trash would be stored for each unit oh i'm sorry you just
want to know where the trash would be stored okay well i figured that was a sanitation plan that's
why i was i assumed so let's see so if you look here let me see i'm just trying to see where it
would be um if mr flood could raise his hand he is mr flood please identify yourself spell your
full name and i'll swear you in uh my name is spencer flood s-p-e-n-s-e-r uh f-l-o-o-d
where from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do okay maybe you can
answer that question that i had for miss paus where the trash will be stored um i believe uh
the trash will be stored i actually haven't thought of that um like initially uh but i
I assume there's going to be a receptacle on the side of the building to the left of the building.
And that's where we are going to have the trash for the three units that will be taken outside on the Friday, on that Friday.
All right. Thank you.
Okay. Ms. Pals?
Great. Thank you.
Mr. Flood, were you here during the presentation I had given to the board?
Yes, I was.
And do you agree with the statements that I made, and to your belief, are they true and accurate?
And would you agree to accept such statements as your own had you provided testimony this afternoon?
I have no further questions or witnesses at this time.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Would anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, we have a call-in user, and then 0486, call-in user, you can now unmute yourself.
Yes, Chair, we have a call end user and then an 048.
Call-in user, would you please identify yourself, spell your full name.
This is Louise Branch, L-O-U-I-S-E, last name B-R-A-N-C-H, as in a tree.
I am the block captain and also the committee person for the 32nd 30.
thank you miss branch you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you ma'am please proceed i just want to say that i am in support of mr flood
coming into our neighborhood with his three apartments as far as his trash is concerned
he and i will discuss that later um to make sure that he's in compliance and i've met with him
and he seems to be a very reasonable young man and I'm looking forward to having him in my
neighborhood and and and able to support what's going on in our neighborhood thank you for your
testimony anyone else to testify in this case no other hand share thank you planning commission
This is Ron Bednar, R-O-N-B-E-D-N-A-R. I'm with the City Planning Commission.
Do you have a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Ron.
So this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan based on the revised application.
We recommend that the request of variance be granted.
Thank you. MI 2021-001-273-1703 North 29th Street,
my vote is yes with the proviso and correct me from wrong the proviso as per amended application
zp 2021-002095 is that accurate it is thank you
yes for proviso yes for proviso thank you gentlemen okay number three on our list
MI 2021-001-318-1805-East Passiunk Avenue.
Or as my neighbors would say, Passiunk Avenue.
And I don't see any hands here.
Anyone here for 1805-East Passiunk Avenue?
no hands chair okay uh mi 2021 that's zero zero one three one eight 1805 east pass yonk avenue
is continued number four yep excuse me this is sharon um we do have a request from rachel pritzker
that she perhaps be called next she has an rco meeting coming up this afternoon
number five case number five mi 2021 that's zero zero one two seven one seven four six
south cleveland street there's a letter from sasna a letter of deferral with provisos
good afternoon chairman members of the board
great so you're still on the oath from earlier today i don't believe i was sworn
Oh, no, I'm sorry. It was Meredith. I apologize.
So please spell your full name and I'll swear you in it.
Yep. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to wait and stipulate to the accuracy of this application?
have you emailed an exhibit packet with required documents including proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes thank you please proceed i apologize i'm a little under the weather so if my voice
goes in and I'll do my best. Okay, so this is 746 South Cleveland. This application, I'm just
going to try to bring it up. Yeah, so this is the property we're talking about similar to a case
that the board approved a few months ago. It's 748 South Cleveland, which is the directly adjacent
building. This is an existing single-family home. We're looking to do a third-story addition with
a mansard roof and a third story, setting it back as a mansard roof instead of the eight-foot
setback. Our refusals that we have are related to the eight-foot setback, as the board can see.
Our refusals that we have are related to the eight-foot setback, as the board can see.
Again, we're trying to provide a mansard roof similar to the adjacent property and the rear
properties on Doran Street as well, and in line with what Sazna has typically been supportive of.
The only other refusal we have is for rear yard depth. We're not changing the rear yard depth.
We've actually modified the plans, which the board should have revised plan forms that our
architect will go into actually pulling back the third story addition to match the directly adjacent
neighbor at 744 South Cleveland which I'll go into in a minute but we're not actually changing
any of the rear yard it's existing so we're just not adding on top of it and making it worse but
had this application just for the board's information had this application been withdrawn
today and reapplied for we would have it would actually be by right for the roof given 748 South
Cleveland was approved however we would still have the rear yard again nothing we can do about
that because it's existing but we do have revised plans um limiting the slope of the pilot house
minimizing the height of it from uh I think it was 33 to now 32 feet in height although 38 feet
is required is permitted um and making some other changes with the um keeping the cornice line and
doing a clear parapet wall, which we'll go through in more detail. Again, this property
is a single family home. These are the revised plans that we have. And as you can see from
the revised plans, the rear addition is going to stop where the directly adjacent neighbor
at 744 is. I just want to bring the board's attention to 744 South Cleveland. This property
is also a two-story single-family home they were actually granted a variance in 2011 to permit for
the erection of a two-story rear addition uh 62 feet sorry six feet two inches by 14 feet nine
inches as part of an existing two-family dwelling so any hardship that that property claims is is uh
is self uh is self-provided as they were able to obtain a variance uh for their uh rear yard so
they're limiting their open space, which I think the requirement was 30% at the time, and they were
approved for 21%. I also want to make it known that that property is actually not owner-occupied.
The owners of the property have been running this property out to tenants since 2004,
so they actually don't live there. But despite all that and despite their rear yard variance that
they were able to obtain. We have revised the plans in order to address concerns that their
attorney had expressed to me regarding light and air. So I just want to make that known.
The other property I think the board will hear about is 714. And as you can see,
this property backs up to 746 and 748. The owner of this and their attorney, I believe,
are on this call as well. This property was consolidated. It used to be two properties.
she not only has this rear yard but she also has a small rear yard here there's no records of the
addition that was put on this house that is taking almost 100% law coverage so once again any concerns
are really self-created and there's plenty of rear yard and open space in addition to the skylight
and things that the board members from the previous case had brought up and that we had talked about
in addition again for 746 which we're here for we're willing to pull back with the revised plans
pull back the addition that we're providing to meet directly the neighbors basically having it
be in the same condition we also reduced the height again we were at I think 33 which is less
than the 38 we're now going to be at 31 and also providing for a slope pilot house to take into
additional considerations as the board may recall from the last hearing this is what is being
proposed directly adjacent as well. So 748 South Cleveland was approved with the same changes
and a proviso to lower the height of it and do the slope pilot house in addition to having the
parapet wall be see-through. So as far as uniformity, this is going to be in line with what's directly
adjacent. And just again, if we're looking at similar in the neighborhood, this is the block
directly behind it. This is Doran Street, which actually is similar in width as far as it being
a small street, as the board can clearly see. And they have mansard roofs next to two-story
single-family homes. They also have straight-up flush, which we're not providing, but we're
trying to kind of keep in mind of the mansard roof. And it's not out of character for this
neighborhood. This is the block behind it. And as you can see, the mansard roof, even
mid-block, even next to adjacent properties, looks a hell of a lot better than this. No
offense to whomever's home this is. I'm going to stop there again. Like I said,
I'm going to stop there again. Like I said, our hardship is really that this is a small lot. It's under 700 square feet, this lot. It also has an existing addition to it in the rear. And there's a mix of properties in the block. There's white homes with different colors. And so I don't think what we're providing is disrespectful of the block.
our hardship is really that this is a small lie.
and again we've tried to make a lot of changes. What we would be able to do by right is the
mansard or even the eight foot setback. We still would be in front of the board today for the
rear yard which again we can't do anything about its existing unless we were to demolish
parts of the home which again directly next to your neighbor has additional lot coverage as well
so it's not unique for these lots with these very small houses and very small lot areas.
I'm going to pause there to have Scott Woodruff share his screen. I just want him on the record
to put the different changes we made that are referenced in the Proviso plan form.
Is that one page, Rachel? Yes, I believe it's one page.
Yeah, one page. Mr. Woodruff, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
uh scott woodruff uh 4001 main street suite 203 philadelphia pa 19127 last name please
uh w-o-o-d-r-u-f-f we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr pritchett thanks scott are you able to share your screen or do you want me to
no i got it okay great i just want you to specifically go through where we were and
And then just highlight the changes that we made and, you know, speak to the lesser impact
that these would have given the changes that we made as compared to the right.
Absolutely.
So as you can see, this gray box here is kind of the existing footprint of the structure.
Currently this is a one story portion.
we're proposing a second story here and we had originally proposed the third story to go back
to this level as well in kind of some of the concerns plate and air we've pulled the third
story back an additional five foot five roughly completely from the second story so that we're
essentially in line with i mean roughly this is kind of a guesstimation on where this house is
the two-story facade of the neighboring, again, in hopes to try and provide as much light and air
back here as possible. And then we also sloped the pilothouse roof down dramatically, basically
down to the parapet height on that third floor to, again, kind of provide more light and air.
This also reduces the roof deck area because the pilothouse was originally in the rear here
on this side if we can look at the side elevation you can kind of clearly see the amount that we
cut back here so again here's that one story addition we're providing the second story here
and then we cut all this out we originally had the pilot house kind of in the rear which we
pushed up and then we sloped the roof back additionally again so kind of providing a lot
more area again for sunlight air uh to get back over there um as well as reducing the height
overall by a little more than a foot again kind of matching uh the neighboring at 748 south
cleveland we decreased the height on that one um and then pulled back the parapet in the front
uh and then produced a uh opaque uh railing uh that'll kind of be a little more generous for
shadows to get through. This is Sharon. Can I ask one question? It appears that the revised plans
incorporate all of the provisors requested by the RCO. Is that correct? Yes. Correct.
The last thing I just want to mention. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Scott. Sorry. I was just going to walk
through the plans quickly. Again, this is the existing second floor here. Again, this kind of
goes back already. We're providing room for the washer dryer in the bathroom, which is what that
small little addition is on the second floor. And then on the third floor, we cut this all back.
And really, it was difficult to do with the stairs, which we were able to reconfigure to
our best ability here and kind of slope all this back. So this just gets a lot tighter.
But again, was able to comply with the codes here to get this pilothouse to come up.
So again, cutting off this roughly 5'6", 5'5", from the third floor.
So, essentially, the rear yard is going to be the same as far as its coverage.
So essentially the rear yard is going to be the same.
Yeah, exactly.
This is the first floor, which this is the kitchen in the rear.
That's most of these little one-story portions that go back are.
Again, the existing rear yard is roughly three feet, I believe.
It's two.
Two, 11 and a half.
Yeah, so there's three feet here.
uh by code i believe uh seven feet is the minimum for again this lot's 44 uh feet in depth which is
very shallow um so it's under that 45 so you get relief as is but again these are these are small
tight lots thanks scott the last thing i just wanted to uh go over was the sasna's letter
just so the board can see the count if you add up support it's actually 31 and if you add up
opposition it's 27 um so actually there were more people that were in support than not in support
um i do know they have uh taken a position of deferral to the zoning board of adjustment but
i just wanted to emphasize that if you add up the support and opposition it's actually 31 to 27 in
support of the project thank you okay any questions from the board no i'm sorry do you need your
client to adopt your testimony? Yes, please. Thank you, Chairman. Greg Katz. Yvette, do you see a
Greg Katz? Mr. Katz, you can unmute yourself. Thank you, Lakeisha. I appreciate that. Katz,
please spell your full name and I'll swear you in. Gregory Katz, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y-K-A-T-Z.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you,
ms pritzker thanks greg have you heard my testimony today in front of the board yes
do you adopt it as your own and do you believe that it is correct and accurate to the best of
your knowledge i do and yes thank you you any questions from the board no no
what else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand yes we have roger perry
hurry please spell your full name and i'll swear i'm sorry no worry yes please spell your full
name and i'll swear you in thank you roger perry r-o-g-e-r-p-e-r-r-y i'm attorney representing the
owners of 744 south cleveland street thank you you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you sir please proceed i would like to share my uh package that
sent to the board can I do that? Please do. I'm looking for a shared
He's coming in now as a panelist.
Okay there should be. Could you enlarge that a little bit Mr. Parry? I'm sorry?
If you enlarge that document, it's a little hard to read.
Okay. Can we all see that?
That's better. Yes.
Okay. Thank you. I'll enlarge it if we need to.
I have three procedural issues before.
I just wanted to notify the board that on the provisal letter that Ms. Pritzker has provided,
it says that they're moving the third story away from the rear lot line by five feet four and three
quarters inches. That's, I think that's just a misstatement. They're actually moving it an
additional five feet four and three quarters inches according to her architect. So that should
be modified just to say that the total is approximately eight feet. It isn't dimensioned
on one of the drawings, it is dimensioned
on the first drawing that he showed.
So just on that proviso letter,
it should note that the total is an additional five feet,
four and three quarters inches.
That being said, we submitted a series
of two procedural issues to start.
The first is that in the public notice
that was sent out to everybody within 250 square feet,
we've noticed, Ms. Pritzker, that there is no reference as to what the refusal was for this
property, nor was a refusal attached. That's not correct. Well, I'm looking at it now,
and you can certainly direct where it is. It says here that anybody who has a question can find the
documentation at 1515 Art Street. Right, it was sent with the refusal as all of ours are sent.
I can we submitted the proof of mailing and those it always that's the form letter that the city requires us to send as well for any additional documents.
This is not the form letter this it says in the form letter, which I have right here.
this is not the form letter this it says in the form letter which i have right here
it says that a summary of the refusal with an attachment shall be included in the notice
yep as the board is not here and there's no i didn't see any well it wasn't to you so maybe
your client has it it was sent to everyone who lives within 250 feet of the property you weren't
well that was an issue the second notice issue was i understand that this is the posting of
the property now you know miss pritzker is an attorney and normally i still post them in large
11 by 17 orange posters this apparently is a small printed version out which looks like a
building permit and here it is it's on the upper window i guess about eight feet which again is a
violation of the ordinance which requires that the posting for notices be at eye level and large
enough to read from the sidewalk this particular posting was way out of line with the regulations
those are my procedural questions greg the board can hear you so be careful what you're saying
so uh that being said the substance of our issue is uh that any this lot is primarily this block
as indicated by the one photograph that was shown by the applicant is almost exclusively two-story
row houses. That's a mischaracterization of what's going on. I will be glad to finish,
Ms. Pritzker, and then you can ask me questions. Mr. Perry, everybody calm down for a moment,
please. Mr. Perry, you made a statement and she's entitled to object. She objects and
And I think the pictures that she showed make it clear that there are buildings on the 700 block of South Cleveland that are taller than two stories.
I think that's what she was trying to point out.
Please proceed.
Harry, you're muted.
The vast majority of this block are two-story roadhouses.
That being said, what the plan examiner said in the initial refusal was that they are building an
addition, three-story addition, on top of an existing non-conforming addition. I'm sorry?
I'm going to object again. It's not a three-story addition. It's addition to the third story.
I just don't want, technically, I don't want it to be stated incorrectly. We're not doing a three-story
addition. I looked at the plans. There's an addition going on the second story, correct?
It's a addition. It's a two-story addition. Well, it's actually one-story addition. It's
existing two-family house. So we actually pulled away the addition on the ground floor like I sent
you earlier this week on the revised plan. So the refusal wouldn't have been updated to include
that, but I sent you the revised plans and the proviso plan form showing that we're removing
the addition on the first floor you're making an addition on top of the first floor is that correct
no i just looked at what your architect said he says they're building
to match this property line no what we're doing and what i sent you is that we're building we
removed that and pulled that back the additional five feet three-fourths of an inch so that we're
building on top of the second story maybe it'd be helpful we can show that again sure scott are you
be able to pull that up. And Mr. Perry, I emailed all of this to you earlier in the week when we
spoke. I didn't get any of your submission other than the revised plan. Right, which is what we're
talking about. I'm happy to share my screen again. Please show whatever it is that Mr. Perry's
objective to. Mr. Perry, can you unshare your screen? Okay. That may be tricky because they
have to let me do that. If you had stop share at the bottom. Stop sharing, it's at the top. Thank you.
So these get quite tricky sometimes when we have multiple editions on top of editions on top of
editions. So just to be clear, so it gets quite confusing quite fast. We were originally proposing
a third-story addition on a two-story structure for this portion of the house, and then a two-story
addition to a one-story on this portion of the house, and a one-story addition to a two-story
on this portion of the house. So it gets confusing because the original was multiple levels.
Originally, this is the remaining one-story addition at the very rear. There is an existing
two-story additional story here and then this again was not in question so what we
And then this, again, was not in question.
So what we are adding is an additional story to an existing two-story structure at the front.
And then we are adding an additional one-story to an existing one-story at the rear.
So, Mr. Woodruff, Ms. Pritzker is incorrect when she says that you're building nothing on top of the existing one-story addition.
Because, in fact, you are building a partial addition.
Is that correct?
yeah i think again we're just getting all confused we're proposing an additional story
on the existing uh structure that's built so one story on the existing one story in the back and
one story on the existing two story that's in the front yeah i was objecting to the characterization
of it being a three-story edition yeah i think that's where we were getting
okay so that addition is going to in part face 744 south cleveland street is that correct
uh it's facing the the street well i'm not sure what you're asking me this portion here
isn't it going to be attached scott to the existing
one-story addition that's there the addition of providing correct yeah this this portion here
will be on the existing one-story portion of the building it'll go up against the slot line correct
okay and would that second story addition because i won't call it a third story
third story is back here is that going to impact any sun air or light at 744 south cleveland street
uh any addition uh that you would add to the house uh would impact those things
so the degree uh is variable depending on the time of the year
okay have you worked with uh the owner of the property mr katz absolutely yes and do you know
what the hardship is to require this addition on 746 South Cleveland Street. So maybe Scott you
want to explain what that we can do by right which is a 38 foot in height addition and the
hardship is that we have a short lot and also it's an existing structure as you probably know.
You also have on your lot I don't know if you had heard me say this but your clients also got
and a variance to add additional square footage in the back way past what is allowed on their
lot. So that's contributing to it as well. And hence why we're trying to pull it back
to at least match where theirs is so that we can try to make the impacts less. But you have a
variance for your property as well. So we're trying to also deal with that existing condition.
And we would have to demolish part of the kitchen of this existing home in order to meet the rear
yard space that's required it would be uh probably five foot of the existing home if not more than
that would have to be demolished and if your property was uh didn't get a variance granted
for an additional six feet two inches and 14 feet nine inches my objection is that it's irrelevant
what legal variance we have not irrelevant file has not been supplied to the board and miss
pritzker doesn't know what was there before and replaced well i can do you know what do we do
know was it was a variance it was extended the building. Yeah and it's in your hearing package
chairman. Yeah there was a replacement of a construction at the rear of 744. That being said
the issue here is we're not asking them to demolish the rear first floor addition. We're
asking that there is we're arguing that there is no hardship to build up three stories in a
primarily two-story neighborhood and you know not have the eight foot set back and still add on
at on top of the non-conforming use in the rear. We understand they're pulling that back but in
the paperwork that Ms. Pritzker provided to me it says that it's five feet four and three quarter
inches from the rear lot line when in fact it should be approximately eight feet from the rear
property line. We can we have the revised plans that we submitted our architect did that work
so we have that and we sent that to the board and i sent that to you as well the one plan i have
it's not this one it's not dimension if you go to the other plan that's not dimension we'll show you
what the issue was that has to be stamped and approved which clearly shows the dimensions
could you go to the other plan this is the the actual zoning sheet which will be approved the
other planes are for reference only okay so that's reference this is the one that you're going to
stamp. Yes. Okay. No problem. Thank you. The other plan that I got was not to mention. That's all.
Okay. Okay. Okay. And then, you know, I, you know, indicate that.
Okay. And then, you know, I, you know, indicate that in our package, I guess, if I can share my package again.
Okay, so going through my documents here, this is the current site looking towards 746 from the
porch at 744. It's this, this is the actual first floor that they're going to build on top of
attached to this to close off this area here. Now they are going to, they say they're going
to set this back further. This was the non-conforming use. We're not asking him to
remove the non-conforming use. We're asking him not to build on here, which is going to enclose
this, well, this porch. So you'll see that there are five letters and emails. This is the Sausner
a notice of deferring decision. But in addition, we've submitted five other letters, which were
submitted independently to the board, I believe, but I've copied them here with an email and letters
objecting to the proposal to build on to 746. We've indicated that we've contacted both SOSNA,
obviously city planning. This is a partial shadow study showing that they're going to increase the
shadow they've now moved this back so i don't want to represent that that's necessarily exactly
accurate um yeah i mean i don't you i don't want to be i'm getting a little confused that you're
saying go back to that you said this is not what they're proposing they've just submitted today a
new proposal right right so i couldn't change this okay all right i submitted to you on monday
actually last week the only thing i'll add to is some of the letters that mr perry submitted a lot
of them are if you if the board was to read them the concerns are a little bit outside of just this
project in general and they're also from individuals who have additional lot coverage
and additions to their homes as well we also have a letter letters of support that we submitted
probably 10 of them in the hearing packet in additional like i said at the community meeting
you have 31 in favor and 27 in opposition so um any of these individuals could have spoken up
at the community meeting and again made so let's mr purry i don't let's mr purry finish and then
he's muted i assumed he was finished that's why i began again hurry you're muted
Okay, I'm unmuted. I just note that the immediate neighbors were more against it than in favor of it, as represented by the SOSTA meeting and the letters that have been submitted to the board.
I also feel that it was, you know, a problem in terms of I don't see any notice of refusal, and I don't see an appropriate posting to the immediate neighbors as to what was going on here.
I feel the problem with the notice and the posting, in addition to the fact that I don't feel that there's a actual hardship to Mr. Katz as the owner and property and applicant, should argue that the board should not grant the variance in this case.
They already have this first floor, and now they want to essentially, you know, add on here, closing off this view and so forth.
Noting also that this is Fitzwater Street. They're going to be building, you know, looking right into Fitzwater Street.
And I would just submit those exhibits and argue that the board should, in this particular instance, turn down the applicant. Thank you.
just as it relates to the notification as you know mr perry uh the city's not issuing any uh
orange or yellow uh postings everything's being done with white posters since the covid uh since
we've been dealing with covid i i will admit it may be a little bit high it looks a little bit
high up there from where a bit high and a little bit small mr chico i guess if they made it larger
then the bars on the windows would have obstructed it.
I think that's why they may have done it that way.
Yeah, I don't want to speak for them, yeah.
I can't speak for them either, but it looks that way to me.
As an attorney, I post in orange,
and all they have to do is run off an orange poster.
And all they have to do is run off an orange poster.
Yeah, I understand, but the city...
Yeah, I understand.
But the city, some attorneys do and some don't.
But it's clear.
I know these neighborhoods like I know the back of my hand.
Once any color goes up, I notice the entire neighborhood in a very short amount of period of time, know what's going on.
All right.
Anything else, Mr. Perry?
No, that's our argument.
and we submit the exhibits as part of the record please uh rachel we've you concluded
i'm gonna reserve any rebuttal for uh i know there's a couple other people that want to speak
so i'll reserve my rebuttal to the end first things first any questions from the board uh yes
mr chairman some clarity the rco vote was 31 4 and 27 against yes uh i had bring that
brought that up on my screen that's why they punted it to us
one more question what's still hardship for the uh addition we don't have a refusal for the addition
mr holliman we have a refusal for the setback over the eight foot and for the rear yard which
we can't do seven feet given the first floor existing home that's already there would have
to be demolished to meet that requirement so even if we were to do the eight foot setback we'd still
be here for the uh rear yard because it's an existing non-conforming use and anytime you add
on to it you trigger it like it was never there so that's the hardship we'd have to demolish an
existing home that's been there for a couple hundred years or not build the addition the
addition's not we don't have a refusal for the addition okay thank you only have it for the rear
yard correct okay uh any other questions from the board no sir uh questions uh anyone else
like to testify in this case please raise your hand state your full name spell it and i'll swear
you in yes we have nicole nicole you're gonna meet yourself hi everyone this is nicole kodiker
Okay, good. Kodeiker, K-O-E as in Edward, D as in David, Y-K-E-R. I'm the Executive Director of South of South Neighborhood Association.
Do you swear to affirm the total truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
First, I want to clarify that the vote tally that Rachel mentioned and the board member just asked about is incorrect.
The near neighbor count on the bottom is a subset of the community at large, so the total
of 30 would be doubly counting people.
Our zoning committee's vote was tied 3-3, the community at large's vote was in support,
and near neighbors voted in opposition.
This application appeared before the community at the May 19, 2021 meeting of the SASNA zoning
committee.
Recurring concerns about this project including, but we're not limited to, the impact of this larger project on neighbors' light and air,
a desire to maintain historic aesthetic of the block, and concerns about the impact of construction on the sale of their homes.
Discussion amongst all parties led us to request the three provisos mentioned in our letter.
Sazna has taken a position of deferral due to a split vote amongst the community, near neighbors, and zoning committee.
we request that the provisos be incorporated into the project plans approved by the zoning board
we defer this decision to the community and the board and ask that you listen to
your neighbor input on the project thank you thank you anyone else to testify please raise
your hand clarify if nicole we're doing the math that nicole said still 18 plus 3 is 21 and 12 plus
three uh is 15 so it's still more in favor than opposition number still yeah yep anyone else to
testify please raise your hand yes chair we have a paul toner toner yes thank you very much mr
tachico please identify yourself and i'll swear you in yes paul toner with orphanese and toner
Address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia PA 19102.
I'm counsel for the protestant near neighbor, Darda Smith, who resides at 1814 Fitzworth Street.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Is your client's home facing the rear of 746 South Cleveland?
That is correct, Your Honor.
Thank you.
please proceed if the applicant could show their amended plan sheet zero or z001
um i would mr perry would have to log off
um i would mr perry would have to log off for scott to be able to show the plans
scott rachel can you rachel can you actually show it if you don't mind
sure give me just the zoning sheet yep give me one second
So if you could please zoom in to the zoning information chart in the upper right-hand
corner.
So the issue of what refusals were issued in this case and what was appropriately missed
in this case is certainly at issue.
No refusal was issued by LNI.
I'm going to object. This is a zoning board of adjustment hearing, not an LIRB hearing. And so
if you wanted to have any issues with the refusal, this is not the proper venue for that.
Whenever there's a variance at stake, the Commonwealth court has been crystal clear
that all non-compliance issues with the Philadelphia zoning code are at play. And so
It's in a court of common pleas hearing either, Mr. Toner. This is a zoning board of adjustment.
It's certainly bound by the binding Commonwealth court decisions.
not correct that is correctness and i would love to hear a case that was sorry i i'm not an attorney
so i'm going to yield to sharon do you have any comment any opinion mr letta yeah was there an
appeal made to lirb i'm sorry um mr tanner are you objecting to are you saying that there is an error
in the notice of refusal there is an error in those are futile refusal and there is a instance
of non-compliance with the Philadelphia zoning code that would make the zoning on the refusal?
The court has held that the zoning board can hear challenges by third parties to the accuracy of
the refusal in the course of the zoning hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon.
So going back to the zoning information block that was provided by the applicant,
it notes that there are two variances required. And one of the two variances that the applicant
is required for this case is minimum rear yard death nine feet and they're proposing two feet
11 inches so the applicant themselves and their own application materials is conceding that there
is another refusal that was not issued here and if i direct them we have a refusal for seven feet
the lot is shorter than 45 feet in width and so that's seven feet which we've already stated we
can't comply with miss persker i'm just reading from your own zoning block and i'm sorry if your
zoning block has multi wires. If I could just read from the zoning code and the provision
that was missed. This is section 14305.4 or 14305.16 where a rear wall does not meet a rear yard
minimum death requirement. A vertical extension of that wall is an increase of that specific
non-conforming and is not permitted. So we're dealing here with a vertical extension of a
non-conforming structure. And my client also takes issue with whether this is a legal non-conforming
addition to the property. In accordance with 143054, it is the applicant's burden to show
that the non-conforming structure had at one point been recognized as a legal structure by
City of Philadelphia prior to enact the zoning code. There is no documentation that has been
provided by the applicant on when the addition at 746 came into existence, the means and terms
by which it came into existence, or whether it's ever been recognized as a legal structure by the
City of Philadelphia. And we represent that it is simply not and the applicant has not met their
burden. In terms of the setback, if I could ask that the applicant's zoning plan Z001
focus in on the proposed addition. Could we zoom in some more please?
A little more.
so their plans note two important things here one it identifies with two dashed lines
existing second story rear wall to be demolished line of existing second story and then further
back into the rear yard the plan notes line a new third story so clearly they are both
impertinously extending vertically a non-conforming structure, but they're also
but they're also increasing the amount of non-conformity by extending the wall further
increasing the amount of non-conformity by extending...
into the rear yard setback. So that is another separate reason that a refusal should have been
issued and that the applicant has not met their burden for a variance here. And as Mr. Perry
eloquently stated, there is no hardship here. Can we pull up the refusal and look at the actual
issued refusals from L&I, please?
You have it on the screen, Scott.
Yeah, because I believe we have two refusals, one for the rear yard, as you're saying,
Mr. Toner, and one for the eight-foot setback.
I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say.
Oh, well, Ms. Pritzker had represented that there was no refusal issue for the rear yard,
so I was addressing that.
No, that's, Mr. Toner, you're mischaracterizing that.
I believe, I believe she was stating that there's no coverage issue on the lot.
There is a rear yard variance that we were requesting.
As far as lot coverage, there is none.
Correct.
What I was alluding to was to answer Mr. Holloman's comment about the addition, and
had said that we're not here because the addition for a lot coverage reasons we're here because of
the rear yard depth which has nothing to do with the addition that was the clarification i had
already went through the refusals at the beginning of my testimony and actually put them on the screen
so that the board could directly see what refusals we were talking about which included the rear yard
depth well we could all agree now that a refusal has been or should have been issued for further
encroachment through rear yard death. Yeah it's it's well it's it's clearly here there's two
refusals one for rear yard death and one for the front setback. Otherwise the transcripts
can speak for itself so we can just move forward. If I could share my screen Mr. Chairman.
The record reflect I have shown on Zoom what was marked as Exhibit 4, DERTA Exhibit 4,
which is provided to the Board in advance of today's hearing.
Where my cursor is right now is the separation between my client's property at 1814 Fitzwater
and the proposed extension at 746 Cleveland Street.
The separation distance, as my client can testify to today, is approximately five feet.
And as Mr. Woodruff testified or alluded to earlier, that there was a generous provision for shadows
and that there's going to be a degree of variability in terms of shadows and setback.
What I would like to point out that is, Mr. Woodruff was at the zoning hearing for 748, so was Ms. Pritzker.
They certainly received our exhibits beforehand today, and they knew that the issue of the impact on light and air at 1814 Fitzwater was going to be central to my client's concerns.
Mr. Woodruff has referenced shadows, but what's omitted in their packet is a shadow study.
When you are constructing a two-story addition within a mere five feet, not from my client's
property line, but from my client's kitchen and my client's sitting room and my client's outdoor
deck space, the issue of the shadows is paramount and obvious, and it can't be avoided,
but was avoided by this applicant. We have no record testimony or no record evidence
on the shadows and how they can be alleviated, addressed, ameliorated. They can't be.
This extension of the rear of 746 will undeniably, unavoidably cast not just shadows of my client's property, but it's going to be a development of a structure within so close proximity to my client's living space that it stands in direct conflict with the simple purpose of the rear yard setback that all property owners enjoy in Philadelphia.
which is you shouldn't have two structures built one on top of each other and that's exactly what's
being proposed here without any explanation any basis for a hardship and I know that this is a
property Mr. Katz purchased back in July of 2019 two years ago for
Back in July of 2019, two years ago, for $440,000, it was a single-family, two-story home that had a very significant market price in 2019.
It's continued to be used as a single-family home in a viable manner.
They simply provided no evidence whatsoever on how they suffered any hardship.
They have a very valuable property that's not casting significant shadows on my client's property right now.
They're asking for a variance that will only increase the value of their property all at the cost of the use and enjoyment of my client's property.
That's not a basis for a variance.
They've provided no legal authority to give them a right to a variance.
In this circumstance, it's respectfully submitted that none exist.
um i'd like to revise mr toner's comments if you could leave up his exhibit on the screen
it does a great job of showing the addition to the property uh 714 sorry 1812 and 1814 were
consolidated by mr toner's client she has a significant rear yard in the back and an addition
that I didn't find any documentation for in the zoning archives that extends and does not provide
eight-foot setback. Mr. Toner, if you could leave up the aerial of your client's property on the
screen, that would be appreciated, or I can share my screen. I have it as well.
Yeah, thank you. So as the board can see, her addition stretches way back into the rear of the
property. Her lot is actually over 3,200 square feet, according to the city's records. She also
has two backyards because she consolidated two properties. So there's ample open space, light
and air. And these properties actually have a hardship. They're under 700 square feet.
They don't have the ability to go up a crazy amount. Again, if we were going to do this by
right, we'd be at 38 feet, which would be more intrusive to Mr. Toner's client. We're actually
going to be at 32 feet and again with a mansard roof slope pilot house and pulling back the rear
addition specifically on 746 also if you will get 744 south cleveland which i mentioned which is
directly also directly adjacent they were approved of variance to extend even further back which the
board granted in 2011 so i can't i wouldn't agree that ours is going to exponentially uh impede her
light and air it's something that's self-caused by putting an addition that takes up 100% lock
coverage, almost 100% lot coverage, and she has two lots with two backyards and almost a 3,200
square foot property. So in addition, I don't know if you saw the changes we made in order to make
it as minimally impactful as possible. And we did explain what the hardship was, is that we'd have
to demo part of the existing building in order to meet the seven foot rear yard, and that most of
these properties don't have even a five foot rear yard. So we are in line with everything else in
the block and is the minimum variance as opposed to your client's property who again is almost
four times the size of ours if not larger and has a addition that I haven't seen any permits for
either that takes up almost 100% law coverage. Would someone go back to there was a photograph
of the rear yard of 746 and it also shows to the right of that I don't know if it's Mr. Toner's
client or not a building that had white siding a vinyl siding on it could we go back to that
that was in mr perry's exhibit package chairman mr perry could quickly go to that i just had a
question i think it's in the same line of and mr chairman i would like to address the the permitting
status of 1814 as well as a misrepresentation that this is an addition that my clients well i
again i'd like to see that photograph because it looks to me as though there is no rear yard but
i just want to make certain that because the addition is in the way
or the extension of the property however you like to classify it
that's your client's address again mr toner 1814 fitzwater this is one of the original
structures in the neighborhood goes straight back does it not and there's no yard on that property
1814 goes straight back that's correct straight back no yard correct the yard was created when
your client purchased the other properties adjacent she always owned 1812 and she
consolidated them these properties have always been owned together so she's already had two rear yards
Mr. Chairman, in our exhibit packet, Exhibit 12b, this is a zoning permit.
This is a zoning permit. When they consolidated the lots back in 2014, there was no addition to the property. This was simply a consolidation of lot lines.
when they consolidated the last fact
There was no refusal issued. My client didn't need or secure or request a variance. It was not needed. It was simply to consolidate.
the point i'm trying to make is your client at 1814 that had no has no rear yard
a lot of the yard space was created when she bought the adjacent property no that's not
correct no did she go correct me now yeah no there is a rear yard behind 1814.
and my clients here can testify that you had just said it went straight back that's why we're
yeah that's why that's all right that's apparently you're having problems I also want to just rebut
Mr. Toner's comment that his client didn't obtain a variance this property on 1814 Fitzwater has
obtained many use variances over the years if you we submitted all of the zoning archives in our
packet and the chairman and board can look it up online she's obtained various use variances
over the years and when you do a lot line relocation they simply look that you're meeting
the correct dimensional considerations and they don't look at any of the use permits as far as
variances that you've obtained or any of the building considerations as Mr. Toner knows as
I'm sure he's done a lot of consolidations. Ms. Pritzker I just have a question your client
could have gone to 38 feet as a buy right correct? Correct. Is there any reason why he chose
your clients chose not to do that as opposed to what they're presenting today uh yeah they could
avoid a lot of headaches i guess if they went to 38 feet uh because uh we would still be here for
rear yard depth and for the timing of it we were thought that submitting them together would be
easier for the neighborhood to look at them both together and the reason we're not at 38 feet is
because we wanted to be considerate of the concerns of the community and the scale of the block
anyone else to testify in this case Mr. Chico I had a few more items I'd like to address
please do I'd like to call Mr. Smith to testify
my name is Gerda Smith I reside at 1814 Fifth Quarter Street I have lived there since 1971
in this building.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
I've lived this since 1971
when my father-in-law died
who had purchased these properties
in 1944,
had a business there
which extended and took part
of what is now the backyard.
The building itself
is does not have a first floor living area. The only place I live is on the second floor
and on the in the front of the third floor. Ms. Smith. Yeah. An issue of notice was raised by Mr.
Perry in his examination. Did you receive a copy of the notice of either the SOSTA meeting or the
a new meeting from the Appalachian? She was at the meeting. I received one notice with regard to 748.
In regards to 746, did you receive a notice? No. They were heard on the same day. Nicole can speak
to that. 746 and 748 were held at the same meeting and Ms. Smith was at that meeting.
Ms. Smith, did you attend that meeting where they discussed 746 South Cleveland? No, I attended a
meeting where 748 was discussed. They were held at the same time. According to the attorney for
the applicant, they were both being, they were held at the same time. Well, that may be an arrow
on my part. If we could go back to the applicant's notice, were they both noticed as being held on
the same time? We sent out two letters, but yeah, they were at the same time. It was something that
Sazna had agreed to, given they were identical proposals. So in order to not have the community
come out twice and that's why also we were sent proviso plan forms from sasna at the same time
because they were asking the same thing for both properties that we were fine agreeing to
okay mr toner i'd like to show the board what we've marked as exhibit 11.
Ms. Smith, can you please identify what's the mark as Exhibit 11?
This is the rear of 746 and 748 Cleveland Street in a photo taken from my third floor bathroom.
Cleveland street in a photo taken from my third floor bathroom. Did you take this photo? I took
this photo. And how close is the existing first story edition at 746 to your building itself?
Just over two feet. And what are your concerns about the impact of this proposed development
on your use and enjoyment of 1814 Fitzroy Street?
Well, that's where I live.
That's where my windows are.
That's where my sun comes in.
That's where the air flows through.
All of this will be taken away, highly diminished,
and I will be living in a shadow place with constantly lights,
turning on lights in order to see.
I have a question.
how did do you live directly behind 746 yeah my how do you get the angle the way you are it looks
like it would be on a property next to you i'm on the third floor i don't understand that but it's
it looks as though you would be one property to the left of 746 as it appears in this well you
see 744 you see a little bit of 744 and then 746. So Mr. DeChica this is 746 right here
if she's standing on the third floor here that's the perspective you're getting. Well so on an
angle so it's not directly. Correct. Well her property is right here and it's directly. Yeah
but it extends. This is her living space this is her kitchen right here. I understand I'm just
curious how she got that angle if it was directly uh she was directly facing 746.
so part of part of what where she lives faces yeah she's directly she's perpendicular to okay
all right thank you
miss smith would you be uh would how would you feel about uh 746 being developed at
to 38 feet in height. Oh, I'd be very upset. Thank you.
Were you ever shown any studies from the applicant on how this proposal would impact
air and light? Nope, none.
Did you receive the revised plans and did you respond to my email or ask me for any
additional information regarding the revised plans that we sent or any conversations we
with your client regarding those?
Ms. Pritzker, I actually emailed you last Friday
and requested not just your revised plans,
but all exhibits and plans that you intended to rely upon
and support this application.
You only sent me the revised plans.
You didn't send me any other documents
as I had specifically requested,
even though I had provided each and every one exhibits
we intended to rely upon.
I'm asking you if you saw the revised plans,
if they were provided to your client,
and if there was anything based on those revised plans. That's what I'm asking.
I'm sorry I didn't hear that. Mr. Toner, I didn't hear your response.
If that's even a question, I answered her that I received her plans and she asked if I asked for
other documents and I told her that I hadn't. I asked if you had shown them to your client and
if you had asked me any questions regarding the revised plans is what I asked you, and then you
started speaking about the hearing package. Well, now you're just adding more content to what you're
asking. Okay. With all due respect, I believe the adjacent extra neighbor, which was Leslie
Pritzker, is on as well and has her hand raised. She lives at 748 South Cleveland. I have no further
questions. Thank you. Before we go any further, Leticia, do we have a lot? How many hands are up
this case it was one i think just one just one yes okay thank you okay so we'll recognize the uh
the other witness
miss prisker you can um unmute yourself yes can you hear me yes yes
spell you spell your full name leslie pritzker l-e-s-l-i-e-p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
where from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i don't are you related to uh rachel yeah she's my sister-in-law
well i remember i had a case on the street before you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed aside from being my sister-in-law which
is not relevant at the moment she is the owner of uh one of the owners of 748 south cleveland
which is directly adjacent to 746 south cleveland which we're here to and i just wanted her to be
able to put her sentiments about the project on the record as i wasn't inferring anything it was
Yeah, I just wanted to say I'm the owner.
yeah i just wanted to say i'm i'm the owner the next door neighbor of 746 i'm 748 south cleveland
and uh i support this project and i also wanted to note that um the neighborhood there's a couple
other houses doing the same thing and uh i've already put in my request to do that as well so
i just wanted to say that's um i'm in support of that thank you thanks leslie any other witnesses
no more hands here thank you planning commission
this is uh ron bednar city planning
property is indicated for single family residential use on the city plan based on the revised plans
we recommended the request of variance program i think i did ask the board i'll just re-ask it
again. Was there any questions from the board? No. Okay. No. Thank you. MI 2021-001-271-746
South Cleveland Street. My vote is yes with the proviso revised plan. Is it one page? Yes. One
page approved today. Thank you. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Thank you. Go back to case
number four mi 2021 that's 001 266 4542 green street i apologize for the delay miss pritzker
had another occasion excuse me chair i'm sorry to do this but we actually have another request
and i apologize to mr anastasio but sean whalen also has an rco meeting that he has to get to
is there any chance you could go from cleveland street to let me ask you let me ask you if mr
anastasio has any zoning meetings to go to you know sorry verne um it is not expected to be
lengthy the next this hearing all right thank you so we'll go to number six mi 2021-001322
to 813 North Broad Street.
He's coming in now as a panelist.
Good evening, Chairman.
It's Sean Whelan here.
Whelan, please identify yourself,
spell your name and I'll square you in.
Sean, S-E-A-N, Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
And do you agree to waive and stipulate to the accuracy of this application?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, and photos of the property and
or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and
do you have a letter yes we have to all thank you sir please proceed and if you can summarize it
would be helpful there is a letter of support from the 14th ward democrat executive committee
yes uh thank you very much chairman i appreciate your indulgence and thank you mr anastasio i
promise to be very quick. I will share my screen. This is a matter for 813 North Front Street,
or sorry, North Broad Street. That map didn't come out very well, but here's kind of just an
indicator of what it is. It was a former gas station right at the corner of Parrish Street
and North Broad Street. The underground storage tanks have already been removed, and the application
is to demolish this and to erect a four-story building with 63 units and 13 parking spaces.
In just trying to skip ahead, there are no refusals or variances
for this project. This is only a single issue special exception. Under the code,
because this is a CMX4 property, we are required to show that a surface parking lot and new
accessory parking is not more detrimental than would otherwise be expected. Here you can see
this is the special exception just you can see it we have one. This is the zoning plan. Basically
right now you've got hundreds of feet of curb cut essentially the entire length of both streets
because it was a gas station. All of those curbs will be re-established and there will be one curb
cut 20 feet wide off of Parrish Street. Cars will enter here.
20 feet wide off of Parrish Street. Cars will enter here and I can zoom in on this so you can
see better. The parking spaces are here and then there's one open area courtyard with five parking
spaces there. None of the parking in the courtyard will be visible. Here's an example of a rendering
along broad street um there will be a fence and a wall blocking along with landscaping blocking any
of the cars in the opening here's an uh all right sorry just uh blocked your view of
the project this is a view of the parking garage it is you know just that one gate the cars will
go in and out of there and will not be visible in any way shape or form so we believe that there is
no detriment again this is just a zoomed in view no detriment to the
neighborhood that would be caused by accessory parking on the first floor or that open air
parking whatsoever. And with that, I can conclude and just ask if you could call
Ms. Agata Reister. Oh, I do apologize. We have a letter from the 14th Ward RCO,
And I believe Ms. Diane Davis is on the line. We accept their provisos. They're not actually zoning provisos, but we accept and were approved by CDR with these two uses that any brick we use will be read and all trash will be stored in the interior of the building and not visible to any passers-by.
We also have a community benefits agreement executed with the RCO and have enjoyed working
with them very much and look forward to continuing to do so. So if you could call Ms. Agata Reister.
He's available for you, Chair. Thank you. Please identify yourself,
Ma'am, spell your full name, and I will square you in.
Agatha Reister, A-G-A-T-A-R-E-I-S-T-E-R, and I am with Landmark Architectural Design.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
Ms. Reister, you're familiar with the project as being the expert architect and the project architect for this matter, correct?
That is correct.
And did you hear all of the testimony that I presented already?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own?
And finally, would you, in your opinion, do we meet all the criteria necessary for a special exception that there is no additional burden here from this parking greater than what would be normally expected?
Yes, I do believe that.
Thank you very much. Chairman, I have nothing further but would offer Ms. Reister for any
questions from the board. Please excuse me, Chair. This is the court reporter. I had a very momentary
crash. I don't know if anyone else had that experience as well. The very beginning of
Mr. Whelan's questioning did not appear. I got a notice from Zoom saying the meeting has crashed
and then it re-established. We can go over that briefly, Mr. Whelan? Certainly.
Your first couple questions, sir, if you don't mind.
I apologize.
Certainly.
So, Mr. Kelly, you have Ms. Reister as being, putting her name and address on the record,
correct?
I'm sorry.
Can I just interrupt for one second?
If you need a recording of the session, we can email you that.
Thank you.
Pardon the interruption.
Would that work, John?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
So, we can proceed.
Any questions from the board?
No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just have Michael Garnick, who I believe raised his hand. He's here on behalf of the applicant, and he would simply be adopting my testimony.
Sorry about that. We'll get him on, and then we'll go to Ron.
Sorry, Mr. Bednar.
i believe mr garnick is on yes mr garnick please identify yourself spell your name and i'll swear
you in michael garnick m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-a-r-n-i-c-k you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr whalen all right thank you uh mr garnick
Thank you, Mr. Whalen. All right. Thank you. Mr. Garnick, you're here on behalf of the applicant,
you're here on behalf of the
correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And have you heard all of the testimony that's been presented so far
today? Yes. And do you understand it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes.
Thank you. And would you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Garnick.
Chairman, I have no questions for Mr. Garnick. If the board would have any, I'd be happy to
offer them up now. I'll ask again any questions from the board? No. No. Anyone else to testify
in this case please raise your hand. Yes Chair we have Diane. Hi how are you? Diane you have to speak
up you're you're uh you need to speak up a little bit you're muted you're coming in very soft
hello miss monroe can you hear me now i can please identify yourself and i'll swear you okay
diane monroe i want to say thank you so much miss monroe miss monroe just spell your last
name for the record i'm sorry m o n r o e do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do and i appreciate you i appreciate you taking this case i do have
RCO open community
meeting at 6 o'clock.
comments against this
project. Ms. Monroe,
unfortunately, you're breaking up.
Do you have another device
You have to shut one of the
devices up.
No, it could be
in my computer.
Unfortunately,
okay you do have our letter of support okay all right thank you thanks diane have a good night
thank you you have a great one anyone else to testify
no more handshare thank you planning commission this is ron bednar city planning this property
indicated for centered city commercial mixed juice on the city plan. On July 6th the applicant
successfully completed the civic design review committee was in full support of the proposed
green wall as a way to reduce the impact of urban heat island effects as well as the applicant's
applicants designed to explore drip irrigation use and recycled water. Based on the revised
plans, we recommend that the requested special exception be managed. Thank you. I do have one
question. Do we not have any correspondence, Sharon, from Council President Clark?
sharon yes i'm sorry i'm checking now um this is his district i was curious if he had any
correspondence i don't have any record of having received anything okay thank you thank you mr
whalen is there a revised plan uh no chairman there's no revised plans okay thank you just
want to double check thank you am i i would make that mistake myself mi 2021-001-322-813
north broad street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you thank you all very much
for your indulgence to see we can go to green street now well hopefully mr anastasio has been
texting me he's in a thunder and lightning storm in Cape May at one point his power went out hopefully
it's back on. Anastasio are you here can you hear us why don't we go to he's coming in now okay thank
you good afternoon mr anastasio thank you for your indulgence you're an attorney it's okay sure
you can appreciate what the other attorneys were asking us to do not a problem my power
just came back on i hope it stays on please identify yourself and i'll swear you in it's
Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, 19107, representing
19107 representing new beginning foundation i already and i do believe mr chairman i've
New Beginning Foundation.
already been sworn in from this morning and um do you agree to waive and stipulate to the accuracy
of this application uh all but for the address um the the full address i you have 4542 green
it's actually a double property it should be 4542-44 green
noted thank you and do you uh have you emailed an exhibit packet with the requiring proof of
ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of
the property five days in advance of this hearing yes and have you met with the rco and do you have
letter i met with the rco the primary of the coordinating rco is faith community cdc uh they
they did not send me a letter um but a secondary rco did end up sending south southeast central
lower germantown sent a letter to the zoning board they sent the letter of opposition that's correct
are they the are they the coordinating rco no they are not they're not what was the name of
the courting RCO? It's Faith
Community Development Corporation.
Carolyn, do we have
anything from them?
I'm sorry, Chair.
What was the question?
Do we have a letter from Faith
Community Development Corporation?
I believe we do.
I can... I know we have a letter
of opposition from Germantown Civic,
12th Ward.
No, it's
Southeast Central.
yes i have faith cdc letter of opposition solo letter of opposition okay well then
at least you have them yep yeah uh the i'll get into the opposition letters but um i'm a little
they're a little questionable uh but we'll get to that later may i share my screen please go thank
you 4542-44 green street it's a double property it's zoned rsa3 the application uh this is a
this is a an old house of worship was the last use uh there are two sides to to this property
with a breach. What we're asking for is on one side of the property for a photography studio
for youth, and on the other side, a boxing gym, physical fitness. New Beginnings Foundation
is a registered nonprofit organization, and its mission is to provide after-school,
constructive after-school programs for at-risk inner city youth. They operate weekdays 5 p.m.
to 8 p.m. only and this is the plans. These properties are set back and there's a reception
area here. Here are the photography studios and the dark rooms and basically this would be a
A place where kids could come after school and learn photography skills.
The other half of the property would be for boxing, gym, physical fitness.
No treadmills or anything like that.
No heavy equipment.
But in fact, that's the use that they would propose to do.
We have, as I think at least one of the letters indicates, have agreed to commercial trash pickup.
we've also agreed to lighting safety lighting and cameras this property is uniquely situated
there's no way this is this hasn't been residential homes in a very long time in fact
almost a hundred you have to go back almost a hundred years in the history books before this
was residential homes along the lines of what's there there on this side of the street there are
only four residential homes on the on the block right next to this property is a large warehouse
as indicated here on the right and i'll take you through some photos
here's do you happen to know if those homes you reference the four are resident single
family or multi or what you know i don't know that i don't know that okay but there's only
four on the on that side of the block everything else is uh you know either a multi well there's
a large multi-family on the corner uh and then right adjacent to us is a warehouse across the
street of course there there is uh other twins but uh not this particular property
and you know the setback the lot coverage none of it is conducive to the other residential
and you know the setback the lot coverage none
properties on the block we did convene two separate meetings june 22nd which was mailed
then we hand delivered another invitation july 13th
i'm going to take you into some of the history
again for most of the last 100 years this property has been anything but residential
here it's up to enlarge storage for materials incidental to a business it was granted that
business was stock steel for wrought iron gates. And also the garage was used for storage of two
trucks. And this is going as far back as 1982. After being a repair ironworks, it became a radio
dispatch office and storage for taxicab company. And there again is identical. The last known use
was a house of worship. You know, my client's use is going to be vastly less impactful on the
community. We're talking about young people after school, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. As you all know, I'm sure
well aware that Philadelphia is on its way to probably reaching 600 murders this year, gun
violence, many of them young people. And my client's mission, you know, is all about bringing
new beginnings and new help to folks, to young people who don't have a whole lot of options
after school. I think that's all I need to show you. I've shown you the history.
It's the proof of mailing. 63 households. There's tax compliance and the deed.
And we respectfully request that this be granted. Again, just taking a look at the history,
taking a look at the layout the property is under no circumstance has this been in this in this
iteration uh residential homes and again it's right adjacent to a large warehouse it wouldn't
be ideal for that anyway um yes um has your client ever had um any uh examples of what he's proposing
Has he done this in the past?
He has done it in the past in other areas.
And he would like to be able to do it again.
Again, these will be fully staffed by adults.
It's only a few hours every night.
How many days?
Yeah, I was going to ask that.
Days and hours.
It's five days a week, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
With commercial trash pickup, lighting, and security camera.
It's not like it's going to be a place for hangouts during the weekend.
The gates will be closed. No one will have access. And, you know, given the unique features of this property and its long history of it being non-residential use, proximity to the adjacent warehouse, and lot coverage and setback being completely foreign to any other residential property on the block, we respectfully request the granting of the variance.
I would like to object to both letters from the RCO.
Could you share those letters with us?
I wasn't sent them. Sharon, do we have those letters?
I've actually been searching for them while Mr. Anastasia was presenting. I can send you
the solo letter. I haven't yet found the faith CDC letter though since it's referenced in
summaries as soon as it was received. While we're waiting for that, questions from the board?
no the solo letter also i believe gives a tally of uh a vote count yeah but i just i want to see
that but the but in the letter it's at least it's my understanding based on what i was told
is that they admit that there was no vote no vote was ever taken on the zoom so i'm not quite sure
how they got to a vote count. They asked me and my client to leave the meeting.
they asked me and my client to leave the meeting and we did so but before we did that we made
someone else a co-host apparently when i left the meeting the zoom meeting just ended so as far as
i know there was no actual vote okay let me ask then uh any uh you asked about the board uh is
there anyone else who would like to testify in this case please raise your hand yes we have
mr charles richardson good afternoon mr richardson good afternoon almost evening mr chair
how are you it is evening actually it's after six yeah i'm well please identify yourself and i swear
to you on charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall
i want to bring some clarity to what went on mr richardson i swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do but you already swore me in earlier
You're right, I forgot. I apologize. Please proceed.
So I'm going to bring some clarity to what occurred on the night of the Zoom meeting.
Mr. Anastasio did host the meeting, graciously, for FAFE CDC.
Ms. Inez Love and Vern, I believe, both forgot that Vern was hosting the Zoom meeting.
So at the time when she asked them to leave the meeting, when Vern left the meeting, it killed the rest of the meeting.
So there was no vote at that time.
From prior to that point, Ms. Inez Love had gotten the names and addresses of the near neighbors that were in attendance at the meeting.
And thankfully, she was able to do that.
So the next morning, she supplied me with those names and addresses, and I dropped paper ballots, which I had also indicated.
I called Vern directly after the meeting, and they told him I would be doing something to try to see what we could do with regard to a vote with that.
And she was able to give me the three names.
There was one young lady who was seemingly speaking for the project, but of the three, she did not return her ballot.
The other two did return their ballots, and they were opposed.
The way that Faith does their vote, they actually only let the near neighbors vote because for them, that's the most important tally.
So of those three, she got two negative votes, and that's where they ended up as far as Faith was concerned.
Now, Solo, I think that what they ended up doing was voting amongst their own RCO committee members.
There were a number of folks that were on the call at the meeting,
And the majority seemed to be against because of the fact that they were citing traffic, things along those lines, you know, and with Solo, they were more talking about the fact that Happy Hollow is two blocks away and, you know, offering some of the similar services and things like that.
um so it was you know it unfortunately we did end the meeting without having a specific vote
but i was able to get two near neighbors to vote and i think that uh that uh uh faith also uh as
as an rco voted against the granting the variance as well as such the councilwoman with two uh rco
letters that are against the uh granting of the variance she is backing the community
in uh opposing granting the variance so let me ask you the two the two i think you said two people
from faith near neighbors yes they voted to oppose the variance wasn't there a third you said yes and
she never returned her ballot but she was actually supportive of the project uh and i have to object
to all of Mr. Richardson's
testimony, only on the grounds
of hearsay, but I
appreciate his input. But you do
know that we talked about it, Vern, and you knew
what else was going to do.
I'm just practicing law,
that's all. He cleared that up.
No offense. So let's go to
Solo. Two people
opposed there again? Did I
hear that right? We don't
even know for sure. I mean, I don't.
I was never privy to any of them.
Vern, I'm asking Mr. Richardson.
And Chair, I did forward the email from Solow.
As far as Solow, I believe their committee voted, that their RCO committee voted because they did not have access to the paper ballots that we received back.
to the paper ballots that we received back.
It was done at a very last minute type of thing,
but we were able to get them prior to the deadline
that I had set, which was that Friday.
I'm trying to pull up the letters.
Let's see.
Solo, I don't know if Alison Weiss is on,
but she can speak to what their methodology was.
All right. Is there anyone else to testify? Please raise your hand and hang in there, Mr. Richardson, if you don't mind.
Yes, Chair, we have a call-in user ending in 1232.
Well, that call-in user, I think that's my client, Lynn.
Okay, we can hold off on your client.
Good evening.
Hi, please identify yourself, spell your name, I'll swear you in.
Pamela Bracey, last name B as in boy, R-A-C-E-Y
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, ma'am
And I do agree with Mr. Richardson
I'm a member on the board of Solo Germantown
And as he stated, we were knocked off when the lawyer left
And the four members of the board
we voted that we were in opposition.
There were also near neighbors that talked about the parking.
And I believe the lawyer stated that children would be dropped off and picked up.
But we know that parking is an issue there.
Also, there's lots of accidents that have occurred at Berkeley and Green Street,
as well as Apsley and Green Street.
So those are some of the things.
And I did raise at the meeting the question pertaining to Happy Hollow, which has been around for over 100 years, and we do have a boxing program there.
Ma'am, other than the parking issue and the accident, is there any objection to the use that's being proposed?
Well, it appears as though those are not quite the two items that one would put together.
other maybe one would but oftentimes with photography you know the person is is going
to be having cameras and things of that nature that need to be steady and with boxing you're
going to be doing a lot of movement even though it's a separate space so I don't quite know as a
person who likes to take photographs that's kind of my bias on that but I just think that this is
not quite a correct place for this yes we want the building utilized but i'm just not sure i
just don't agree that this is maybe a good match in there if you don't mind vern uh yep your client
would be leasing this property no he owns the property oh he owns it yeah the organization
purchased the property uh the non-profit group um this is what they do they they uh they create
programs for kids after school uh the fact of the matter is but these two properties are divided by
a party wall so no boxing uh incident is going to upset uh the photography studio not none whatsoever
here's the deal uh i understand about parking but as the chairman rightfully points out this is a
this is a legal proceeding and we're discussing use. And is there a hardship? And just by the
very nature of this property, it's setback, it's lot coverage, it's proximity to another warehouse.
Yes, being compliant with this particular property would be an insurmountable project.
Now that said, what's the history of the property? Well, nearly 100 years. It was an ironworks
factory it was a taxi cab dispatch truck parking talk about traffic and accidents it was a house
of worship with a whole lot of folks we're talking about a program for youth three hours a day five
to eight with commercial trash pickup lighting and security if i don't i can't think of a less
impactful use than that and and that's all i well that's my close okay uh anyone else to testify
i just would ask my client to raise his hand if there's no other parties of interest
i have a mr dennis that's my client thank you
Dennis, please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
he may not know how to be unmuted well you being an officer of the court will stipulate your client
He may not know how to be unmuted.
would have adopted your testimony he certainly would thank you questions from the board no
anyone else would like to testify i think i've already asked that but i'll do it again just in
case no planning commission front bednar city planning while this property is currently
indicated for residential use on the city plan given its use history as a non-residential
structure we recommend that the requested variances be permitted.
MI 2021-001266 4542-44 Green Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you. And the final. Thank you all. Have a good evening. MI 2021-001-262-9232 Melrose Street.
Sean Ward. And while we're waiting for Mr. Ward, Sharon, did we ever get a letter from East Toursdale?
No, I did not receive one.
Ward, good afternoon. Please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
Good afternoon or evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D.
On behalf of the applicant, my address is 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA, 19053.
Do you agree to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
As always, I most certainly do.
Thank you. Do you agree to waive and stipulate to the accuracy of this application?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
yes i have have you met with the rco and do you have a letter i have met with the rco
um i have not received a letter to them however i do a proof of a meeting if they did submit a
letter mr chairman uh they fail to share that with me and i but i do have proof that we met
thank you please proceed
Ms. Rita, is it now available?
Oh, sorry.
Yeah, that's my client, Rita DeRoya.
You can make it a little bit larger, Sean.
If you can enlarge that, it would be helpful.
Yeah, always.
I just like to show the full extent of the page.
but of course I'm going to blow it up. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my typical exhibit
packet to the board. I represent Rita DeRoyo. She is present on the call with her brother who is the
project manager of this project for her to build her her single family home and that would be
George Groves, G-E-O-R-G-E, capital G-R-O-O-V-E-S, for the property at 9232 Melrose Street.
We filed an application for the permit for the erection of a single-family dwelling at the
property. It resulted in two refusals, one for side yards and one for decks partially in a side
yard. Eight feet is required versus our proposed two feet and five feet. So the the lot size and
the required side yards create the refusal for the decks which are on the front and back of the house
but because of the side yards obviously when they extend to the the limits of the structure
they're partially in the side yard so we seek dimensional refusals. Before I go on real quickly
As for the board's edification, the property is located in the Tarsdale section of far
northeast Philadelphia in an area what is called Pleasant Hill Park. Historically, back in the
early 1900s, this was a vacation community for the residents of what was then Center City or
Philadelphia. So a lot of these properties were originally built as bungalows.
So a lot of these properties were originally built as bungalows or, you know, little tiny vacation cottages up along the Delaware River in an area what they call Pleasant Hill Park.
And this area right here is known as Pleasant Hill Beach.
the chairman may recall there used to be an establishment on the corner here called the
Columbia Yacht Club, which I believe some of the awards, not my family, well, but they did too,
but the Democrat or Republican awards may have had. Just to familiarize yourself with
what we're referring to. So in my packet, I include the notice of refusal, which is part of
the ZBA application, the refusal being A1, ZBA application being A2, project information form
being A3, A4, proof of ownership, A5, tax clearance, A6, site and elevation plans, A7,
are photographs of the subject. A8 are photographs of other properties. A9 is our RCO meeting notice
and certificate of mailing. A10 would be the RCO letter if I had it. I didn't receive it.
A11 are petitions of support or letters of support. I did receive two letters of support,
one from a tracy de cristofaro at 92 32 melrose uh michael thompson 92 46 melrose and then we
were able to get three signatures from area residents on a petition of support
pardon me it's getting late in the day my throat's getting parched
uh a-12 would be a letter from councilman heenan but as the board is aware he generally does not
submit letters of support. If there was a letter of objection or opposition, I'm sure the board
would have that. So if there is a letter from the councilman, I would ask that be marked A-12.
I always search for a relevant zoning history, which would be included at A-13, but none was
found for this property. But I did include A-14 as the Atlas zoning map, A-15 the Atlas deed or
lot map. And H16 is my typical aerial photograph. Just a few comments. This parcel is an existing
non-conforming lot. Lot width required is 35 feet. Existing is 25. Minimum lot size is under
the current code 3,150 square feet, whereas we have 2,500 square feet. We did not create this
lot. This lot has been existing in its shape and dimension as far back as the eye can see.
So under the code, the required side yards are two at eight feet for a detached dwelling.
This is RSA2 zoning, so a semi-detached dwelling would be permitted. So hypothetically or
theoretically we could uh create a semi-detached or you know a twin um which up in this area we
refer to them as twingles because if they're if they're to one side of the yard um not attached
to something else they're half of a twin so they call it a twingle um but that is not what we're
seeking to do what we're looking to do is uh create one that is close to one property line
and grant us five feet on the other.
So it'll be two feet to the left, five feet to the right.
As the plans will show as we move along
on the two-foot property side,
we have no windows or openings
to comply with the building code and the fire code
so as not to have any fire code
or building code issues there.
Again, with regard to the decks,
because of the narrow lot width,
if the decks appear to be in the side yard setback, and therefore that generated the other refusal.
After I submit everything, I would summarize that we cannot comply with the dimensional standards
because, in effect, if we were to comply, strictly comply, the house would be nine feet wide,
And that is just not conducive to our standards of residential living today, nor would it be conducive to what's in the community and complies or consistent with the nature and character thereof.
And I would also point out, you'll see as my presentation moves forward, that both of the joint properties are built to either near or on the adjacent property line.
So we're not doing anything that's out of character for the neighborhood.
We're not doing anything that's out of character for the neighborhood.
So I'm going to reduce that again and run through some exhibits real quick.
Obviously, we have our notice of refusal, our petition of appeal, our project information form, proof of ownership, Rita DeRoyo.
I could not obtain a copy of the deed. The website was down.
but Rita Dorero and her husband David Rivera are the current property owners and I would point out
they're looking to build their own single family dwelling here this is not a spec home
you know which came up at the RCO meeting with regard to the plans I'm going to blow these up
and then zoom in Mr. Board excuse me did you say that you did not submit a deed
um no i have the uh uh office of property assessment uh proof of ownership we have never
accepted that we've always required a deed and that's been pretty much an absolute not going
for that one if the board were to hold the vote would you be able to obtain one i could i could
probably uh go back on to philodox and get one um you know at the conclusion of this hearing and
email it this evening okay that would be fine um it just always has been the one thing that we
have insisted on yeah we can we can vote on it next wednesday yeah but you know occasionally
i go to philodox and uh for some reason you know you know the login doesn't work um and they tell
me you know to exit and come back later so uh i was unable to uh to procure uh the actual copy
the deed but they are the current owners and i will i will share and i'll get that to you
you know after the hearing thank you sean and then they'll vote it at the start of next wednesday's
hearing that that would be great i i appreciate it thank you uh so mr chair with regard to the lot
as you can see uh the lot is 25 feet wide it's an existing non-conforming lot uh this is not
subdivision they didn't create the lot they purchased a lot uh the way it is uh there's
existing a you know not that there's curves on these streets up in pleasant hill um they're all
those country lanes with just the uh you know the macadam asphalt you know streetway and then uh
there's driveways going into the property so it is currently a vacant lot uh there is currently a
one-story garage in the right rear corner, which will be demolished. This hash line represents
our legal building envelope, which is basically nine feet wide. The length is not an issue because
we're not exceeding the length or depth of the house. The proposed lot,
um you'll see we're proposing a single family dwelling we we tucked the uh proposed structure
to the left and we would have a two foot uh setback on this side of the left side of the
property a five foot setback on the right side of the property and you know could we split the
difference and make them even yeah but this gives them a little bit more of you know pedestrian
access to the rear of the property. As you can see here, the two decks, there's one on the back
of the house, extends into the side yard setback on the left, extends into the side yard setback
to the right, and that is repeated at the front, again, to the left and to the right.
um circle out so as for as regard to the floor plans uh first floor ground level would be a
one car garage um with a man door at the front of the house a man door access to the garage
and then steps going up to the main floor at the rear of the house behind the garage
It could be an office. It could be a bedroom. It's fully above grade. We could have a bath.
We could have a walk-in closet and then access to a rear patio. The proposed first floor
at the front of the house would be the dining area so you could access the front deck overlooking
the street with a kitchen area, living room in the rear with an access door to the raised deck
in the rear. And then on the top floor, two small bedrooms, all-way bath, shared by a master suite
with the master bath and walk-in closet.
you know master bath and walk-in closet from a elevation point of view front of the house would
have again uh carriage type garage doors on the front with the uh pedestrian entrance or man door
entrance i hate to use that term person door um up on the uh the main living area some patio doors
access to the front deck and then the third floor again in the rear we would have patio doors out
from that office slash bedroom again fully above grade out to the patio I don't believe we're
proposing a basement here so we're not going below grade for any purpose again the man door person
door coming off of the living area out to the rear patio deck and a window from the master suite
um with regard to the side elevation this would be the side elevation
to the north or the area with the five foot uh setback so we would provide windows on that side
of the house which faces the north or the northeast uh you know quite frankly and then
In the south or southwest elevation on the two-foot setback side yard proposed, no apertures, no openings, solid wall as similar to if it was a semi-detached home, which is permitted in the district.
And even if it was a semi-depatched home, the other side would require a 16-foot side yard.
So again, we would still be saddled with a nine-foot wide home.
So obviously, we did not create the lot.
We purchased the lot the way it is.
And it's an existing legal residential lot.
This is a photograph from the front of the lot.
The fence area representing our lot. You can see the garage in the back,
and that's just a portable trailer. This is the home to the left. As you can see,
you know, they have the same two-foot setback. However, they do have windows on this opening
or this side of the home. Same thing with this property on the right, which
I have a better photo of that. I'm sorry, this is, you know, looking over that front fence,
this is our lot. You can see the McAdam driveway, you know, tucked in back here behind this trailer.
You might see the edge of the garage that's existing to be demolished, but this home to the
right has three windows opening. There is a chimney which basically abuts a fence wall.
The fence wall divides the properties. I can't attest to whether that fence wall or masonry
wall is on our property or their property. I would submit it's on our side of the property line
because their chimney abuts right up to it. Moving down to my next photograph again.
This is another shot of this home to our left with a two-foot setback from the
defense which is on the property line. I would point out that the lot to the left is a double
wide lot. However, it's got two dwellings on it with a garage in the rear. I have another
photograph to demonstrate that. To the right, again, you can see the chimney
on the structure to our right, which basically abuts the masonry wall separating the two properties.
Again, that's just another shot. The telepole was in the way, so I took another one.
Again, just another shot of the property to the right.
here's another shot from inside the lot looking at the property to the left and then as I stated
we have photographs of other properties in the neighborhood so I drove up and down the street
and this was last Monday night when that torrential storm came I happened to get the
photos in just before I got stuck in my car for an hour hour and a half until this rain stopped
it. So you can see most of the houses are narrow in frontage and longer in depth.
There's another one. Well, sorry. 9240.
here's another one as you can see they you know they're in close proximity to one another
Here's another one. As you can see, they, you know, they're in close proximity.
similar lots you know 25 feet wide uh narrow frontage longer in depth
there's another one and again you know a lot of these are still the same bungalows
or cottages uh you know from the old pleasant hill beach days you know here's another one you know
typical and then there's some new construction um at the end of the block this is melrose street
as it fronts on or abuts linden avenue uh mr chairman uh if you recall if you went out linden
avenue to state road vinnie's lounge was on the corner the baxter water street plant is over here
and uh if you turn left you're heading down towards uh you know cotman avenue if you turn
right you're heading up towards Grand Avenue again that's the second twin I mean that's you
know new home single and the third so again they're they're in close proximity to one another
uh I mailed out our RCO meeting notice to the addresses provided by the planning commission
Commission website. It went out to 67 homes on the list. Certificate of mailing attached.
My client was able to get three signatures from some area residents, two actually on Melrose
Street, and one was Mr. Hasher, who now owns the premises known as, you know, the former
Vinnie's Lounge. It's called the Jimmy's Time Out Tavern. I did get two letters of support,
one from Michael Thompson, who's at the end of the block at Melrose and Arendelle, the Street
to the North. This is a certification that he signed it through Adobe, and this is from Tracy
D. Christofaro, 9232 Melrose Street. Again, e-signed and confirmed. The property is zoned RSA2.
The properties behind us are RSA3. These were zoned R5 back in the day prior to either the
adoption of the new code or some amendment thereafter. I'm not sure and
that information is not readily available to us anymore. Again, I use the
deed map from Atlas. You can see that our lot is 25 feet by 100 feet. To
our left is a double wide lot, to the right is a double wide lot. Again, you can see the shadow
where the two dwellings are pictured with the garage in the rear. To the right, a larger dwelling
which abuts to the property line just as this dwelling here abuts to the property line to the
I provided an aerial photograph. Again, you can see two dwellings, the garage in the rear,
this being our lot with a one-story garage, portable trailer in the rear to be removed.
The properties behind us, similar in size and shape, and again going down the block.
uh and this is just a you know a thing uh a more distant aerial photo again you have state road
at the top of the photo lyndon avenue would be running up and down to the left
arendelle a-r-e-n-d-e-l-l avenue would be to the right and again you can see there's no sidewalks
there's no curb cuts it's basically country lane uh with you know parking and access to the front
uh we're not trying to develop anything that is not consistent or out of out of character in nature
with the neighborhood um i do have on the line um rita doroyo and george groves if they could
raise their virtual hands. So the two of those could adopt or verify my representations and
adopt them as their own. I would ask that they do that now. And Mr. Chairman, should I stop
screen share or do you want me to keep it up? Unless there's questions from the board. Any
questions from the board? No. Okay, you can take that down and we can get your clients sworn in.
so i'm here all right george um
John, I'm here.
All right, George.
Please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
George Crowe, G-E-O-R-G-E-G-R-O-V-E-S.
Where from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
All right, George, you are the brother of Rita DeRoyo, correct?
And you are her project manager on this matter, correct?
Yes, for Stronghold Development.
And you've appeared before this board on many occasions, is that correct?
Yes, sir.
You're familiar with my presentation package?
You've heard my representations to the board?
Are they true and correct?
would you adopt them as your own testimony yes sir thank you rita are you there yes i'm here
identify yourself for the record spell your last name please
sorry i was muted do you hear me yes okay my last name is daroyo d as in david a r r o y o
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Rita, you are the current property owner at this address?
It's your intention to construct your own single family dwelling at this location?
You've heard my representations to the board?
Are they true and correct, to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, they are.
do you adopt them as your own testimony yes i do if you were denied the variances today
um do you agree with me that you'd be unable to erect your own new single family law yes
thank you mr chairman thank you questions from the board no anyone else to testify in this case
please raise your hand. I see no hands, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning. This property is currently indicated for residential use on
the city plan. Given the site history, we recommend the request of variance be permitted.
MI 2021-001262, 9232 Melrose Street. The record is closed. The board will make a decision
at next Wednesday's executive session
pending
receiving the
deed for this property.
Mr. Ward, you'll handle that with Ms.
I'm on it right
now, and it'll probably be there
within the next 20 minutes.
Thank you, Sean. We won't be here
in 20 minutes.
What? What? That's it.
You're the last case.
It only took you 45 minutes, but you're the last case.
All right. Well, if you
took me first, I could have had it in by the end of the day.
Yeah, I'm sure of that.
All right.
And by the way, I hope you're not billing your clients for the hour and a half you sat in your car in the rain.
Anyway, having said that.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Actually, I was at Maggie's.
I figured you were.
All right.
Any unfinished business?
Is there anyone who's waiting to be heard and hasn't been acknowledged yet?
No, Mr. Chair.
you uh that concludes the uh list for today as usual thank everyone especially those folks
behind the scene who make all this happen everyone have a safe week and see you next week
you too frank thank you have a great week see you later take care good night good night
you'll have a good night out there huh you as well