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.