Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Give me one minute, Chair.
I'm going to reach out to Council for one second, okay?
Thank you.
Okay, Chair, change of plans.
We're going to go with Federal Street first.
Are we ready to go? Yes, sir. We were ready. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is
Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's
hearing along with our vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and
Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snow. Board Administrator, Lakeisha Dandy,
and Board Administrator, Ms. Sharon Saleta, are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't
yet participate 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. 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 make an appearance
statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at
issue. Pardon me. I'll repeat. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. I'd also like to remind
everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments should be directed to the
board administrator, Ms. Tanya Dandy. And with that, we will proceed. The first case will be
MI 2020-003086, I'm sorry, 1231 Federal Street.
Chair, we have a Mr. Leonard. He's coming in now as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Leonard. Please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Leonard Reuter for the city of Philadelphia. That's L-E-O-N-A-R-D. Last name is R-E-U-T-E-R. I'm at 1515 Arch Street, 15th floor.
Good morning. Leonard Reuter for the city of Philadelphia.
that's L-E-L-E-R
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Will you be leading off, Leonard?
uh probably it's mr miller's case but i think i can probably preface it with some statements uh
i don't know uh andy what you how you want to proceed miller would you identify yourself
of the records by your name and i'll swear you in good morning may it please the board
my name is andrew miller and i represent 1231 federal llc and pelly partners llc
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you uh mr reuter yeah i think maybe i can um uh cut some of this off uh depending on
how the board wants to proceed but um the city of philadelphia is uh it's our understanding that
this is now being presented as an appeal against lni or in effect a challenge of the refusal uh
based on the claim that this is a lawful non-conforming use the city of philadelphia is
not opposing that claim and i can say that i've done my own research on the matter and have able
been able to confirm for myself on behalf of the city that in fact this the use of this property
as a warehouse states back at least to the 1940s it appears to have been continuous throughout that
period, and also that during the period of its most recent vacancy, it was consistently
marketed as a warehouse, and therefore it does not appear there was any intention to
abandon that use.
The only reason when these cases come up, it's L&I's preference that we just leave it
to the board to decide so that once there's a board decision, that would then go into
the file and the record you know the zoning archive for the property would would be clear
because that's that's one of the problems is that we don't really have the old zoning permits
in fact I think the property was constructed around 1925 but so the use actually may be
pre-code and that's probably why there is no zoning permit for the use that I think it was
a plumbing supply warehouse for most of that period and then that changed probably in the
1980s or so and i can also state from personal experience speaking as a fact witness that
i live pretty much around the corner from this place and it has always been it's never at least
in the 20 years i've lived down here it's never been a residential property but again we we prefer
to just i'm just making that as a statement we're not going to oppose anything we're not going to
present anything we'll let mr miller present his case and then leave it to the board to make the
decision. Thank you. Appreciate that. Mr. Miller? Well, we've already made our record, Mr. Chairman.
We presented our entire case. I don't believe there was any evidence to suggest that the use
had ever been abandoned, which would be the standard for denial. So the unrebutted evidence
is that the use has been a commercial industrial use and we simply ask that our appeal be granted
the rescheduling was to give the city the opportunity to make a record if the city
chose to do so and I'm grateful for Mr. Reuter's cooperation but I have nothing to add
Chair, this is Sharon Saleta. We do have one and possibly two witnesses who will testify as to whether this was in fact a continuing use or whether it was abandoned.
Thank you. So we'll get the testimony, Mr. Miller, and then we'll get back to you.
Just wait in. Okay, so first witness, please identify yourself with the records, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
can you hear me this is phyllis fox yes ma'am please just spell your full name and i'll
swear you in phyllis p-h-y double l-i-s fox f-o-x we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed um i am a representative of the passion
square civic association the zoning committee and um as from our letter you understand that we are
against this although it um it wasn't consistently a warehouse i mean they had stopped that at one point
it wasn't consistently a warehouse. I mean, they had stopped that at one point. It was like almost
like a sweatshop manufacturing clothing in there. And although that was the case, it was maybe a
plumbing warehouse at one time. Everything else that belongs to that plumbing company at this
point has been made into apartments. And what we feel is that we're homes and the property that
they owned, the DemiCo plumbing, is now no longer in that type of use. The building next door,
as you face it, to the left, it used to be the Jehovah Witnesses building, and they are now
apartments. What we're saying is we don't believe putting this as a distribution center and a
warehouse is the correct thing for this area and considering how the area has been developed or is
being developed and we are definitely against it because of that. We would like
the building is for sale so whatever happens to with zoning is going to go along when the sale
goes through, it will be in effect. So we don't know, although we know the present owner is
considered of the neighborhood, we don't know that the next owner will be that way.
And last, what we would like to say is that if it does become what they would like it to be,
if the zoning board agrees to that, which we're hoping they're not, but if they do,
um it's been requested that they um maybe do some uh work on the walls framing the walls with
insulation so any noise from the facility that comes in there will not impact the neighbors on
all sides of the building thank you uh i just have one question miss fox uh i've heard this in the
passed uh the the reference that this will become a distribution center yeah do you have any knowledge
as to where that information is coming from uh no no i don't all we our only information is that
it's going to be like a warehouse in a distribution center yeah i mean i just was curious i've been
hearing that quite often and someone mentioned it would be amazon i i can't imagine amazon trucks
even getting into that garage but as a warehouse it was I think testimony was in the last hearing
that it has been used in the past manufacturing of clothing I think it was that in my mind I
actually looked up the definition of warehouse and raw materials or manufactured goods may be
stored before their export or distribution in a large building that would constitute a warehouse
So I personally have not, based on that and the testimony that was given by some of the near neighborhood neighbors, it appears to me that the use has not been abandoned.
But that's for the board to decide.
I just wanted to get that on the record.
All right.
If I can make one more comment, it's people, neighbors, and one of the board members actually have seen in the past people sewing clothes in there.
So it wasn't like you would walk by and if the door was open, you could see rows of sewing machines and rows.
So it was not just the storage. It was the manufacturer, too.
Well, it's both. It's both. I agree. All right. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
Anyone else? I think we have one more witness.
no hash here okay thank you um questions from the board
no no okay we have some other stuff mr miller we have a few things we have to decide on so
as of today uh the record uh the the record will be closed the board will discuss and have it make
a decision at next Wednesday's 9 30 executive session thank you very much thank you thank you
all thank you thank you very much I don't have further matters if I may be excused however I
will still be observing for a period the the next matter on Packer Avenue the turf club case but
the city's no longer the part that we were involved in that stage is over so I'm still
So I'm still going to be up, but I do want to observe. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. MI 2020-001-522-1310 South Broad Street.
going to be but i do want to observe so thank you thank you
Vern is now being promoted to a panelist.
excuse me this is the court reporter mr chair was that one two three two
uh one two three one thank you
what are you asking about the last case that was a one yeah 1231 federal street
yes one two three one okay now we're going to hear one three one zero south broad street
good morning mr chairman morning sir please identify yourself with the records by your
full name and i'll swear you won't sure it's verne anastasio v-e-r-n last name anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o
1315 walnut suite 1006 philadelphia 19107 you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you sir please proceed mr chairman members of the board this is
a resumption hearing uh we've already put on our evidence and testimony um we had initially
applied for a five-family dwelling and a first floor front commercial well in speaking with the
RCO we negotiated down to three family dwelling with a first floor front commercial. At the
hearing the RCO I believe asked that if you were going to approve the reduced number that there
be certain provisions agreed to then Mr. Chairman recommended that we go back and hammer out those
provisions. We were we did in fact discuss those provisions and we were in complete agreement to
sign off on any and all provisions that they had laid out, but they would not move from their
position on the three-family dwelling with the commercial space. So no, unfortunately,
they were unwilling to agree to that. So we are where we were, unfortunately, with asking for the
three-family dwelling in the first floor front. I've already put on the evidence showing the
history of a five family and a four family with the commercial first floor we've already put on
testimony that there is a physical separation between the first floor front and the first floor
rear i've also put on the all surrounding properties are multi-family and commercial
and the planning commission to my recollection supported the granting of the variance and with
With that, my site is closed, so I don't know if there's somebody here from the RCO.
I have a question for you.
You said you went from five family to three, correct?
That's correct.
And was that not what the RCO was requesting?
I thought so, but I think they don't want us to have the first floor front commercial.
We explained that it's a 1950s old-fashioned front.
We would hate to destroy it, and it's already physically separated from the rear that has a separate entrance.
So that rear unit would be one of the three family dwellings?
That's correct.
And what were the provisos?
Make sure that...
Are any of the provisos enforceable?
On your end?
On our end.
i think it was just the property management has to you know take care of the trash
there would be exterior lighting commercial trash
this is sharon saletta mr anastasio i thought my recollection was that the rco
was only agreeable to one use per floor so it would have been two residential units above a
commercial unit am i mistaken on that or i guess a three-family dwelling without the commercial
Okay, thank you.
They were questioning the use of the commercial space.
They were not sure that we would be able to fill it.
I explained to them that we have more than one interested tenant lined up already.
An old fashioned South Philly barber wants to take the first floor in front.
Okay, I think I should mention it the last hearing.
All right, anyone else to testify in this case?
yes chair we have a mr peter mr peter you can unmute yourself
hi can you hear me yes sir please identify yourself for the records by your full name
and i'll swear you in uh my name is peter zutter z-u-t-t-e-r 1440 south broad street
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed mr zutter uh so mr chairman you are correct that um we had agreed to three
units um one unit on each floor and it would have been the applicant's decision whether he wanted
to use the first floor as a residential or a commercial space um that is what our thought
has always been um we have a i'll call it a proviso letter it's more of a an agreement letter um
outlining some some of the issues that we have including uh signage restrictions but they have
not signed that because they want to go to the four units so when i say units it's just generic
in this case it's three three residential and one commercial but we have always said that we would
support um three units whether it's two residential and one commercial or three residential
that would be up to you and and the applicant um our position on that has not changed um
so there's there's really not much more to add i want you know we don't need to go through
everything that we went through the last time okay thank you mr zutter anyone else
i don't see any more hands here so the record will be closed on mi 2020-001-522-1310
south broad street a decision a discussion and decision will be rendered at next wednesday's
executive session. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And now go to MI 2020-001-532-15.
I'm sorry. Can we wait till 10 a.m. for this one, please? Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. You're right.
Yes, just to be on a safe side. Thank you. We'll wait till 10 o'clock. We'll resume.
Board will be in recess until 10 a.m. Thank you. Thank you, kindly, Chair.
Calendar number MI2020-001-532-1526, Pecker Avenue.
Good morning, Mr. Matteoni.
And I'm looking, is Mr. Bonney?
Well, why don't we do this?
We'll swear you in, Mr. Matteoni, wait for Mr. Bonney, and then we'll proceed.
Full name.
Michael Mattione, Federal Reserve Bank Building, oh, that's M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia.