Everyone's in.
Lekisha we ready? Yes chair um 29 attendees so we can start when you wish. Okay thank you.
Good morning my name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere our vice chair. Present Mr. Chairman. Ismael Shahid our board secretary.
President Mr. Chairman Thomas Holliman our board member President Mr. Chairman and James Snell our
board member President Mr. Chairman also present is Hillary Emerson our attorney and Lakeisha Dandy
our ZBA hearing supervisor before we begin here is our virtual format be advised proceedings are
being recorded by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded a video will be
available by contacting tonyasunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to
unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address
for the property in question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for
a testimony. Any comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunke. Let's look
at what continuances we have this morning. Number nine. MI 2022-003-407-4811 Woodland Avenue
That case is continued. Number 10, MI 2022-003-514-5518 North Fairhill Street. That case
is continued. Number 12, MI 2022-003-409-4830 B Street. That case is continued. And case number
15, MI-2022-003-184-780 South 2nd Street. That case is continued until December 14th at 3.30pm.
Are there any comments or statements relative to the continuances?
Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I see no hands at this time.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
I have several, no exhibits.
So number six, MI 2022, 003-480-150 East Champlose Avenue.
I have no exhibits first listing.
Champlose Properties is the listed owner.
i see no hands up at this time chair so mi 2022 003 480 150 east champleo street
that case is continued number seven mi 2022 003 026 173 west wing of hawkins street
Manuel Melendez is the listed applicant.
No exhibits, first listing.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
So MI 2022-003-026-173 West Wing of Hocken Street, that case is continued.
Number eight, MI 2021-000-129-521-Haverford Avenue.
this is the second listing no exhibits new link properties is the listed owner
i see no hands at this time chair no that mi 2021 001 129 5221
No, that MI 2021-001-129-5221 Haverford Avenue, that case is continued.
Number 11, MI 2021-001-198-3601 North 5th Street.
Paul Chang is the listed applicant.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
No, MI 2021-001-198-3601-North Fish Street.
That case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
And number 16, MI 2022-003-410-123 Leverington Avenue.
Crystal Johnson is the applicant.
We're missing several exhibits.
I see no hands at this time.
So MI 2022-003-410-123 Leverington Avenue.
That case is continued.
We're going to start with number,
our regular list number five mi 2022 004 396 2901 grant avenue councilman brian o'neill is
the appellant adam labor is the attorney for the applicant could both come on please
Mr. Laver and Councilman O'Neill are coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Adam Laver of Blank-Rome.
I'm sorry, Chair, did you want Vern also?
uh i'm not sure that he is for this case he may be regarding another matter yeah i think yes yes
he is that's it's he's not on this case councilman o'neill
adam while we're waiting could you spell your name for the court reporter please
Sure. Adam Laver, L-A-V as in Victor, E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Do we see the councilman in the audience?
yes he was promoted to panelist chair okay councilman o'neill can you please unmute yourself
i just thought i had um yes can you hear me we can't yes for the record could you spell your
state your name is spelled for the court reporter yes brian o'neill b-r-i-a-n-o apostrophe n-e-i-l-l
right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do councilman uh you go you go first okay um this is a um uh a matter that the i believe it's
here on on the reconsideration it is and um the reason for that is and i and i think everyone
will agree um no one for whatever reason no one knew about this case um when it was listed no
one showed up i didn't know about it and that's the that's the reason for the reconsideration is
that uh the community did not receive uh receive notice or else we would have been on it this is a
case that i've known about uh for quite a while and um was ready to oppose for the reasons i will
state right should i go ahead with that i why don't why don't we go with the case we're going
to start right okay sure so can we do we go with uh uh mr labor putting on his case first
actually council councilman uh this is hillary yet because you requested the reconsideration
and it was granted we'll have you present first as to why um you would like the board to reconsider
their decision to grant in this case. And then Mr. Laver will respond. Okay. And we'll get a
recommendation from the Planning Commission as well. Okay. Well, as I stated, the reason
for the reconsideration was, one, we didn't. We, the community, the RCO, my office, didn't know
But the RCO, my office, didn't know about the original hearing, and it appeared to be an uncontested case when it came before the board many months ago.
about the
And as soon as I found out about that situation and that decision, I filed for reconsideration.
So this is an industrial zone, piece of ground abutting the Northeast Airport on Grand Avenue.
It's an industrial park.
It was one of the city's first.
It goes back to, I believe, 1974.
And it is a half mile or so, quarter mile from the boulevard.
As you approach the boulevard going west on Grant, after you get past the airport's clear zone, you come to Bluegrass Road.
You've got very big shopping centers on both sides of that street facing the boulevard and backing up to Bluegrass Road.
Lots of retail, commercial, supermarkets, you name it.
there's a whole lot of activity and available properties there for the kind of use we're
talking about, which is basically what we call fast food, but it's, I think, characterized as
a restaurant with drive-thru. That's going west. When you go east towards Academy Road,
which is about the same distance going east.
You have the Academy Road is the western boundary of the airport.
And there's retail on both sides of Grant Avenue,
fairly large shopping center on the south side of Grant and two large.
It was a former car dealer, and it's now a large Wawa with gas and a big CVS.
So this is strictly an industrial area.
On the south side, directly across from it, is Clement Muller, a very large beer distributor, a wholesale.
And they've been there for a long time, large employer.
And then next to that is a fairly new use. This is in, by the way, Councilman Driscoll's office, his boundaries and mine. He's on the south side of Grant. I'm on the north side where this property is. And there's a big Amazon warehouse that was recently built.
So this is so out of character and so much lacking in hardship.
It's an overbuild on this property already.
These properties originally had a 40-year setback, 40 years of de-restriction and a very large setback.
So the buildings are set back fairly far from Grand Avenue.
So that de-restriction ran out 10 or 15 years ago.
But this property is already built in front of the original building, a very large storage warehouse property, several stories high.
And there's a little bit of ground left that they haven't expanded to.
And if they were to expand with something more appropriate, we would probably be having a positive discussion about it.
But they want to go to pure retail, fast food type of business.
There is no user yet.
They want permission to go out and look. And I would just ask the board to
refuse to grant this variance or to remove it if that's the proper
procedure because this does not at all belong on this property or in this industrial zone. It's
totally um uh out of out of character and it's also it has ended a setback the required setback
for 20 feet on top of it so it's it's a um uh it's an undesirable um push the uh the rco met
uh by zoom on monday night i believe it was 13 to nothing against this uh councilman driscoll and
uh councilman driscoll and i have discussed this matter at length uh spoke to him about 10 minutes
I have discussed this matter at length, spoke to him about
ago he said he would try to get on the call but he said i could speak for him he is he is totally
opposed to this as the uh representative of the um uh south side of grand avenue as well that um
whose properties face this uh but this is on the north side this is on the north side correct
That's correct. And that's in my district. So, and PIDC historically has been opposed to any kind of retail in the industrial park areas. And there's quite a few of them.
And believe me, when the zoning code was changed 10 or 12 years ago, PIDC did a study of jobs in the city and the highest paying jobs.
And they're all over this area, from Grand Avenue up.
They're high paying jobs, family raising jobs, and there's a lot of them.
And part of their study was to make sure that we don't keep chipping away at industrial property and making it retail, commercial, or residential.
And that was their argument.
And they came through with flying colors in terms of the outcome of their study.
So I would ask the board to keep this industrial, not allow the variance for commercial, retail, fast food.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman.
uh mr labor uh good morning mr chairman members of board councilman o'neill uh it's it's a very
uncomfortable uh situation uh when uh a respected council member such as uh councilman o'neill uh
is unfortunately in this in this position but we we understand the matter of principle
that's here. And I have to put an objection on the record at the beginning regarding statements
of hearsay and statements that have gone beyond the strict limitations of the board's own
regulations at 6.3 on reconsideration matters. Also, we have not received any exhibits in
accordance with board regulations, and that's important to note. Having said that, and pardon
me for for for doing so uh i i we are we are in a very limited unusual uh situation on reconsideration
in as counsel for these uh boards stated we are looking at a narrow issue of what has the appellant
the councilman raised before the board. And what he has raised, as we heard it and saw it in his
papers, is that no one knew about this case. And that is why two years ago, when we appeared before
the board, apparently there wasn't representation from the councilman's office. Already in the
board's record you have a brief from blank room dated december 14th of 2020 which was shared with
uh councilman o'neill's office which has not only statements to the contrary but copies of numerous
emails and correspondences with counsel. So respectfully, there was knowledge. And what's
regrettable in this instance is that all of this discussion, commentary, and indications of position
should have occurred back on December 2nd of 2020, I believe it was, when the original
hearing took place and when the original determination was made by the board that there
was hardship. It's not appropriate to retry the case. There is a full record, and I understand
And from both prior counsel for the board who was involved with this matter, as well as Ms. Emerson, that the record from December has been incorporated into the board's review.
But most importantly, on the limited issue of knowledge, it's very clear in the record that there was knowledge.
I can go beyond that, which
I can go beyond that, which I don't think is necessary as a matter of law, but I'd like to do so briefly to talk about a couple other things.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair?
I have a piece of information that I'd forgotten.
I just spoke to Alice Udovich, who does my zoning.
I apologize, but it became crystal clear as soon as I just spoke to Alice, because I remember it.
Greg Waldman from the Planning Commission told my office, told Alice Udovich in my office, that this matter had been withdrawn.
That is the basis of why we didn't know about it, because we understood from the City Planning Commission, Greg Waldman, that this was withdrawn.
So as far as I'm concerned, this is cut and dry that we did not know about. How can you go ahead with a case when the Planning Commission and the applicant went ahead with the case, knowing that or should have known that the Planning Commission understood and had told my office that the case was withdrawn?
This is not a simple, where there were a bunch of emails.
We were very aware of this case and ready to attack it and go after it as, you know, as opposition.
But when you get told something is withdrawn and you get told not by some stranger, but by the Planning Commission.
Councilman, so you know, we have it in our notes that your office understood it was withdrawn.
Thank you.
Continue, Adam.
Thank you.
that's uh very troubling what was just shared in the first time that we're learning about that um
as a matter of record uh the planning commission did testify at the hearing below and in fact the
The presentation was in response to exhibits provided by the planning, recommendations provided by the Planning Commission.
But as I was saying a moment ago, 6.3 of the regulations on reconsiderations allows the board to rehear limited matters if there were special circumstances that were not known
and could not reasonably have been known by the requester at the time of the hearing.
In this instance, again, in the December 14th brief that was submitted,
We have communications dated August the 25th, August the 26th, September 1st, September 2nd, and forward September 21 and continuing on.
And so I really do wish that we had this full discussion and allowance for everyone to participate, which we had tried valiantly to do back two years ago.
It is simply not fair to a property owner to have this come up at this point in time.
um the record shows that the subject property itself is 375 000 square feet that the proposed
use would take a footprint of 1720 square feet a minuscule portion of the small campus
the record reflects that the campus does not have a cafeteria or food service use
to support the existing on-site businesses, this falls in with a property owner who has a track
record of industrial and keeping it that way. I'm not here to re-argue that, but simply to
refresh the board's recollection regarding its determination of hardship in this case
in allowing an existing Philadelphia business to continue as industrial into the future.
We would be pleased to answer any questions or speak more specifically, but we return to what is a narrow issue of law, that on reconsideration, we are limited to the councilman's grounds for reconsideration, which I'm trying to address.
One last note, which I think is slightly.
One last note, which I think is slightly confusing, is why did this take two years to get back to the zoning board?
The zoning board determined in December of 2020 that there was hardship, granted a notice of decision, a permit was obtained.
Councilman O'Neill's office did request reconsideration.
As a procedural matter, we believed that the reconsideration request was not appropriate based on 6.3.
We went to the Court of Common Pleas on that procedural issue.
The Court said, yes, it is within the Board's purview to grant reconsideration and to look at the narrow issues.
So that is where we are.