The phone number ending in 1853
will be allowed to speak. How many more do you have after that?
One more. Okay, thank you.
I proceed. State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
are they on yes person person with the phone number ending in one eight five three can speak
now yes can you hear me yeah please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
Hi, my name is Nate Tolchinski, N-A-T-E. Last name is T-U-L-C-H-I-N-S-K-Y.
You swear a firm will tell the truth, told the truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am, yeah. I own multiple single-family affordable rentals in the neighborhood.
I own properties on 3100 block of North 15th and North 15th Street.
all right sir sir are you in favor of the project we are yeah okay thank you very much
for taking the time to call and we appreciate it the last phone call please
here we have don stevenson okay proceed mr stevenson
state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
Thank you.
He's unmuted, Chair, but lastly, we have Adrienne Fernandez, if I can allow her to speak.
Okay, let's bring Adrienne on.
Adrienne?
Adrienne Fernandez, I'm sorry, state chair. Please unmute yourself, Ms. Fernandez.
Hello. Adrienne, please state your name spelled for the court stenographer.
Yes, Adrienne. My last name is Fernandez spelled F-E-R-N-E-N-D-E-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? Yep. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Please proceed. Okay. Our affected RCO is
Swampoodle Neighborhood Partners Association RCO. And we are opposed to this development
for several reasons. There was a lengthy presentation that was revised several times
with the last revision just sent this afternoon.
Many volunteer RCOs have jobs and we were not able to review
that second revised presentation.
We have several issues with 1510 West Allegheny Avenue
while we are opposed to 93 units.
At this RSA 2, RSA 5 split property
where the most restrictive zoning has to be applied.
First, we're having a continuing problem with the affected RCO serving as coordinator,
which was Allegheny West Foundation.
They're not holding compliant meetings that match the code section.
I don't think that's it, but Adrian, Adrian, the problem that you're having with that RCO,
I want to concentrate on the property.
Tell me why you're against this property being variance.
All right. The reason why I have to put that on the record, because that is the ongoing problem and I need it to be on the record.
But I mean, we're aware of that. We're aware of that.
OK, but when it happens, there's a scheduling problem because we have other addresses and therefore we were not at this meeting for that reason.
Also, Tug United stated that they barely got to the meeting for the same reason.
We don't even know these meetings are being planned.
Yeah, but listen, Adrian, listen, tell me why you're against the property, not what happened with that. Tell me what are the issues you have against this property.
Okay. First is the number of units. 90 units is the overuse of the variance. On the refusal, they stated that I believe it was in 1963 that this single family property with split zoning should be maximized at 46 units with 46 parking spaces on the site.
We agree with that. If it's going to be approved as multifamily, that there should be 46 units with 46 parking spaces on site and all bike parking also within the property lines on the site.
Also, the neighbors kind of already mentioned that the congestion, they're already suffering a lot of congestion because they do share their parking at their homes with Temple Medical.
the you know the business of Temple Medical and there's just not any more space for parking in
this area and that would be parking traffic utilities and other other things that have to
be shared amongst all neighbors. For the Philly 2035 changes or planning that Mr. Knopson mentioned
that's not consistent with our comments participating in Philly 2035 which all those
meetings were done in Tioga. Also, it's not consistent with corrective zoning that's been
implemented, being implemented now slowly, which is a big job by the council office,
where neighbors have complained about too many multifamily properties, and they have been
being corrected to RSA properties, even when they have limited multifamily at those locations.
Also, we want no roof decks, no rooftop occupancies, only mechanical use of the roofs behind this property.
There are single-family homes, mostly RSA 3 lots, and this would impair their privacy and peaceful use of their homes
because they'd be allowed to have parties and other activities that are not there.
because they'd be allowed to have parties and other activities that are not there now.
Also, the petitions that were signed and letters and also the supportive comments by apartment owners,
many of them are corporations, LLCs, and I believe those comments need to be given by lawyers
and not by persons saying they are apartment owners.
I'm familiar with none of those persons.
We have had extensive meetings in this neighborhood about the large increase in multifamily units, and none of those neighbors have come, although some owners of large properties have come, but they were not the people who testified today who should have been represented by lawyers because they are all probably corporations.
The petitions have some signatures that are on multiple properties, and basically, we need to review them because we don't believe that they can all be verified, especially for the multifamily buildings.
We're saying that additional, we're asking the zoning board to not vote on this until additional compliant public meetings are held, not privately on the block.
um we petitioned in this area for other addresses and we asked many many many many neighbors if they
knew about the 93 units proposed at 1510 west allegheny they all told us they did not the other
thing they told us was that um with a few multi-family units that have been approved
that the rental prices that were reported the affected rcos at the public meetings that those
rents have not been offered to them. Therefore, many of these new proposed units are apartments
that are not available to them. So if they live in a neighborhood and these apartments are being
built and imposing on their lifestyle, why is it that the young adults and young families
cannot afford to move there? Why should they have this in their neighborhood if they can't
afford to live there? There's no reason for it to be in their neighborhood. If this was senior
housing exclusively or veteran's housing in those two cases we wouldn't really have a problem with
the 93 units because the neighbors would approve of that but as the type of housing that's being
proposed we don't agree with that we're basically asking if the zva can hold this vote until
additional compliant meetings are held about this property where neighbors are speaking together and
and in a public meeting and voting in a public meeting where all voting results are reported
at the public meeting with the participation of all affected RCOs because we are all equal
in one of our hierarchy, which Alligating Left Foundation does not understand, although
we've explained it many times.
I'm not going to go back to this argument.
We're not going to talk about this battle you're having with that.
Thank you for your help.
We appreciate it.
Hold the vote.
Mr. Chair, can I just respond to some of the points made by Ms.
Yeah, so in terms of the roof deck, it is only for mechanical use only.
And I think it's referenced in the drawings, but if the board feels so inclined to also put a proviso for the roof deck on building B to be for mechanical use only, we have no objection to that, Mr. Chair.
I was going to indicate that, you know, part of our marketing for this property was for senior living, not exclusively, but a good part of it was for senior living, given the configuration of those units.
We canvassed the neighborhood with the block captain, Phillip Lockett, so we did make significant outreach.
I think there was some issue that we didn't.
And in terms of notice, we gave notice even to Ms. Fernandez by way of that email attaching our notice for the meeting.
And in terms of community support, not only does the coordinating RCO support our project, but also the district council member is in non-opposition to this project as well, besides the merits of the actual zoning appeal.
okay and if i remember correctly tayoga united was opposed but did admit there was
neighborhood support that's right that's right and we we've been in direct communication with
tayoga united even after the meeting we we want to we want to have everyone involved so all right
thank you uh planning commission excuse me chair there's a don stevenson with a hand up okay all
All right. Mr. Stevenson, please proceed. State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
Yes, Donald Stevenson, D-O-N-A-L-D, last name Stevenson, S-T-E-V-E-N-S-O-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Are you a neighbor? No, I'm Tioga United chair, RCO.
Are you a neighbor?
No, I'm Tioga United Chair.
Please proceed. Okay, so I'm not going to repeat much of what Ms. Adrienne Fernandez has said. I agree with much of what she said. I will touch on, we were not properly invited to the hearing, so a lot of RCOs did not know. I just happened to come.
also these blueprints that we're seeing now when i was there and i asked alan what does the inside
look like there was no 3d there was no blueprints of what the inside of these buildings were
there was just a number of units and outside of these buildings i also asked one of the owners
could we push this down the line and have another community meeting because there was not a big
community turnout. They got a church next door for them to come. They got one neighbor that's
on a side street, and that was it. Only two to three people showed up. They had a property
manager from an apartment building that I think showed up. Only three people showed up out of 80
addresses. I asked for the mailings. The mailings were not provided. He did not have them at the
time. They were not provided before the meeting or during the meeting. So this is why I asked if
they could try to have another community meeting. I was told by one of the property owners that
That's something he wasn't interested in doing. It's costing him too much money. So this is why
Tioga United opposes this project. I do ask if you could put this on hold. This is a large
project. We're talking 93 units. The community does need more involvement. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, I just would just directly respond if I can.
Please. Yes. We did have the renderings there. So the meeting was some time ago. Mr. Stevenson,
is an upstanding citizen and a great chair of his organization. And he fights hard for his
community. But, you know, with all due respect, those renderings were there. I always show my
renderings as part of that. And again, I did not have the email where to show that the notice was
emailed to Mr. Stevenson's group. And I confirmed that email address is the same one that's on
Atlas. And I do
believe that I gave the
RCO my proof of mailing
as well, which I think Mr.
Stevenson could have had, but I can't remember if I
showed it to him, but it was
available.
And in terms of the, I thought
that was a pretty packed room in there.
And I think the
letter of support speaks
for itself and the petition speaks for
itself. Thank you. Thank you. Planning commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board.
This is Greg Waldman, Philadelphia City Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change from residential single-family
to residential mixed-use.
Variances for two principal uses and proposed occupied area and building height conform
to the recommended RMX-3 zoning district in the comprehensive plan.
The proposed side yard, rear yard, and parking variances are consistent with nearby properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variances.
Thank you.
MI 2023-002-651-1510 West Allegheny.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, one page, stamp by CBA, September 20, 2023.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thomas.
You've been tough, Mr. Halliman.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Nockamson, you have your votes.
Thank you.
Number four, MI 2023-000781-6123 East Worcester.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from FACE CDC with unenforceable provisos.
Vern Anastasio has been promoted.
Mr. Anastasio, I think I've already sworn you in once today.
Just state your name, please, for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Vern Anastasio, 2016 Spruce Street, on behalf of Yves Belazier.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate by this accuracy?
Yes, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Chair, 6123 East Worcester is legalizing a pre-existing two-family dwelling.
The first floor is a two-bedroom apartment. Bedroom one is 140 square feet. Bedroom two is
180. Living dining is 225. We have a kitchen and a bath square foot as well. Second floor
as a one-bedroom apartment is also ample size. It has been a physical two-family dwelling with all
proper two-family zoning since 1947. 1974 alterations permit was pulled and it incorrectly
identified the duplex as a single-family home. However, the interior never has presented itself
as a single-family. It's always been a two-family. It remains a duplex today. Separate entrances,
separate utilities, and of course, two separate units. It is underlying zoning RSA 5, which is
why we're here. We need to get a variance for the pre-existing non-conforming use.
Let's take a look at the, briefly, let's take a look at the layout.
out. We have a first floor unit and a second floor unit. We have interior photos,
exterior photos the rco was concerned about exterior lighting we made sure that not only
are there ones there but there will be additionals provided they were concerned about trash storage
we have dedicated trash storage space on the side of the property and the rear
And, of course, there is already two electric meters, two gas meters, and, as I said, two entrances.
I've also submit into evidence the property history showing 70 some odd years of two family use.
75 to be exact, and also three pages of signatures of support from folks all within the 300 feet radius.