this application represents an overuse of the property accordingly we object to the granting
of the variance at this location chair yes if i could mention charles richardson has just raised
his hand okay thank you mr richardson good afternoon again mr chair uh we're supporting
the rco's request that this be held uh because of the fact that there's a lot of misinformation
going on seemingly. I don't have any information regarding a meeting that took place beyond
getting a notice that one was supposed to take place. And, you know, we don't have any
information as to the results of that meeting or anything along those lines. From what I'm
understanding from Ms. Saleta is that there was a letter from the RCO stating their opposition.
We'd like to get to the bottom of it, and we'd just like to have this held, if possible,
for them to meet with the RCO again and see what the actual results are going to be.
Thank you.
So, Sharon, you're saying we can't just hold this, we have to continue?
they would have to come back and present the results of the
second rco meeting and it would be a limited hearing just to follow it so we would hold it
to a specific date and time yes at 2 p.m i'm sorry say that again november 4th at 2 p.m
Thank you, Tanya. Okay. MI-2020-0007, I'm sorry, let's start over. MI-2020-000976,
3248 North Carlisle Street is continued until November the 4th at 2 p.m.
if i could just state for a limited hearing yeah based on the response of the meeting
okay yeah based on any consideration feedback from the our related rcos okay and mr levy you
have to repost
did you hear that mr levy no you have to put a new you're gonna have to repost it
So you advertise for the advertisement for the next hearing.
You're going to have to meet with the community.
You have to repost it.
Sorry, Chair, I was saying he doesn't have to repost.
He doesn't.
I'm sorry.
That one is a resumption.
It will be listed online and because you announced a specific time and day today.
They're incorrect.
It will not have to be reposted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
thank you calendar number mi 2020 001180 3602 brandywine street
the attorney is meredith ferliger
the attorney is meredith furliger
and family probably
good afternoon name and address for the record please meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r 1500
market street suite 3500 e do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i certainly do do you agree to waive reading the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos and plans of this property five days in advance of the hearing and have you met with the
RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, yes, to all of the above. Okay, where's the baby? I'm very sorry,
my co-counsel has decided to take a nap. Please don't hold that against me. We won't, well,
we're all going to be taken up now. Right? You can proceed. All right. Okay. Good afternoon,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger of the law firm
Dilworth Paxson. My client, Rami, if you want to just hit the raise hand button now
so that we can get you sworn in ahead of time. My client is Rami Shreem.
Not sure if Ramy has two devices, but there's feedback.
Hello, this is Ramy Shrine, R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M.
And your address for the record as well, Ramy?
433 North 32nd Street, Philadelphia PA, 19104.
thank you we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do we hear this this looks familiar this place no no there's no history on this one all
right okay there's a lot going on in west philly so they probably all blend together at this very
similar and they had a an umbrella similar color okay that's so funny nope this this one is new
so before the board today is a proposal that will eliminate the last undeveloped
lots on Brandywine Street in West Philadelphia that exists between North 36th Street and North
37th Street. The board has an exhibit packet with 15 exhibits that I will refer to throughout.
The application today requests the consolidation of lots of two lots and for the erection of a new
structure to be used as a four-family dwelling. The board refers to the zoning map.
the board has zoning plans at tab five and floor plans at tab six as is reflected in our floor
plans the four units are three bedroom three bath units each of approximately 1100 square feet
trash will be stored in within each unit and is picked up by a commercial sanitation provider
in conjunction with Rami's management company of his other units in this area
of West Philadelphia. Now, with respect to the application, we received one
refusal. I would be happy, of course, to go into additional details about the
structure itself. We do not have any refusals regarding the structure. We
received one refusal. As you can see in Exhibit 8, the property is currently
zoned RSA-5. However, it is surrounded by a variety of different zoning classifications,
including partially CMX-2 across the street, RM-1 to the rear, and RM-1 along North 36th Street.
I have included at tab 3 a copy of bill number 170-398, which rezoned this property
and many others in Mantua back in 2017. As you can see, the property and everything around it
was originally zoned to RM1. After the rezoning was done, the property was rezoned to RSA5,
despite how the surrounding properties remained zoned or were changed.
However, these lots are both extremely small. Each of these lots is just over 700 square feet
and only 12 feet wide, which are the narrowest lots on this entire block.
So that would understandably make a biorite development on each of these lots.
So that would understandably make a by-right development on each of these lots extraordinarily challenging,
as the lots are not only half the size required by RSA 5, but they are extremely, extremely narrow, even for single-family development.
After the consolidation, the newly formed lots will be just about 1,500 square feet.
Now, the former RM1 zoning of the properties would have permitted the requested four units by right.
So the hardship here today lies both in the result of the rezoning, but also considering the context of the neighborhood here.
Now, the zoning map that I showed the board does reflect that the rezoning left this particular block with a smattering of different zoning classifications.
The use of surrounding properties is consistent with that.
I did include permits in the packet for multifamily residences in the area, which vary from 2, 4, 6, and even a 28-unit dwelling, which is just here on the corner of 36 and Brandywine.
This is the least minimum variance, as we are not requesting any dimensional variances.
The structure itself does comply with the provisions of the code.
The density itself is also in line with the former zoning, which would have permitted the proposed four units,
as well as the character of the neighborhood, which accommodates many structures of higher density.
We do submit that this will not increase local congestion, as the block is already restricted to permit parking.
Given the location in West Philadelphia, the property has ample access to public transportation.
The proposal will not impair light and air or negatively impact surrounding properties.
These are the two last vacant lots on the south side of the 3600 block of Brandywine Street
before you reach the intersection of North 36th Street. So this does put the proposed structure
at the rear of homes on North 36th Street, that front on North 36th Street. In addition,
building one structure instead of two does further serve to mitigate the impact as a
code compliant structure can be built on the newly consolidated lot. We submit the variance
complies in full with the provisions of section 1430380 of the code, as is further detailed in
my memorandum of law that I've submitted at tab 10. Now with respect to the community, that's a
particularly important aspect of this project despite the low density use that
is proposed. We did meet with Mantua Civic Association and their letter of
support is attached at tab 14 and does highlight this particular developers
willingness to work with the community. Rami himself has lived in West
Philadelphia for at least the last 20 years since he originally moved to
Philadelphia to attend Drexel. So he moved here, he never left, and he has, you know, now made it
his goal to, you know, better the community that he lives in. In particular, Rami has made a
commitment to the owner of 3606 Brandywine Street, who is the immediately adjacent, the only
immediately adjacent neighbor, who has been using Rami's vacant properties as her personal garden
now for the last two years. And that's what you can see in the photograph with the umbrella. You
can see her garden here is really quite gorgeous. So Rami has committed to Ms. Williams, who I
believe is here today, if the board has any questions from her, that he will continue to
allow her use of the vacant properties for the next three years, assuming the request is granted
before the board today. So Rami really did go above and beyond to work with not only the
civic association here, but the immediately adjacent neighbor who has, you know, been using
this Rami's properties for some years now. So Rami, have you heard all my testimony before the
board today? Yes. And do you agree my testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt it as your
own yes and do you have anything in particular that at this point you need to add um no i'm just
reiterate what you've what you said is that i uh um you know i'm very involved in the neighborhood
and when i learned that miss mary williams have been using this uh property as as her garden for
years now i chose to um uh postponed any development plans and you know as she's she's been using it
for the last couple of years since I've owned it and I'm like you said I'm
And like you said, I'm committing for her to continue to use it for at least the next three years and just, you know, just seeking to get permits approved and that's it.
committing for her to continue to use it for at least the next
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you had a question?
Did I swear him in? I don't remember.
Oh, you did. Yes.
Yes, I did.
All right. Thank you.
Will these be apartments or condos?
to be honest with you at this point i i'm i'm not exactly sure and that's why i said
at least three years i mean who knows what's where we will be in in three years and how
i figured that's why you're waiting okay uh questions from the board no no planning commission
i'm sorry not planning commission anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your
hand. Here we have Harrison, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn. I believe I'm
unmuted. Can you hear me? Yes, please identify yourself, your name, full name, spell your last
name. Good afternoon. My full name is Harrison, H-A-R-R-I-S-O-N, and my last name is Hans,
H-A-A-S
I would additionally like to add
that I'm joined
Hold on sir, excuse me, excuse me
I'm not sure if the sonographer's getting that
it sounded kind of muffled
I'm going to
hold on
I have removed my mask
my name is Harrison Hawes
H-A-R-R-I-S-O-N
last name is Hawes
H-A-A-S
and I am the owner and resident
at 516 North 36th Street
which is adjacent to the property we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i so affirm thank you please proceed i would like to add that i'm joined by
ms mary williams who uh does not have a computer of her own uh so she would like to testify after me
uh so just wanted to get that out there to begin with okay i sent earlier this week a letter to
the member of the zoning board. I don't want to belabor points if you've
already had a chance to review. I'm curious, was that letter received?
Tyron or Tanya, do we have that letter?
We would have to check for it. All right, in that case, let me go through that
point by point by the letter. There are two major issues with the proposed
application. The first was that the applicant failed to provide proper
notice to the surrounding community. The applicant's initial application was
processed at the end of July, July 28th. First notice was sent to the
neighborhood of the RCO notice was sent on September 15th and did not arrive
until September 18th. That left less than a week before the RCO meeting and less
than two weeks before this meeting. The applicant was required to send a letter
within 20 days of that July 28, 2020 date and did not. That has had a material
impact on the neighbor on the neighbors opportunity to respond, would have liked
to gather together, talk to each other and discuss the application. We were not
afforded the amount of time that was necessary before the RCO meeting and so
has presented a real problem certainly for myself and I believe that there are
other neighbors on the line who wish to speak to that as well. Mr. Chairman I
would just like to object to his contentions that proper notice was not
provided. I will reserve my comments on that until he is finished but I just
want to make sure that objections on the record. Thank you. At the RCO meeting it
was brought up that they were unable to if the applicant was unable to send a
letter because there was not a date scheduled for the meeting. The code
specifically provides for the eventuality that a date and the notice
was still required to be sent. The second issue with proper notice was that the
applicant failed to post and maintain the orange notice posted on the property.
While I am delighted to see that it was posted at some point, as soon as I
received a letter, I went outside, looked at the property, which I walked past every
day, and did not see a letter. I continued not seeing a letter every day between the
date I received the RCO notice, which again was more than a month after it
should have been received, and the date of the RCO meeting. Again, the requirement
is not just that the applicant posts the notice, but they maintain it, and the
applicant did not maintain the notice. The real problem here is there just
The real problem here is there just wasn't notice to the affected members of the community.
wasn't noticed to the affected number
The applicant attorney has stated that there is only one property directly adjacent.
That is true.
However, there are four properties that are separated by a two-foot, 10-inch alley shared in common.
And this would be effectively directly behind my back garden.
So this notice would have been very helpful had it been received in the proper amount of time.
Now, I don't believe that this should be a basis for a denial. I merely ask that we receive the one
month that we should have been afforded to prepare for this and meet again at either the end of
October or the beginning of November after we've had a chance to discuss this with the community
and hopefully with the applicant and his attorney and reach a compromise or proposal that can