Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Chair, we're ready to go.
Thank you.
Good morning again, 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 Snell.
Board Administrator Fatina L. and our Board Solicitor Rebecca Cole are also in attendance.
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 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 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that as well.
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 all your comments should be directed to our board administrator
Ms. Fatina L. With that, I will read off a list of cases that have been requested to
be continued.
Number 13 on our 930 list, MI2020-000282, 4625 Wayne Avenue.
Number 15 on our 930 list, MI 2020-003-172-599 Adams Avenue.
Number 16 on our list, MI 2020-000372-6220 King Sessing Avenue, Attorney Moving Party.
and I will also if anyone objects to any of those cases being continued please raise your hand at
this time. I see no hands here. Okay thank you uh I will now read off I will ask if there's anyone
here on case number, please bear with me, case number four on our list, MI 2020-000271,
1814 Titan Street. Is there anyone here for 1814 Titan Street? If so, please raise your hand.
Thank you.
Chair, we have Albert Littlepage.
Good morning, Mr. Littlepage.
Please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Chair and all persons.
My name is Albert Littlepage.
I'm the president of Plainbridge Community Development Coalition.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
Please proceed. I'm just here as the representative of the coordinating RCO. I believe that South
I'm just here as the representative of the coordinating
Philadelphia Homes had this case and we received a notice again that this was coming up from the
councilman's office, Councilman Johnson. So we're just on the line ready to address the case if in
fact the representatives come on. But France did tell me that he believed that they may have abandoned
in this particular case so yeah i think i think so also so just hang in there a second i want to
call that out again okay is there anyone here representing 1814 titan street
i see no hands here thank you so mi2020-000271 1814 titan street my vote is to dismiss
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Okay, Mr. Littlepage.
That case is dismissed.
MI number six on our list.
MI 2020-000208211 East Eleanor Street.
Is there anyone here for 211 East Eleanor Street?
i see no hands share thank you in this case having previously been listed on 9 30 and 12
uh 12 i'm sorry december 8th my vote is to dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss
Thank you. Number eight on our list, MI 2020-000808, 3147 Clifford Street. Anyone here representing
3147 Clifford Street?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you. MI 2020-000808-3147 Clifford Street, my vote is to dismiss.
Dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss.
Okay, thank you. Anyone else would like to request a continuance or withdrawal,
please raise your hand at this time. If you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal,
please raise your hand. Chair we have Charles Richardson you may unmute yourself and wait for
the chair please. Thank you good morning Mr. Richardson please identify yourself and I'll
swear you in. Good morning Mr. Chair Charles Richardson from the office of Councilwoman
Cindy Bass room 312 City Hall. You swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth. I do. Thank you sir please proceed. I am speaking on behalf of 441 East
Washington Lane, MI 2020-001741. We have no information that they have met with the RCO
at this point and have no contact from them. I'm wondering what the disposition might be.
According to my notes, Chew and Belfield Neighbors Club sent a letter of opposition.
um so i i believe miss pritzker might be available
miss pritzker yep you've been unmuted thank you good morning chairman members of the board
rachel pritzker r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1635 market street suite 1600
philadelphia pa 19103 um i had sent in a request do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed i had to send in a uh message to sharon
about this being continued so uh sorry i had some technical difficulties i was running a few minutes
late but our request is to continue the case okay mr richardson this case will be continued
no problem thank you so mi 2020-001-741-441 east washington lane is continued
any other requests for continuances or withdrawals for the 9 30 list please raise your hand
here we have allison weiss miss weiss you've been unmuted please wait for the chair
good morning miss weiss please identify yourself with the record spell your first and last name
Allison Weiss, A-double-L-I-S-O-N-W-E-I-S-S, Solon Germantown Civic Association.
I'm sorry, ma'am, ma'am, hold on.
i'm sorry ma'am ma'am hold on say ma'am after you hello the continuance for 4625
hello can anyone hear me yeah i'm sorry yeah i'm on my back yeah you broke up you spelled
your name and then you broke up after that what case are you calling solo germantown
we're having we're having difficulty we're having difficulty in hearing you
do you have it more than one device on
it appears as though it could be some technical issues with the maybe the internet service
um but we didn't swear her in either chair yeah i i put my question in the chat or in the um
question, if that's okay. First of all, Ms. Allen, let me, let me swear you in. You swear
in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes. All right, please
proceed. I just wanted to say for the record, uh, regarding 4625 Wayne Avenue, the continuance,
we received a letter stating that a continuance was going to be requested. It was not discussed
in advance, but that said, we will not oppose. Thank you. Anyone else requesting a continuance
or withdrawal, please raise your hand. I see no other hands, Chair. Okay, with that, we'll
now go to the add-on list uh mi 2020-000029 5405 christian street
is there anyone here for 5405 christian street
here i have celeste hardister who has been unmuted please wait for the chair and unmute yourself
no she doesn't need to be unmuted good morning uh good morning ma'am please identify yourself
spell your first and last name i'm sorry chair if i could just interject a thought
the record is closed on this so mr gossett doesn't need to be here and we're not going
to take testimony it's just a vote for you all oh i'm sorry you're right i apologize
i didn't pay attention to my own notes sorry no worries all right so mi2020-000029
5405 christian street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
Thank you. MI 2021-000429, pardon me, 2402 North 2nd Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
I have my understanding that, pardon me, number three on our item list, MI 2020-003-126, 1233 North Front Street.
This vote will take place next week as opposed to today at the request of Mr. Mulvihill, the attorney representing the applicant.
and let's see number we have a resumption hearing now mi 2020-002-567-419 north 33rd street
this is a resumption hearing
good morning good morning again miss pritchard is still under oath but please identify yourself
Yep. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do I need to be sworn in again?
No, no, you're still on the oath.
Okay, so we have had conversations with the Palton Village Civic Association and we worked out an agreement so that we have support from them. I believe there should be somebody on from their organization for the three units that we're proposing for.
from their organization for the three units that we're proposing for 419 North 33rd Street which is
a large existing structure if the board remembers and we were just allowed a little bit more time
to work with them so I I'll ask if there's anyone here is there anyone to testify on
419 North
33rd Street. Anyone from the
Palton Village or
Councilwoman Glottier's office?
We have a Malik Carter chair.
He's been unmuted. Please
wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Please
identify yourself. Spell your first and last
name and I'll swear you in. Good morning.
Malik Carter, M-A-L-I-K
Carter, C-A-R-T-E-R
I am the applicant.
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do so before you go mr uh malik
right rachel you want to ask him do you have any questions for your client i don't have any
questions for malik he's been involved with the conversations and we have reached an agreement i
think he would put on the record we've reached an agreement i would just be i'm just looking to
someone from the civic association uh corroborate that for the board chair we also have deborah
mccarty who's been unmuted please wait for the chair yep she's from the captain okay good morning
miss mccarty please spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in good morning deborah
mccarty d-e-b-r-a-m-c-c-a-r-t-y you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I just want to say that we do appreciate the
board's indulgence for letting us work this out and I'm really pleased with and as is the civic
association with the agreement we've been able to come to with Malik Carter and Rachel Pritzker.
They've been they've been great so I'm looking forward to working this you know seeing this
be a success. Good. Glad you could work it out. Thank you. Anyone else testify in this case?
All we were waiting for was feedback from the councilwoman. Basically, the councilwoman is
deferred to the ZBA and the Pelton Village RCO. Here we have Andrew Goodman. Please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair, please. Mr. Goodman, please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
Andrew Goodman, A-N-D-R-E-W-G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of Third District
Councilmember Jamie Gaudier.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Based on the conversations that have happened since the last hearing, Councilmember, we
kind of update our stance to one of non-oppositions, so thank you for the opportunity to do that.
Thank you.
I'm glad it worked out
Okay, I think we have enough on this
MI2020-002567419
North 33rd Street
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
Thank you
Carol, I believe we can go to the regular list now
Okay, calendar number
1225 North Myrtlewood Street
The attorney is Sarah Alderfer.
Ms. Alderfer has been promoted to panelists.
You may unmute yourself.
Sarah, can you hear me?
Ms. Alderfer, you might need to go out and come back in because we're unable to hear
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Sarah, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. Sarah Aldefer, S-A-R-A-H-A-L-D-E-R-F-E-R, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes to all.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm here for 1225 North Myrtlewood Street, which is owned by 1225 North Myrtlewood Street, LLC.
Thank you.
I'm just going to go ahead and share.
The principal of the company, Jacqueline Marsalis, is, I believe, also in attendance.
So I'd request that he raise his hand and be unmuted so that he may be permitted to speak as well.
And the architect, Anthony Brutini, is also in attendance.
I'd request that he raise his hand so that he can also be unmuted and can speak if necessary.
So while that's going on, 1225 North Myrtlewood Street is on the east side of North Myrtlewood Street between Stiles and Thompson Streets in the Brewery Town section of the city.
The property is in RSA 5 parcel, which is presently improved with a single, an existing two-story single family home.
The existing home is older and in a bit of disrepair, and there are some issues with the existing fire separation between our property and the adjacent property next door.
The lot is 14 feet wide by 50 feet deep for a total square footage of 700 square feet of lot area, and it abuts a four foot alley at the rear of the property.
We're seeking dimensional variances to build a single-family home on the lot.
Looking at the refusal, we have two refusals on this application, one for open area.
We're proposing 10% or 70 square feet of open area where 175 square feet or 25% is required.
And then we're proposing a minimum rear yard depth of five feet where nine feet is required.
I would note at this point in time that although our rear yard depth as proposed is five feet,
we're actually nine feet from the adjacent property due to the existence of a rear alley behind the property.
The variance is necessary due to the undersized nature of the lot.
which creates a hardship in developing the property for a single-family use.
A similar variance has been granted for 1245 North Myrtlewood Street,
which I've included in your packets at page 36.
There, a variance was granted for, looking at, it's going down to look at the refusal,
the variance was granted for rear yard depth and open area, but there they had slightly,
they had slightly more, slightly larger rear yard and slightly more open area. We met with the
coordinating RCO, Brewery Town Sharswood, who their official position was that they did not
reach a consensus on this application. There were 58 attendees at the meeting, only 12 voted on our
project. I'm sorry, only 12 voted in support or non-opposition with six in support and six in
non-opposition and 11 opposed. And then we also obtained letters of support or non-opposition from
the from the neighboring uh property owners which is at exhibit nine page 46 um i've highlighted
in pink the letters of support and then our immediate neighbor is highlighted in green as
being a non-opposition and i've included those letters um as well following the map that's at
Exhibit 9. So with that, I'd like to ask that my client adopt my statements. Mr. Marcellus,
are you here? Mr. Marcellus is here. He's been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record. First and last name, and I'll swear
you in. Jacqueline Marcellus. Please spell your first and last name. J-A-C-L-A-I-N. Last name M-A-R.
Last name, M-A-R-C-E-L-U-S.
C-E-L-U-S.
He's swearing to firm to tell the truth.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Ms. Alderford?
Mr. Marsalis, you are the principal of 1225 North Morton Wood Street, is that correct?
Correct.
And you heard my statements today?
Correct.
Are they true and correct?
Correct.
Do you adopt them as your own?
um with that i'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have
any questions from the board no no no no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand here we have anthony brutini please unmute yourself sir and wait
for the chair good morning sir please identify yourself with the record first and last name
spell your last name? Anthony Brutiniti, B-R-U-T-T-A-N-I-T-I. I am the architect on the project.
Are you testifying or are you just letting us if we need you? I'm just here if you need me. Okay,
I don't think so. Let's just wait a minute. Anyone else to testify in this case?
I see no other hands, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good morning, Zoning Board. David Fecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends this property for single-family use.
The proposed variances appear to be the minimum needed to enable the use of this lot as a single-family home.
We recommend that the board approve the requested variances.
Thank you.
MI 2020-0031601225 North Myrtlewood Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you so much.
Calendar number 1522-1310 South Broad Street.
the attorney is Vern Anastasio. Mr. Anastasio has been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Anastasio, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your name please?
Sure. Vern Anastasio, it's A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, PA-19107.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
and finally have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance photos
and or plans a copy of the refusal or referral five days in advance of this hearing and have
you met with the rco do you have a letter yes everything thank you you may proceed thank you
i'm going to start by sharing my screen
Okay. 1310 South Broad Street is one of a number of buildings along this stretch of
South Broad owned by the Meglio family and Meglio Furs. This, as you can see, has been
untouched for a better part of 70 years. There's a front storefront with a classic mid-century
South Philadelphia commercial front and then there's a door to the south of the store
and then what we're proposing is to restore the commercial space in the first floor front
and were originally asked for a five-family dwelling which this property was in addition
to the commercial space but since then and after having a couple meetings and discussions with the
RCO I'm sorry we were looking for a four-family dwelling we scaled that down to three families so
So let me show you what we're looking for now here, here are the plans, is the commercial
storefront will be completely restored.
And then there was an existing unit in the first floor rear.
We would rehabilitate that.
rehabilitate that the second floor which was initially in our plans two separate units we're
The second floor, which was initially.
now making that just one unit along the entire second floor and one unit along the entire third
floor the property is zoned rsa5 although it has never ever been a single family residence
It is surrounded by multifamily properties and also commercial space as well.
Here are some of the photos.
It's been untouched since it was first built.
But it has laid empty for quite some time.
here's the storefront
here's the rear yard
rear of the property
across the street of course
is the Pennsylvania
burial
and we've got
I'm going to pull out here
down the street of course is the car wash
You know, it's right between two SEPTA stations, 1308, lots of apartments, 1312, three family dwelling.
Pardon me for a minute, I've got more.
13-16, multifamily dwelling.
18, multifamily dwelling.
And let me get to page 49.
We'll zoom in on the history.
this is 1961 certification for family dwelling and a business
and then we've got
52 again another certification for family dwelling and a business
53. This goes back to 1953, four-family dwelling and a business.
Business and four-family dwelling, again, 1953.
And then I'll go to page 58.
This is even older, tailor shop and five family.
And then a plumber supply and four family, accounting and four family.
I think the last use was a tailor shop.
Here's a more history, business, and four family.
And certified use, 1966.
a business and afford family dwelling.
What I'd like to do as well is get to some legal arguments,
why I believe that my client is actually eligible
for a, hold on for a second, variance by estoppel.
and i want to enter this uh legal memoranda into the record um officially
but basically it says here that under pennsylvania law variance by estoppel refers to a group of
equitable doctrines in vaughn versus zoning hearing board township of shaler and the case
references a 1969 LIRB hearing that this property was the subject of.
And in that case, it references a 1968 LNI personal inspection.
It references a 1968 L&I personal inspection by an inspector.
And they describe the property as a four-family dwelling with a commercial space.
Excuse me.
And all of that information is here for you.
As far as the location is concerned, it's right smack dab between the Ellsworth Federal and Tasker Moore stations.
across the street is jackson's accounting service the boldy funeral home k person personnel up the
block is lily pay a play space and family event center there's also tmh associates an architectural
firm and we've already gotten several interested commercial tenants for the space
obviously what we're proposing does not substantially or permanently injure the
appropriate use or of the adjacent conforming properties doesn't increase congestion at all
it doesn't increase the danger of fire or otherwise in danger public safety
doesn't overcrowd the land impair an adequate supply of light or adversely affect transportation
as a result i think there are five salient points that i'd like to just point out as we can
seek the relief i think there's evidence irrefutable evidence concerning the property's
history i think that it's obvious that most of the neighboring properties are either commercial
and or multi-family use i believe the variance by estoppel doctrine most certainly applies in this
case because nowhere in the history of of the zoning history of this property does it ever show
that the city or anybody else submitted a permit for a single-family residence. The only time
there's ever been any documentation on this is either a four-family or a five-family residence
with a commercial space. The LIRB hearing that personally in their transcript suggests that a
1968 personal inspection by an L&I examiner confirmed the use. And my client's good faith
efforts to scale down to only three family dwelling and a commercial space. And I think for those of
us who are interested in preservation, that classic mid-century storefront would be decimated if we
had to lose the commercial space and we would not like to do that. So we respectfully request the
relief, and I'll be happy to take any questions. Otherwise, I'll have my client identify himself.
His name is Mark Ginsberg. He should be on the call.
mr ginsburg you may unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
yeah before before we square you in uh mr anasadi when was the last time
that the commercial space was used as a commercial space and my other question is
has your client purchased this or does the uh does the megalia family still on it no no my
client purchased this uh it was the last known use was a tailor shop uh you know but i believe
that closed up uh at least a couple decades ago if not more probably when they closed the uh
abandoned fur furrier shop but the corner of that's right he also purchased that his the idea
is to activate that corner again,
that space.
It's been dead for a long time.
A long time.
Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt.
Someone else,
someone was going to,
one of the,
be sworn in.
My client.
Please have him identify himself
and I'll swear him in.
Yes, I'm here.
Can you please state your name
and address for the record?
Mark Ginsberg,
M-A-R-C-G-I-N-S-B-U-R-G, 19 South 21st Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Clarity firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. Mr. Ginsburg, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
Okay. And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony if need be?
Do you have anything to add?
Do you have anything to add?
No, other than I'm just trying to renovate the, you know, upgrade the block that's been vacant for a very long time.
And when you, upon purchase and inspection, there were, in fact, how many residential apartments in the building?
It was laid out for two on the second floor, two on the third floor, and then the store, and then the space behind the store.
got it thank you and at the time of purchase sir it was every all units were vacant uh yeah there
was one like i think it's maybe a squatter they had someone in the second floor rear but
they got them out before we got they got them out before we purchased it
anything else mr anastasia before we move on no sir okay questions from the board
no is there a proposed is there a proposed tenant for that space there are several people who are
folks who have been interested most notably a barbershop is looking at it an old school kind
of like a I guess a hipster sort of a hipster version of the old Italian barbershops you know
we don't see anymore and uh and which is why it would be a real pity to lose that facade
because it's i mean that's right out of 1950. any other questions from the board
hello someone's about to speak
any other questions from the board no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand. Yeah we have Anthony with the that's been unmuted. Thank you sir. Please identify
yourself for first and last name. Anthony Bruttaniti, B-R-U-T-T-A-N-T-I. I am the zoning chairman
for South Broad Street Neighborhood Association. You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the
whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Yes we met with
the applicant twice to discuss this application. We also had several neighbors that have lived
on this block and around this property since they were children. The testimony from the
neighbors was that the first floor was used as a tailor shop for many years with a small kitchen
in the back of the store for use of the commercial space. And their testimony was also that the
owners of the tailor shop lived upstairs on the second or third floor and that it was never used
as apartments. Also the photographs that were by the applicant of the existing space never showed
any kitchens that were that would be indicative of multi-family use. I have to object to the
quote-unquote testimony of folks who have lived there. Yeah maybe. First of all that's hearsay
uh to say it is fact uh and what the evidence that we have that the board has to review
is the document documentation that's it's sustained it is hearsay so sir if you can speak
on behalf of yourself okay and okay um we had uh entertained um the fact that uh to use the
property as a three-use property, that being one apartment on the third, one apartment on the second,
and the first floor to either be an apartment or commercial space on the entire floor, not broken
up into a small commercial space in the front and a residential in the rear. And so we had taken
their original proposal and requested three uses, one per floor. It wasn't until they actually
refused to come back to talk to us about that proposal, and then a few days ago,
Vern and I had discussion about this option, and that was somewhat entertained at that point.
So our position from the board and from the neighbors would be acceptable to have one use
per floor, third floor residential, second floor residential, and the first floor either be an
apartment or a full floor commercial space. Thank you. Vern, could you go back to the
exhibit that shows the first floor as being partially commercial and partial residential?
Not what you're proposing, what exists now, the old photo. The current photos?
or the history
the history one
Let's give me one second.
Oh, by the way, I didn't share this with you, but I should at this point.
Here's the building.
These doorbells were installed 70 years ago.
There's one for the commercial space and one for each of the residential units.
so that's a total of five doorbells yeah but it's all been abandoned you'll agree with it right
that was all abandoned many years ago yes the megale family has not kept up with that property
that's correct for decades okay here's 1961 for family and a business we'll stipulate that at
some point decades ago this property was used uh mixed use commercial with several apartments uh
residential dwellings right yes i'm just looking for you had a diagram i believe of the first floor
uh not history the only diet the only drawing i have is the ones that we're proposing
one i saw or pictures of the interior i have pictures of the interior of the first floor
and it showed if i'm not mistaken separation between the commercial and the rear residential
of the first floor that's correct i mean it was already there um let me see if i can find it for
you i hope i get what you're looking for as you're looking uh and again we're only asking
for a three-family dwelling with the with the commercial space i know i know i get that
i'm not necessarily here's the that's the commercial front
and i think that's the door to the to the residential rear first floor rear
that's all the photos that i had all right i thought i saw something different but in
any event anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have peter zutter has been unmuted please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
um can you hear me mr zutter good morning please identify yourselves by your last name
good morning chairman to chico uh my name is peter zutter z-u-t-t-e-r and i live at 1440
south broad street we're going to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed i i just um i'm not going to add to anthony's testimony because he has covered
uh pretty much everything um we we would like the opportunity to work with the owner to put some uh
to put an agreement in place to control uh some of the things that we sometimes have problems with
uh we would like to see things like the we've learned that the rsa5 with commercial space
allows quite a bit of signage by right um in fact it allows um um internally illuminated signage so
we'd like to see some restrictions on that we'd like the opportunity to work that out with the
applicant um so if you do support this we would like to ask that you hold your decision until we
have an opportunity to do that. There are just some provisos. This would not be a zoning board
proviso. This would be an agreement directly between us and the applicant, which you've seen
us do before. Signage, trash disposal, some of those kind of issues. We've dealt with Mr.
Anastasio before. It's nothing unreasonable that we would be asking for if you choose to
support this so we would like to have that opportunity as anthony said um you know when
we met last um they just didn't you know they didn't go for the three units and sort of stopped
talking to us after that and uh so here we are at the hearing um so that i believe is it for me
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Anastabio, do you have any problem with maybe a resumption hearing at
which time we'll just take into consideration any further conversation with the RCO?
I think that'll be okay. I mean, if you're asking, do you want to hold off on the vote until we come up with the proviso contract, that's fine.
I think that'll be okay. I mean, if you're asking...
I mean, again, I've dealt with this RCO a lot, and I understand their concerns, especially with Broad Street, about trash and lighting and just the general look.
So my client, I'm sure, would have no problem entering into the standard agreements that we've always entered into.
Okay, so we can do a resumption hearing?
It'll just be to get...
Feedback from the RCO?
Okay, I'm just not quite sure if...
I think it's pretty clear that what we're proposing,
they're not interested in, even though we've scaled it down.
But I may be incorrect in that.
I don't know.
I mean, it sounds like there might be some wiggle room,
if you will, between what you guys are proposing
and what the community is objecting to.
And we'll only know that if you all sit down
and have a conversation.
Tanya?
Excuse me, Chair.
This is Fatina.
We have Franz Pierre with his hand up.
Okay, let's get Mr. Pierre on
from the Councilman's Office.
Mr. Pierre, please identify yourself
and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow board members.
That's Franz Pierre, that's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E, zoning liaison for Council Member Johnson's office.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes. I don't want to sound, for the sake of not sounding redundant, the council member office would join the coordinating RCO in their opposition to the appeal if it stands as is.
But we do support the resumption hearing to give the community and the developer a chance to work out their differences and see if they can come to a mutual agreement.
Thank you. Appreciate that.
Okay, Mr. Anastasio, you heard that the councilman's office is willing to participate in that discussion.
So we'll do a resumption hearing.
Fine by May.
Tanya, do we have a date?
May 18th at 10 o'clock.
Very good.
okay so mi2020-001522 1310 south broad street this hearing will be resumed
on may 18th at 10 o'clock a.m and if there was anyone else who wanted to testify we're not
dismissing your testimony but you'll have an opportunity to meet with the applicant and
your rco leaders to work to hopefully work things out along with the councilman's office
we go to number three carol uh chair okay i'm sorry if i could just put on the record i'm sorry
it's tuesday may 18th just so everyone's aware that's a tuesday tuesday may 18th i know we have
a couple other hearings that day yeah thank you chair thank you mr chairman should we hear from
the planning commission or do you want to wait on that yeah why don't we why don't we wait okay
All right. Thank you.
Calendar number 3167, 1515 South 9th Street.
The attorney is Zen Jin.
Mr. Jin has been promoted to panelist.
Hi, Mr. Jin.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Yes. Good morning.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to leave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exempt packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, photos, and or plans,
a copy of the refusal or referral five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes to all questions. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you.
Mr. Chen, before you begin, I have some notation that there's a letter of non-opposition with the
proviso limiting your application to three units as opposed to four. That's correct. That's something
your client and you agree to? Yes, we have agreed to that. Then you can make life easier for all of
us. Yes. By showing us the proviso. All right. Yes, absolutely. If I may go ahead and share
If I may go ahead and share the information, I'll make this brief.
the information, I'll make this brief.
So we have submitted the RCO letter from Pashank Square Civic.
We actually had a meeting and a discussion with the Civic Association.
They took the position that the first four units could be combined into one.
Rather than leaving it as four units, they voted in non-opposition to three units.
The other provisals are more construction and fire code related. I believe those would be
addressed when my client goes to certify a building permit, particularly for the exterior
staircase to comply to code requirements. The property itself was purchased as a four-family
dwelling. And it is, from the photographs, you'll see that it was actually set up some time ago.
So it does need a little bit of work on the exterior, which we had agreed to as part of our discussion with the community.
But essentially, this property's meters are separated.
There are actually five electric meters, multiple gas meters, as well as the water heater being separated.
So it's a building that was set up a long time ago and is now in its existing condition.
Again, this is an application to legalize what is existing.
There are no longer a commercial space in the front.
This has been converted to one residential unit, and there's one in the back, one on
the second, and one on the third.
So that makes up the four units.
The agreement is to kind of combine the first floor, front and back, into one unit, and
that's what the community asks for, and we're in agreement with that request.
so given that we would ask the board's consideration in a proviso maximum no more than three units
I don't believe plans need to be stamped because there would have to be changes on my
client's part to redo floor plans in order to conform to that requirement
if the board has any questions I would certainly be happy to try to answer them
Do you have your client?
Yes, my client should be here under a Zoom account of Yongchen, Y-O-N-G-C-H-E-N.
However, his name is not Yongchen.
He's working off of his son-in-law's account.
If you can, please raise your hand on your Zoom program so that you can be identified by the administrator.
mr jen in the interest of time uh the board will stipulate that you being an officer to court
your your client would adopt your testimony mr yong just uh i mean the uh the account was just
promoted because i see the name all right there he is okay yes uh mr john are you here with us
i guess it would be better to stipulate stipulate any questions from the board no no
no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
i see no hands here thank you planning commission
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends this property for single-family use.
There is documented history of this property for two residential units, but not for four.
We recommend that the board approve the requested variance with the provisals.
Thank you. MI 2020-003167. 1515.
I'll do that again. MI 2020, that's 003-167-1515 South Main Street. My vote is yes with the proviso. Maximum three units.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you. Calendar number 1739, 2110 North 2nd Street. The attorney is Leo Malpahill.
Mr. Mulvihill has been promoted to panelist.
Mr. Mulvihill, can you put your name and address on the record, and spell your last
Mr. Mulvihill, you're still muted.
Mr. Chair, can I move to number seven?
Calendar number 3161, 2201 Cater Street. The attorney is Vern Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio has been promoted to panelists. Thank you. Mr. Anastasio, can you put your name
and address on the record and spell your last name? You're already under oath.
Sure. Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, 19107.
Thank you. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral, photos and or plans five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes to all that.
Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. Okay, great.
Oh, that's not the wrong one. Sorry. Got to start over.
there it is okay it's 2201 cater street
here application is for a two-family dwelling in an existing structure
um but this property was purchased by my client uh as a two-family dwelling marketed as a two-family
dwelling priced as a two-family dwelling only to find out later that in fact it is not
we got a base basement unit that already exists it's like a junior studio i suppose
and then we have a first and second and third floor first floor's got a living room kitchen
room dining room garage second floor is the living and kitchen dining i'm sorry and two bedrooms
so that's basically one unit here and one unit there
this is the property question that's the side there's the garage there's the doors
we understand that the building code is going to require us to do a window well
which we discussed with the rco
there's more exterior photos here's some interiors
on the run through them rather quickly pretty standard
i'm going to go to
there's proof of two utilities
you have two separate water and sewer bills
of course we have our deed our tax cert our proof of mailing
and then we have the marketing of this property this is on compass
website right here msl type multifamily
I'm using my cursor to show you.
Here's Redfin.
Investors and homeowners.
Corner duplex with one car garage right there.
and that's basically it we met with the RCO they sent a letter of support there
were some minor provisos that were unrelated to zoning
minor provisos that were unrelated to zoning and that's it
thank you my client is in the audience if you wouldn't if you have no questions if you could
just be recognized jason
mr chude please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
okay can you hear me yes please identify yourself first and last name spell your last
name for the record jason chiu chiu we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes thank you mr anastasia thank you may i proceed
yes mr chairman yes okay thank you jason you heard my presentation to the board today
yes and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and what did you adopt it as
your own testimony if need be yes that's it that's all i have mr chairman thank you any
questions from the board no no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your
hand? I see no hands shared. You, Planning Commission? I'm sorry. We do have a call-in
user. Okay. We acknowledge that person. Okay. I'm not showing the hand raised. Would it
be call-in number one or number two, Ms. Dunkey? It looks like number one. Let's try and see.
Okay. Calling user, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Okay, we can continue. It just keeps popping up and I just wanted to make sure we address them.
Okay. Planning Commission. Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends this property
for single-family use. However, this appears to be a pre-existing use. We recommend that the board
approve the requested variance. Thank you. MI 2020-003161-2201 Cater Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Harold, could we try to go back to number five?
Thank you. Have a nice day.
Thank you, you too, Vern.
Calendar number 1739-2110, North 2nd Street.
The attorney is Leo Mulvihill.
Mr. Mulvihill is promoted to panelists.
You may unmute yourself, sir.
I wait for the chair.
Okay, great.
Mr. Mulvihill, can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name?
Yes, good morning. Leo Mulvihill, M-U-L-V-I-H-I-L-L. Address is 20, pardon me, 1441 East Oxford Street, Philadelphia, 19125.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm, no, you already did that. Do you also have a great way to read the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet in with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Thank you. You may proceed.
All right. Good morning, Chairman, members of the Board. My apologies for missing the previous call. My dogs picked the worst time to go crazy, and I had to attend to them.
We're here today for 2110 North 2nd Street.
It's LA88 Investment Incorporated.
My client Alex is on the line as well.
I'm showing right now my table of contents with the refusal appeal and project information form at 1,
area maps at 5, deed at 6, commercial activity license at 12,
the tax clearance at 13, zoning notification letter at 14,
a letter from Nara Square at 17, photos of property at 19, plans at 33.
Briefly, I'll address the refusal. So we're talking about the 2nd Street corridor. This
property is zoned CMX2. It's currently a vacant lot. We're located in the middle of a bunch of
three-story row homes. So what we're asking to do is to have a two-family dwelling in line with the
residential use that's on the block, but without the commercial ground floor space.
The reason for this is it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to squeeze a commercial space in
between residential properties and when we see the photographs of the property
you'll have a better sense as to what we're talking about there. What I'm
What I'm showing now is page five of my packet. I'm going to zoom in on the top. This is the area zoning map that was taken from Philadelphia Atlas. You can see that across the street, we have RSA 5 and I-2. I believe there's some sort of automobile shop across the street.
showing now is page five of my packet. I'm going to zoom in on the top this is
We're indicated in that blue parcel towards the center of the page.
Behind us is ICMX.
Directly behind us in the smaller block is all RSA 5.
This entire block, which is almost entirely residential, is all zone CMX 2.
Scrolling down to the bottom of page 5, the blue pin indicates our lot.
You can see single-family row homes and some commercial properties, frankly,
across the street with commercial ground floor and apartments above uh but our lot is here
indicated in that blue pin as i noted earlier with single family or multi-family residential
properties on either side towards the end of the block there is an empty lot believe it used to be
an automobile uh sales location i believe it's no longer in use at this point going to page six
in my packet, this is our deed. Page 12, this is our commercial activity license. 13 is our tax
clearance. It's our notification letter that went out back in November. We held a meeting with NARA
Square. It was over Zoom for the attached information at page 15. Certificate of mailing
is at page 16. At page 17, we now have the letter that we received from NARA Square.
Overall, Nara Square took an opposition to this.
In sum, the neighbors' objections were not so much to not having commercial space on the ground floor,
but frankly that nobody wanted anything built there at all.
Just to go over this as well, we discussed the prices of the units, as you can see in the first bullet point.
We're looking at around $1,250 to $1,500, so not horrifically expensive for new construction.
Neighbors on both sides of the lot expressed their concerns about construction.
So they wanted nothing built there at all.
We tried to explain exactly what we were trying to do, agreed to put some sort of agreement in writing with the neighbors, add them as additional insurance to our policy, but they didn't want to discuss that really any further with us.
And unfortunately, what's been happening is that based on the last bullet point, there's been a number of unscrupulous developers, according to Nara Square in the area.
And as a result, all of that baggage was kind of thrust upon to my client, Alex.
And ultimately, that's my understanding why the project was voted against.
It had nothing to do with a variance request whatsoever, which is de minimis.
Rather, it's simply nobody wanted anything built there whatsoever.
This is the actual lot itself.
As you can see, we have a residential properties, both to the north and south.
We do have what appears to be an illegal or not up to code downspout to the property of the north,
which is the darker red brick front.
Alex at our community meeting spoke with that neighbor who was present, offered to help relocate that,
ensure that all the flashing on the roof was complete, etc.
But the neighbor was not interested.
Just more photographs of the properties.
This is zoomed out at page 21.
We now see that there are both adjacent three-story single-family homes.
They might be multifamily further down the block, but they're not registered as such in Philadelphia Atlas.
this is just proceeding northbound up second street
and now at page 24 i've stopped to pause and we can all see that across the
street which is also in commercial mixed use
we have residential properties without commercial use for the majority of this
block likewise with us commercial mixed use
but residential properties up and down the block
directly across the street this is that larger parcel that i indicated earlier
which i believe is an auto shop they do sound systems rims and things like that
this is now looking southbound along second street
if we look behind this toyota or honda pilot rather as best we can we can see an existing
structure here on this corner lot which i discussed uh was at some point an automobile
sales store but i believe it's no longer in use all right gonna zoom out so members of the board
here's our rendering. This is at page 33. We're not proposing any particularly crazy materials,
red brick or brick veneer, perhaps some metal paddling at the top to allow for a little bit
more additional space. There's some open space in the second story to allow for that for the
second story tenant. Zooming in now on the next page, page 34. I just want to note for the record
I just want to note for the record the height. The proposed height of these structures is 32 feet 9 inches.
the height the height proposed height of these structures is 32 feet 9 inches we did not
We did not go up to the full 38 because we're not trying to tower over the existing homes.
And now what I'm showing members of the board are the floor plans at page 35, which is the final page of the packet.
To the left is the cellar plan. We have a half bath, living, open area, storage, something along those lines for the first unit.
first floor plan now towards the middle of the screen unit one is about 1100 square feet
give a bedroom to the rear of that unit bath in the middle dining and kitchen space to the front
of the property going up the stairs you get into unit b 1292 square feet again we have the bedroom
to the rear bath and kitchen to the center if you go up to the third floor we have two bedrooms
one of which could be used as a home office, as so much of us do these days.
There is a roof deck. It's set back. That's for use of the upstairs unit.
There's a substantial rear yard that's proposed.
That's going to be for the use of the downstairs unit.
In some members of the board, the hardship is thus.
This really shouldn't be a commercial block.
I understand it's zoned as such, but the uses up and down the block, as you all can see,
based on the photographs that I presented, it's not commercial. It's residential.
Putting a commercial space here presents a hardship for my client in terms of,
One, it doesn't fit the character and nature of the block.
Two, the increased traffic could harm existing neighbors who are present, assuming that this
project gets built even with commercial space against the objections of the neighbors.
And frankly, this is a residential block and ought not be zoned commercial mixed use based
on the existing characteristics of the block itself.
Alex, if you're on the line, I'd just like to ask you to raise your hand.
so you can be sworn in
Alex hasn't risen his hand yet
and we have several Alex's on the line
what's his last name
not sure whether Alex would have
put his last name or called in
LA88 Investments, Alex
in any case
If he's not on the line any longer, then what I would just ask is the board accept my testimony as my client on behalf of LA88 Investments.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Hello? Did we lose anyone?
No, I'm here.
I'm here, Chairman.
Did you get your client on?
I will text him momentarily and see whether he can raise his hand.
If not, I will stipulate you being an officer of court that your client would adopt your testimony.
In the meantime, are there any questions from the board?
Is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Sloan Foulkes. Mr. Foulkes, you've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Foulkes. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Chairman DeChico, members of the ZBA board. My name is Sloan Foulkes, S-L-O-E-F-S,
FIRE, O-L-K-S, Office of Maria Quinonez Sanchez, Room 508.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
thank you please proceed yes the applicant having received a letter of opposition
from uh the coordinating rco the councilman does not support this request thank you
thank you anyone else to testify
yes chair we have david gonzalez please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
gonzalez please identify yourself first and last name spell your first and last name for the record
David Gonzalez, D-A-V-I-D-G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z, you're on 2108 North Stecker Street.
And you swear in the frame to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
I'm in opposition of this project.
My fear and my concern, which has been happening throughout the whole entire city, they come in, they dig for these foundations and homes collapse.
um you're putting families lives at risk my home does not have any home on either side of it
so mine would definitely be at risk of collapsing and putting my family's life in danger
as i told you how long have you lived in your home in your house
How long have you lived in your home
In your house
I have been here since my parents
Bought the house in 1981
Was there ever
A structure on either side
Of the house you live in
Used to be a house
It was torn down back in the early 90s
Anyone else
Like to testify in this case
please raise your hand i see no more hands chair thank you planning commission good morning david
effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends this property for residential multi-family use the commercial zoning here
dates back to 1933. we are working on a zoning bill for north square now and are reviewing the
zoning for this block we recommend that the board approve the requested variants thank you mi 2020
that's zero zero one seven three nine two one one zero north second street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you members of the board
good day. Thank you. Carol before you begin did you see the notation on this case that we're about
to discuss now? So why don't we do it we'll call up the applicant and try to make sense of what
these notes are referring to. They're claiming that they were not able to meet with the RCO
so let's let's swear whoever it is in and then we'll ask those questions. Thanks. Okay
calendar number 0336 3128 west montgomery avenue the owner is lenwood jones
mr jones you've been unmuted please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
yes ma'am mr jones can you put yeah hey carol i'm sorry okay mr jones can you put your name
and address on the record and spell your last name yes my name is lenwood jones on 3128 west
montgomery avenue philadelphia pa 19121 do you swear or from to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth yes have you exhibited not strike that have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and plans five days in advance of this
hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes okay i am turning you over to
the chair and you may proceed yeah mr john have you had a meeting with you're saying you did have
a meeting with the RCO? Yes.
Yes, we did. Our notes
are saying that
Ms. Lasseter, I
assume Ms. Lasseter. Yeah, Wanda
Lasseter. Right.
It said a meeting could not take
place. And that
she met with someone
named Gail Guile?
No? I'm unfamiliar yet.
Ms. Lasseter,
she should be.
Okay, let's see. Ms. Lasseter, are you available? Please raise your hand.
Okay, Chair, I'm trying to unmute Ms. Lasseter, but I'm going to have to temporarily
promote her to a panelist because she's using an older version.
Ms. Lasseter, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Ms. Lasseter. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last names.
Yes, good morning. My name is Wanda Lasseter, W-A-N-D-A. Lasseter, L-A-S-S-I-T-S and Tom, E-R.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Lasseter, looks like she froze.
Looks like she froze.
So Chair, if I could ask a question, if it's allowed?
Sure, please.
Mr. Jones, do you have the letter from the RCO?
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lasseter had, I'm sorry, Ms. Lasseter had obtained everything for me
in regards to the letter
in regards to the letter and information that we needed so you she told you she had the letter
and information that we needed.
So you, she told me,
okay yeah she's here i think she's back tanya miss lasseter yes good morning good morning yes hi
we did have a meeting um with the rcl um unfortunately it was in the middle of covet
it wasn't held in a building but we actually met outside um 3200 block of montgomery and we did
meet with Gayle Gayle and another member of the RSCO. At that time, Ms. Gayle told us that she
would send a letter downtown, whatever that meant. I recently spoke to Judith Robinson of the 32nd
Ward. She called last week, and she also said that she was going to send a letter downtown.
Rebecca, do we have any letters from the RCO?
I don't have any updated information on this case. No additional documentation.
Chair, we have, excuse me, we have Alexander. Would you like me to unmute this person?
And Ms. Lasseter, while we're waiting, you are the realtor?
Yes, I am.
Alexander, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir.
Please identify yourself with the records.
spell your first and last name hey hey my name is alexander hello hello yes hello yes please spell
your first and last name hey my name is alexander levodansky alexander levodansky my my attorney is
leo leo movies really we are having a difficult time hearing you would you speak slowly i'm sorry
I don't think you care for this case. He said Leo Mulvihill is his attorney.
Oh, okay. I couldn't hear him. Thank you.
Chair, if I could make a recommendation that we could do a short continuance
to determine if a meeting was had and if we have documentation to support the neighborhood position.
Sure, that'll work out. Mr. Jones, we're going to give it,
Tanya will give us a date for continuance so we can have everything
uh verified and any letters be part of the uh the package so that we can then vote on the case
okay we appreciate it um i mean is that pretty much all that we need uh chairman i believe so
um yeah that's a requirement so we just want to make sure so it doesn't come back to uh
haunt you at some point all right yeah we greatly appreciate it yes sir all right so
tanya we're going to put a date up are you going to do that offline
no we're going to send them a date okay so mi2020-000336 3128 west montgomery avenue
is continued thank you calendar number 1512 3761 glenn street the owners are patricia mcguire
and kenneth mcguire
Patricia McGuire has been promoted to panelists.
Ms. McGuire, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Patricia McGuire, M-C-G-U-I-R-E, 3761 Glenn Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19114.
Will Mr. McGuire also be testifying?
No, I did provide an authorization.
My husband is a first responder, and because of COVID, there's a shortage, so he needed to go to work.
Thank you.
Do you swear in front of me to tell the whole truth?
I'm sorry, Carol.
we could pause. Ms. L, did you promote her as a panelist? I don't have her as a panelist.
And just to confirm, yes, we did receive her letter of authorization and Sharon's the letter
approved it, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Tanya. Ms. McGuire, do you swear
for him to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth? Yes. Have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos under plans of the
or referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have
property five days in advance of this year
you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes okay you may proceed okay um i first uh applied
for a use permit at the municipal service building and i was denied so i was told that i need to
apply for a zoning permit, which we did. I have my refusal letter up on the screen.
I can also provide my deed saying that my husband and I own the home. I did fill out the revised
plans that it originally says that I want it for accessory parking, but that's not true. I just want
to expand my existing driveway. My home is four years old to be able to park our cars side by
side. We have three cars. We all work a different shift. My husband does rotating. I and my daughter,
we all do different shifts. I do have the space flexible on how far I could come out. At first,
I want it 10 feet. If I do 10 feet, I will still have three feet of grass on my property line.
But I'm flexible. Do you have a photo? Yes, we have photos. They're in the process of building
two new homes next to me. I just want to extend it from my existing driveway over a little bit.
and you would do that in the front as opposed to in the back yeah i couldn't do it in the back
i i i have a home behind me and central air units on the one side okay okay you you want to widen
is that correct widen the drive yes yes how many feet 10 um i propose 10
But it doesn't have to be 10 as long as I can get two cars side by side.
What is the requirement?
Do you know, Tom, Mr. Holloman?
Yes, it's 9 feet wide, 20 feet long.
and you're saying all three of you work on different shifts yes yes my husband works
rotating um i do day work and then my daughter is a professor so she does day classes and night
classes. All right let's see if we there is a letter of opposition. Correct. From Morrell Park
at Toursdale and Morrell Park and also from Councilman O'Neill's office. Correct. Is there
anyone who would like to testify in this case please raise your hand. The Civic Association
when we went uh it was a terrible time my daughter actually presented for us and she is here if you
would like her to testify we endured inappropriate remarks insulting comments and heather did
provide an email stating what happened would you like my daughter to testify her name is kelly
mcguire just hold off for that for a moment is there anyone else who would like to testify in
this case. Please raise your hand. Chair, we have Alice Udovich. Yes, she's been unmuted. Please wait
for the chair. Good morning. Please identify yourself with the records by your last name
and I will swear you will. Good morning, Chairman, members of the board. Alice Udovich on behalf of
Councilman Brian O'Neill's office. My last name is U-D-O-V-I-C-H. I'm in City Hall, room 562.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
The councilman does support the community in their opposition of this plan, in the belief that it's a bit excessive.
There's no problem with on-street parking in this neighborhood.
This would remove on-street parking at this location.
and aesthetically doesn't quite fit in
with the look of the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
I have a question, Mr. Chair, go ahead.
I see no other hand.
I see no other hand.
Carol, you were going to say something?
Harold, you were gonna say something?
Yeah, I'm confused about this letter.
It says civic meeting January 9th.
Who was writing this?
Because they're grateful and applauding both the daughter and mother's self-control during the outburst.
Heather Stratton, one of the board members of the RCO.
she's the one who actually stopped the verbal abuse that we endured
okay i don't even want to get into asking what kind of abuse miss mcguire you said that you
would accept something less than what you're applying for yes i'm flexible sir well how
would you be able to get your if if you need i think tom said it was nine foot nine feet
nine feet how do you get if you do less than nine feet how do you get two cars in
because you have an oversight i can i can move the one car over a little more um i usually park
in the center but i can move the one car over some and that would give you a grand total of
how much space 20 if we granted nine feet was the width would then be what 20 so it's 12 and nine
can we go back can you scroll back to the photos
i don't know anything less than the nine feet you're not going to get a car in there anyway
Carol did you have a question. No, no. Yes. Have the plans been submitted to street department
for curb cut approval. Try that. We actually we actually tried that. When we went to LNI for our
use permit we went to the streets department and that's when we got told that we didn't need a use
permit we needed a zoning permit i'm sorry um sure but i believe the testimony is from
um the daughter so we would need to swear her in and make sure she's clearly on record all right
please uh miss mcguire yes identify yourself and i'll swear you in my name is kelly mcguire
k-e-l-l-y-m-c-g-u-i-r-e we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Tom had a question.
I was wondering if the city reviewed the curb cut.
I think the way it works is they won't approve until it's approved by us.
We never got that far.
You're not going to get it.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
And Alice, I'm sorry to cut you off.
Were you finished, Alice?
Yes, sir, I am.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify?
I see no other hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good morning.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for single-family use.
There is no unique physical characteristic of this lot that would require the addition of parking spaces to enable viable use of the property.
We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-001512, 3761 Glen Street. My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Thank you.
Before we go to number 12, Carol.
I think it's possible it'll be short, but then it could be a long hair case.
I'm just wondering if we should do the other two first.
Let's go to 14.
Calendar number 1725-5336, Wayne Avenue.
Charlina and Sean Adolph.
A letter of support with a three-year temporary variance.
Right.
Anyone here for 5336 Wayne Avenue?
Charlina is but has to be unmuted.
Charlina is, but has to be unmuted.
Charlina, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Your first and last name, please.
Ms. Adolph, you need to unmute yourself.
Sorry.
No problem.
It's okay.
Your first and last name.
Yes, Charlene Adolph
C-H-A-R-L-E-N-A
A-D-O-L-P-H
Address 5336
Wayne Avenue, Philadelphia
PA, 19144
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?
Okay, Carol. I'm sorry.
You're finished, Carol.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of
ownership tax compliance?
refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter i did meet with the rco um i spoke with
sharon yesterday because it was a miscommunication with when i was supposed to have documents
submitted so she did say if there was any problem that you all can call her i did speak with her
yesterday but she did have everything um and i just got the letter yesterday from
this analysis she should be on there also she said that she would come on but she know that
she did approve okay do we know about this um mr chair yeah um all i know is from uh our uh
sharon's notes that there was a mistake in submitting revised plans they're not required
okay so you may proceed yeah right should i go ahead and talk now sorry yes okay i just want to
just want to ask to be able to continue to do my uh group i've been doing family care i had been
doing family care since 2015 in the home and in 2018 i was approved with the variants for three
years in my home uh due to covid19 and everything some of my stuff got pushed behind and with my
some going off to college, some things got pushed behind.
And we just wouldn't have been able to manage
a policing
and also trying to take care of our household.
So I was just asking
to either get an extension or have that
variance taken off. The three-year
extension I could take
and I would greatly appreciate
or to have the variance taken off
so that I could just continue to do the group in my home.
The group is just so that I could have
the seven children instead of the six
children in my home.
Ms. Adolph, pardon the interruption.
I didn't hear you quite clear
You said something about taking the
Variance off
I had a variant before
For three years in the home
And my variants was up
So I had to reapply and ask
For an extension
To continue to do group in my home
Because you have to have a special exception to do group
Not family
And I had been doing family since 2015
And then I
Switched over to group
because i had a family that had a child and i wanted to be able to accept that one child
which i wouldn't have been able to do if i had um if i was family so i was just asking if i could
continue to do my group in my home with the suspension of the three years or a very without
the variance of three years well the rco did send a letter of support as you probably are aware
with a proviso
that a three-year
variance.
All right.
Any other questions?
No questions.
Any questions
for Ms. Adolph
from the board?
Anyone else
would like to testify
in this case?
Please raise your hand.
Here we have
Allison Weiss.
Ms. Weiss,
you've been unmuted,
please.
Yes, hi.
Thank you.
Allison Weiss.
You're still under oath.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Allison Weiss, Solo Germantown Civic Association.
And I'm just here to say that-
Your last name, please.
W-E-I-S-S.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
We just wanted to say that we did send our letter of support after we met.
And yes.
With the three-year temporary variance?
Correct.
We agreed to the temporary three-year variance.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning again, Mr. Richardson.
Identify yourself.
You're still under oath.
yes sir charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall councilwoman has
Yes, sir.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312.
no opposition to granting this variance thank you anyone else to testify
i see no other hands chair your planning commission good morning david fecto city
planning commission mr chairman and members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no
to the existing residential zoning at this location the proposed special exception will
not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what normally might be expected for this use
we recommend that the board requests that the board grant special exception thank you mi 2020-001
725-5336 wayne avenue my vote is yes with the proviso temporary variance to expire
May 1st, 2024. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Good luck. I think we go to 17 and then we'll circle back to King Sessing. Okay Chair. Calendar
number 1712-7110 Erdrick Street. Corrin Wise is the attorney.
Ms. Wise has been promoted to panelist.
Hi Mr. Wise, name and address for the record please and spell your last name.
Good morning, Corrin Wise, 100 North 18th Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia PA 19130. Last name
wise do you swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do do you also
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos under plans
of the property five days in advance of this hearing and do you did you meet with the rco
and do you have a letter yes okay thank you you may proceed yes yes good morning mr chairman good
morning members uh 70 this is 71 10 erdrick street um we are seeking a variance for a
uh three family dwelling um this is a end of row prop i'm sorry let me share my screen
um and also on the call today uh should be my client owner and applicant igor uperov
um also our professional engineer andrew menyo um real estate agent jacob brolin said he might
be able to appear but wasn't sure so if we don't see him he might not be on i want to share my
screen and also ask that those individuals be elevated so they can participate if necessary
Okay. So if you can see my screen, I want to share the exhibits for this 7110 Erdrich Street.
The refusal here is for a three-family dwelling in what is now an RSA 5 zoning.
this is the notice the rco notice for an rco meeting that attached the refusal as well as
my certificate of mailing note that this was november 2020 uh not a great month for a mailing
around here we'll come to that later um these are the addresses these are the this is the uh
plan for the property as i said you're not seeing the plan
oh uh let me try again
what are you seeing mr wise we see your um file all your files listed oh okay i gotta
try and share again then right um let me bear with me thank you for your patience
so if you want to unshare that then open up your document and then reshare
there we go new share i see
where's my documents
Did that do it?
Yes, we see it now.
So, sorry, if we missed all this, I'll just go back.
With the exhibits, there's refusal, the RCO notice, attaching refusal, and the certificate of mailing.
the RCO notice attaching refusal and certificate of mailing. November 2020 was when I
mailed the notices for our first RCO meeting. These are the addresses provided by the
Planning Commission and here's our plan. End of row unit. These are steps at the
front um with a raised a hill in the front here um and the driveway is around the back
you'll see photos and understand what i mean but here's our plot plan where this property is 31
feet wide the building itself is about 15 or 16 feet wide and there's a driveway next door since
we're in end of row the driveway does continue alongside the property around the back serving
the neighboring properties in this row. Existing as is right now, there's a rear entrance at grade
level back here, entering what I'll call the first floor or the first level or all the neighbors
have garage doors here. This property does not have a garage door here, but we enter here into
kitchen and dining. There's a galley kitchen here, utilities here, a bedroom and a bathroom.
entering over that hill up those stairs on the what I'll call the second level
you are in a vestibule with stairs up to the third floor or a door into the second floor
into the kitchen dining galley kitchen here bathroom and two rooms this is we're calling
this a living room and a bedroom here up the stairs to the third level uh enter into a bedroom
here, bedroom in the back, kitchen, and a bathroom in the middle. This, I had forwarded this tax
compliance because I was having trouble getting the certification, but I'll show you the certification
in a moment. And here's a page from the archives where the date is 63, 1963, and this property
has been a multi-family property since 1963. At that time, it was registered as a two-family
dwelling. And if I can change my view, I want to show you the photos. I'm sorry, I should show you
the deed first. Here's our deed. My clients are Dimitri and Igor Uparov, and they bought this
property in October of 2017. And like I said on that plan, here's that 31-foot width of the property,
and and uh here is this 120 foot depth of this property so we do have a 31 foot by 120 foot
property square footage of that is 3 720 square feet that does include the driveway that's uh
accessible so for use from the neighbors but this is uh 31 by 120 so when we talk about square
footage in multi-families, we would normally be talking about 3,720 square foot using that
provision in the RM zoning of 480 foot per unit. That gives us a seven unit count.
This is a variance request for three units. Here's the photos. I want to make sure everyone
can see these. So here's the property. As you see, we have an elevated front yard in the front.
here's that front door up to what i call the second second level the driveway around the side
and the rest of the row here this is on its side i tried to rotate it but i don't know how but you
can i'll have a better picture of this but you see a rear door entering that first level unit
that's a window here not a garage door this has been this format for you my clients have owned
since 2017. If there ever was a garage door here, they never saw it. They didn't remove it. There's
three meters. This is what I'm calling the second floor unit, entering that up the stairs front door
on the front of the property, that galley kitchen, that bathroom, that what was termed living room
on the plans and the bedroom in the back. Nicely updated, good quality of living here for the
tenants here's the bathroom here's that living room area the bedroom area those are the mailers
I sent out uh here's the posting for our first I'm sorry for our first zoning hearing we were
here before uh and a um continuous was requested by the RCO when I did send out the RCO notices
the RCO notices. We did have an RCO meeting. We did appear on Zoom. Everything went well. No one
we did
appeared. The RCO director, Chris, I'm forgetting his last name, called me the next day, day or two
after and said he was hearing that people weren't getting the notices. We did come before you,
requested continuance. He did notice a second RCO meeting. We did have that second meeting. Here we
are before you for our second appearance. At the second RCO meeting, neighbors did appear.
There was some concern. One of the concerns voiced by the next door neighbor, Mr. Leon,
was that this basement had been dug out and he had concerns about the structure of his next door
property. This basement was not dug out, at least by my clients. But in response to his concerns,
we did have a structural, I'm sorry, a PE, a professional engineer go out and I have a report
to show you here. But this is a photo of the rear. This is our rear door. This is next door's garage
door. We can see that just by eye these look to be, if you had to guess which one was lower,
orange is not lower on the outside. And here's a little further back where these, this door is
actually higher than this door by about two or three courses. I measured this step up which is
I wish I got the camera a little lower here but I was holding the tape measure at the same time.
This is between three and four inches I'd say. On this and inside this is actually a little bump up
this side of the step is actually higher than this side of the step but even so inside is a
difference of less than eight between seven and eight inches with that little increase. So if it's
four inches outside three between three and four inches and between eight nine seven eight inches
inside I'm going to say the grade is between four and five inches here. So this is a tiny bit below
but looking at this my guess before the engineer had gotten there was that the garage and the floor
are probably about even. But you'll hear from Mr. Igor, this was not dug out. When they obtained
the property in 2017, there were three levels of three bathrooms. Living space was already
existing down here on the first level. Bathrooms were existing. There was a kitchen area down here.
There was steps between the lower level, the first level, and the second level. Those were deleted.
There's no violations here. The current application, the reason I was contacted was these folks, in attempts to be compliant, did go out to seek their rental license and were made aware that this was actually listed as a duplex.
It had been a multifamily for years, but that third unit to their surprise was not legalized.
Here's an additional picture from further back of the end unit, that garage door, if it ever was existent, had been removed years and years ago, and the neighboring properties.
So the concerns at the ORCO were structural because the basement had been dug out.
There was a testimony, and I don't know if Mr. Leon is on the call.
I would assume he's planned on appearing, but his statements were that 25 dump trucks emptied out this basement, which the owners do not agree with.
During work at the property, a tenant upstairs did have a complaint of backed up plumbing.
and uh what happened was the owners did call a company to dig out the soil pipe that was
under was buried in this first level the soil pipe was dug up in the process the slab was broken up
it was deteriorated to begin with uh but then was um replaced and and a new slab was poured
no digging beyond any you know normal leveling was done this was not a digging digging out of
a basement for more headroom. There was no need for any underpinning. This wasn't any issue. But
out of an abundance of caution, and here's a notice for our today's meeting posted in the
front yard, but out of an abundance of caution, not wanting there to be any issues, the applicants
did reach out to a professional engineer. Can you see the report of Andrew Menno, professional
engineer wash house limited
is everyone still with me
no problem okay so mr
no problem okay so mr menu did come out uh i believe mr menu is is on the call today to uh
supplement if necessary uh the report states that the exterior is in above average condition
he did see some minor settlement cracking in brick uh nothing out of the ordinary the perimeter
of the property had proper grading preventing water infiltration rear drain uh had was operating
properly, and it was raining when he was there. Interior, the basement's habitable, one-bedroom
dwelling. The combination sewer sanitary line had been recently replaced. He noted that.
And the basement slab had been replaced, but there's no indication that the replacement slab
elevation was any lower than previous location. No exterior deficiencies, no repairs needed.
Structure is structurally stable. The adjacent property, 71-12, Erdrick, was also surveyed.
no structural concerns visible.
And he was able to discuss
with the current homeowner next door
and did not express any structural concerns
with his property.
And Mr. Meniere sent his report
and provided some photos also from the side and the rear.
He took those measurements also.
we can move on did we have a letter from the RCO that I got the letter from the first RCO
was I believe the second I will based on the attendance at the second RCO meeting the RCO
did not support the application based on the neighbor's concerns I thought I did have it here
but I have to. Was that position taken prior to the PE report? It was. That was prior to the PE's
report. All right. Why don't we do this? Do you have your client? I do. Bring your client on and
then we'll ask if there's questions. Here's that tax cert I wanted to show you for 7110 Erdrich.
showing clearance. Is Igor with us? I have Andrew Menyo with the hand up and a Fortune
3 device. Andrew is our engineer. Okay, here we go. And Igor is our client. Igor, you've
been unmuted please wait for the chair good morning sir please identify yourself for the
record spell your first and last name uh good morning my name is Igor Uporo U-P-O-R-E-U
excuse me there's a noise coming from the background uh could you speak slowly
one second there are people talking in the background if you can ask them to be quiet
Yeah, okay. I'm sorry, I'm in the office. My name is Ivor Uporo, U-P-O-R-A-U.
You're swearing to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I don't.
Before you proceed, to the court reporter, were you able to get that information?
Yeah, yeah. If we could spell his last name one more time.
U-P-O-R-A-U, Uporo.
Okay, I have it, yes. Thank you.
Mr. Wise? Yes. Igor, did you hear my testimony today? Yes. And did you find it to be accurate
and would you adopt it as your own? Yes. Okay. And you own 7110 Erdrich with your brother Dimitri?
Yes. And there was living space in the basement when you took ownership? Yes. Okay. And
and mr chair do you have any other anything else you'd like to ask just one your fit okay
long as you're finished with your client any questions from the board no no no anyone else
like to testify in this case please raise your hand hey fortune three you've been unmuted please
Please wait for the chair.
Identify yourself with the records by your first and last name.
Device Fortune 3, you've been unmuted.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else where I think it's having problems?
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Yeah, Chris.
Chris, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello.
Chris, please identify yourself.
First and last name.
Spell your name, please.
there we go i'm sorry yes i have forwarded some items there are some issues with me sir
sir please identify yourself for the record first time it's c-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r
last name is labovitz l-a-b-o-v-i-t-z i represent the uh coordinating rco
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Corrin pretty much hit it on the head with the first meeting.
The neighbors had some complaints, so we had rescheduled a meeting.
We asked for continuance.
We rescheduled the meeting.
I offered, because I know it's not cheap, to put out a notification.
I offered to do it as a favor to him because I figured it was only fair.
And I hand-billed.
And when we had our second meeting, we did get some more interaction from the neighbors.
um mostly concerned about adding a third unit to that two property uh two two dwelling you know
two unit dwelling uh making a triplex the neighbors were very concerned because
i sent some paperwork the other day it should have been an updated community response and i
sent some pictures and some emails from the neighbor you should have gotten all that
um corn i you know what i think i skipped i did not send it to you i like it forward to you
but the main one main problem is the having an additional tenant uh they already do not take
care of the exterior i sent you some pictures of after the snowstorm um they don't do their
sidewalks they don't mow their lawn the neighbors been mowing the lawn for a year uh they've owned
it since 2017 i don't think they've uh you know from what the neighbor tells me they've never
mowed the lawn. He mows the lawn for them and he's tired of it. By adding a third tenant,
we're just concerned that it's just going to be more, you know, aggravation. We always find that
these conditions are, you know, this person had drawings made, hired an architect, didn't get a
permit for anything. These engineering studies should have been done probably before a shovel
hit the ground. And this is another situation where we always feel as a civic that the hardship
is created by the owner of the property um that's just and you know that's an opinion it just seems
to be common um and that's the neighbors basically i did send some pictures in uh the zoning notice
a couple dump trucks full of dirt um if they were digging the floor out i would think they would
have to put dirt back if they were replacing a pipe they would just convert the dirt back to
the same hole and that's why we oppose it the neighbors opposed it um and that you know the
The two units, it's already a problem for the adjoining properties.
If it's made into a triplex, you're asking people to give a variance for three rental units next to a single-family dwelling.
And that's a hardship for the owners of the properties, not for the owner of that property.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
You're welcome.
Anyone else?
I see no more hands, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission. Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the Comprehensive Plan recommends single-family residential use for this property. There is documented history of the property as a two-family dwelling from 1963. However, we do not believe that there are any unique circumstances that would require a third unit in this property. We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-001712-7110 Erdrich Street, my vote is maximum yes with a proviso, maximum two units.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
oh okay uh carol i know we got the last case we've jumped over uh it is 20 of 20 of of 12
you want to take a 10 minute break this uh court reporter we'll take a 10 minute break
oh yes that'll be great yeah i don't want to keep everybody too long on the other one but
we don't know how long it's going to be so let's take a 10 minute break we'll be back at
1150 okay thank you yes calendar number three
11 50. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Calendar number 3174 4701-15 King Sessing Avenue. The attorney
is Brett Feldman. Mr. Feldman has been promoted to panelist. Thank you. Mr. Feldman.
Brett, okay. Name and address on the record, please, and spell your name.
Sure. Still good morning. Members of the Board, Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. I represent the two entities that own the five properties
at issue in this case. Thank you. Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing about
the truth? I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do, but as we'll be telling the board, several of the refusals due to revised plans are
no longer in place now. We've corrected several of the refusals and the remaining refusals we've
actually brought closer into compliance. So we do have revised plans that we would ask be approved
as part of any ultimate Zoning Board approval.
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal
referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And
have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, we have provided the Zoning Board with the necessary materials. We've had three or
four meetings with, there's nine civic groups here. We have letters of support from some of
those civic groups, some of those RCOs, others are not in support. But yes, we've had a full
and robust community outreach process. Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you. If I may share my screen.
Yeah. Before you begin, Mr. Feldman, with your exhibits, the board is in possession of numerous
letters regarding this case. Based on the material that I received, and I'm sure the other board
members have the same experience, I see that there are a number of letters in opposition.
I have nine. I counted. And then I see there are eight letters of support with conditions.
Conditions meaning finalization of a community benefits agreement.
uh so i'm just trying to get a better understanding are you prepared to go forward today
uh and you have any comments as it relates to the uh community benefits agreement because my
concern is if there's still a window of opportunity for a community benefits agreement to be drafted
that that would meet with the approval of those who say they would only support it with that.
I don't know how much testimony we will need today because it may change.
It may or may not change your presentation.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I would say this.
We are absolutely in support of that community benefits agreement that you've probably seen referenced,
whether it be the Cedar Park Neighbors Letter of Support or some of the other RCOs or some
of the other neighbors. The challenge that we have here is that agreement regards affordable
housing. We are in a district that doesn't allow us to qualify for the mixed income bonus,
but we have decided at the urging of neighbors, community groups, and the council person
to have probably the most aggressive affordable housing program for a private developer that
I'm aware of at an AMI level that is below what the city requires for the mixed income
bonus, as well as a percentage at 20%, at 40% AMI.
So we are working very closely with all those groups that I just mentioned to work with
perhaps having the city as part of the mixed income bonus. There's paperwork that they use
to enforce that, to have that as part of what this documented agreement on affordability is.
But it absolutely is, I think, important that we present this case. We have all of our witnesses
here and we've made clear that we would ask the board to hold this vote.
Uh, and we've made clear that we would ask the board, you know, to hold this, hold this
vote, you know, whether you have a, uh, you know, bring us back in a couple of weeks to
report back.
We've, we've made that representation to the council person.
Uh, we've made that to everyone.
Um, but, uh, we do need to present, you know, the project, um, because I don't, this is,
I don't think this is going to be a situation we work desperately hard to, but, uh, there
is ultimately going to be folks that, that are, uh, in opposition.
um even if we enter into um you know this binding agreement on the affordability so
we do need to get testimony on the record understood thank you but they're also and
it's hypothetical that there are those who oppose it today who may event may decide to support it
if the cba meets their their requirements so again i just wanted to say that it's probably
more for the benefit of the folks who are waiting uh to testify those in particular who are
waiting to testify in opposition i just want them to understand uh we will probably not take a vote
on it today pending uh a resolution hopefully on the cba so keep that in mind to those folks who
are calling to oppose that there may be some things in the cba may or may not be things in
CBA that made this decide you to change your vote to the affirmative as opposed to opposing.
So I just want to get that on the record before we begin. And now you can proceed. Thank you.
Okay, let me uh let me just get this
Okay, are you able to see my screen here?
Okay, great.
So again, Brett Feldman, I represent the property owner.
There's two property owners.
There's five lots at issue in this matter.
One lot is owned by King Sessing Realty.
Four lots are owned by Chester Realty.
And I represent the principal in both of those, Mr. Mayor Gelley.
uh i'd ask that uh mr gelly um raise his hand and be unmuted he is not only the owner of the
five properties um as a principal but he actually owns um four of the lots are vacant um and the
other lot has the uh a nursing home the renaissance um straight right here this these are the
properties here. We're at 48th Street, Chester, King Sessing, South 47th Street. The lots that
we're talking about here, there's five of them make up, it's all within this orange area here.
So there's actually four street frontages in this neighborhood. The vacant lots that are
directly at issue today are right along here on Chester and on 48th Street. And Mr. Gelley is the
owner of the nursing home here which has been a community institution for a number of years
employs a lot of people in the neighborhood as well as takes care of a lot of the residents
who are our seniors in the neighborhood i'm also joined by jerry roller who is the founding
principal of jkr partners i'd ask also that mr roller that he'd be unmuted because he'll be
testifying. We also have Nancy Templeton, who is our professional land planner, who we asked
to come and to take a look at this project and its compatibility in the neighborhood. And we
also have Nick Krause, who is our historical consultant. There was a lot of historical work
done on this site to document the way it was previously used. So with that being said,
In a nutshell, this project, what we're proposing is to construct a three- and four-story multifamily building on this site right here.
A portion of it will be three stories.
A portion in the back will be four stories.
It will be 76 units.
We have made a number of changes to the project.
I think we're on plan number five on this.
And we've reduced refusals for parking, we've removed refusals for setback, we've removed refusals for landscaping, and we have refusals for height.
We started at 47 feet, the building has now come down to 42 feet, and a big portion of the building is now at 32 feet, which is actually below even what the code requires.
um the remaining refusal is for um multi-family this is a uh rta one rta one district which is
um i don't know how often the board sees it it is a um duplex multi-family district
it is a um duplex multi-family district um i'll show you right here these are the properties
these are the properties right here it's rta1 it's got multi-family on it too rm1 which is
you'll hear from miss templeton our planner probably is the correct uh district and it
also has cmx too so we've got a hodgepodge with five lots one here one here one here one here
and then this is the nursing home lot. We filed this as a unity of use, so all five lots are taken
together for zoning purposes, and as you'll hear, even though we're providing a significant amount
of off-street parking, we thought the best way to be as economical in terms of providing parking,
environmentally friendly um was to also include the nursing home lot because they have three
separate parking lots and their their availability for parking uh is significant after three o'clock
four o'clock in the during the day and on the weekends um so with some shifting of parking
back and forth we could we could we could do that and it'll see i passed up exhibits one through
19 which i'd ask uh be incorporated into the record um we've got all the all the regular
materials here, but, you know, tax clearance, deeds, and as like, and I'll get to that right
now. As I mentioned, we do have a letter of support, again, contingent on the execution of that
community benefits agreement with Cedar Park neighbors. They're not the coordinating RCO in
this instance. There are actually nine RCOs, but they are well-established in the neighborhood,
and we've tried to work closely with everyone, but we've worked closely with them and a group
of near neighbors who have worked with us on this CBA idea. So with that, let me take you through
kind of where we are, and then I'm going to turn it over to Jerry here. Here's the deed. Here's
the tax clearance. When Mr. Gelley, the owner, I guess about a year and a half ago, started looking
at this development um you know one of the first things we did was kind of look at the history of
these properties and here here are the four properties let me just waiting
so we've got and this really you know this goes to the hardship but this goes to the challenge
of the site um we've got these five properties here along 48th street and these are these are
big lots. We're talking about 10,000 square foot lots right here, 1119, 1115. That's another 10,000.
4720 Chester is 5,600. 4724 is 11,900. So just the vacant lots are at about 40,000 square feet.
The nursing home lot itself is another 70,000. And that's when we looked at what had been out there.
And it was really interesting. We found that what had been out there, I'll just pull this up here, Heritage, our historical consultant, did some work on this.
And there was three, there was actually four multifamily buildings on this site that were built in the 20s, Winston Hall, Wycliffe Hall here.
And as you'll see, there was about 130 dwelling units on this site at this corner until about the mid-90s,
when, as this area, you know, suffered some decline like the rest of the city, they actually were demolished as they fell into decline.
but i just want to just give everyone a context of you know how we got to this project um
and here is you know here is mr kraus will talk about this but on the site itself
you'll see it started off on these smaller buildings and then over time by the 20s and 30s
these big these big apartment buildings came onto the site and that's right there which you see
um we actually um had neighbors who provided us pictures uh of these buildings um and they're
actually the buildings that were there uh were probably were larger as far as taller in height
um here's picture here's the articles from the philippine inquirer um when these opened up in
the 20s wycliffe hall at 48th and chester efficiency apartments um with uh all the bells
and whistles that were in the late 20s and this is the other building other big building with
another 60 units, Winston Hall, and interestingly, back then, they were already promoting transit-oriented
development. You take the number 13 trolley, which runs right along our property line on Chester,
our property lying on chester take the number 13 trolley to the buildings so um you know that's
take the number 13 trolley to the buildings.
that was out there here are here's here's the pictures of what was out here um this this is
this is one of the buildings that was on facing on to uh 48th street which as you'll see is very
similar to our our layout in terms of a courtyard in the middle and here's the picture uh of uh
what was on Chester Avenue, one, two, three, four, five, five plus floors that were out there.
So with that background, we looked at what was around us. This neighborhood here
is an eclectic mix, but much of what is out there, it is zoned this RTA1,
but it is a mix of twins but a lot of these the twins are have now been are now being used for
multifamily there are there are a couple single family you know here and over here but for the
most part up and down Chester Avenue and on 48th Street you'll see you'll see the
multifamily buildings and that this is a contextual view again for the board on Chester Avenue
Here is our building, and these are all large multifamily buildings up and down Chester Avenue,
predominantly at the corner.
There was actually one right at this corner here, right across the street from us,
that came down at some point.
And as the board might remember, a couple years ago, there was a hard-fought case
with some of the same RCOs at 47th in King Sessing for a Frank Furness church building
where there was opposition to multifamily.
The board approved it, and it is, I think it's been a Preservation Alliance winner
right down here. So this is, you know, we looked at the context of the multifamily,
the large multifamily historically, and then a lot of the other buildings that have been converted
into multifamily. We thought that the proposal for a multifamily building, here's what those
buildings look, you know, this is right up and down Chester Avenue, right nearby, a lot of these
four or five-story buildings. So that was kind of the mission that we gave Mr. Roller and his team
was to fit in with the corner, to be pedestrian-friendly.
And as I'll get to, here is the zoning postings.
You saw the development here.
It really started – we've had now five sets of plans that we have went through.
We've been fortunate.
there has been a group of immediate neighbors and nearby neighbors who from the beginning
said hey we don't like your first plan we need a lot of changes but we want to work with you and
I just want to briefly you know I want to thank them because where we are today is the work of
their their efforts you know it started off here's the corner it started off with a big building with
multiple curb cuts to get in to get out on chester these are new curb cuts here
they didn't they neighbors thought we should you know have more green space we should the
building should be less and over time uh mr roll and his team this is the original building
four stories new curb cuts um it wasn't as much of a setback over time after meeting after meeting
we've worked this was the plan number two we got rid of the curb cut that was here on 48
we got rid of the curb cut that was here on Chester we combined our parking with this nursing
home parking lot again utilizing the unity of use concept here and a lot of the neighbors were
appreciative we were able to save a lot of these trees but we got a lot of feedback so plan number
Plan number, I guess, two at this point, or three, was we changed the materials.
And here's plan number three now.
We converted.
We took the green space that was going to be, you know, to be frank, it was going to be private, fully private.
You know, our residents were going to be the only ones that would have physical access to that.
We flipped it to the front.
We came up with pervious pavers.
We added car share spaces.
We added electric car spaces.
We added bike spaces.
We added pervious pavers over here to continue to green this.
We added more landscaping. But again, the big change here was to add in this green space here.
We worked very closely with some of the neighbors right across the street on 48th Street who were dead set in opposition and who are now supportive to work on this setback.
Chester and 48th, I mean, these are big streets, but we continually try to make this as good as possible.
We went to Civic Design Review. Civic Design Review was very pleased.
and here's the rendering. You see this big setback here, the green courtyard.
you see this big setback here the green courtyard we did go to civic design review we we had a very
We did go to civic design review.
positive reception civic design review approved this on its first uh go around which is uh
increasingly rare especially with a project like this with the number of
folks who were involved both pro and con um but um you know here's you know here was the the next
plan um here's the next plan but that group of immediate neighbors um said to us you got to do
more so here is really the plan and you know i'll have jerry walk us through this architect but just
in in in short we have now taken a dramatic step we took this whole all the light blue here
is now down to three stories from 47 feet down to 32 feet, three stories.
So everything wrapped around on Chester, everything wrapped around on 48th Street
is now down to this three stories, 32 feet, which, again, is six feet below what the code requires.
The four-story portion in the back, we reduced that from 47 to 42.
we kept we kept the green space in the front uh one of the refusals that we had received here was
this front area um that we now are fully compliant because we've got the eight foot
setback um and then you know the biggest you know let's go back here the biggest part of this um was
was the the affordability component um we knew from day one um that affordability at this location
was critical. We were told that, and we made the decision. We hired a consultant to help us with
the affordability and with the financing. We went to 20% of the units to be affordable at a 40% AMI.
Again, the city's mixed income bonus is 10% units at 50% or 60% AMI. We went well beyond that,
even though we don't qualify for the program because we're RTA1. If we were RM1, we would
qualify for that. So we have 76 units, but we have 15 of those units that would be affordable at this
super affordable level. There are some people who don't think it's affordable enough,
but I will tell you, I don't know of any private developer without any subsidy who has went to this
level um and that was you know i think the the that's what we're looking to now codify uh in
writing uh with uh the parties uh that you've uh you know you're seeing the letters from there
um so with that um jerry are you on the line here
jerry roller
yep i'm here good morning or good afternoon mr roller please identify yourself for the
records by your full name uh i'm jerry roller uh founding principal of jkarp architects uh
j-e-r-r-y-r-o-l-l-e-r and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth? I do. Thank you. So, Jerry, I know we've been living this now for six months or seven
months, but do you want to, I guess just briefly, when your team got the assignment to start
working on this, can you just give us a sense of what you were looking around in the neighborhood?
We've talked about all the many corner multifamily buildings, many of the twins that have been
converted now to multifamily, the historical use of this property for multifamily, multiple
multifamily buildings, how that informed your design and the materials. And then we can talk
about what we're now proposing. Certainly. When we started this project, we looked at what was here.
Client asked, can we build some multifamily on this site? It's a large site. It's multifamily
in the past, and we also looked at what the underlying zoning is, which is RTA 1, which is
a zoning that provides for 20 to 50 square foot lots, and they are twin duplexes. It's a stranger
zoning. There's nothing really in the area that conforms to that. The existing buildings in the
area are generally twins or row houses. The twins were originally built as single-family houses,
but they've been largely converted to multiple.
But they've been largely converted to multifamily.
There are some existing singles that remain singles, and they're large, lovely old houses.
But the vast majority of the houses along 48th, 47th, King Sessing, Chester, have all been converted into four, five, six apartments because they're large buildings.
Hey, Jerry, I just want to – because I don't think a lot of us are familiar with what RTA-1 looks like.
You've got a good picture here.
Yeah, so this is what Steve Planning, when they put out what RTA-1 looks like.
We're talking about a duplex twin, so there's two on here, two on here.
It requires parking, correct?
Yes, it requires one-for-one parking.
And typically, as you can see the way the Planning Commission proposes it, it would be a double driveway, a 20-foot driveway into parking slots either in a garage or open air with a two- or three-story building behind it.
And I guess each unit, it's actually, each unit, each building has four units, so each unit would need, it's a double-wide parking, too.
Right, each of those buildings is two units, so you get two units next to two units, there's a side yard on one side, and they're duplexes, so they have their own parking.
It did not seem to match what's there on the site.
And as a result, we looked at this and said, we also looked at what's adjacent, what's up and down Chester Avenue.
And we see that there are a lot of four and five story multifamily buildings.
This is pretty typical in West Philly.
There is a real tradition of these apartment buildings, much like what was on the site, which are, these are examples, these are a bunch within three or four blocks of the site.
And they're all, they tend to be a particular brick with limestone cast stone trim.
And they're, as you can see, they're generally four story, four and a half story.
They're tall buildings.
They're not short. They don't fit in with the 35-foot height limit, but this is pretty typical in West Philadelphia.
So what we did is we looked at the site, and we then laid out the building, as Brett showed you.
We went through a series of iterations.
We started putting the building on the street, which is generally how we would plan it, working with the neighbors.
We flipped the building to put the courtyard on the street side.
We tried to reduce the parking.
We tried to add landscaping.
We finally reduced part of the height of the building.
So this is the original version.
And why don't we go to the current version?
Yep, yep.
I'm just...
Keep going.
I'm getting there.
Sorry.
And this is the plan.
and now this is the latest version with a part of the building being four-story, part of it being
three-story. We've overall reduced the four-story height so that the variances we have at this point
are for the multifamily itself because multifamily is not permitted in the RTA-1.
um we've no longer have a setback variance uh we no longer have a land that's right here
right that right this eight foot right here we require right that eight foot is is the required
setback for rta on both streets um we've provided uh landscaping in the parking which was a refusal
uh we thought we had before but we've agreed to do that this is the building as it looks now and
as you can see, it's now shorter than the building on the opposite corner, which is one of these
existing multifamily buildings. We still have a refusal for multiple buildings on the lot because
we have this building and we have the nursing home, and it's a result of the unity of use.
The same, we have two uses, which is also a refusal because the nursing home is obviously
one use, and the multifamily building is another use. So those are technical refusals. We've cured
the parking refusal. What we've done here is by reducing, we've reduced the number of units. We
originally applied for 83. We're now at 76. Correct. So, and what we've done is the parking
And what we've done is the parking comes down because of less units, but it's one for one plus the nursing home parking.
comes down because
So we now have, we would require 80 spaces under the code.
We have 21 spaces and we've worked in agreement because of the unity of use where the nursing home will allow the residents of the apartment building to utilize spaces, particularly off hours, which is mostly when people might be home and need to park.
There are 34 spaces which are going to be solely used by the apartment building.
And that's right here, Jared, right behind the building.
And just as a corollary, if this were RM1, there would be no spaces required.
If it were any of the other multifamily zones in the zoning code, residential requirements are typically three spaces for 10.
So we would need 24 spaces.
We have 34.
and and we firmly believe that that will most likely be utilized by the residents I'm not even
sure they'll need it but we have it there and then we have the additional 24 adjacent plus the
additional 23 on other lots so that nobody in from this building should be parking anywhere
other than on site and again the unity of use allowed us to gain access to these other parking
lots um that that are used during the day by the nursing home but again are available off hours
right which created the refusal for multiple structures and multiple uses on the same zoning
lot right now you also um i know prepared a series of shadow studies yes we did and with the
reduction um of uh the height that final change to getting us to 32 feet um on a big portion of
building. I know you had a shadow study here. What did you find as far as any impacts on adjacent
properties, whether it be on 48th Street or on Chester Avenue? Both 48th and Chester are fairly
wide streets. The building has a setback in addition, and with the step back, this is another
view from the corner of the building. You can see the courtyard. And this is a view along Chester.
You can see the parking lot on the left. And do we have the shadow studies in here? Yeah, hold on here.
There we go.
so as you can see the building uh looking at it in the fall and the winter
um you're you're really just partly shadowing the street uh in the winter solstice um other
than that there really are no impacts the main impact is on our parking lot itself
uh do we have the other two here the other shadow studies yeah is that i think that's all i think
that's all we do okay that's the worst those are the worst cases the sun of summer obviously is a
higher sun and has less of a shadow but the shadows impact nothing other than the streets themselves
uh they do not impact any of the neighboring properties um in any way yeah so let me let me
to ask you this question jerry i know i suspect we're going to hear a lot about you know why
don't you just do this rta one um you know the as a right option um you know there's many neighbors
who said hey we don't you know we we don't want to see those front-loaded garages um it's completely
incompatible with the neighborhood but there's a there's a bigger issue here um that we you know
you identified is that because you know it's it's a it's a massive we're talking about a massive
of the area here but because you need street frontage um the as of right rta wants you know
even if you're going to put up with the curb cuts and losing all the on-street parking and
you know the curb cuts next to the trolley on chester avenue which which it makes you know
which is terrible but there's not a lot of units that you can actually generate out of the art out
of the the ads of right because these are just these deep non-conforming lots um where there's
just huge swaths in the back that are kind of landlocked can you just briefly talk about that
here i'm just going to try to pull up that the um the zoning map here um because you know we we've
tried to do affordability um but at the end of the day there would be no affordability because
But at the end of the day, there would be no affordability because there's very few units you could, you know, a handful of units.
there's very few units you could
What you would end up with is.
I'll get you it, Jared.
Yeah, here it is.
I just want everyone, it's an interesting situation here.
You see that, Jared?
You've got deep lots.
you've got big lots i mean again the the rta one envisions a 2250 square foot lot these are
10 000 square foot lots but they don't have the frontage to where you could create say to take
the 10 000 and make five lots out of them um if you use the frontage as these exist you have five
lots so you get 10 units um if you turn the corner maybe did a did a different subdivision
maybe you can get a fifth couple. So those are double the units. I mean, theoretically, if you
built 15 buildings, you could get 30 units. And if each of those were three-bedroom units,
you'd have 90 bedrooms, which is probably more than what we have in the multifamily buildings.
It's not a density question per se in terms of number of people. It's less units. They would no doubt be much more expensive because they would likely be for sale rather than rent. You can't really build that kind of building and rent them.
and you would end up with 15 curb cuts along 48th and Chester,
I know some people have suggested,
well, why wouldn't you put a back driveway in?
Because, in fact, that configuration would require a planned unit development,
which under the zoning code is, in fact, multifamily.
So you could not do that of right.
So they'd be back here where we are now.
Yeah, we'd still be back here, even if we came up with multiple duplexes, assuming we didn't want to do front driveways.
So the only way to comply with the RTA1 zoning is exactly what the Planning Commission shows you,
which is a 20-foot curb cut per building, and they're 25-foot frontages.
So you'd have, you know, lots of curb cuts, lots of cars on the street, lots of loss of curb parking.
Those curb cuts would eliminate a curb space.
It would be a really weird way to develop this.
And again, if you look at what's adjacent to it on any of the streets, this is not the way this neighborhood is developed.
And it would, in fact, even though it would comply with the zoning, it is alien to whatever you see in the neighborhood.
Not sure where that zoning came from, but it really is not reflective of what's built in the neighborhood.
Most of the houses are twins or row houses, and they don't have curb cuts.
They don't have driveway parking.
And as you said, if it was – so when you look at this, you probably think a portion of our property is owned multifamily as well.
That probably would be the most appropriate district, correct?
Yeah, if the lot was zoned RM1, you could probably make this project work of right.
Yeah, a full portion of it is.
Using the low-income housing bonus, you could probably build this building as shown.
Yes, yeah.
You actually, even without the affordable housing bonus, this would be as a right, I believe.
So as far as the number of units.
The number of units would be. The height would still need a variance, and that's why you would use the bonus, but we don't have that option.
That is, Jerry, I think that's all I got for right now. I'd like to reserve the right to come back to you, depending on what questions come up.
Brett, before you move on, any questions from the board for Mr. Roller?
Okay, Mr. Feldman.
Yes, we have a land planner, Nancy Templeton.
I don't know if she's available right now.
I know she had some childcare issues.
Nancy, are you available out there right now?
Or should I come back to you?
Ms. Templeton has two devices logged in. Could she please raise her hand?
Ms. Templeton has two devices logged in.
Could she please raise her hand?
Please unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, Ms. Templeton. Please identify yourself, name and address.
Could I actually please request that you come back to me?
Yes. Okay.
Okay. Thank you.
Sure. Sure. I know you'll be available shortly, correct?
I will be. Yes. Thanks.
Okay, okay.
Mr. Feldman, so you'll understand, and everyone out and listening,
we are going to be required to take a break at 1 o'clock.
So it is more likely, unless you have some way of condensing your testimony,
we may have to continue this case regardless of the issue regarding the community benefits agreement.
We will have to break at 1 o'clock.
Sure. I understand. And I do want to give everyone a chance to speak. So let me just quickly turn to Nick Krause. He was our project historian. Nick?
Mr. Krause, you have been unmuted.
Great. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself first in my name.
Yes, I'm Nick Krause, N-I-C-K-K-R-A-U-S, and I'm Vice President with Heritage Consulting Group.
We're infirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Mr. Krause, I have passed up your report.
It's at Exhibit Tab 4 with your CV.
You have an MS in Historic Preservation from Penn, a BA in History.
You've been with Heritage for 13 or 14 years.
um I just want to if you could just briefly talk about your work with looking at the appropriateness
of this building uh in the in the in the surroundings um what was there prior uh and
as far as your opinion on um you know what what how this makes sense for the neighborhood yes thanks
Brett so we took a look sort of right at the site as well as you know the neighboring Squirrel Hill
community and really a little bit wider, the surrounding blocks of Cedar Park and West
Philadelphia in general. So I think on the really micro granular level, if you look at
our report and look at the property that we're talking about, we had a lot of density historically
on this site. We had two large apartment buildings. You can see it on this map here on the Sanborn
map Wycliffe Hall is right at the corner of Chester and 48th and then two parcels down
is Winston Hall on South 48th Street and then in between those there's a multi-family dwelling
that had been I think subdivided into six or eight housing units during the period as well as
other houses on Chester there that had also been subdivided.
So this site historically was utilized for multifamily.
Surrounding the area, I think you had a really good visual,
both the aerial that showed the other large, that one right there,
that shows the context really between 46th and 49th,
fronting on Chester. But again, if you broaden this out to further blocks, even going up into
Garden Court, you've got a 10-story Garden Court Plaza, apartments adjacent to that. You have
Garden Court condominiums, which I believe are six stories in height. All these around here
on the next page where you have the elevations show similar context in height, as well as a
kind of a uniformity of design. And when you look at these, they really all read as sort of mid to
late 1920s apartment buildings. And that is what they are. And that's a really important
aspect of West Philadelphia. I think, you know, everyone who'd been through the area
knows the Victorian twins that sort of worked their way out as the West Philadelphia streetcar
suburb. But also integral to the West Philadelphia streetcar suburb are these sort of early to mid
20th century large apartment buildings fronted, as was talked about earlier, on the trolley
rights of way. So Chester Avenue, as the historic documentation from when both Winston and Wycliffe
hall talked about they were marketed as being on the chester avenue trolley line on the 13 line
They were marketed as being on the Chester Avenue trolley line, on the 13 line, which was important in the 20s and certainly is as important, if not more so important, to West Philadelphia right now.
And so, you know, one of the really important things, I think, from our perspective as a historic consultant is that this whole area is part of the West Philadelphia streetcar suburb historic district.
that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997.
The properties on the site that we're talking about,
so both the smaller duplexes that had been converted,
as well as Wycliffe Hall and Winston Hall,
all existed at the time that the historic district
was listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
and they were all considered to be contributing.
So all these buildings, these large-scale buildings
that you're all looking at here,
are all considered to be contributing historic resources to that historic district.
And I'd like to just quote from that National Register nomination, and it's in the report as well,
specifically about these buildings.
It says, the final significant building period within the district occurred in the 1920s
in response to the changing fashions which made the apartment a desirable mode of living.
This generation of development typically involved the demolition of late 19th century rows for the
construction of larger four or five-story apartment houses, which generally took the form of U-shaped
brick blocks with detailing concentrated at the entrance, belt courses, and parapet. Chester Avenue
boasts the greatest number of these buildings. This includes the Royal Chester Court at 4601
Chester Ave from 1927. And then moving forward, also in the same year, further down Chester Avenue,
the Winchester Apartments at 4800 Chester, which is also a four-story Tudor Revival building.
Then these all represent that 1920s to 1930s period, which really culminated the development
patterns of west philadelphia the streetcar suburb and specifically here squirrel hill
so just in looking in the research that we've done specifically on this site but also the general
context um and looking at the the design as proposed with the red brick um kind of earth tones
cast stone um the the u-shaped building that's been worked out with with neighbors uh it really
is appropriate historically for this site um this this site prior to the demolition in the 90s
was considered to be historic because of what was there yeah no nick i don't mean to cut you off
here but we know the historic is important but it also goes to the zoning code um one of the criteria
for approval is that it's you know that we don't we're not altering the essential character of the
neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare. Do you see us as completely compatible with this
neighborhood in this area because of the design and the history? Completely. I think if that was
shaded the same color in the map we're looking at right now, you wouldn't ever know that it was
not something that had been there before. This is totally appropriate for the neighborhood.
And it marks the corner as it should be based on what it was historically.
Great. Well, thank you very much. And you passed in your record, your report, which we added to the record. Mr. Chair, I do want to have Ms. Templeton speak. I don't know if she's available right now.
So if you want to open this up now to the public, which I think may make a lot of sense, and then
I could call her back, whether it's later today or on the callback. She's critical to establishing
full compliance with all the hardship criteria and the adverse impact on this matter.
Why don't we get her on if she's available?
I'm ready.
Ms. Templeton, please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, Nancy Templeton, T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Farrell.
Great.
Ms. Templeton, you're a certified land planner, correct?
Correct.
And you are with CH Planning?
Yes, that's correct.
You've testified on numerous occasions before this board, and your testimony in the past has been accepted as expert testimony, correct?
Yes, correct.
And Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the same be done in this situation.
And your CV is part of your report at Exhibit tab.
It's in the package.
it's in the package. Can you just briefly explain the work you've done to look at the
Can you just...
compatibility of this and the hardship challenges that we face at this site?
Sure. So I visited the site and the surrounding neighborhood. I reviewed the zoning regulations,
the development plan, and I reviewed the historic report that was submitted. I also looked at the
example RTA1 site plans and the University South District Comprehensive Plan.
And what did you find? Well, I found that the proposed development is contextual and
compatible with both the historic use of the site and the current development context
of the neighborhood with diverse mixed housing options with single family, twins,
multifamily, and large apartment buildings. Okay. And as far as the history of the property,
I was pretty clear that this had been multifamily?
Yes, it has.
And even where it is zoned RTA-1 or single family around us, most of those properties are not used in that manner, correct?
Correct.
the uh the neighborhood where it's zoned the immediate neighborhood where it's zoned there's
some rta1 and there's some rsa3 rsa5 there are a lot of apartment buildings on those
single family zoned or two family zoned properties okay no not to interrupt i apologize i think we've
established that a couple of times yes prior to you so get to the heart of her testimony that
would be helpful. Yes, yes. As far as the hardships, it's been made pretty clear that
affordability is a critical component of this project. But as you found and Mr. Roller found,
the number of units that would be allowed as of right would lead to a very different outcome as
far as the affordability and what we could provide here, correct? Correct. And can you explain that?
Well, under the current zoning, the density would be much lower. You would yield far fewer units. And I'm sure you know, and anyone who does development knows, you need a minimum number of units to make affordable housing viable.
So the RTA1 zoning would not really yield any reasonable, discernible, positive impact for affordable housing.
And you also concluded that the as of right, the limited yield on as of right, would lead to an urban form with the front loaded curb cuts that would be just completely incompatible with the neighborhood, with the history, with the pedestrian experience, correct?
Yeah, I think it would really actually be a negative impact on the neighborhood, more so than the proposed development.
And you looked at the city plan and the neighborhood plan that talked about congregating density along corners with transit lines. Can you talk about that briefly?
Yeah, so the comprehensive plan, you know, what it says in this neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods like Cedar Park is that they want to direct the demand for new rental units and multifamily housing in true transit nodes.
And I think there's no better transit node than this corner.
Right. And as far as adverse impacts, you saw that on the final plan, there's no new curb cuts.
We have new stormwater management.
We have internal trash storage.
We're keeping as much of the green space as possible.
What is your opinion as far as adverse impacts at this site?
I don't think there are any adverse impacts.
I think this is actually a positive impact for the neighborhood, given all those reasons.
And you've looked at whether it be the schools, whether it be impacts on immediate neighbors, light and air.
Can you just briefly touch on that?
um again the you know the immediate neighbors a lot of it is it's a mixed diverse housing
uh context so this fits in pretty well uh very well and schools i mean i looked at the schools
their their enrollment has been declining over the years and you know i just wouldn't add any kind of
oppressive uh capacity problems for the schools okay and
oppressive capacity problems for the schools. Okay. And as far as the parking that we're
providing on-site, plus the overflow parking at the Renaissance facility, plus the tremendous
mass transit, what we've got to 13, and we also have a septal regional line that is one block
from here? Right. Yeah, the parking wouldn't be negative. I mean, you wouldn't lose any parking,
on street parking and you're adding parking and yeah it's actually probably an improvement
on on parking in the neighborhood so um you believe that we have um and and just as far as
uh least minimum variance um what was your conclusion as far as what would be
what would be the appropriate district um for this uh site based on um the prior history of
But based on the fact that part of it is split zoned, do you have an opinion on that?
Yeah, given the historic use and the other surrounding uses, similar surrounding uses, this should be zoned, probably RM1.
And I believe RM1 would yield, without even the bonuses, the mixed income bonus, RM1 would yield, I believe it's 76 units.
Correct.
Which is exactly what we're seeking here.
So this is, you know, exactly what the district that you believe makes the most sense for this slate.
I do. Yes, I do.
Okay. Is there anything else as far as the criteria for a use variance or dimensional variance here that you wanted to touch on briefly?
I don't, I don't, I think we covered all of them.
i just think it meets all the criteria in fact is um much more of a benefit to the neighborhood than
what would be allowed under current zoning yeah okay and i passed up your report um i've asked
that to be incorporated into the record um and uh i think with that uh mr chair we'll we'll we'll
rest for right now but obviously reserve uh the right for um cross-examination and um to add
additional materials to the record. Thank you. It is now 1248. I would just ask, is there any
representative from Councilwoman Gautier's office on the call? And if so, please raise your hand.
good afternoon good afternoon is this mr goodman yes hi and please identify i think you were
sworn in earlier so please identify yourself yes i was andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n representing
the office of third district council member jamie godier and as i said you're still under oath
I want to get your testimony now because we're going to have to be breaking shortly.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean, we're largely ceding our time today.
We joined the request for a resumption hearing perhaps four or eight weeks from now, but
we'll cede the rest of our time for public comment.
Very good.
Thank you.
Do the board have any questions for any of the witnesses that we've heard from so far
because we're going to be breaking shortly?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. The refusal for zoning and use has been reduced how much?
Let me go right to that here.
Many of the items have been eliminated. There was a refusal for parking, which is now we have the
required uh parking one second here um there was a refusal for setback off of 48th street
we have provided five we required eight we now meet that um there was a uh here it is there was
a refusal for um landscaping in the parking lot which um we we believe we met and we we we now
have concluded that we we do meet that as far as the 10 in the parking lot um the height
38 feet and we're at 40 42 feet and most of the much of the building is actually at 32 feet so
when you do the average between the three-story portion and the four-story portion our engineer
is certified we're at 38.5 feet now when you kind of average the two pieces of this building out
which is really a de minimis dimensional variance at that point and again we
We needed some, you know, we're trying to get to some sufficient density to have.
You know, we're trying to get to some sufficient density to have, you know, the wherewithal to provide the affordable, you know, the massive affordable component on this that we're providing and we want to enter into with the community.
So that's we're down significantly. Oh, and the number of units. I'm sorry. The number of units we reduced from 83 to 76.
Okay, Counselor, you have four use zoning. You're down to what? You have four use refusals. So you're down to how many? Two? One?
Yes. As far as, yeah, the multifamily in the RTA1 district, that remains, but we've come closer into compliance with the reduction in the number of units.
okay so you're down to how many
we're down to 76
apartments versus 83
no I'm not referring to
how you did it
just how many refusal
for use do you have remaining
we just
have the one for use
okay one for use
and how many for zoning
one for zoning two two three three so you still have three for zoning and you just reduced
to one for use correct is that correct correct all right thank you correct okay any other
questions from the board no no all right again i apologize on behalf of the board um for those of
you have been waiting to testify as i said at the outset there are some apparently there's still
some uh opportunities uh for the developer and the communities the different rcos i have a further
conversation at literally as it relates to the community benefits agreement uh and the council
woman's office agreed that a resumption hearing would be appropriate i'll say it again i apologize
if you had to wait all this time but we are required to uh take at least a minimum break
so for staff uh to have a break this afternoon before we go into our two o'clock session
so tanya do you have a date for his resumption june 2nd at 2 p.m june 2nd at 2 p.m okay so thank
you mr chairman mr chairman i just have to ask is there i i know you know i know there's so many
people on the line um both pro and con who are tremendously disappointed right now that they
can't speak and i'm trying to speak up for everyone who's on the line pro and con right now
i just want to make sure that i don't know if it's a special listing or we're first um because
there's people who just put so much time today it's now one o'clock and and you know i'm concerned
about that happening again um on june 1st june 2nd excuse me well i think that'll depend a lot on
what council for the applicant has to say in addition to any feedback from the community
there's no way of predicting it uh we'll do our best to get you on first and again i apologize
for probably the fourth or fifth time yeah those who are waiting on the line it's just beyond our
control we are required to take a break i'm sorry it's not necessarily for the board but
it's for staff yes tanya i'm sorry chair and this would be a resumption so i would request
if this would go last on the two o'clock list okay so on june the 2nd at two o'clock
is that correct yes at the end of the two o'clock listing okay so mr mi 2020-003
4701-15
King Sessing Avenue
this hearing will be resumed
on June the 2nd
at 2 o'clock p.m.
at which time it will
be heard last on that agenda
and at which time
we will consider any feedback related
to the RCO
RCO's plural
and the Councilwoman's position
Councilwoman singular
Thank you and again one more apology but it's out of our control. Thank you.
We all good?
Yes, Chair. Thank you for your time and consideration.
All right see the board and staff back at two o'clock. Thank you.
Thank you and we'll wait for the go ahead.
We're all ready, Chair. Thank you.
Good afternoon, 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 Snell.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere.
Our Board Administrator, Fatina L., and our Board Attorney, Rebecca Cole, are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated 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 available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, 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 excuse me 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 enter an appearance statement call google
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will 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 would also like to take this time to advise
everyone. Please do not attempt to testify in the chat. All comments should be directed to
our board administrator Ms. Fatina L. With that I will read off the case that is being
the cases that are being requested to be continued
um from the add-on list uh reconsideration granted to councilman johnson's case
mi 2020-002-118-2105 ellsworth street attorney moving party
MI 2020-002-116-2107 Ellsworth Street, Attorney Moving Party.
also on the 330 list uh mi 2021-000460441 brown street is continued if anyone has any objection
uh or comments regarding the cases i've just read in to be continued
or for attorney moving party, please raise your hand at this time.
Chair, we have Rachel Pritzker.
Ms. Pritzker, you've been unmuted.
Please wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Ms. Pritzker.
Please identify yourself for the record.
You were still under oath from earlier this morning.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
I just wanted to confirm, Chairman, that 441 Brown Street is on the continuance list, if not, like...
I just called that on. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else have any comments or
concerns about the cases we're ready for the record to be continued? Please raise your hand.
I see no more hands, Chair. At this time I will ask if anyone
is requesting a continuance or withdrawal to please raise your hand.
I see no hands. Oh, wait a minute. We have Antoinette Phillips. You've been unmuted.
Please wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Ms. Phillips. Please identify your name, self of the record, spell your
first and last name.
Yes, Antoinette Phillips, A-N-T-O-N-I-E-T-T-E-P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S.
Yes, Antoinette Phillips, A-N-T-O-N-I-E-T-T-E.
You're swearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, but I just want to make sure I have the right property, 3613 North 16th Street.
asking for third that case is uh going forward okay i'll stay on thank you that's what i'm
concerned about that property it's rather late in the uh on the list so hang in there thank you
okay thank you so much hey anyone else request for continuance or withdrawal
i see no more handshare thank you uh with that i already read the add-ons
so carol i believe mr patterson has a conflict today he's number three on our list and he's
asking to go first if you're there is that is that is that what your request is
Hi, Mr. Hi, Ron. Can you put your name and address? Wait one second. Where are we? Calendar
number 0468 15 West Rittenhouse Street. Ron, can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name? Sure. Good afternoon. Ronald Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N. Claire Harrison
Law Firm, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of
ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos plans five days in advance of this hearing and
have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all the above thank you you may
proceed ron before you before you begin ron just uh for the purposes of the record um initially
uh our notes were that um we the board had not yet received a letter from the rco but as of 9 21
this morning. Ms. Saletas sent me, sent the board a copy of an RCO letter stating
significant opposition to this application. I'm not sure if you're aware of that.
It spells out 51 opposed, 51 opposed, five in support. I'm aware and I will clarify
the inaccuracies in that letter. Okay, just want to make sure we're on the same page. Thank you.
Okay, great. Okay, well, first, thank you for the accommodation. So this is an application
regarding 15 West Rittenhouse Street. You'll see on the screen, I take it, it's being shared.
Not Rittenhouse Square, but Germantown. It's a, you'll see it's this street here. It's designated
with the arrow. It's surrounded on one side of Rittenhouse Street. This is Germantown Avenue
with large buildings. And as you'll see on the photographs here, predominantly
not residential. The church here owns this and a parking lot next door.
Here's a different view. Rittenhouse Street. Here's the parcel here.
Another view.
the written house is germantown avenue and as you follow down turn on the written house street
it's across the street this is the property
second one here not the grassy one this is next door by the church
so uh it's a vacant uh irregularly shaped parcel 115 feet from germantown
Avenue. It's narrow but deep in a trapezoidal configuration. Ron, excuse me, you broke up there.
Oh, sorry. As I was saying, it's a vacant, irregularly shaped parcel, 115 feet from
Germantown Avenue. It is narrow but deep in a trapezoidal configuration in this respect,
meaning that it's very wide in the back narrow in the front um it uh it behind it
it is about the deep depth of the property is about two-thirds of what it would be if
of what it would be if it were on Germantown Avenue, so it goes behind two-thirds of Germantown
it were on germantown avenue so it goes behind two-thirds of germantown avenue
Avenue buildings under their property lines. It's surrounded by CMX 2.5 on one side and
And RSA 5 on the other, and I'll show you the zoning map.
This is our property here, Germantown Avenue, 2.5, 2.5 over here, and then RSA 1, RSA 5.
As I mentioned and as you picture show, it's a vacant parcel.
It's cemented over.
it's been used for parking it's surrounded by a parking lot and we have a list of
small multi-family buildings that are surrounding it as i mentioned and i'll go to the site plan
in house street see how it widens as it goes to the rear it's owned in rsa5 but as i mentioned
it's surrounded by cmx 2.5 but in fact the planning commission's 2035 plan identifies this property
for remapping to better conform with its conditions its past uses and its surrounding uses that is
it's proposed to be remapped to rm1 which allows multi-family residential hence we have designed
the building taking into account the rm1 as well as the cmx 2.5 uses and buildings
that surround that in the context and character of the area so what's proposed is a five-story building
with a compliant open space
the first floor is pretty much a drive through underneath so that you can access
the 11 parking spaces that are partially open and also enclosed underneath the building
with a proposed 32 residential units above the refusals of course are based on RSA 5
but with regards to this first of all multiple units of course are in one we're actually
out 26 units and uh we're proposing 32 and just kind of jumping out of order i would tell you
that we did meet and had discussions with the planning commission which they'll relay but i'll
explain further in detail but we've agreed to reduce the number of units to 26 which would be
which would be compliant um so that's one refusal the other refusal is off street parking of course
it's not permitted unless you can access the parking by a rear driveway or a rear yard in fact
as the pictures had shown this curb cut exists there's a curb cut that exists next door which
is the parking lot for the church so we don't see that there's any adverse impact by leaving
the curb cut there i believe there is no parking along that side of the street anyway but i'm not
sure. The height proposed is 53 feet. 38 feet is the limit under RM1. Our architect, Logan
Dry, will explain that further. There's a refusal for a roof deck saying it's not set
back five feet from this front, but in fact it is. So I will call that out as an inconsistency
or not an inaccuracy so we did uh present the case to the west central germantown neighborhood
association and i have to say that was a it was probably an hour meeting but i have to say you
know from the beginning uh you could tell we were getting nowhere and i think a lot of the concern
was not regarding this property but as to the wave of development that surrounded the area all
is a matter of right. Complaints about the buy right projects, why are 60 feet and multiple
family units being allowed on Germantown Avenue and the like. So, you know, not clear who voted.
I see that there was a lot of opposition. So we took it upon ourselves to scour the neighborhood
and get petitions. And we did submit as part of my exhibit package, which I'll briefly show you.
but we have about 60 signatures then most within about 250 feet of the
property some outside of there but we did our best
here's examples of the letters we receive they're part of our package some
Some are property owners, some are business owners, some are investment companies that
are property owners, some are business owners, some are investment companies.
own multiple properties, but that's what we were able to secure.
But we leave there just as relevant.
As I mentioned about the Planning Commission, we worked with them.
We agreed to reduce the number of units.
And in fact, as part of my package, I did submit an application for a revised site plan
approval should the board decide to grant the variance relief in this case proposed reduction
in unit count proposed addition of a green roof which was a condition of planning commission
support and per the plans that i submitted with this application
lastly we also have a report from our professional land planner
Nancy Templeton which goes and discusses the hardship and the no adverse impact and why this
fits within the character and the context in the surrounding area which we can get to. So we believe
there is hardship to the property based on the existing condition, the existing uses, the prior
uses, the surrounding uses, the surrounding nature of the zoning districts around there and
we believe that it creates an unnecessary hardship to violently develop this property.
No one here would develop this for one single family dwelling unit, and there would be no way to subdivide it into multiple units, despite what is alluded to in the RCO's letter, because you need street frontage to create lots that are conforming.
And there's only enough for probably one, maybe one and a half.
So what is with proposed, we believe it creates an over-adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare,
and it fits in with the character and context of the surrounding area.
So with that said, I'd like to go to an album, Mr. Logan Dry, our architect, to testify.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with a record and I'll square you in.
Sure. Logan Dry, L-O-G-A-N-D-R-Y, KCA Design Associates, 6525 Tulip Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Thank you. You swear to the firm, the public truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Thank you. Logan, could you tell me your affiliation with the project?
Sure. The project architect.
and uh would you uh agree that the testimony you've heard from me is true and accurate and
you would adopt it as your own yes okay and uh the plan that we see on the screen is a plan you
developed correct okay because you want to briefly describe the plan and how you arrived at this
design and what the uh the complications were with this property sure um so i mean you know
And when we looked at the site, the thing that sort of came up first was obviously its sheer size, some of the context around it being CMX 2.5.
So what we did when we initially developed the project is we took an approach where we wanted to keep the building, you know, the 75% lot coverage.
And we also wanted to do multifamily just based upon the surrounding context and the size of the site.
We also wanted to integrate some parking, even though it's not required.
A lot of the multifamily development, as we've seen in the past, tends to be more successful or more desirable if there's some off-street parking.
And this one, you know, we had the ability to do that through some innovative site design here.
You know, then as we went through, you know, we tried to pull the building in different areas away from the sloped edge of the lot that you see there.
And that sort of gave us the ability to do a mix of one and two bedroom units on the upper floors, eight units per floor.
We integrated some outdoor space into all of the units as well.
You know, and from there, we just we tried to minimize the number of variances that we needed based upon the odd shape of the lot that we had.
Like you had mentioned previously, you know, we did look at a scenario of perhaps subdividing and doing a pud.
with single family homes. And one of the problems we ran into with that was obviously the lack of
street frontage. Now, you know, there's certainly the ability to do PUD developments without street
frontage. But in this particular case, given some of the constraints of Rittenhouse Street,
as well as, again, the shape of the lot, you know, we ran into a scenario where getting utilities and
the sort of infrastructure we needed, you know, let's say, for instance, the very far back corner
of the site if we were to do, you know, single family homes, you know, it just presented itself
as being an infeasible option. So that's sort of where we arrived with this design.
Logan, the photograph that's on the screen currently, those buildings are directly across the street.
Currently, those buildings are directly across the street.
How many stories and what are they used for?
The buildings across the street, that one, because of the grade, it's about four stories.
Again, the basement is partially out of grade.
But a lot of the surrounding context folks we're looking at are either being used as multifamily apartments or, in some cases, some senior living facilities.
And you mentioned that we're providing parking spaces. Of course, under RSA 5, we may or may not be required to. And so how did you arrive at these spaces? And would it be a compliant number of spaces for the number of units we're now proposing, which is 26?
uh yeah so so you know if you were to take this into a development that had a parking ratio for
instance like some of the cmx3 zonings and things like that have a parking ratio of three spaces for
10 units so that that's sort of a code minimum benchmark so if we do the math here um we're
sitting at you know just under uh a 50 parking ratio um again the thing that i would say that
limited us from doing more parking was you know obviously there's building structure that comes
down in the form of columns so we had to you know lay out the spaces on that ground floor in a way
that you know a would work from a building standpoint and some of the structure in the
building and b also gave us you know the correct turning radiuses and things that we needed so we
you know we maxed out the number of spaces that we could fit under there while you know still
making sure it could actually be built and used for parking so we think we did a little bit better
than the code minimum of three for 10.
But again, the number you see here we arrived at was a function of, you know, really designing
the ground floor based on our odd-shaped lot and still having the ability to put, you
know, a staircase and a lobby to get upstairs.
And of course, we did have to submit to the streets department for its review and approval
of parking lot to curb cut and the configuration of the ingress and degress turns.
This is the revised plan that we're proposing, which really doesn't change any footprints.
It just reflects that there's a reduced number of units.
But we do, in fact, have the streets department approval, correct?
Yeah, we have the streets department zoning prerequisite approval for the project, yes.
Okay, thank you.
There's no questions I'd like to promote Nancy Templeton?
While we're doing that, Ron, there's no parking on that side of Rittenhouse Street, is that correct?
um i believe that's correct um unless logan you know differently i didn't see any
no there's no legal parking and if there was for instance the the curb cut that exists for this lot
would have precluded any sort of legal parking but the street itself is is narrow for there to
be any sort of legal um on-street parking as it exists yeah i can see in the photo okay thank you
Thank you. Excuse me, counselor. Can you go back to the site plan? Sure.
Can the architect explain again why he ruled out a pub?
Sure. So, Ron, using your cursor there, if you just want to
direct Mr. Holloman's attention to the sloped lot line then as well. So the reason why we
ruled out a PUD in this case was in order for us to take utility, you know, the first issue
is basically street frontage. So, you know, if we were to subdivide the lot into, you know,
smaller individual single family lots, you know, there'd be one that would have frontage
and then the others would not. Well, so let me interrupt. So that means you really can only
have one conforming lot correct correct so the alternative would be either what we're proposing
or perhaps a pud so that's really the question that's at hand right and in the case of the pud
the difficulty was getting um you know utilities and infrastructure to the very back extreme corner
of the site given the existing street that we're pulling the um utilities and things off of okay
getting utilities
to the back end of the site.
Is there any housing
back there now, or what's back there now
in the back of the site?
Todd, the back of the
site currently, this is, Ron, I don't know if you have a
map to kind of get an idea.
But basically, it's like the back, it's the
back side of the
it's the back side of the block
of houses
um behind so i ron i don't know what the street is um parallel with rittenhouse street but the
other back half of that block there's no housing or anything down in that deep end um it's just
back half of that block. There's no housing or anything down in that deep end. It's just
the stuff's all lined along the street frontages. Oops, sorry.
We're talking right here.
Correct. Yeah, so this is Irvingmont Avenue. There's buildings here that we
kind of butt up against their rear yards.
They're commercial buildings,
at least on the first floor.
Okay, you butt up against
the rear yards of those
properties.
Correct.
And this one here
is not ours, it's over here at this corner.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Ms. Templeton?
Is that you, Nancy?
This is Nancy.
Just identify yourself.
You're still on the oath from earlier.
Nancy Templeton, T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N, with CH Planning, 1520 Locust Street, Philadelphia, 19102.
Thank you, Ron.
Oh, it's great.
She's on the road.
Sorry.
Hi, Nancy.
Tell the board your occupation, please.
I am a certified urban planner. And you've had the opportunity to review this case?
Yes, I have. And as a result of your review and your study, you prepared a report
which is on the screen. And if you could just briefly summarize what you looked at and what
your findings were? Sure. So I visited the site and the surrounding neighborhood. I reviewed the
plans and the zoning regulations. I reviewed the Philadelphia 2035 Upper Northwest District
Plan and the Philadelphia City Planning Commission's Rezoning Northern Germantown website.
Okay, thank you. And what was your conclusion about this multifamily development in terms of
the ability for it to be developed for an RSA 5 project and whether what's proposed here
will cause any adverse impacts well yeah i just like to reiterate the fact that this is an
irregularly shaped lot and uh you know having had the architect uh describe how it would be
sort of difficult and impractical to develop uh single family homes on it makes sense
but also it's just it's kind of out of character out of context with the surrounding uses
it's surrounded by commercial mixed apartments parking lots I just think it would be kind of
difficult to undesirable I guess to have a single family home on this block okay thank you
there's any questions for Ms. Templeton I'll move on to my last witness
any questions from the board for Ms. Templeton no no if you could promote Mayor Melz M-A-Y-E-R
we can't hear you your client there Ron I don't think his hand is up
right Ron we'll see you here yes I've just unmuted her now okay please identify yourself
spell your first and last name please sure uh mayor milts y-e-r last name m-i-l-t-z
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed mr patterson hi hi mayor um so uh you are the owner and
developer of this property correct yes sir and you uh heard my presentation so far and would you
agree is true and accurate and you would adopt it as your own? Yes. Okay. And jumping to pretty
much the end of this, we did present to the RCO group and what I have on the screen is the last
page of their letter. You know, we'll go through this maybe, but, you know, the applicant did not
We'll go through this maybe, but, you know, the applicant did not prove why he can't build single-family homes.
prove why he can't build single-family homes.
We believe we did.
I guess they don't agree, but that's not accurate to say we did not prove it.
They're not the decider here.
We did not demonstrate the necessary hardship.
We believe we did.
That's their opinion.
We didn't demonstrate the hardship for the roof.
As I mentioned, that was not an issue anymore.
The proposed variances were the least, you know, possible variances.
Again, I disagree.
The property is zoned, zoning.
You know, as we mentioned, we are reducing the number of units.
Is that correct, Mayor, to 26?
And maybe you want to elaborate on what your discussion or discussions were with the Planning Commission?
So, as everyone could probably see, it's surrounded predominantly by CMX 2.5 properties.
um to the left of us is a church parking lot uh that i believe houses in excess of 45 cars
to the right of us there's a small lot that is also paved and owned by the church
and then the rear of the process can you show the pictures not seeing the exhibit
oh you're not sorry okay sorry let me get it back up on the screen
um while you do that i just want i um i want to just reconfirm something as said earlier
was it there is parking on the street on the entire left hand side of the block
not on our side though not on your side okay yeah that's correct um and as as nancy and ron
pointed to the you know both sides of the block for the entire length of the block um i i believe
are all non-residential. Across the street, there's Maple Village, which starts at 5 stories
and grades out to 4 stories. It has a height of 51 feet and 70 apartments. And then on
my side, the remainder of the block is predominantly church properties. Okay, so we started out
with 32 units in contacts with CMX 2.5 without any bonuses. So it was really just the minimum.
And then, you know, I did work with the planning commission. They are supportive of RM1,
which would bring, which would be by right 20 units with a green roof, bring this to 26 units.
That's their vision in their 2035 plan and the rezoning of Northern Germantown.
And in the past week or so, we brought the unit count down for less density, as the Planning Commission would have liked to see.
And I imagine the community would have liked to see it as well.
So, Mayor, and you and I attended the RCO meeting, and we heard the comments that were made, and I guess we didn't know who voted.
But what was your understanding of who had voted, and what did you do on your own accord to let the board know that there was support for this application?
I mean, in all honesty, I felt that essentially that it was no from the beginning.
I felt also as though they may have been taking out their frustrations on other developments in the area, out on this property.
Perhaps those other developments maybe were on residential blocks and didn't make sense.
Versus this one, it didn't seem like they wanted to give it a chance at all.
Okay, tell us about their petitions.
So the petitions, you know, I did as best as I could to try to drum up some support.
I have support letters from, I believe, almost all of Germantown, the 5900 block of Germantown Avenue.
There's business owners, residents. And then there's four properties directly behind me on Haines Street. I believe there are four duplexes or four triplexes, but they're definitely something of that sort.
I did get support from two of the properties behind me. The other two, which are investor-owned, did state they would be supportive, but I never received a letter.
and then you know i have support letters from residents i have support residents from business
owners i have support support letters from investors in the that own property in the air
so it's really a mix okay thank you are on the call today to voice their opinion
Some of the people are on the call today to voice their opinion.
Okay, they'll have their opportunity.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Jill Saul.
You've been unmuted.
You please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
that button by accident i don't have anything to say i guess really what i wanted to ask is if
you're hello hello hello you either are you testifying or not testifying in this case i
will i have a question is that well i need to get your full name and on the record please
sure my name is jill my last name is saw s like sam a u l l do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes thank you ma'am please proceed so um my my
My question actually is, if you're reducing the amount of units, will you be then offering
something other than just a studio and one bedrooms?
Would you have maybe some two- and three-bedroom options?
Ron, could someone answer that?
Mayor Wood or Logan, whoever wants to take that question.
i mean current currently okay i'm sorry one at a time go ahead mayor okay um so i mean we we do
already have two bedroom two bathroom units incorporated into this building how many of
how many two bedrooms four four and the rest are one bedrooms and studios so it was a mix
really you know we felt that it was you know important to have a good mix um okay so does
that answer your question ma'am um yes would there be an option to have at least one or two
three bedrooms for a larger family um unfortunately i i can't really say at this time
you know we we we reduce the unit count i mean i will say that uh three bedroom units just in
general are extremely, extremely difficult, uh, to get rented. Um, and, and that's probably why
with multifamily properties, you predominantly see, you know, studio ones and twos with the
exception of course, of a, you know, uh, uh, a duplex perhaps, or, or a single family. Um,
i'm not saying it's impossible it's you know you kind of have to see how the plans shake out
but i can tell you that it's it's it's difficult for it to be um feasible thank you um i would
like to just i'm sorry uh one other thing that i forgot to touch on is that okay mr chair
yes okay um i wanted to comment on the surrounding height of the property so in the exhibit you're
seeing right now the building directly across the street maple village is 51 feet in height
the ymca building to the left is 66 feet in height okay thank you you're welcome
thank you any other questions
chair we have alfred smith that's been unmuted
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you in.
Yes, hi. It's Alfred Luke Smith, chair for West Central Germantown Neighbors RCO.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yeah, I'm not going to reiterate the entire contents of the letter, as always,
impacted with input from the near neighbors in attendance. I did just want to make a few points
in response to the presentation and flag one other issue that an architect on the committee
raised. First, the issue of... Can I just add a point of clarification? Are you testifying on
behalf of the RCO? Yes. Okay. What's your position with them? As I said, I'm the chair.
of the RCO. With respect to setbacks, the applicant's summary of the setback requirements
indicates that there is no setback required, if I'm not mistaken, for the front yard, and
uh based based on the 16 foot setback um
So based on the 16-foot setback for the nearest adjacent property, our understanding is that that would be something that needs another variance, because it should be a 16-foot setback, not a zero front yard setback.
I disagree, and I did not call it out.
That was not a refusal, right?
Right, correct.
Thank you.
okay that would have been a refusal i believe sir if your comments are accurate yes yep um so i just
wanted to to note that that on the record um and then second with respect to the letters submitted
by the applicant um i i wanted to point out that they appear to be mostly from uh far away
and commercial investor-type people, not near neighbors or residents.
So I would say it's generous to call them a mix of residents and business owners.
I think the ones that are in a close proximity to the subject property appear to be commercial tenants
or business owners on the commercial corridor there.
So I just wanted to point that out
for the board's consideration.
Yeah, sorry, I'm looking at the photograph,
the aerial shot.
And I don't know if you're seeing what I'm seeing.
Other than to the right, extreme right,
and down a little bit further,
I don't see what looks to me like
any single family residential.
And I don't even know if those that are showing up look like they're, the color of the properties are white to the right, Ron, if you can go all the way over.
Yeah, that right in there.
I'm not sure if they're single family or multifamily or what.
Outside of that, I don't seem, doesn't seem to me, at least within that block from Germantown going, I guess it would be going south or whatever.
It doesn't appear to be any single family homes.
yeah so let me i i did want to address that um there i believe there are there is one or two
uh single family homes on that specific block here um if someone else uh i i can't swear to
that but uh if if someone else on the phone that is council i'm sorry council for the applicant is
pointing out there or yeah they believe that it may be over here there looks like there were two
over here the other side of the church all right yeah and and then the the the parallel street that
you were looking at i do believe that is densely populated with single family residential but the
other point i wanted to make um is further up this so we're talking about rittenhouse street
and if you if you this is my first time seeing the letter from that that planner but it it speaks in
terms of this block, quote unquote. So if you count the block to be from Germantown Avenue to
McCallum, which is the little street that kind of tees into Rittenhouse, then it is predominantly
not single family residential. But I think most people in the neighborhood count the block to be
between Germantown Avenue and Green Street, which is the next kind of major thoroughfare
and intersection. And there are a large number of single-family homes there who were adamantly
opposed to the development. And this is a one-way street. And so those properties would
certainly be affected um at least in to the extent of parking overflow and uh additional
traffic congestion trash trash trucks um they're on the topic of trash trucks that that came up
um at the the public meeting as well um there there's there doesn't seem to be a great plan
for that um from the place where the dumpsters are stored uh they would need to be hauled out
to some accessible location for the trash truck and that would be through a shared right away
that the tenants would be using for their vehicular traffic. And then Rittenhouse itself
is quite a narrow street that is already heavily trafficked. And so that was certainly a concern
that came through. John, could you show us on your exhibit where the trash containers would be located?
your exhibit where the trash uh containers would be located
so uh the trash of course would be private haulers uh the truck will come into the property
and remove i believe in here is the um is that correct logan yeah i was gonna say ron if you
actually go to the bottom lower right hand corner so we've got the we've got the trash yep got the
trash room back there um and then as far as you know getting it out to the front um it's either
through the the area where the the cars are at or as well as the um that hatched area you see along
the side is also a um you know an open essentially a breezeway or or you know pseudo side yard out
so just to be clear there's no dumpsters or or carts being placed on rittenhouse street
The truck's not going to stop and block traffic.
It's all going to be done on site.
That's really important.
Correct.
Thank you.
It looks like three-quarters of the way back from the entrance, maybe even further, right?
It's not three-quarters of the way back.
All right.
Thank you.
Excuse me, Counselor.
Do that truck go into the parking lot under the building?
Will it fit?
Logan?
Yeah, I mean, it's really contingent upon the type of vehicle a collection agency uses since it's going to be a private trash collection.
But I believe, can you zoom in there, Ron?
I'm just trying to think what the lower clearance was there for the ground floor.
We have it set at least at 10 feet, I believe.
so the trash hauler basically has different size vehicles and would obviously send a vehicle in
right that would be able to traverse the driveway area and under uh the development correct yeah i
mean it's going to be something where there's going to be obviously some some human involvement
from the collection agency i don't want to say it's going to be that you know fully automated
but there there will be um you know some sort of you know transportation from you know the trash
where it's held versus the vehicle that's taking it away but again all of that would be done on site
which we can control correct on site okay okay thank you thank you any uh other questions
uh yes i did have a few more points to make if that uh is directed to me your honor um i'm sorry
Chair, I just wanted to mention that we did have six other hands up for this case, just so you're aware.
Thank you.
So, sir, if you could be brief, that would be helpful.
I will do my best.
And then I don't know if the extent to which those other people are repeating what I'm saying.
Maybe they can elaborate if I'm brief.
And I'm sorry, excuse me, who's speaking?
This is Luke Smith.
Okay, thank you.
yeah please proceed okay so another major concern was parking uh there is the neighborhood is
inundated with high density development and um minimal parking and uh although
it the surrounding properties are vacant at the moment a lot of them are by right uh cmx 2.5 and
it's very clear uh that that development is coming soon some of those properties um i understand are
owned by the applicant in this case and although he was uh he declined to share plans for those
properties in the context of the meeting on this particular matter which you know is his right uh
from a neighbor perspective it seems relevant as we're assessing the overall um you know impact
and on density and parking they weren't final at the time
uh and then with respect to the the the zoning is rsa 5 as we all know there was a lot of
discussion about um potential remapping and i would just point out that that is uh not guaranteed
and uh the the the adjoining properties on the corridor are of course cmx 2.5 but this property
is on Rittenhouse where the properties are RSA 5 and so of course we should be treating it as
as RSA 5. And I guess the last thing I would say is that you know we we were earlier on willing to
discuss potential compromises with the applicant in terms of scale and density and and parking but
there was not a willingness on the part of the applicant to uh to to make any compromises so
to make any compromises, so that didn't go anywhere. Obviously, this is the first time
that didn't go anywhere obviously this is the first
we're hearing about the 26-unit proposal, and I can't speak to whether that is something the
neighbors would support, but I suspect not, since it's not that much of a reduction. And if there
were a chance, the applicant likely would have, you know, brought that back for another meeting.
I object. That's speculation.
It is speculation. Well, to respect, it is speculation. Thank you.
fair enough okay that concludes my remarks thank you thank you for your time anyone else
to testify in this case please raise your hand here we have suzanne you've been unmuted
hello good afternoon ma'am please identify yourself with the record first and last name
My name is Suzanne, S-U-Z-A-N-N-E.
Last name is Ponsen, P-O-N-S-E-N.
Are you swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Please proceed.
I live at 5915 McCallum Street.
Do I have access to this zoning map now or no?
That picture.
Like, can I move it around?
Or only you can.
oh okay okay you can all right i live on in the 5900 block of mccallum street 5915 and i'm right
about uh you know like six houses in from rittenhouse street and that is up if you can
keep continue up it's about there it's about no down down down down yeah about there a couple
doors from the church? I am. Okay. Okay. Now, first of all, I'd like to say I've lived in the
neighborhood for close to 40 years. So I've seen a lot come and go and a lot of developments. And
anyway, I am not necessarily opposed to commercial development in Germantown. In fact, I look forward
to it. What I am concerned about is the encroachment of it onto residential and neighborhood streets.
I'd like to point out a couple things that Mr. Patterson mentioned and the architect as well,
you know, one thing is that you yourself said it is a Rittenhouse is a one-way street
with parking only on the one side, on the south side, and it's a narrow street. That's one thing.
Number two, there are four single-family homes at 29, 33, and 49 West Rittenhouse Street,
as well as the one at the corner, which actually the entrance and egress is
at the very corner of McCallum and Rittenhouse, but it is designated as the address is 5901
McCallum Street, but the house faces Rittenhouse Street. So there are four single-family
only houses on that street, on that same side. Number two, or I don't know, the next thing,
I have not had a chance to read over and examine the letters that the attorney has presented in
support, and I would be very curious to get a chance to look at those. The only residents that
on Germantown Avenue are living, they're kind of transient apartments above commercial buildings
on Germantown Avenue. Those are the only residential residences that, as far as I can tell, he
would have been able to perhaps have access to. So I'd really like a better look at that
petition the petition letters and letters of support um the other thing okay so now that's
that's just in in relation to the um the things that were mentioned today i have a statement of
three separate points that i that i need to address um first of all i know you don't want
to hear about parking. I realize that that's a constant clamor, but I have.
I realize that that's a constant clamor. But I have to say to you that over the past two years,
since Germantown Square Apartments was built, and it has 38 units and 16 parking spaces,
it was built by Wright at 45 West Haines Street. Now I can see it, well I don't know whether it's
on this map or not it should be but maybe this is I don't know when these photographs were taken
but if Mr. Patterson if you could bring your cursor over to Rittenhouse or Haines Street
Mr. Patterson I don't know where Haines Street is on this map I'm not sure what the relevance
of this is what ma'am yeah you seem to be I'm not rambling I didn't say ramble okay
I never even finished what I was going to say.
You're right.
I just want to ask for you to summarize.
And you acknowledge that parking is kind of an issue that every neighborhood has some issues with.
We understand that.
So, Ron, let me ask you again.
If you were to be able to build single family on this lot, how many would be built?
Well, starting with the one house per lot, we can only make one legal lot.
I'm not sure how many we could do in a putt arrangement.
Logan may have looked at that,
but if you're saying what can we do as a matter of right, it would be one.
I'm sorry, I rephrased that.
If it was a putt, you don't know, all right?
I do not know.
Mr. DeSicca, may I continue?
And would they require parking if you were able to do a putt,
regardless of what the number is?
RM1 would require, correct.
Thank you. Ma'am, with all due respect, if you can summarize, we have a number of other people
who want to testify, and we have other cases today. I will. Thank you. Okay, in a few minutes,
you're going to hear from the City Planning Commission. They will present their position
as to the proposed development and may offer a compromise. We understand that, so just tell us
them present. Okay, this compromise position building is based on the rezoning plan that was
adopted by the Planning Commission early 2020, which would designate 15 West Rittenhouse currently
zoned RSA 5 to be rezoned RM 1. However, oh, a public meeting was scheduled for March 23rd,
2020. To introduce, I'm talking about a year ago, to introduce this proposed rezoning plan,
the entire west central Germantown neighbors and the thousands of people, approximately thousands
of people who reside within its boundaries, were welcome to offer comments, concerns, and were told
to take a careful look at specific properties to be rezoned. And I quote from one of their brochures,
quote after the meeting planning commission staff will update the proposal to reflect
community feedback. Mr. Chairman I'm going to check I would we have a planning commission
member here. Yeah I why are we going over what you're telling us we're going to hear from the
planning commission. Well needless to say due to COVID-19 that meeting was indefinitely postponed
and since no public since no public meetings were allowed. As a result west central Germantown
Neighbors and the residents within its boundaries have not yet been allowed, as promised, to have their voices heard and possible changes made.
We as neighbors have already begun identifying the properties that are of concern.
One of these properties is at 15 West Rittenhouse.
It is currently...
You need to speak on your behalf, not for the other members of the community.
She was muted she can unmute herself. Yesterday a complaint was filed with the
Department of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection citing 15 West
Rittenhouse Street as well as the adjoining 5904 through 08 Germantown Avenue. Both of these
properties currently owned by the developer were owned by Gerbron dry cleaners. Gerbron operated
their site on-site dry cleaners. If there's any environmental contamination, we'll be required to
remediate it before we can do it. That'll all be handled at the appropriate time, man. Well, I hope
that the city of Philadelphia, as well as the developers, do their due diligence. They will
do their due diligence they will have to that will be done by the city and the developer
have to. That will be done by the city and the developer.
absolutely when would that be done when and if the board makes a decision to approve this project
and when the the developer is ready to start pulling permits okay well well they've already
pulled some permits the building is to be at 590408 is to be demolished talking about 15 west
Rittenhouse Square. Which is adjacent to the same property. Not relevant. Not relevant. It is
relevant. Okay ma'am I apologize I apologize with all due respect we need to move on to the next
witness. If I could chair um we do have Mr. Richardson from the council person's office
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Richardson, you're free to unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
You were sworn in earlier, I forget.
Yes, I was.
You are? Okay, you're still on the earth. Thank you.
The councilwoman is joining the community in opposing this project, essentially shoehorning an overly dense multifamily structure into an irregular lot, and she feels that that would be detrimental to the area.
Ron, I do have a question for the mayor, though.
Does he have any affiliation with 5900 through 5904 Germantown Avenue?
uh i normally wouldn't i think it's appropriate to allow that question you can ask it through me
it's i'll ask you mr chair can you yeah ron does your client have any affiliation with
the properties that we just mentioned i do not know mayor would have to answer that i don't
understand what the relevance is but um well the uh i would say i would say that the relevance is
that we are aware of the fact that
there's a demolition permit for
the property that's still standing
at that location, and
that the lot is owned by
another entity as well,
but there are...
And so what's the point?
It's a separate lot,
it's a separate entity.
Wait, you're not asking me questions.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen.
This isn't a debate. If you ask a question,
I'm entitled to cross-examine you.
We're just talking over each other in a court
reporter is not able to. I'm just objecting to the relevance. It doesn't matter how many other
properties he owns. We're talking about 15 Rittenhouse. That's an adjacent property and
there's already. Mr. Richardson I think we can find that out. Your office can find that out by
checking with L&I and that will give you the answer to that question. Do you happen to know
Mr. Richardson if either you or your the councilwoman have seen any of the signatures that
were obtained by Mr. Patterson or his client. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself.
Mr. Richardson. Can you hear me? Yeah, now I can. Okay, I got muted. Did you hear my question?
Yes, I did. I spent a significant amount of time yesterday reviewing the letters of support. And a really significant amount of time reviewing those letters of support. And the majority are irrelevant to this case.
There are three that were 1.2 miles away from the site.
There are two that were 1.1 mile away, two that are a mile away.
Twenty fall in the 0.9 mile and 0.3 mile range, which is beyond the 250-foot range.
The rest are signed by commercial residential property owners, many of them who own multiple properties, and they signed multiple letters.
And if they own multiple properties, why can't they sign them?
Ron, you're talking over him, please.
I'm sorry.
and i did speak to ron about that earlier and he did raise that raise the point that why can't
they sign multiple letters but they you know you can't purport to have 60 letters when the majority
of them are signed by the same people so it's the same people it's the same people ron okay
uh so additionally mr chair additionally mr chair uh you know we feel that it will cause
a traffic problem with regard to Rittenhouse Street. Rittenhouse Street is a speedway and
it serves as the main thoroughfare for traffic traveling from West Oak Lane, portions of
Mount Airy and Germantown down towards Lincoln Drive. And they're always speeding through
there. In fact, I'm guilty of having done that on occasion as well.
Okay, let's move it on.
All right, Mr. Richardson, thank you.
All right, Mr. Richardson, thank you.
Does anyone else wish to speak on this case?
And please, something new and different, because if it's not new and different, I apologize.
We're going to have to cut it off.
We have numerous other cases to get through today.
We're not trying to rush this through, but we just have a lot.
I didn't know it was going to go this long.
I'm sorry, Satina.
can we um a chair we do have six hands okay so if it's okay chair could you ask if anyone
who does not have um something new and different to put their hands down or anybody in support
or anybody because it's a lot yeah so if anyone has something new and different keep your hand up
if not would you please take your hand down
all right chair next we have connie winters miss winters please unmute yourself and wait
for the chair miss winters please identify yourself for the record name and address
my name is connie winters i live at 150 west walnut lane i own um historic germantown
properties and I restore uh I have I own 12 buildings that are historic and restored and
they are rentals both commercial and residential within the sixth area excuse me to tell the truth
I don't understand I'm losing it today I apologize we repeat with every person we need to swear you
in but most people ignore that so please do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
than nothing but the truth. Ma'am, you can unmute yourself. Yes, I do. Okay, now you may proceed.
Thank you. I'll be very brief, but there are three major historic buildings that are vacant that are
within, that are very close to this lot. The Women's Y, Germantown High School, and Fulton
school. They are all vacant and we're hoping that they get developed. Historic development is
important to the continued tax base in our area. Forty percent of the property in Germantown does
not contribute. What is the relevance? Pardon the interruption, but what is the relevance to this
case? Well, I have a city planning background and I think it's important that the neighborhood
is developed as a whole without detrimentally impacting the homeowners of these historic houses
who have contributed to the tax base of the city for years and maintained their homes.
Okay, thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Can I, I had an additional point.
I have an additional point that okay okay can you please make it specific to this issue
the developer did not mention what his anticipated market rents are I'm wondering if they've done a
study and in the context of all the other developments that's going on I'm I'm very
curious to see if there really are enough people to fill all these units
I would expect any developer to anticipate that they will have enough people to fill the units.
Why bother building if you don't think you have that ability to rent?
That's what I would have said. Thank you.
Ma'am, I have a question. You said you owned how many buildings and are they vacant?
I think she testified they're rentals.
excuse me miss winners you can amuse yourself i'm sorry um my question was i'd like to say
one second how many buildings did you say you have and are they vacant or are they completely
full there well i have some vacancies in my commercial units any vacancies in the residential
no okay so you don't view this as competition correct well my my rents are considerably
I didn't ask I said we're not asking that would you no I do not I do not do it as competition
okay thank you but I
chair we have Susan Christian Miss Christian please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please identify yourself, name and address, and I'll swear you in.
Susan Christian, C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N.
I live at 28 West Haynes Street.
I live at 28 West Haynes Street.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I submitted a letter about an hour ago to you, Mr. Chairman.
I did not get that letter yet.
Via email, so I'm assuming you will.
and um it's a letter that I I wrote with um five of my neighbors who all signed it
and so we make many points in there that I won't go into you know all of them right now but I want
to reiterate a couple I don't I mean I want to kind of broaden a couple of points that have been
made. One of the reasons, well, one of the points on the application indicates from the developer
indicates that there will be no impact on public facilities. And I would like to argue that that's
not true. If you consider streets and sidewalks as public facilities, there will be an enormous
impact even from 26 units. I live on Haines and Haines and Rittenhouse are one-way thoroughfares
in spite of their narrowness to get traffic to Lincoln Drive. Now this neighborhood is home to
many residents, the 14th district, and a bunch of schools. And the traffic is so bad that there are
regular accidents at the corner of McCallum and Haynes and Rittenhouse and Green.
That's number one. Number two, I think a lot of the development that's happening
in this neighborhood is because it's so convenient to public transit which is great
unfortunately the sidewalks on Haines are regularly blocked five cars all the time day
and night are parked on the sidewalk on the unit block of West Haines that is an issue ma'am that
if you haven't already done so should be taken up with the local police district and your district
council person well it's an enforcement it's an enforcement issue it's a lack of parking issue
the police park on our street which means that we can Mr. Chairman I'm going to object this
it's still relevant it's still relevant but just as a word you might want to talk to your district
council person to see about getting maybe permit parking and that'll alleviate some of your
problems is there anything else related to this project specific to this project if not we're
going to move on um so i will just say that when the sidewalks are blocked people cannot walk to
public transit and did you attend excuse me did you attend the rco meeting i did and did you speak
about all of this at that meeting uh some of it i'm not sure okay so some of it is repetitive
Mr. Chairman. And I just want to make one more comment about the trash removal
from the proposed development. At the public meeting, the developer said that the clearance
was so low that trash trucks would not be able to get in. And many of us question the validity
of that kind of a trash removal process. And we already have a significant trash problem in our
neighborhood. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. We're going to move on. We have 15 other
cases. Any questions? Yes, the board planning commission. Good afternoon, board. Peter Bernard
for the planning commission. Peter, do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth I do thank you please proceed this property is indicated for multi-family
residential in the comprehensive plan and has not yet been remapped the applicant has worked
with the planning commission staff to amend the proposal to fit within the recommended zoning
and add a green roof accordingly we recommend approval of the variance
with the proviso that the project is limited to 26 units
Ron, do you have revised plans?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
They're in my exhibit package 11 and 12.
Two pages, correct.
two pages correct mi 2021-000 i'm sorry three pages i'm sorry okay mi 2021-00046815 west
rittenhouse my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan three pages approved today
maximum number of units to be 26 my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso
yes with proviso thank you we can go back to number one calendar number zero one three two
one one nine three four stevens road you're welcome that the attorney is michael phillips
michael phillips has been promoted to panelist
thank you mr phillips can you put your name and address on the record there you are good afternoon
michael phillips 1500 market street suite 3400 philadelphia pa 19102 here on behalf
and capital partners.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading,
but I do not stipulate to the accuracy
as we believe there is one variance listed
or one refusal listed that is incorrect.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing?
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
I'm just going to share my screen.
Again, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Here on behalf of AIN Capital Partners,
which is the owner of 11934 Stevens Road, which is located in the far northeast, the
Somerton section of Philadelphia. This case was actually before the board last two years ago,
of May 2019, at which time the board did approve an eight-unit plan for this large, over-an-acre
parcel. But after that hearing, Councilman Brian O'Neill did request reconsideration,
and at a reconsideration hearing, the plan was refused, leading to an appeal by the applicant.
We are now here with a reduced version, a seven-unit plan that I will take everybody through
and describe the changes and go through a little bit of the historical context of this large site.
I do want to note this is the refusal. We disagree with the minimum side yard setback
refusal. It's noted as 16 feet, whereas we are providing 8 feet, 1 1⁄4 inch. The zoning code
actually provides for two 8-foot side yards in the RSA 2 zoning district for detached
intermediate lots, detached properties on intermediate lots, which we have here. However,
this parcel is zoned RSA 2 and as you'll see in the plan, which I will take you just through
the zoning plan right now, this is this large parcel right here
off of Stevens Road. This area right here that is undeveloped was the proposed Woodhaven Road
extension that was supposed to come down, intersect Busselton, and lead south. Now that
is one of the hardships that we're encountering because on this large parcel, only this area
highlighted in green is developable. This area right here is subject to a right-of-way
from PennDOT and it's been that way since 1973. So instead we have this large 44,000
square foot parcel that's zoned RSA 2. So by right we can only construct one single
So by right, we can only construct one single family home.
family home. Further, we can't subdivide
Further, we can't subdivide this parcel because RSA 2 requires 35 feet of lot frontage.
We only have 53 feet, so we cannot even bisect this into two.
But what you'll see and what we'll take you through in the plans is that what we are proposing
is actually a much less dense development than anything in the surrounding vicinity as you
look on this side of the Woodhaven extension. So we did meet with the community. We had a
virtual meeting and presentation and had a series of question and answer
sessions and we provided comprehensive answers to our plans into why this seven unit scheme is the
least dense scheme that is even remotely viable. Now, we represented about two years ago that the
eight-unit scheme was the least amount of homes to make it economically viable, and that's still
true. This I'll refer to as kind of our break-even plan. Clients have resigned, and as they'll
testify, they're not even looking to make a profit here. They're just looking to cut their losses,
understanding that this seven-unit plan could be the best that they'll be able to do.
So quickly show you the plan. This is Stevens Road and this is the proposed
Woodhaven Road extension that never happened. Byberry Road would be to the
north. Busselton is over here to the west. I'll zoom in a bit so you can see
exactly what we're proposing. I'll go through the prior iterations of the plan as well.
But there are seven homes with a setback of 72 feet off of Stevens Road, so you wouldn't really
even see these. Each of the homes has parking. There are 12 parking spaces total that are proposed.
One of two of the homes actually just have one car parking, the rest have two car parking.
There was a 22 to 26 foot shared driveway that leads off of Stevens Road into each of the homes.
This area that is hashed here is the right of way that's undevelopable and that will remain undeveloped open land.
So this really is all that we can develop on.
The other refusal we received was for rear yard, 20 feet required.
We're proposing a little over 15 feet.
There is nothing over here to our west that's another part of an isolated, landlocked lot that is owned by PennDOT right now.
We have a number of petitions of support and emails of support.
If you look at the Somerton Civic Association letter, it's referenced that of the 49 emails
and petitions and support that were received, those individuals were not a member of Somerton
Civic Association. And I want to point out a key distinction. It's not that they are not
residents of Somerton. They are. However, to be a member of the Civic Association, you must pay
$5 a year to the Civic Association of Dues, and then you're entitled to vote. However,
these are all residents within the boundaries of Somerton. And if you include them in the
overall vote, it would be 51 in favor, 21 in support. Repeat that. You said 51 in favor and
21 in support. I mean, and 21 opposed. Excuse me. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. So this is
what the lot looks like right now. It's vacant, overgrown, blighted land. Zoom this photo in a bit.
Take you through. This is now looking towards Byberry Road and then this is looking down
Stevens Road and you'll see there are twin homes all along Stevens Road and here's just another
more recent posting photo. So as I mentioned earlier we only have this section of the property
that's developable because of the PennDOT right-of-way the area highlighted here so we would
come off Stevens Road right here and the houses would all be you know set back significantly from
you know, setback significantly from the front. Historically, this is what the area looked like
front. Historically,
in 1962 when we had the proposed Woodhaven Road extension that was to come here. Really nothing
is developed yet, you know, in the near vicinity. It was mostly farmland. Once you then
go to 1996, though, you'll see that the area in Stevens Road has been developed up. Here is
the centennial development, and so things are starting to fill in, but here it's still large
and vacant because this is all encumbered by PennDOT's right-of-way, or PennDOT has taken title to this
land and this is you know 2008 what it looks like. Now initially when we went before the community
we were modeling our density off of Centennial which is this development here
and so we we proposed an 18 unit scheme based upon that you know based upon that density.
I'll also just show you everything in green is owned by PennDOT so that's why you know there's
nothing to the rear behind us even across the street this is all undeveloped. So we initially
proposed this 18 unit plan and I'll zoom in a bit here just to show you where we've been and
and then where we've come. There were nine twins that were being proposed. The first one was
running on Stevens Road. And then as you go back, each of these would have one car parking.
And there was significant feedback from the community as it related to the density,
the width of the drive aisle, the setbacks. So we went back and proposed a 14-unit plan that
significantly widened the drive aisle, created a fire truck turnaround radius, and eliminated
some of the density, pushed the buildings off the property line. And this is what we presented
initially to the board. At the hearing, we were asked to see what is the least amount that we
can do here to be economically viable, and that's where we came up with this eight-unit plan,
which now instead of twins were all single-family homes, again, all set off, and the proposal at
the time was approximately 5,300 square feet of lot area per home. By contrast, the RSA2 zoning
district requires 3,150 square feet. And if you look in the surrounding vicinity, that's really
the average of the RSA2 homes. It's actually a bit greater. It's about 4,000. And we have a
detailed analysis of the lot size that was done. Here, if you look just at the
homes on Stevens Road, they're all 3,500 to 4,000 square feet. Here's the
average and the median. We even expanded that further and you see this is us at
44,248. You'll see everything, you know, is between 4,000, 3,000 square feet. And that's
the density really that we're looking at. So now with our seven unit plan, this would
be 6,321 square feet per home on the plan. So again, this is less dense. It's a low impact
development we're proposing 12 parking spaces uh and and this is in uh in line with everything you
see in the uh surrounding community uh here are some of the elevations that we're looking at for
uh the homes and they're all fashioned to single-family homes with uh with parking the
homes vary in size from 31 feet to 33 feet all below the 38 feet permitted under the zoning code
go through a few more renderings, what they'll look like. I'm not sure if the architect had
an issue that came up and might not be able to be here, Anthony Masso, but if he's not here,
I don't believe his testimony is crucial to understanding the plan and the development.
But again, these are the homes.
So we, in response to this, the community has still said they oppose.
We, in response to this, the community has still said they oppose. They said that they'll, we can build one home, maybe do two homes, but that's simply just not viable here. This is a 44,000 square foot developable piece of land.
They said that they'll...
My client provided detailed responses to Somerton Civic about why this is the least dense project that would be viable.
And it goes to carrying costs, demolition costs, construction costs.
And at this seven-unit plan, it truly is break-even.
So the options here are either seven-unit plant or nothing, or this is what the property continues to look like, because beyond what we're showing, there's really nothing else we can do.
And I, again, want to focus on the surrounding area and the context, and I'll just show one more photo before calling up my clients.
Here are the homes along Stevens Road that I pointed at earlier.
This is the centennial development.
Again, we would be less dense than everything in the surrounding vicinity.
We would be pushed back 72 feet from the street.
We would provide parking.
One-to-one is required under the code.
We'd be at 1.75 to one.
So there would be no adverse impact to the community.
Instead, what they would be is replacing this vacant, blighted lot where, you know, individuals, teenagers can go party and they drink and who knows what there.
We'd be replacing that with seven homes and some taxpayers who would add to the community and would enhance the surrounding community.
uh i want to see a call my clients i have uh eugene umansky who is here uh if he's available
just to testify
hey mike i'm here okay
please identify yourself with a record spell your first last name uh yes it's eugene umansky
E-U-G-E-N-E
last name U-M-A
N-S-K-Y
Do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Eugene, you heard
my presentation
a moment ago.
Would you agree that
everything I stated is true and accurate?
Do you agree to adopt my testimony
as your own? I do.
And I just have two brief questions for you. The first is, can you just explain to the board
the process that you've undertaken over the past two years to try to come up with
a viable plan for this large lot? Yes, certainly. So as Michael mentioned,
You know, we were, we've been probably in this project now and working on this pre-development for, I don't know, I want to say it's over three years.
We've been in front of Somerton three, four times maybe, Mike, is that correct?
And, you know, we've brought numerous plant options.
We started with a more dense plant, twins, which is what this community mostly has.
I grew up in this area.
We scaled it back after hearing concerns about how dense it was for this parcel.
I know some parking concerns, extra traffic, things like that.
We scaled it back several times.
We stayed with the twin construction on the first couple iterations.
And then we went to single family to accommodate an even less dense development.
Obviously, when we went to a single family plan, the homes themselves got a little bit larger, but, you know, parking need and things like that did get did get smaller.
We accommodated bringing a home, the first home further away from from Stevens.
Can you hear me? OK, I hear something in some feedback.
Someone has has like voices in the background, people talking.
or radio or television is on?
If so, please mute them.
Oh, okay.
Okay, continue.
Sorry about that. Thanks. So we've answered a lot of their requests. We've, like Mike said, you know, we send detailed responses, you know, we've worked with them, the best of our ability, and we've now reduced it to seven homes.
Sorry about that, thanks.
So we've answered a lot of their requests.
um you know if we were to build this two years ago or a year ago when it was eight homes that
would be that would have been great we would have been happy now construction costs are rising
um lumber's rising a lot of materials are rising so as mike said seven homes is
you know this really is a deal that uh it's hard to do but we were committed we've been in this for
so many years. The first, you know, we lost the house just to, you know, just to accommodate not
being close to the road. But while our house, our first home now starts behind the other homes
that face Stevens. You know, we've done really everything they've asked. And the response was
still a no. You know, I let Michael speak to how the voting was and how the voting went over the
past few months. But again, we'd love to build this. There's an acre there. And we feel like
we've done everything that they've asked in terms of reducing density to a level that just makes
sense for us as a developer. So, Mike, I don't know if there's anything else you want me to add.
Eugene, can you just speak to, is building one single family home, which is what you'd be
permitted to do by right at all economically viable?
No, not the type of home that would sell
and that would be consistent with the homes in the area.
I mean, we're not talking about building a home here.
If I could build a home here that's 5,000 or 7,000 square feet
and I could sell it for $2 million, that's a different story.
This is not that area.
mean, I'm going to build a house here that is a certain size that has buyers that are willing to
buy this home. So to answer your question, no. One house is really, it would be a little odd,
but no. And you ran detailed projections on outsell and on construction costs
and developed a pro forma for this property. Is that right? That's correct. And we even shared
a lot of that information in detail with Somerton. I just want to go through that in particular
because you were asked from Somerton about the outsell and really was the ultimate
decision. And I think I got to the petition support. So they asked about the economic
viability and they based it on if the houses sold for $500,000. And you responded to that
and showed how with your carrying costs, with your out-of-pocket costs, that really at seven
homes you're you're looking at breaking even is that is that a fair and accurate uh assessment of
your of our response that's correct i mean our our our net numbers are like you know a hundred
or two hundred thousand dollar potentially income before you know any other sales sales expenses
you know what i mean so after you factor in selling costs and taxes transfer tax and things
like that it's nothing um thank you eugene i'll uh anything further for you the the board may but
i just want to uh state a few things in in uh in closing and then provide a you know obviously an
opportunity for questions and and i'm sure uh there's a representative from somerton civic here
uh so again we're the the variance is for multi-family use because we cannot subdivide
this property. Our hardship is the fact that we have a PennDOT easement that takes up 54% of our
lot. We have only 53 feet of street front and preventing any subdivision. And we have an area
that consists of attached twin homes that range in lot size from 3,500 to 4,500 square feet.
RSA 2 contemplates attached homes. We, at every community meeting, we have addressed every concern
that has been raised, whether it's density, turnaround radius for fire trucks, adding
additional parking, removing the home closest to the street. But the response has been the
the response has been the same it simply has been opposition no no no we presented this back in
same. It simply has been opposition, no, no, no.
December and we had our question and answer round that went till the middle of January and up until
yesterday we weren't even advised how the vote turned out and what the position Somerton Civic
was going to take despite numerous overtures to have a conversation to discuss this to see
if there are any other concerns we can we can address. I have attached also in our packet
the petitions of support from the community and the numerous emails of support that were sent to
Somerton Civic which I was copied on noting approval for the project. These are residents
of Somerton. Somerton in the far northeast is a bit different. It's geographically
uh spread out the homes are not as densely packed um and but but these are residents who will drive
by the area who this will affect and they are largely in support whether they attended a an
in-person meeting of somerton civic or whether they pay their five dollar dues uh we we deem that
uh is not relevant to the fact that they uh live within the boundaries and support the project
um so in conclusion uh we believe that the hardship is clear relating to the unique
configuration of the lot the pendot right of way the lack of street frontage and the fact that
this is a rsa2 zoned uh area which largely consists of uh attached twin homes because of
that physical circumstance is a condition of the property. The property cannot be used in strict
conformity with the zoning code. And what we are proposing is the least dense alternative that is
viable. The granting of the requested variances won't alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. This will be less dense than everything in the surrounding area. Won't
impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, most of which is the PennDOT
easement uh won't substantially increase congestion in the public streets we're providing
more parking than would be required won't adversely affect transportation burden public
facilities and will not be detrimental to public welfare thank you mr phillips i just uh have one
question uh i think earlier you mentioned when the board did a reconsideration and denied the
application your client filed an appeal in common please court uh we we did file uh an appeal of
that is it still in common please it's still in common please we actually requested that everything
be uh stayed while we present this seven unit plan so it's not a provider all right thank you
any questions from the board no no no i'd like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
any hands up
i'm sorry this is mr brian o'neill with his hand up i think he's been unmuted already
thank you jason councilman o'neill okay i'm now unmuted please identify yourself spell your last
name for the record and i'll swear you in yes councilman brian o'neill um councilman for the
10th district which includes this parcel and I also testified before the board in May of 19 at the
hearing on the on the 8th. Okay let me just let me just interrupt you do you swear in the firm to
tell the truth? Yes I do. Thank you sir please proceed. I just want to mention that I was in
attendance with several nearby residents in May of 19. We testified against it, and I'll
do some of that testimony because it's essentially the same application. But it's the first time
I've seen in 41 plus years where LNI has allowed an application while an appeal is pending to be
filed that isn't substantially different than the original appeal. And I just mentioned that
substantially different than the original appeal. And I just mentioned that because historically
because historically
that's not been the practice at Illinois. And it apparently don't have any problem with it now,
but there's, if the, you know, it's, it's just not fair to the community. It's not fair to the
process, in my opinion, but I wanted, before I begin my testimony, I wanted to ask the chair,
Or if the chair could ask the owner of the property, the representative of the owner that testified, if the alleged hardship, the PennDOT right-of-way, was placed on the lot after he bought it?
or was it already on there when he purchased the lot?
Mr. Phillips, can you address that question as to whether or not the conditions were on the lot prior to purchasing or after?
They were on the lot at the time.
It's been on the lot since the 70s.
However, the deed and title history was not entirely clear at the time.
um so after my client uh had to you know purchase the property they ended up having to clear up a
lot of old bag taxes um and only uh take ownership of this 44 000 or you know this 44 000 square foot
developable parcel but this other part that's encumbered by pendoc was there um and they
bought it with knowledge um they didn't have knowledge is that right that there was a yes
that there was a portion of it
that would be subject to the right-of-way.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And also, was the owner of the property,
the purchaser just mentioned,
aware when he bought the property
that there was only street frontage for one home?
And only because the zoning has very small requirements on side yard and rear yard and all that, but basically side yard.
Yes, Mr. Phillips.
I mean, the parcel is what it is, and whether an owner purchases it with knowledge of a hardship does not negate the existing hardship.
It just means that a hardship exists.
Yeah, but that does.
I mean, it's kind of like a buyer beware, isn't it?
It's not even – that is an erroneous argument.
When you buy a property and you know there can be one house put on it, or you should know because he's a sophisticated buyer.
I know from the last hearing, this is not a stranger to real estate that purchased this.
And I have another question for the owner of the property.
Since it was testified by Mr. Phillips that the property is a vacant, undeveloped, blighted lot, I believe it's been three, four years that this case has been, you know, this property, at least that many years, three to four, has been owned by this gentleman, who's the applicant.
Has he ever done anything to obviate any of the blight that's there, to reduce the blight, to eliminate it?
I don't see this as a blighted property, and it's never been reported to my office.
It's a wooded lot.
But the applicant obviously believes that it is vacant, undeveloped, and blighted.
It's clear that it's vacant and undeveloped to anyone.
But to this applicant, he's making an argument that it's also blighted. If you own a blighted property, would you let it go four years as an owner of real estate and not relieve any of the blight? Because you don't have to build houses on it to relieve what you may consider blight.
it's a wooded lot it's no different than the wooded lot across the street or
around the corner where there's wooded lots we will concede that it's an over has he done
anything it's there's a question there and it's direct it has he done anything to relieve the
blight that he thinks this lot has i i would just say clearly as indicated by the photographs
uh the lot has not been cleared and the owner has not gone through the uh extensive costs of
extensive costs of clearing uh raising uh and thank you the answer is no yeah
clearing uh raising uh and
that's all i wanted you don't have to give me a speech just say yes or no it's either he's done
anything or he's not it's not all about your definition of what blight is you brought up
blight no neighbor has ever brought up you know what this is not okay and has considered to blight
it come on councilman i think you made your point okay okay and it's because of mr phillips no
disrespect raised the issue that it's a blighted unkept property and the onus if that's the case
the onus to maintain it is on the current owner i i will apologize for my inartful uh uh language
which it's not condemning you for it but it is i i know the point you were trying to make but
sometimes less is better uh understood but and we could put a fence around the whole property but
you know neighbors have said they like walking through it they like the wooded area and they
like to have this here but but it's privately owned land is the point and and so my client
is looking to just develop this property the neighbors would also like singles um and a few
of them not and I we can repeat the last hearing because this is the same issue at the last hearing
seven and eight don't make a difference uh seven or eight the I had said at that hearing that
we could work with two to three homes and I'm not bringing this out of the sky
if you go north on Stevens on the same side of the street on the other side of Woodhaven Road
which is just a paper highway that's never going to be built at this point.
There are single homes on Bybury, small single homes that have been there pre-war probably, 70, 80 years old.
And then you have a piece of ground that's directly on the other side of the Woodhaven Road right away.
The entire thing is the right away.
The entire, whatever you see is Woodhaven Road and in between.
there are two very large, nice, attractive, expensive homes that are on a single private
driveway that the two of them share. I would be willing, and the community I know and the
nearby neighbors would support three if it were necessary. This goes back almost two years.
And we heard the same stories about, I paid too much, please relieve me of my bad decision, because that's all this is here, is a bad decision, a careless decision, whatever it was, the argument is just that I paid too much.
The only way now I can break even is if you – well, real estate developers gamble.
They always take a high risk.
That's why no one begrudges them when they make money.
A risk was taken.
Now the zoning board and the community is supposed to relieve the owner of what wasn't such a great gamble or risk-taking on his part.
two to three houses of a considerable size. And there were just three homes sold in the last two
years. And the market wasn't red hot like it is now that I'm talking about these homes just up
the street. No one's showing you those homes because they kill whatever argument Mr. Phillips
is trying to make. Those homes face a private driveway. Two, three houses on a private driveway,
but especially substantial homes, is not a problem for me or for the neighbors.
Even though only one house was legally able to be built here.
Those houses sold on the other side of Southampton Road for $600,000.
And they sold immediately.
Somerton is, even in the slow market of two, three years ago, very, very desirable.
Those homes wouldn't be anywhere near Stevens Road.
They would be in the fat part of the lot, not the narrow part near the street.
They would have a nice driveway out to the street.
Two in three people in different homes can handle, I've had a lot of experience with this,
can handle a private street, which isn't built like a city street. It's just basically a long
driveway. They can handle the fact that they have private water and not city water and sewer
because they go in eyes wide open. When you start getting into the 7, 8, 10, even 6, 7,
When you start getting into the 7, 8, 10, even 6, 7, 8, 10, it's a totally different thing.
Everyone there is paying the same taxes as everyone else with a similarly valued house.
And no one wants to fix anything.
They want the city to do it.
We went through this in May of 19.
This is a mistake that was made by a developer asking for relief.
relief, I and the community are willing to entertain relief. And I do feel sorry only
for this, Mr. Phillips, that you had to go through a process with Somerton Civic that
is not a process. It's not a process recognized by the zoning board. And I'm sure you had
no choice. But there was no RCO meeting. There was no virtual meeting. There was no meeting
I could attend. There was no meeting that the nearby neighbors could attend. There's no way
you could say to someone, could you sit over here if you got a letter mailed to you so your vote
will be counted separate on the sheet because there's no sheet on this. And that's beyond my
control. It's frustrating. But fortunately, this is a mirror image of May of 19, except there's a
hot real estate market right now. There's a very hot real estate. It's on fire. And everyone,
you can't pick up any newspaper or talk to a realtor or even a neighbor about it otherwise.
So that offer still holds. I hold no grudges. That offer still holds. We can work with two to three
good-sized homes that'll sell for a pretty penny. It'll sell for a substantial amount of money.
if your client, if the applicant doesn't break even, and I think that's a real stretch in this
case, if he builds what I'm talking about and what I was talking about two, three years ago,
then he will come very close. And when you make the kind of gamble he made and what he now purports
to be a huge mistake, he'd be doing pretty well to be anywhere near break even. And Mr. Chairman,
I really just ask you, don't look south. Those twins, those high density twins were built
before I got in office. I started January 4th, 1980. Those twins have no relevance to this case.
everything from this lot north, including those very, very nice estate type homes that are just
on the other side where somebody decided not to come to the board, but to have two lots back to
back. And they've been there 15 years or so. And I'm guessing they would probably sell for
a quarter, you know, seven, eight hundred thousand dollars. This is not a poor neighborhood to build
real estate if you build it right. So I just ask you to do, you know, the same thing you did the
last time it was here. Let the other appeal run its course. You can't, none of us can do anything
about that it's in common police court and uh i ask you to um uh to deny the the request for the
the seven the same way you did for the eight thank you thank you councilman uh mr phillips
uh i don't remember exactly the conversation we had a couple of years ago when the councilman
testified in person at the zoning board uh it's signed it sounds to me from my recollection pretty
similar so i'm going to ask this question it seems to me that the councilman is more than willing
to sit down with you and your client he says two or three i don't know if the end of the day if
that's where it winds up maybe it's one more maybe it's one less i don't know so my question is for
you and your client before this board makes a decision would you be willing to have that
conversation and it sounds to me like the councilman is more than willing to be a participant
in that conversation, especially given the fact that the Somerton Civic is really not
recognized by this board. If I can just address three points and then I'll get to that. And I
want to give my client an opportunity to respond to some of them. I know, but we do have 15 other
cases on this. I could just be extremely. The homes that Councilman O'Neill is referring to
are right here. This is zoned RSD1, residential single-family detached homes. To say that
this area, which is RSA2, and here Centennial is RSA3, is irrelevant. I think it just ignores
the fact that this is an RSA2 district, and we are trying to develop according to RSA2
according to RSA 2 standards the only difference is we can't subdivide the lot I think we get that
standards. The only difference is we can't subdivide the lot.
I think we understand that but and that's my second point um madam vice chair the vote
of the individuals who respond the neighbors do want it was 51 to 21 in support 51 to 21 it was
over a two to one margin in support from individuals. So, and the last thing I just
want to point out is what the councilman is suggesting at three units or three homes. Again,
here's the lot size of all these homes along Stephen Road, 3,500. It would be proposing over
14,000 square feet of lot size per home. That is a density unseen even in the most restrictive
least dense zoning permitted in the city. We are just looking for consistency with the rest
of the neighborhood. Mr. Phillips, I need to interrupt you. I appreciate what you're doing
on behalf of your client. Is it a non-starter to have a conversation? Are you saying that
We have tried having a conversation numerous times.
I've sent so many emails and there hasn't been a response or any, if there can be a reasonable discussion, because again, we started at 18 looking at Centennial.
The councilman just said on the record, in full view of everyone listening, that he's willing to have that conversation.
but if the conversation is predicated on we're not doing anything more than three then that's
not a conversation that's a so so i want to know if it would be a reasonable
all right conversation you don't know that until you have that conversation
mr chairman when i said that neighbors um didn't monitor i don't even know what i said
the somerton civic association councilman o'neill and senator sabatina are opposed to this i know
we don't recognize Somerton Civic, but that's what I meant. That was a statement that I made.
Thank you. Understood. All right. Well, let me, is Councilman O'Neill still on the line?
Councilman's still on the line. If so, please raise your hand. Yes, I am.
Okay. And Councilman, are you proposing a sit, well, I guess it wouldn't be a sit down
meeting, but some sort of a Zoom meeting with my clients to discuss the proposal?
With the understanding that they've looked at the lot or lots I'm talking about that come off of a
lot that's similar to yours in terms of its frontage. I think they might have been built
as flag lots but i'm willing to ignore that um and and just treat this like a zoning case where
your client is looking for relief from building one small half a twin called the twingle in the
northeast and on a private street building two or three substantial homes just like his neighbors
to the north did in a very similar situation, almost identical, actually. The zoning designation
of that other lot may have helped them build flag lots. The zoning designation of this lot,
I will ignore the fact that you can only build a twingle, half a twin there, and have a serious
talk about two or three. If we're going to start with four or more, like you just said, it wasn't
worth it for you it wouldn't be worth it for me and the neighbors to go beyond the three okay i
think we got the answer then all right uh planning commission i'm sorry i cannot start my video
yes peter there we go okay planning commission good afternoon board
peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
we feel there is no hardship to vacant land accordingly we object to the variance
Thank you. MI 2020-000132-11934 Stevens Road. My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Thank you. Number two on our list, Carol.
Calendar number 0359-1311 North Howard Street. Michael Mattione is the attorney.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
And there is a letter of support with provisos from the RCO.
And all I would need is clarification on when they say weekdays, what days of the week are
they talking about closing at 10 and the weekends? Is it Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Saturday and
Sunday. So when
Mr. Mattione gets on, I'll ask
that question. He's on. Mr. Mattione, name
an address on the record and spell your last name
please and then I'll swear you in.
Sure. Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I,
Federal Reserve Bank Building,
100 North Independence Mall,
Suite 5A, Northwest,
Philadelphia. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you also agree to
raise the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do.
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos plans five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco
and do you have a letter of court stenographer am i going too quickly or do you have this
memorized by now no you're fine you're okay okay michael you may proceed yes to everything uh
Madam Vice Chair. Okay. Again, this is 1311 North Howard Street and Avram Hornick and Alex,
one of his partners, are on, I believe, at Avram's successful restaurateur,
including things like Morgan's Beer Craft Hall. This is a straightforward refusal. This is an
RSA 5 Zoning District, and so I'd like to hear my love letter.
What are you doing to those poor people up in Germantown?
Anyway, this is straightforward refusal, RSA 5 Zoning District.
We've got a refusal for two things, for proposing an eat-in and a takeout restaurant, one for
each of those two things.
This is the site.
It's a large industrial site.
It used to be a steel fabrication
building. It is a one-story,
single-span, 19-feet-high building.
What are the days and hours of operation?
It's seven days a week.
Sunday to Thursday.
Well, during the week, Monday
to Friday, it'll open at 7 a.m.
It will close no later than midnight because they're getting a G liquor license, so they cannot close later than midnight.
They proposed to close at, I believe it was 11 o'clock or 10 o'clock, I can't remember which, on Sunday to Thursday.
Friday and Saturday would be open to midnight.
Saturday to midnight, still open at 7?
8 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
Sunday?
Sunday, 8 a.m. until, I believe, 10 o'clock at night.
Okay, so 8 to 10.
Saturday is 8 to midnight.
And the others are all 7 to 12.
Okay, thank you.
Go ahead.
And we do have a support letter from the South Kensington Community Partners.
They had a seven-point proviso.
We entered into a separate good neighbor agreement with them,
agreeing to the proviso.
They had things like outdoor seating
at 10 p.m. on weekdays.
It's outdoor, not inside.
11 p.m. on weekends.
Interior sale not to escape the premises.
Trash and recycling to be picked up
after 7 a.m.
We'd install security cameras.
The sidewalk will be kept litter-free.
We'll have a pest control service
and we'll have a manager in contact
where the neighbors can contact the manager.
We agreed to all those provisos
and we have a separate good neighbor agreement
with the RCO.
There was no opposition.
19 neighbors showed up at the RCO meeting.
And again, this is an industrial building.
The floor plans up.
It's a one-story.
We're going to have a bar here and upstairs.
They're going to have local grains, local foods.
They're going to serve pizza and bagels,
and they'll brew local beer.
It's a 19-foot tall building,
and I'll just show the exterior so you can see it.
Okay. Let's see, this is the building here, just the lower portion. There's our
five proposed exterior lights. That's a clear barrage door you see right through it. It's
transparent and it opens and they would have it open in nice weather.
And that's the site. As you can see, it's an industrial building, even though it's zone RSA 5. And there's our letter of support from the RCO.
That's the site. As you can see, it's an industrial building even though it's Zone RSA.
Can you rotate that, Michael?
I'm sorry, I just rotated it the wrong way. We'll go around the world here.
It seems that the only proviso that appears to be enforceable is outdoor seating to end by 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. weekends.
Right. I believe that that's probably correct.
And there's your provisos.
I think trash and recycling, commercial trash pickup.
Correct.
you could have that as well i believe uh yeah does the board have any questions
uh yes uh is exhaust vent to the roof exhausted vented i'm sorry it's through the roof yes yes
mr halliman thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for multi-family use in the resident in the comprehensive plan
the area was part of a comprehensive rezoning in 2016 and 2017 that determined that residential
use was best for this block locating a restaurant use in this area would create conflicts with the
neighbors and increased traffic on a residential street we feel the proposed use would be better
accommodated on front street or gerrard avenue commercial districts which are less than a block
away from this property. Accordingly, we recommend against granting of the variance.
Madam Vice Chairman, I also note at the corner right down the street at Thompson and Howard right
down the street is another restaurant, the Laser Wolf restaurant, and at this building is an
industrial building. It's a one-story 19-foot-tall industrial building used as a steel fabrication
building for a long time, and we have the full support of the neighbors for this proposed use.
So there is a clear hardship to the land here with this building.
It cannot be accommodated.
As you can see, the interior, you cannot accommodate it for residential use.
Calendar number 035.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who would like to add something?
Sorry about that.
I had to go away.
Oh, that's okay.
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Carol, may I interrupt you?
Did you get clarity on the days that they'll be open, a closure at 10 o'clock?
10 p.m. weekdays.
I'm assuming it would be Monday to Friday.
Monday to Friday, Michael.
Monday to Thursday.
Monday to Thursday.
That's why I asked.
Friday, Saturday, Sunday would be weekend, right?
Would be weekends, 11 o'clock.
Well, outside, midnight inside, outside.
The RCO was very clear.
They said outside seating ends at 10 p.m. during the weekend,
at 11 p.m. on the weekend, but the interior can go until midnight.
We're restricted to midnight anyway because we have a G liquor license,
and we cannot go beyond midnight with that kind of a license.
thank you for the clarity thank you sure calendar numbers that's a proviso right
yes for the outdoor calendar number 0359 1311 north howard street my bird is yes
with outdoor seating monday through thursday to end by 10 p.m and friday saturday and sunday
the outdoor seating will end by 11 p.m and commercial trash pickup yes my vote is yes with
proviso yes proviso thank you calendar number zero one i'm sorry yes i'm sorry madam chair um
if it's okay with you and um the chair i was going to respectfully ask that we call continuances for
the 330 cases so that anyone who's here for them can leave because we will probably go the wrong
way. Yeah okay that's a good idea thank you. All right I'll call them. MI 2020-0018561715
north 59th street is continued number five on our 330 list mi 2020 that's 001 562
562. 279 Grape Street is continued. And there were no exhibits submitted. Let me read this
279 grape street is
one off. MI 2020-001560. 7810-20 Algon ALGON Avenue. Those exhibits were not received by
the board until 2 30 yesterday uh therefore that case i believe uh well we'll let that go wait till
we get to it and see if we have anybody we may have to continue that one wait till we get to
that one carol okay where are we calendar number oh tanya um i was gonna yeah i was gonna ask if
We can follow up to see if anybody else had 3.30 continuances.
Anyone else?
Thank you.
Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal for the 3.30 list?
Chair, we have Leo.
Leo, you can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance.
Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Board.
Leo Mulvihill, M-U-L-V-I-H-I-L-L, 1441 East Oxford Street.
I'm here today on 4609 Hedge Street, application number, sorry, calendar number 39125.
I'm requesting a continuance.
We have two issues.
I think, hold on a second.
You said that's the wrong number.
Hedge Street 4609 Hedge?
Yes, that's correct.
Yeah, but you gave us the wrong calendar number.
Oh, my error.
All right, so you're asking for a continuance?
Yes, I believe this was marked must be heard. Unfortunately, there's an outstanding tax issue. My client's working with the city right now to take care of. So it's my request. It's a lot line consolidation. And that's really it.
Yeah, I don't have any notes about that must be heard. So MI 2020-0003284609 Head Street is continued.
Thank you. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
you do like any other requests any other requests for continuances or withdrawal for the 3 30 list
chair we have william stamps hello chair we have williams excuse me william stamps
i've just unmuted thank you mr stamp please identify yourself with a record name spell
your full name uh lyle stamps l-y-l-e-s-t-a-m-p-s uh for applicant gallman algon
mi 2020 001560 property 7810-20 algon avenue uh you prepared to go forward with that case
we are prepared to go forward with that case and to uh to uh you mr chair and to the board
uh our apologies for the timeliness of the submissions we were hoping to submit altogether
with the letter from the rco which we had not received yet however everything has been submitted
now i believe councilman o'neill supports this as well okay well when we get to it at 3 30 we'll hear
the case okay carol calendar number four zero one four eight twenty three oh one bligh avenue
know gussie o'neill is the attorney well you'll know i just got some hate mail from somebody who
lives up in the written house street area oh voicemail i'm a disgrace i'm a disgrace unless
you quit oh god you'll have all of us following you so then there'll be no zoning board
good afternoon uh yes uh is this uh gusty o'neill it is i'm sorry i'm not sure why it comes up as
augusta okay augusta may you uh may you will you please put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name sure my first and last name is augusta o'neill last name is spelled o
apostrophe n e i l l my address is 1835 market street that's suite 1400 philadelphia pa 19103
do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
there is just one small issue with the refusal um just wanted to point out for the board that
my client does have a property certificate for two units at the property already, and the refusal
just makes it seem as though we are asking for relief to get three units. I just wanted to make
relief to get three units. I just want to make that clarification that we do have the certificate
that clarification that we do have the certificate permit.
permitting us to have two units in this three unit property. Okay, thank you. Have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? Have you met with the RCO and do you have
letter. Yes to all three. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you very much. So this afternoon
we heard to discuss 2301 Blay Avenue. This property is currently zoned RSA 3. So in this zoning
district the multi-family residences are not permitted. At the time the property was purchased
it was set up as a triplex with three separate units which all have separate gas meters,
separate entrances, they each have their own kitchen and living space on each floor,
and there are two dedicated parking spots at the property, as you can see in this picture.
The lower level unit is the unit that we are asking for the variance relief here today. As I
said before, we already have a property certificate for the two units, which is a part of the exhibit
package that I previously submitted to the board. The lower level unit, as you can see, is above
grade. There are a number of multi-family properties, including triplexes, on this block.
As you can see from the exhibit package, pictures in the exhibit package I previously provided.
I do have a floor plan for the lower level unit if anyone any member of the board would like to see
it but it is a part of our exhibit package we met with two RCOs for this property the
Ron Hurst Civic Association which held a formal meeting for us on the 25th we my client also went
the property and did a site visit in person with two members of community on the rise.
They toured the property with my client on March 16th and they did submit multiple letters
to the board indicating the provisos that they wanted to have added.
They have advised me verbally, I spoke with them at length last night,
that they are in support of this application just as long as we agreed to the provisos that are in
their letter um i'm happy to read those provisos to the board if anyone on the board would like
me to yes please please do and i also have a copy of the letter up if anyone would like me to share
the letter are you miss o'neill are you suggesting that roanhurst has changed their position from
opposition to support no there's a another community group called community on the rise
and they're they've told me last night that they're in support. I'm not sure if Sharon Solomon
is participating this afternoon. I wasn't able to get in touch with her over the phone
but let me actually share a copy of this letter that I received.
can everyone see that yes great so the provisors that are indicated um they had asked that concrete
be installed at the front and rear of the property um that it be repaired they wanted a replacement
of the kitchen bathroom appliances new floors washer and dryer they asked that the old flooring
be removed and replaced by new floors um they had a question about circuit breaker boxes um
i'm going to interrupt you from what i can read none of those are enforceable through the uh cba
so far now appropriate plonuming i'm down the next ceiling high entrance bathroom parking spots for
all units they're already there egress window first force everything must be built according
everything must be built according to fire codes that's for sure and again that's you've gotten a
petition signed okay but also has to had tried had asked to um pose some questions to the zoning
board i'm not sure that these are relevant to what we heard for today obviously yeah but they're not
we wouldn't have any knowledge of that right now right uh but i just did want to inform the board
that my client has received the letter that they that this rco sent to me um and he is fine with
all the provisos that they'd asked for all the improvements that they had asked for to be made
to the property um in addition to this letter of support from the community on the right
In addition to this letter of support from the Community on the Rise RCO, my client did also visit a number of neighbors to the property, and he was able to get many signatures of support.
And so a copy of those of the petition of support was also provided with our exhibit package.
sorry i'm just gonna um and so with all that being said i would just like to
call forward my client to adopt my testimony
sonny are you
sonny could you raise your hand
you've been muted
hello can you hear me yes please identify yourself name and name and address and spell
i'm sorry spell your full name i'll swear you in sure sunny yang s-u-n-n-y y-a-n-g
where are you from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed miss o'neill sunny have you heard my testimony this afternoon
yes and was it all true and accurate absolutely and you wish to adopt it as your own yes perfect
um thank you mr chair as i said there are i believe that there are members of the community
who are going to be speaking in support of our application um i know that the prior applications
went a bit long so just in the interest of time i will um rest there but if there's other questions
that the board has, either myself or my client, we'd be happy to answer.
The only question I have is, has there been any other communication with the
Raunhurst Civic Association? Because they sent a letter of opposition. So do you know if there's
been any follow-up with them? I have not followed up with them.
I am not sure if Community on the Rise has been in touch with them.
um i'm not sure of the status of their talks okay let's uh is there anyone from councilman
o'neill i assume you're not related uh anyone from councilman o'neill's office
on this call if so please raise your hand just councilman o'neill oh there you go
his own special alice he works for so um alice is on it as well uh and thank you mr chairman i'm only
kidding about that last one, hopefully. This is the first time I've ever heard a community on the
rise. Sounds like they do good work. I don't have any issues with them at all. From where I sit,
they're not an RCO for zoning cases. This is well within Roanhurst boundaries. They've been
a breath of fresh air in the Roanhurst area for the last several years, really fighting an uphill
battle against bad development, neighborhood problems of all kinds, against some pretty
significant odds. And their chairman, longtime chairman, moved. His wife died. He left the city,
lived close to his children. And through Senator Sabatina, who's from that area, we were able to
revive the Civic Association. And they've been very, very active. And Senator Sabatina has been
very active on this particular matter. He and I have spoken several times. He's actually driven
him by several times, taken photos on his phone. He said it's not only a nightmarishly blighted
property, unlike the photo we're looking at, but has been this way since 2006 or two, I'm sorry,
2007. And Clip has a file that is so big on this property that I believe they have given
2301 Bly frequent flyer status. And I haven't heard of that before, but this is a recurrent
clip problem for a blighted, trash-strewn, overgrown property that is relentlessly that way.
um there is a lot of doubt that um and and i and i understand uh counsel's uh statement that her
that her client says he bought it this way and there's no way for
she, I, or any of members of the board to know whether it's true. Only he knows whether that's
she i or any of members of the board to know whether it's true only he knows
true. But if he did, he had a certificate of occupancy that said there were two units allowed.
And no one ever gave him permission to do three. The Civic Association has become very aware of
the illegal triplexes that are interspersed on this block and a few neighboring blocks. And
And we have, Senator Sabatina and I, have joined together to try to get L&I enforcement to get them returned to the way they were built, the way they're legal, which is a two-family with garages, off-street parking.
And you saw from the pictures that the photos, some of the photos that council showed, that it makes a tremendous difference where you see these twin duplexes with the garages on the bottom.
It just sends a message that this is a good block, as opposed to what we're looking at here with both the applicant and the next door neighbor, with what looks like it has with that air conditioner in the window and the back door in the middle, another illegal triplex.
And maybe Ellen and I cited that as well. I don't know. But I would just ask the board to help support this neighborhood, which the Civic Association is trying to protect and help redevelop properly and not have it go downhill with properties like this.
Mr. Chair may I respond to that or do you need to take testimony from other
quickly quickly respond sure okay so as far as um Councilman O'Neill's comments about
community on the rise not being recognized RCO I'm not sure where that is coming from because
Planning Commission did um direct all correspondence about the zoning matter to that RCO that's how
they got in touch with us that's how they were able to tour the property um as far as any
allegations that my client hasn't been maintaining the property i think the picture that's on the
screen right now speaks volumes as to how beautifully maintained my client's property is
well that could have been done that that could have been done in anticipation of this hearing
i mean i could i could show you a picture from google that well i could i can not to debate it
but if clip and i i believe the councilman if clip has been out there numerous times that tells me
something and i i did look at the atlas records i see no records of them you know nothing that
would indicate that they're have the quote unquote frequent flyer status that councilman
o'neill was referring to i can also share recent pictures um from the property showing again how
beautifully maintained it is if the board would be interested in looking at those i i think i think
we get the picture already but thank you and and just as far as mr um councilman o'neill's
point about the illegal triplexes are in this neighborhood i mean i think that you have before
you someone who's trying to do it correctly and is asking the board's permission because they
would like to be allowed to do it as opposed to whatever this issue is with other people who are
doing it illegally. All right. Anyone else would like to speak on this case, please raise your
hand. Yeah, we have Senator Sabatina. Sorry, you've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Senator. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell your name and I'll swear you
in thank you mr chairman can you hear me yes my name is uh john sabatina j-o-h-n-s-a-b-a-t-i-n-a
junior i am currently the state senator uh in which this uh in the district in which this
property lies you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed thank you chairman and board members i had the opportunity to go
to this property on February the 5th and I took a picture of the front of the house and on the
front of the house was a abandoned tire, a broken chair, and a mop handle. The place also did not
look like it had been properly shoveled. There's still snow on the pavement and trash was on this
overflowing on the trash cans on the side of the house. I went back to the property on February
the 9th. I again took pictures of pretty much the same property in the same condition.
pretty much the same property in the same condition. Most recently I went back to the
the property on March the 31st, the day before the hearing before the Ronhurst
Civic Association and again I took pictures of trash in the front,
I'm sorry trash on the side of the house overflowing from the trash can the same
tire on the front porch and the same broken chair and mop handle in the back I saw a punched out
screen laying on the floor and the door that that you can see in this picture saying 2301 was
half open so i i would uh strongly disagree with council's uh claim that that this property has
been beautifully maintained this picture is an anomaly on a good day um if and i did submit
the pictures for the record yesterday i hope the uh board members had an opportunity to view them
uh more uh moreover i have not heard of uh the community group community on the rise i uh
have not had no previous dealings with them before this issue last i heard they were from
mcgee avenue which is miles away from this property and uh you know i don't know uh
yeah, I've never heard of them.
I don't know if they're legitimate or not.
So I, you know, I do know
that Raunhurst Civic Association
has opposed this measure.
They do have citations for high grass
as recently as September of 2019,
which is probably around the time
L&I had better things to do at the time.
So I don't, the property owners
had this property since 2007 uh i guess theoretically he's had three tenants till
2000 since 2007 he's not invested one iota back into this property and uh i i think and i you
know correct me if i'm wrong but the only reason we are here is because he was he got caught um
So I don't see a hardship with the, you know, if the, you know, there's no hardship in this property.
And I think it's an overuse and it's, you know, the ownership and maintenance in this property is very lacking.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
um anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand here we have lee please unmute
yourself and wait for the chair hello good afternoon sir please identify yourself first
and last name lee l-e-e horn h-o-r-n-e we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed um i am the uh zoning chairman for the runner civic
association uh i don't want to uh repeat the things that have already been said so i'll i'll
keep this short the um board members of the runner civic association are not in favor of this project
We do note that there's no increased parking for more residents.
This is not the intended use of this building as it was built.
And personally, I worry how this change will affect the value of homes on the adjacent block, which is Vista, which are single-family twins.
um i i also will state that i do not know who this other rco was is or claims to be i don't
know why they were given access to tour of the property and i don't know uh that they have any
jurisdiction in rawnhurst um everything else that has been said i agree with by the councilman and
state senator so i will thank you for your time thank you sir you're welcome anyone else
i see no other hands chair yeah just for clarity when these properties were built
correct me if i'm wrong were they built a single or uh duplexes these properties were built as
duplexes along the 2300 odd side of uh of blight okay i just wanted to make sure i was thinking
of Bly. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was thinking right. And so the objection is to the
Right. And so the objection is to.
third unit, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Questions from the board? I think I asked already, but I'll
ask you. No questions. No. Planning commission. Good afternoon, board. Peter Bernard for the
planning commission. This property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive
plan. The property is already in use as a duplex. We feel the addition of another unit represents
an overuse of the property and that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any hardship. According
to the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-000148. Well Mr. Chair can I
can I just also point as far as any issues that the board is having with hardship I just would
like to again point out that the testimony was that this property is currently set up for three
separate units so we have three separate utilities we have three separate entrances this is not set
up for a single family property and as I stated before we have a property certificate for the two
units so this would just be a minimal increase to increase the use from the permitted two units just
for an additional unit so you're saying you're saying it's set up for a triplex it's the i only
i see three three meters generally generally one meter is the public meter and the other ones would
be for each uh for the other units individual units so it's really set up for a duplex well
inside of the property it's also i can show you interior pictures um and so each unit is its own
separate unit with yeah but that doesn't mean that obviously you're here because you're an elite
you're trying to legalize that it was originally set up as a triplex that's why i asked the question
of the gentleman from the ron herr civic these were originally built as duplexes right and and
so but my client did not change it into the triplex it so there's no self-created hardship
here they they're merely trying to be permitted to use these the or increase i'm sorry
Yeah, understood.
And so internally, these are all set up as three distinct units.
So it would be a tremendous hardship to have to change this from the two units that it's currently set up for.
Or I'm sorry, to change the three units back into the two units.
To the way that it's currently configured on the interior.
And the fact that it has three separate utility meters.
And three separate.
again and i won't be labored to point the three meters one meter there's a meter for each unit
and then the third meter is what is referred to as the public meter so you would need it you would
need four meter meters for it to be considered a triplex um if sunny is still available i mean he
I got it please I don't mean to be disrespectful I think we got it all right MI 2020-000148
2301 Bly Street my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is
no thank you uh Carol I think now is the uh five to five to 13 all together five through 13 and 15
Okay, yeah, I have that down. Calendar number 2332-2301 Master Street. Calendar number 0660-2401 Ingersoll Street. Calendar number 3314-2400 Ingersoll Street. Calendar number 3386-2415 Master Street.
Calendar number 0663-2418 Master Street
Calendar number 3132-2421 Ingersoll Street
Calendar number 3387-2411 Master Street
Calendar number 0867-2448 Master Street
Calendar number 0866-2450 Ingersoll Street
and calendar number 1-2-3-8-24-53 Ingersoll Street.
The attorney is Meredith Berliger.
There you are.
Good afternoon.
Name an address for the record, please, and spell your last name.
Meredith Berliger with Delworth Paxson, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
if the administrator can also allow Darwin Beauvais access, as well as my co-counsel.
access, as well as my co-counsel. Sorry. Okay, that's always the thrill. Do you swear
Sorry.
Okay, that's all we need.
for me to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Certainly. Do you also agree to waive
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, with the exception of 2301 Master
Street and 2421 Ingersoll Street. We do believe those refusals were issued in error, and I will
cover that in the presentation okay have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal referral photos plans five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all the above oh there you are mr beauvais do you
swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god
so so help god help you and i assume that you also agreed away the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy except for the exceptions okay that's correct it's always good
to see all of you uh madam vice chair it's also also you mr chairman
thank you sir thank you okay someone can proceed thank you very much uh okay so first of all thank
you for reading out all of those addresses there's 10 in total uh the developer here today
is philadelphia housing authority and i have several representatives on the line today that
will testify about the history of the project and what they're looking to do here. Architect is Chris
Stigler with Blackney Hayes. I also will bring him on to kind of walk you through this in some
detail. But before I do that, just a little bit of background. The proposal before the board today
is being pursued by PHA in conjunction with the Philadelphia Department of Housing and Community
development or dhcd and represents phase 4a of the sweeping redevelopment of the sharswood blumber
neighborhood for 58 units of affordable housing the board is likely familiar with the project
as a result of hearing variance requests for several prior phases that were all approved by
this and prior boards the project has received expressions of support from dhcd the city planning
commission as well as received a letter of non-opposition from the coordinating rco brewery
town shardswood community civic i am also hopefully that mary jones from council president's office is
still on the line as i do believe he will also be expressing his support we do understand that
a lengthy letter of opposition from several neighborhood residents was sent to the board
so as a result we will need to walk the board through this in some detail and we will do our
very best to be concise. I did submit to the board a lengthy exhibit packet containing 29 exhibits.
Now given the length of the exhibit packet, I prepared a separate presentation that will be
easier to walk you through. However, please note that the full over 600 page exhibit packet
does include all of the tax clearances, copies of appeals with refusals, deeds, code sections,
required notices, and other detailed evidence that support the variance request before the
board today. The letters of support that I referenced are included at Exhibit 13.
I'll start with some general background, and then I'll bring up my first witness.
I'll discuss the refusals during the course of the presentation.
If the board refers to Exhibit 2, which I now have up on the screen, you'll see an overall
key plan of the proposed development, which spans an area extending from North 23rd Street
all the way over to North 25th Street and between Harlan Street here to the north and
Ingersoll Street to the south. Overall, there are 10 separate appeal applications before the board
today. If you refer to the aerial, and I'll bring up, I'll zoom in a little bit on this.
This is at exhibit 12. You'll notice that the area is currently a mix of vacant land
and a smattering of remaining structures. The proposal sits next to the large Valks school
here on Master Street. Now, as of the time that we filed the 10 zoning applications,
which was last May, the properties were at the time all zoned RM1 with some corner CMX2 zoning.
They were reviewed in accordance with that RM1 and CMX2 zoning. Now the board should note that
rezoning bill number 200144 passed out of the rules committee in September several months after
passed out of the Rules Committee in September several months after these applications were
reviewed by L&I. You'll see that full bill at Exhibit 11 and images of the map changes up on
the screen. So as you can see from the zoning map currently, which is at Exhibit 10, the properties
are now largely zoned RSA5 with one site 2301 remaining RM1 but no longer really any CMX2 zoning.
At this point if the administrator can look for Nicholas Dima with PHA.
Nicholas you can free you're free to unmute yourself I believe I did
Mr. chairman if you can swear Mr. Dima in or Miss vice chairman chairwoman are you are you there
Mr. Dima yes I am can you hear me uh yes did you put your name and address on the record yet
I did not. Can you please do so? Sure. My name is Nick, N-I-C-K, DEMA, D-E-M-A, representative of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, located at 2013 Ridge Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19121.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Okay. Chair, I'm turning it over to you.
Thank you. Mr. Dima, you've already put your name and address on the record. Could you share
with the board how long you've been with PHA? Approximately five and a half years.
And you've been involved with this project largely since its inception?
Correct. One of the reasons for coming to PHA was given my experience in development and really
to take a lead on this particular major initiative by the Housing Authority. Now, this project is
being funded with a combination of Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency tax credits, as well as a
Choice Neighborhood Grant. Is that correct? That is correct. Now, first talking about the Choice
Neighborhood Grant, am I correct that there were two separate phases of this grant referred to as
the transformation plan and then the subsequent implementation phase is that correct that is
correct we received a choice planning grant in 2014 and then last year we see re excuse me and
that was in the amount of close to a million dollars and then last year we received a choice
implementation grant in the amount of 30 million dollars and so the board understands a little bit
of the history here. Can you briefly explain how the transformation plan came to be and who was
involved in that planning phase? Now as Nick speaks, you'll see up on the screen just a few
snapshots that I pulled from that transformation plan. The full plan itself is 50 pages and was
released in 2015 and is in your exhibits at 21. So Nick, if you can just give them a little bit
a history of how that plan came to be. Sure. So the CHOICE initiative is really centered around
a public housing site. And for this particular initiative, it was our Blumberg Housing Development,
which is not in the middle of this neighborhood. It consisted of 500 public housing units
located in three high-rise buildings and a series of low-rise buildings.
From PHA's perspective, this was one of our toughest sites.
So when we applied for the planning grant, it was centered around the redevelopment
of the Bloomberg campus, but also choice not only wants to recognize the redevelopment of
a distressed public housing site, but how will you also have a planning that will address
what the neighborhood and the community wants. So we applied for a planning grant in 2014.
we were successful. Under the choice regulations, you really have to do about a two-year planning
process to work with all of the community members and stakeholders within the community
to really come up with what we call a transformation plan, which is a vision of
really driven by the community and not by PHA. So in summary, our transformation plan through
about two years of constantly meeting with various stakeholders.
The overall plan came up with, we would like to develop 1,200 new housing units.
That included the complete demolition of the Bloomberg campus, except for one high-rise
building.
The other piece of the choice, it's not only housing, but there's what they call neighborhood improvements and people improvements.
The other piece of the choice, it's not only housing, but there's what they call
From the neighborhood improvements, we have two initiatives.
One is to create Ridge Avenue as a major commercial corridor.
And some of our recent activities kind of support that.
We recently built a $50 million headquarter building along Ridge Avenue.
And we recently closed on a mixed-use retail shopping center right adjacent to PHA's headquarters.
And from a neighborhood perspective, as Meredith indicated, this development is right next to the Vox School.
That was originally a public school that was closed in the neighborhood, as well as another school, Reynolds Schools, to kind of show the devastation that was going on within this neighborhood.
there were two local schools that were shut down. In addition to this initiative, just to give a
sense of the blight that was kind of around the Bloomberg development, in 2016 we completed the
acquisition of over 1,500 parcels. Just to give you a sense of those parcels, 800 of those parcels
were already in public ownership in one form or another, whether it was the city, the redevelopment
authority, or other city agencies. The remaining 500 were public, and of the 1,300 parcels that
we acquired, less than 100 were actually occupied, and about 70 to 80 percent of those parcels were
vacant lots. And then also, as I was saying, from the neighborhood perspective, PHA also acquired
both the Vox School and the Reynolds School. PHA converted that closed high school into what we
call kind of a quasi-public school. It is a Philadelphia high school, but there is a private
partnership that actually runs the school. And we've also created a major community center there.
We relocated our workforce development at that school. Also, we have various partnerships with
Temple and other community organizations to provide really wraparound services to the
residents of the neighborhood. As I said, we also acquired the Reynolds School that is currently
under construction that will be developed into senior veteran housing. So you can see we are
well under our initiative. To date, we've probably either have under construction or planned over 50
percent of the units towards our 1200 goal. In addition, as the name implies, this is a choice
grant. So the whole purpose of choice is really to create a neighborhood of choice. So this overall
transformation plan is just not rental. It is a combination of both rental housing, home ownership
housing. Also, it needs to be a mixture of both market rate affordable housing, as well as market
rate housing. So future phases, we will have both market rate home ownership, affordable home
ownership, market rate housing, and affordable housing. And I apologize if that was way more
information than that was required. No, that was great, Nick. You actually covered a couple
questions I was going to have later on. So after the transformation plan was developed,
what what was the next step then that that ultimately brought you to now the implementation
phase was there additional community involvement with that how how did that implementation phase
come to be it's really so once we had the transformation plan that was really our path
forward so really it then becomes how do we then begin implementing that transformation plan
because we worked with everybody to get to a point that we all agreed this is what we should
do in this transformation plan. So I think I described a lot of the steps that we took
in kind of really kicking off the transformation plan. Normally most housing authorities will not
start their implementation until they receive an implementation grant because as you know the
development of 1,200 units plus commercial plus redoing some schools for the neighborhood
is a huge financial commitment. However, from PHA's perspective, this is the top priority at PHA,
and there was a decision that we were going to implement this plan, whether or not we receive
the choice implementation grant, whether or not we actually receive that or not. What makes this
really spectacular receiving this grant. And by the way, this is the second grant that the housing
authority has received. And we are only one of a few across the country that actually has a second
choice implementation grant. But what it really does, it really energizes
choice implementation grant. But what it really does, it really energizes this plan and it can
really speed up the timing that we can actually accomplish this plan. Thank you. Now you alluded
to the fact that these many of these lots if not all of these lots were either publicly owned or
were acquired through the condemnation process. Is it accurate that the land condemnation process
started via the filing of a Notice of Condemnation on October 5th, 2015.
That is correct.
And that notice is accurately reflected in the packet at Exhibit 15.
I'm sorry, yes, that is correct.
Thank you.
now the board can see a full executive summary of the implementation plan the implementation phase
grant at exhibit 21 uh but i did again put some snapshots up on the screen that highlight the
main goals of the plan now nick is it also accurate that as a part of this implementation
phase, that a specific housing plan strategy and a specific neighborhood strategy were both
developed based on the lengthy transformation plan goals? That is correct. And as I said,
the choice application process for housing authorities across the country is an extremely
competitive process. Normally, they only award either two, three, or four implementation
when there is funding available. I think we know that there are thousands of housing authorities
across the country, so this is extremely competitive. And one of the things that they
really look for is that your vision is consistent with the transformation plan. So the reason that
we really believe that we were successful were for a couple reasons. If you look at our
transformation plan, it really aligns to the actual development that we're doing. Second,
we demonstrated that we had the ability to do this comprehensive plan. Three, our track record
of completing a prior choice implementation plan. And then also they were really impressed
with our neighborhood and people as well, you know, given the resources that we've committed
to date, I think all of those factors made us a lead contender to receive this second choice
implementation grant. Thank you. Now, the board can refer to the full housing plan. It's included
at exhibit 23 but um nick just just generally can you just very very briefly summarize the
the housing plan uh sure so the housing plan is a sub component of our 1200.
so for the purposes of the choice application because they're only funding a specific housing
plan and there's a lot of requirements that go in what housing counts towards the housing plan
but basically our housing plan under the choice implementation is to develop 697 units
and that's broken down approximately 450 rental units and about 250 home ownership units.
In addition, this is not all being developed by the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
Another requirement that Choice likes to see is that we actually have housing partners
and really more private developer partners because, again, we want to create this neighborhood of choice.
For this particular initiative, our housing partner is a joint venture of Penrose Property,
who is a local affordable housing developer and the hunt companies which is a top five
affordable housing developer in the country and and the neighborhood plan generally speaking that
reflects a lot of the goals that you've already talked about such as a combination of the different
housing units the inclusion of the commercial is that generally accurate that is true so for
example as you said well how are you getting to 1200 units if you're just developing 697
that is in our housing plan but within our neighborhood plan there is additional housing
that will be part of the neighborhood plan an example of that is the mixed use retail center
that I described that currently includes 100 units of mixed income housing and that will count
of mixed income housing and that will count towards our goal as well as our recommendations
towards our goal.
within the housing within the neighborhood plan. Now you mentioned this but were conceptual plans
developed during the transformation phase and or the implementation phase? Yes that is a requirement
So the choice, really, their view of their money is that your plan is ready to go, but
for you need this money.
This is not, they're not looking for kind of pie in the sky or just an early vision.
They want to make sure that if they provide you with the $30 million, you can immediately
get into your plan and your development strategy.
So we had to get into a lot of detail about where we are proposing to develop and where exactly our 697 units within the Choice Housing Plan would be located.
And these plans were used during the vigorous community engagement process, correct?
and is the conceptual phase for a site plan that i have up on the screen right now
this is also included at exhibit 25 is this the conceptual plan that was presented throughout the
process uh yes and included in the choice application and this is with some limited
exception largely consistent with what is proposed before the board today correct
Now, before I turn to the project, I just want to quickly touch on three remaining issues.
First is the affordability aspect of the project. Now, aside from PHA's core mission concerning
affordable residences, what other aspects of this project dictate the fact that it must be
affordable housing on these lots? It is really driven by the financing that will be used to
develop this. As you indicated, this will be a low-income housing tax credit. They have
affordable restrictions that they will require. PHA will be using a substantial amount of its own
money, which also dictates affordability requirements. We will also have choice
funding in this development that also has affordability requirements as well.
And there are also restrictive covenants that are on the property. Is that correct?
That's right. All of the funding that I described, each one of those funders, including the PHA funding, will all have their own restrictive covenant that will ensure long-term affordability.
The most restrictive is the tax credit program that will require affordability for 40 years.
and just for the board's purpose those hud restrictive covenants are both recorded and
are shown in exhibits 16 and 17 and and nick how long are those covenants uh valid for is that
am i correct that it's 40 years uh that's right that's why i said the the most restrictive will
be the low-income housing tax credit restrictive covenant and that does require affordability for
a 40-year period. Thank you. Now as the board will learn, a few of the lots did receive refusals for
lack of commercial space. You have referenced this quite a few times, but can you just summarize
as a part of the neighborhood plan that was developed, which I have up on the screen here,
where is the commercial component of this plan intended for? So as part of the planning process,
one of the things that we heard was, at one time, Ridge Avenue was a major commercial corridor.
Obviously, over time, that has really become blighted and vacant, and there was a strong
emphasis to really bring back Ridge Avenue, and I would say the Ridge Avenue corridor is
probably from College Avenue all the way up to Cecil B. Moore, so that is where our intention
is that we want to really bring that commercial carter to really bring it back to what it was
as a vibrant commercial carter. One of the things that we really understand is that retail is a
different world today. So we are really being strategic in how we approach the retail development
along Ridge Avenue. We need to make sure that we don't cannibalize ourselves and just build out
the retail, but we don't really get occupancies. So we've been really strategic. An example of
what the neighborhood has said and how we have responded, this is a food desert. There is no
grocer near this particular neighborhood. That was another concern that we had, that can we bring a
That was another concern that we had, that can we bring a supermarket to this location?
supermarket?
Obviously, it is really tough to work with supermarkets because they basically run demographic and income analysis.
And given the blight that is in this neighborhood, you know, it was really tough to find a grocer who would make a commitment and be a pioneer.
And that is the reason why PHA initially built its headquarters building here.
we wanted to be the pioneer bring people to this location because if you're going to have
successful retail you need to have people and we're really proud that our mixed use retail
we actually have a grocer under lease we also have an urgent care under lease we also have a
bank which was another concern that there are no banks in this area we are able to sign a lease
with a local bank. In addition, we also have a restaurant, and we purposely left some retail
vacant that as construction really gets underway, we will be aggressively marking the remaining
square footage. But of the 44,000 square feet, we only have about 8,000 square feet that is not
currently under contract. Thank you, Nick. Stick around. At this point, before we move into the
specific details of each lot and the refusals. I do want to just quickly address several refusals
we received concerning proposed lot size. Okay, I have a question. Are any of these refusals
duplicative? They are, and I'm going to try and handle the groupings of them as best I can.
Okay, great. So with that, like I mentioned, a few of the lots did receive refusals for the lot size.
proposed. Now, as Nick mentioned, the lots were all acquired through the condemnation process.
When this occurred, many of the lots were consolidated, not formally through L&I,
but they were consolidated with the OPA simply out of convenience of including many lots together
on a single survey when they do the condemnations. So as a result of that, when we submitted for
zoning, several of the development sites include subdivisions. Now if you refer to Exhibit 3,
which I do have up on the screen, you'll see the current OPA map. You can see that, and you'll be
able to see this more with the detail of each lot, but you can see that all of these individual lots
exist and they, if there is a subdivision as a part of the application, it's simply returning
the lot back to the condition that it already was in before PHA condemned them. So the subdivisions
are a mere formality. All right, at this time if the administrator can unmute Chris Stigler.
Mr. Stigler, you are free to unmute yourself. Please wait for the chair.
Frank or Madam Vice Chair?
Yes. Mr. Stigler, can you hear me?
Okay. Can you put your name on the record and please spell your last name?
Certainly. Christopher Stigler, S-T-I-G-L-E-R, Principal at Black and Hayes Architects.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Chris, I want to walk you through the development sites here and address some of the small dimensional refusals that we received.
Now, as I walk through the developments, I will bring up photos of the existing sites and snapshots of the plans.
Full plans and elevations are included in the exhibits at tab five.
Now, Chris, before we get into the details of each individual development site, can you just briefly summarize for the board the varying types of units that are included with this development?
So, for example, the range of number of bedrooms, the range of unit sizes, things of that nature.
Absolutely.
The development is primarily a mixture of what I would call, in other instances, single-family rentals, townhouse-style rentals, if you will.
That's the majority of the development, ranging from two to five bedrooms.
There are a couple of instances of duplex units that are included as well.
And the range of unit sizes?
Unit sizes will range from 600 square feet for the smaller, 650 for the smaller one bedrooms which are accessible units in the duplexes to upwards of close to 2000 square feet for the five bedroom unit.
Unit sizes will range from 600 square feet for the smaller...
Thank you. Full floor plans are included in the exhibits at tab 8.
Now let's start with 2301 Master Street.
This particular development spans nearly the entire block from North 23rd Street all the way to North 24th Street, from Master Street to Harlan Street, excluding just a few lots on North 23rd Street. Is that generally correct, Chris?
Yes, it is.
And what is the proposal for this site?
This site's proposed to have 18 townhouse style residential units. You can see them on the screen
there along Master Street and along 24th Street and then at the corner there would be a community
center building constructed as well. 15 of the units will be three-story, three-bedroom units.
They're approximately 1,700 square feet in size and the end of the units, the ends of those runs
are three-story four-bedroom units that are about 1,875 square feet. The community center at the
corner is about 2,775 square feet in total. Also includes a leasing office as well as the community
center space that's required by the LIHTC funding. At the rear along Harlan Street, you'll see that
there is an off-street parking lot that is accessed off of Harlan and that will provide 16 spaces for
the residents to use. Now, effectively, these are single-family homes, but because they sit on one
lot, they're classified as multifamily? Yes, that's correct. It's all one lot, so it's not
being subdivided by individual units. It's rentals. So concerning the bicycle refusal,
and we'll treat your testimony about the bicycle refusal on this lot as the same as any other lots
that received the same refusal. The refusal notes that zero spaces are provided, but there are
actually bicycle spaces provided. Isn't that correct? So what we've done is at the rear of
every unit, there's a storage room that is accessed from the exterior of the unit. And this is more
than sufficient space to store a bicycle within that secure location. And we feel that it provides
a more residential feel, as well as a more secure storage solution to an open bike rack.
Actually improves upon the zoning requirements in that sense.
Thank you. And the code would require 10% interior landscaping parking for this lot, correct?
That is true, yes.
And how much is actually provided?
We're providing perimeter landscaping. So the interior landscaping is basically
requirement to put islands into large parking lot areas. It's our thought that this particular
parking at 16 spaces just crosses the threshold of requiring it, but that the intent is for
larger multi-aisle lots that are basically asphalt, seas of asphalt, that the interior
landscaping is put in there to break up that continuous asphalt, and that the intent of the
requirement is met by the perimeter landscape and buffer. And if you were to comply, how many
parking spaces would be lost here? We would probably lose at least two, if not three, spaces.
Thank you. Now, addressing the last refusal on this lot, which is one of the errors that I did
reference at the beginning of the presentation, we do submit that this refusal is an error,
claiming that off-street parking would be prohibited here. Harlan Street is not the
primary frontage for this lot. The primary frontage was designated as Master Street.
Harlan Street is also classified as a small local street, so we submit it should have been treated
as a rear street for purposes of providing the parking access, and therefore we would submit
this parking location should be considered by right.
Moving on to 2421 Ingersoll St. As the board can see some photos up on the screen here,
you'll see some vehicles parked on the sidewalks. Chris, how many spaces are proposed for this
parking lot? So this parcel is proposed to be parking for 14 spaces. And who will be using
these spaces? The spaces are intended to be used by the residents of the development,
the associated development. As we know, all these lots are being heard together even though they
were submitted as separate parcels. So there's actually three immediately adjacent parcels to the
So there's actually three immediately adjacent parcels to the north, plan north of this site, just on the other side, the alley, that are part of the development and are also being heard today, as well as all of the other associated units in the vicinity.
So really, the only reason that we have this refusal is because it's not formally connected to any of the other lots that it's serving. Is that generally true?
That's correct. As I mentioned, there's that alleyway bisecting the block there that the three
lots that are, or actually we have one large parcel that we're subdividing into five
on that area where the mouse is pointing right now. They are contiguous to this lot with the
exception of that alleyway. Now we don't have a refusal for this landscaping, but I do just
to briefly have you address what what kind of landscaping is proposed for this lot as I do know
this was a particular community concern on this lot. Yes this lot is landscaped with the required
buffer landscaping and you can see in the rendering that's provided there that the buffer landscaping
will extend along the adjacent residential edges as well as the sidewalk edge. Thank you. Now this
be the second lot that we would submit the refusal was issued in error. Based on a strict
interpretation of the code, this parking is considered non-accessory. However, we submit
this parking is, based on the language of the code, accessory parking. Non-accessory parking
is defined as parking that is not provided exclusively to serve occupants of or visitors
to a particular use but is rather available to the public at large. This parking conversely
is only to serve PHA residents so in conjunction with the fact that this parking is truly accessory
parking but for the fact that it is not formally connected to other lots we would submit that this
refusal is truly in error. In practice, we understand that L&I tends to issue this refusal
anytime the parking is provided on a separate lot, but we would submit that this parking refusal
would be in error. Okay, which one are we moving on to next? 2453 Ingersoll Street. Chris, can you
briefly describe this proposal? Sure, this property is designed to include a two-family duplex style
building. The ground floor unit is fully accessible and each unit is approximately 900 square feet,
two-bedroom units. And there's no dimensional refusals on this one? Not that I'm aware of,
correct. The only refusal we received here is failure to provide the ground floor commercial
space. I will hold the argument on that as we do have a few that received that. Chris, moving on,
if you could describe 2448 master? Sure. This is a single unit, a single family attached dwelling.
It will be a three-story, close to 1,900 square foot, four-bedroom unit.
Okay. And again, the only refusal we have here is for lack of commercial space. So
would your understanding be that if we applied for this one today, that it would be entirely by right?
Yes, that refusal is based on the CMX 2 zoning, and if it were reviewed as an RSA 5,
that requirement would no longer apply. Thank you. All right, moving along to 2450 Ingersoll Street.
Chris, if you can just briefly describe this proposal. Yes, this is essentially a mirror of
what we just spoke about across the street at 2453. It's a two-family duplex dwelling with the
accessible unit on the ground floor, approximately 900 square foot, two-bedroom units.
And is it accurate that based on the zoning code, because Ingersoll Street here in the front is
designated as the primary frontage, the way that L&I reviews this is as if the rear yard is along
North 25th Street, as I'm pointing to with my cursor here. Is that how L&I would review this?
I believe that is how they reviewed it.
But if the rear yard were considered opposite of North 25th Street in the grassy area here, this development would actually fully comply with the rear yard requirements.
It would far exceed the requirements, yes.
In fact, the entrances to the building and therefore the frontage of the building is actually facing 25th Street.
Thank you.
Moving along to 2411 and 2415 Master Street.
The board will note that these lots do involve a subdivision, as I referenced earlier.
As you can see, when the condemnations occurred, both of these lots actually ended up consolidated with parcels on Harlan Street.
parcels on Harlan Street. So you'll see I have those outlined in black. What is outlined in red
So you'll see I have those outlined in black.
are the existing lots on Master Street. So we're just looking to break up that connection that
occurred during the condemnation. Chris, what are proposed on these two lots?
Yeah, these properties are single-family infill buildings, and I would refer to these as filling
in the missing teeth in an otherwise intact row of houses along Master Street. The houses are each
three stories, 1,875 square foot, four-bedroom, single-family, semi-attached building.
And can you just briefly touch on the rear yard and the side yard refusals we received here
that are really de minimis? Yes, the side yard refusal is, I believe, there was a requirement
for five feet, and we're providing four foot one. This side yard is actually adjacent to the
alleyway of the building next door. As I mentioned, these are semi-attached, so they're basically
twins. Each along the block, there's alleyways along the property line on the sides.
The existing alleyways are about three feet. We're actually making that a little bit wider
with our construction by going to four foot one. That is adjacent to a property line, but is also
adjacent to the three-foot alley next door. So there's actually a seven-foot space between the
two structures. At the rear, I believe that the refusal was generated because of the
actual storage unit that sticks out past the main building. You can see where Meredith's
cursor is pointing right now. That small little one-story storage area is approximately four and
a half feet past the face of the building. And if you do not count that structure, we are actually
sitting back just slightly behind the adjacent buildings there with I believe it's about an 11
and a half foot rear yard. And the bump out is actually a requirement in conjunction with the
tax credit application. Is that right? Yes, those storage areas. We're required to have storage
areas for each of the units. Thank you. All right, moving along. 2401 Ingersoll Street,
if you could briefly describe what is proposed here. Yes. So 24 Ingersoll, 2401 Ingersoll is a
parcel. It was originally eight separate parcels. What we're proposing to construct are seven units.
At the corner will be a two-family duplex unit, similar to the ones I referred to at 2450 and 2453
Ingersoll, which is at the other end of this block. The ground floor unit is again fully
accessible, about 900 square foot two-bedroom units. The next units along Ingersoll, which you
see in the center there, are also duplex units. They'll provide four one-bedroom units over two
stories. They're slightly smaller, about 650 to 710 square foot each. And then adjacent to that,
further up Ingersoll adjacent to the existing building at 2417 is a two-story, two-bedroom
rowhouse style unit, approximately 1,250 square feet in total. We've spaced that one from the
existing building in order to minimize impact during construction. And regarding the rear yard,
similar to some of the prior proposals, is it generally accurate that the frontages of the
actual entrances to these buildings are both on North 24th and along Ingersoll Street?
That is correct. You can see those gray-shaded boxes there are the actual entryways
to the buildings, and you can see that there's two entries to that duplex along
24th Street, and then there's multiple entrances along Ingersoll Street to the adjacent units as
well. We treated both of those as frontages in the design, with the rear yard being that space
in the middle. Thank you. Is that it? Have you, I think you've addressed all
Madam, except for 2301 master. Is that correct? There's two more, two more. I'll have him go
quickly. 2400 Ingersoll Street. Chris, if you could just very briefly. Yeah, this is very
similar to what we were proposing across the street, the duplex unit at the corner of 24th
and Ingersoll, and the duplex units in between with the single row house at the end. Same square
footages as across the street. And you would submit that your testimony as far as the hardships
faced concerning the rear yard and side yard refusals would similarly apply to these lots as
well? Yes. And you would also agree that your testimony concerning the bicycle spaces would
also apply to this a lot as well? That is correct. Thank you. All right. 24-18, 24-24, 24-34.
Thank you. All right. 2418, 2424, 2434, and 2440 Master Street. Again, if you could just briefly.
Yeah, I mentioned this when I was discussing the parking lot behind them. This is one larger
parcel that's being subdivided into five, three of which are being developed on our end, or four
of which is actually an extra parcel included there. Two of the parcels are existing houses
that are going to be retained, and the other three that are not included as this development.
The other three parcels include seven row house style units. Six of them are three stories,
approximately 1,700 square feet, three bedroom units, and the other one will be a five bedroom
unit, and it's approximately 2,100 square feet in size. Thank you, and you would also agree that
your testimony concerning side yard variances would apply to these lots as well? Yes, it's
actually the one lot in the middle there that has the side yard issue and I would note that the
side yard the small side yard three foot one is being designed and treated up more as an alley
that is serving as access convenience access to get to the parking that is associated on the
Ingersoll street lot behind these this parcel and provides a through way to the for the residents to
get to the parking without having to go around the block the the alleyway as it were will be
fenced separately from the yard of the building adjacent to it. Thank you. Meredith, you have
addressed 2301 master, right? I did. That was the first one. Okay. I thought so. There's some,
they're scattered all over. It's a little bit difficult. Yeah. Is, is there anybody on the
board that has any questions? I do have one more witness for purposes of the record. We do have
okay i'm sorry that's okay i'm leaving anyway no i i'll be here darwin don't worry um yes
are there any virtual witnesses
can i bring up my my one more witness absolutely thank you uh if you can unmute ken granderson
Mr. Granderson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello, this is Ken. Hi, Mr. Granderson. Can you put your name on the record and please spell your
last name? Ken Granderson. G-R-A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
whole truth and nothing about the truth? Yes. Okay, you may proceed. Ken, can you just share
with the board your title with PHA and the length of time you've been with PHA? I'm a project
architect within the design development department and I've been with PHA for 11 years. And you've
been involved with this project since its inception? Yes, I have. Can you just very,
very briefly describe how will PHA manage this development? Please touch on trash and security
specifically. PHA will manage this property through our internal resources and coupled with
that in regards to trash, because we're integrating the putting back the missing teeth of the
development, the trash will be handled through the regular city trash pickup, so will be handled
just like a regular resident that lives on the block. In regards to security, PHA, as was
reiterated by Nick Dima, because our headquarters is located within walking distance and we have
Valk School, which is located directly across the street, all of our sites currently have
what's defined as CCTV access on them and that that access is patrolled not only by our PHA police
which is within close proximity but because we do the CCTV it is manned by our 24-hour police
department that's that watches it constantly. Thank you and and based on the due diligence
that you've done to date the neighborhood infrastructure is capable of supporting all
of the proposed additional units here, correct? Yes, as you reiterated earlier because we're
just putting back the city scape of what was previously there, our current development is
less than what was already there and the current city infrastructure can handle it adequately.
And none of the properties that are to be demolished during this construction are
designated as historic, correct? Correct. Per the PHA's historic survey with the State Historic
Preservation Office, no residential structures in our project boundary area are defined as historic.
Thank you, Ken. Madam Vice-Chairwoman, I did have a somewhat of a
Thank you, Ken. Madam Vice Chairwoman, I did have a somewhat of a closing argument,
but I'd be happy to hold that if you want to take any form of neighborhood comments. I can
certainly hold it to the end if you'd like. I do. I would like to take neighborhood comments. I would
also like to know where will the trash be stored? Ken, if you could address that. So in regards to
the trash being stored, because the lots have rear access and the rear storage shed and rear
patios, there is ample area in the rear of all the properties to store the trash. And in regards
to bringing the trash to the front, the trash can also always be brought to the front for trash
pickup. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody in the virtual audience who would like to testify? If so,
please raise your hand. Madam Vice Chair, we have Gabriel. Please unmute yourself and wait
for the Vice Chair. Hello. Hi, Gabriel. Can you put your name on the record and spell your last
name? Yes, it's Gabriel Taju, last name T as in Thomas, A-J-E-U, and I'm at 2518 Ingersoll Street.
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, please proceed.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
There are several members of the community that are here, so I'm going to kind of set the stage for our discussion.
One of the things that we wanted to discuss is that, or excuse me, let me speak for myself.
one thing in the earlier testimony that was fairly misleading is that nothing in this
development is actually mixed income that's one of the biggest
issues that I have with this is that from a from a from a social justice perspective
we feel I feel as though the amount of density of these properties which could be anywhere
from 150 to 250 added people in uh two square blocks um this is going to be all low-income
housing studies suggest that a woman i want to object to this testimony this is not relevant
to any of the refusals received it's really not even an appropriate line of testimony concerning
the the form of housing here the misleading um there's there's two bedrooms four bedrooms
single family there is a diverse type of housing here but go ahead with whatever you were saying
type of housing yes and i will get get to more serious points but um again there the infrastructure
is a big issue and there had there was a shooting that occurred last summer um last fall four people
were shot on the corner of this street. There's gatherings that take place all the time. The
neighborhood just cannot support this at this time. And so I do want to let the record reflect
that although the council does suggest that my line of discussion is non-relevant, I think that
her misleading of that this is not mixed income housing is also very relevant to this. So with
that I will allow what what does what does this mean to you that all of these homes will come in
here with different people I don't understand this means that in terms of opportunities
for individuals to improve their socioeconomic status that there's no option here it's going
to be all low-income individuals and the fact that this is essentially putting a vertical version of
Bloomberg Towers in this area is of considerable concern given how much money the city has invested
in this area, the great resources of having the Vox School and Temple University present. This
could be a way to improve the quality of life for individuals who have low socioeconomic status
as long as there was a mix of individuals right now in terms of socioeconomic status, in terms of
being able to buy, being able to have a mix of market rate and low income. And so it's a
missed opportunity for the city. And it also speaks to the structural issues that are outlined
in the actual refusals in terms of the size of the areas, in terms of the parking lot being a
refusal these are not just um refusals based on uh what do you call it just based on um
what do you call it, just based on not crossing a T or dotting an I. These are real
density issues. And so that's where I'm coming from with this argument. If the city wants to
use the money to improve the quality of life for low-income individuals, you cannot place them all
in one place, especially in a neighborhood that is already struggling to have a safe
environment for the older people that live here who have no option to move, for the younger
people that are coming in here, and for just the people who would be residing at these
residences. They've talked about social services. However, they didn't mention any of that in the
presentation so there's these concerns as well as more concerns again that my my my the people
in the neighborhood will speak to madam can i ask him one question absolutely um mr tajou when did
you purchase your home excuse me uh dr tajou and i purchased my home um in april of 2019
2019. So is it safe to assume that you were not involved with the year's worth of planning
concerning this area? I fail to see the relevance of that, but also the onus is not on me to ensure
that low-income individuals in the city of Philadelphia have safe places. Okay, okay.
Is there someone else who wants to speak? I'm not going to listen to this. I find it a little bit
offensive. Vice Chair, we have Michael Shea. He's been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Hi. Yes, can you hear me? I'm sorry. If I could maybe interject this to sort
for those that are on the line. The attorneys are presenting the cases and they have a right
to cross-examine witnesses. Please respectfully answer their questions so we can move on.
We have a lot of cases today. Thank you. Thank you. We sure do. Michael, is that what you said
your name was? Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you put your name on the record and
spell your last name? Yes. My name is Michael Shea, S-H-E-A. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. You may proceed.
Yeah. Thank you for recognizing me. I'm a resident on the 2400 block of Ingersoll Street. I'm
speaking today on behalf of myself and my wife. We're homeowners here. I share some of Gabriel's
concerns about this development a little more broadly, but I also want to underline that,
you know, again, just speaking for myself, that we are, you know, totally in favor of low-income
housing and affordable housing being built in our neighborhood. You know, if you walk down
Ingersoll Street, you can see it's, like, totally blighted, empty lots, there's filled with trash,
and the construction of the properties that PHA is talking about in general will absolutely
improve our neighborhood. So I just want to underscore that from the outset that we're not,
this isn't sort of like a NIMBY, you know, not in my backyard. We don't like poor people being
around sort of argument, right? These are homeowners who have concerns about some of the
specific aspects of the project, or at least again, I'm speaking for myself. But that overall,
like what we want to see come out of this meeting is some of these refusals to be sort of upheld
so that we can have a further conversation with PHA
about some of these finishing touches details.
So one of the things I really want to highlight
is that the discussion around the parking lot at 24-21,
I mean, I know we just heard from the attorneys
that technically it is accessory parking.
I think that's really a debatable point.
And I think it sort of depends on sort of the spirit
versus the letter of the law here a little bit, right?
I mean, we're talking about a parking lot
that is used by the residents of the PHA properties, but that can include the properties over on
Master Street, right? The 2400 and the 2300 block, which means that this is sort of an open
parking lot. This isn't like right next door to your house, right? This isn't the sort of the
spirit of what accessory non-accessory parking means. And so I can say from our perspective,
you know, we're looking at, we bought a house that was across the street from property that was
zoned for a residential district. We did not expect to be looking out at a parking lot. And
And so to have it come in and say, well, technically, in the spirit, it's accessory parking because there's going to be a parking lot right there, that doesn't reflect what the spirit of the zoning ordinance meant for us, right?
And again, that's, you know, accessory, non-accessory, really depends on who we imagine is using that parking lot, right?
And to what extent it's going to be sort of disruptive to our block.
I mean, again, we're on Ingersoll, it's an older block, it's small, it doesn't have, you know, a lot of space.
It doesn't have, you know, a lot of space. And you're talking about bringing in 14 parking lots, a huge increase in street noise, right? And that can certainly have a negative impact on property value. So the parking lot, in its inclusion here, also speaks to the sort of density concerns that we're thinking about, right? I mean, the introduction of all these multifamily homes on this small block.
And you're talking about bringing in 14 parking lots.
You know, I mean, we heard earlier that 58 of the 450 rental properties are going to
be built on these three blocks.
That's over 20%.
And so, you know, again, we want affordable housing to be built here.
We want Ingersoll to be revitalized.
Absolutely, 100%.
But the construction of the parking lot in the way it's been presented today is a little
misleading.
And it is absolutely not what it's provided for in that zoning, right?
I mean, this is accessory parking for bringing in people from blocks away who can park their cars here.
And it's not what we expected when we bought our house.
And it's not what we should have to expect, given the zoning of this street.
Mr. Shea, when did you buy your house?
I fail to see how that's relevant, because when we bought our house, the parking lot, it was not zoned for a parking lot.
Mr. Shea, when did you buy your house?
You're welcome to look that up online.
That's not relevant.
Next witness.
Madam Chair, public records would show that Mr. Shea purchased his home within the last three
years and was not involved with the extensive planning that went on for this area, so that's
that's why my question is relevant. Okay, thank you. Madam Vice, I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead.
We have Mary Jones, please unmute yourself and please wait for the Vice Chair.
hello can you hear me hi mary yes i can can you put your name on the record please and spell your
last name yes um mary jones j-o-n-e-s council president daryl clark's office city hall room
494 thank you do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do okay you may proceed yes um the council president would like to go on record
as supporting this project and the associated variances.
He agrees with the, of course, the inclusion of affordable housing,
but also this is a part of a much larger project
that promised to revitalize this area
and give the original residents of the Bloomberg Towers
who were standing there for over 50 years
the right to return to their
neighborhood. As such, he
asks that the experiences be granted.
Thank you.
Meredith, anything else?
Yes, Madam Vice
Chair. We have Eric. Please
unmute yourself and wait for the Vice Chair.
Eric, can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
hi put your name on the record and please spell your last name sure my name is eric hope
i reside at 2417 ingersault street uh obviously thank you do you also agree to wait the reading
of the refuse never mind strike that do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do thank you you may proceed all right
we cannot hear you okay now we can hear you yeah good afternoon everyone i think i've spoken with
most people personally from this call but let me just start by saying that we as a collective group
on ingressol are somewhat surprised at the letter of non-opposition from the uh neighborhood
association given that uh the actual vote that was taken was 50 percent of project
there was a 22 approval rating so i'm very surprised at that we did get a little bit of
pushback from council member clark's office on the letter that was sent out but i do feel like
it should be accurately depicted in the record um in terms of the project as michael had said
we don't have problems with affordable housing in fact we just saw a dump guard initiative that was
just um you know spearheaded in philadelphia giving a lot of homes to people that are have
affordable salaries as an option that was just recently uh you know highlighted in the news here
and we we think that's a great idea but for Ingersoll specifically the project is not
in any type of mixed format um and it's as we represent the
I'd like to refer to Mr. Bemis's assertion uh on the CNN housing plan that the goal of this project
is actually to catalyze community-wide revitalization
to actually catalyze community-wide revitalization and new investment.
and new investment.
But on our side,
But on our street, 36 units proposed with 60% AMI,
which I was told to have a minimum, a no minimum in pursuit.
And as Ms. Jones just mentioned,
the idea is that those residents that were in the field Bloomberg Powers,
there was crime, and we know that about 100% of people
that were in that development
where we're involved with crime
are going to have
the first right of refusal
on these.
Not necessarily a new investment.
It's definitely not revitalization.
It's just bringing,
it's just kind of,
this is not the other area
that we think there is
no real plans
for market rate investment
or affordable units.
And I think if we just had
at least half of the units
being proposed on Ingersoll as affordable units for people to buy and it would be a lot more
of a willingness for us to accept the proposal because we would see that there would be added
value in people that cared about the street in the neighborhood. In terms of actual denials,
the infrastructure on Ingersoll Street, I don't know if you remember the street, it's narrow.
Your voice, you're breaking up. Okay. I can't hear you.
It is an extremely narrow street, Ingersoll.
And we really, really believe that putting, like flipping a light switch and putting in 150 new people on the street will have a major impact on the infrastructure, not only the water and sewerage, but also all of the other resources that we have here.
And we also think that the clustering of all of these units in one small street, where there is a lot of residential private investment, is just irresponsible and lazy, really, to be on behalf of the planning company.
Do you think, excuse me, so you think that the density is going to be created by people who are poor?
No, no.
If you're in the poor range,
they would still be using water.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that.
Well, explain what you're saying.
The last time that Philadelphia,
you know,
what was the last infrastructure upgrade
that we had on Ingersoll Street?
Probably wasn't any time recently.
That's what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about poor people.
I have poor friends.
My grandmother lives in public housing.
So in terms of this,
I'm saying it's a...
to just check off a box and fill a quota in a neighborhood that can be revitalized with many
different elements to make it more appealing to everybody, including those people that are poor
or disadvantaged. So when it comes to all of these challenges, I think, Michael, we need to have some
kind of, we need to have another conversation. And in fact, 11 residents were left out of
communication from the neighborhood association um in terms of a letter of non-opposition
means that we are not heard and we need to be heard and we think some of these the parts of
this project could be enhanced we're not saying that we need to go back to the project i uh
actually the vice uh the general counsel's office of pha knocked on my door uh about a year ago
to tell me that there were all of the land sold to developers and they were going to be building
various mixed-use facilities just as Mr. Granderson mentioned to me said this would be mixed
use market rate affordable and rentals but now what we see is an absolute switch and it's all
rentals and that's where the problem is a parking lot and creates another issue we've had a serious
crime on this street. We've had a shooting on the top of our street. There were days we'd get home
and we had 40 people on the top of our street hanging around and not letting cars pass by.
And it was not really great. And I bought my house in April 19th of April 2019. There were days that
I didn't want to drive home because I couldn't. I had to drive up the street in the opposite
direction so I wouldn't get into the way of all of the people congregating at the top of the street.
so in that case and with this parking lot proposed parking lot i see there being a huge huge
opportunity here for even worse circumstances for the residents that do live here um and i do
want to applaud because i actually uh have served in public service myself in uh office and i will
say that i applaud the design efforts i think the design efforts are really good i mean i have to say
I'm not opposed to necessarily the design.
i'm not opposed to necessarily the design i'm opposed to mixed use part of this project
I'm opposed to mix.
and of course the space issue and what it could create for for types and um other uh structural
issues that the owners of the street will have to deal with thank you very much thank you very much
i have nothing for him madam vice chair how many other witnesses are there and we
need something new and different. Madam Vice Chair, we have three hands up. Next is Ms. Doris
Aldridge. Ms. Aldridge, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Do you have something new and different
to share with the board? I do. Okay, can you put your name on the record and spell it?
Yes, my name is Doris Aldridge, D-O-R-I-S-A-L-D-R-I-D-G-E.
And do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
I represent the Brewerytown Charleswood Civic Association.
We are the organization that submitted the letter of non-opposition.
I am here to say that we are excited about this project.
We have met with the PHA over about four years time as this project was developed.
We have informed the neighbors of each of those meetings.
And I'm here to say that we are excited to replace some of the original residents from the community, as well as to grow the community.
that's it thank you another witness we have nicole nicole please unmute yourself and wait
for the vice chair hello hi nicole can you put your name on the record and spell your last name
yes my name is nicole vane stock n-i-c-o-l-e last name v as in victor a y n as in november s-h-t-o-k
Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please state your, I assume, opposition to this?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
I, my fiancé and I currently are renting at 2515 Ingersoll.
And I just, in conjunction with everyone else who currently lives on Ingersoll,
i just wanted to point out that on i feel like unless you live in this direct neighborhood
um you will the understanding of what we are trying to put out um it's one of those you have
to see it to understand we the issue is not with what type of housing it is it is just with the
sheer volume of residents this project would bring in. There's no opposition to bringing in
additional housing, but you have over 50 units that are one bedroom, two, three. There was a
four bedroom there. So the understanding is there is going to be over a hundred new residents
moving to this neighborhood within a three block radius. It's great for neighborhood growth.
However, consider that Ingersoll is a small yet unusually very busy street.
Cars come zooming down the street with no regard to anybody on the street.
You know, I personally have been almost sideswiped by a car trying to run down the road because everyone uses Ingersoll to cut across.
um on um in the on the 4th of july this past year the peak of the pandemic there were over a hundred
people on the corner of 25th and ingersoll blasting music and partying for many many hours
all the way up until two or three o'clock in the morning shooting off fireworks and yes celebrating
is fun but you this is just this was a party put together by existing residents of the neighborhood
multiply that by object to this this is completely irrelevant to our it is completely irrelevant
please let me continue um if you can eliminate that part from it you can continue
you can unmute yourself
nicole you can unmute yourself
Nicole are you there? Yes can you hear me? Yes now I can. I couldn't before.
nicole are you there yes can you hear me
Our concern is that I don't understand why this isn't a thing people are understanding. This
project aims to bring over a hundred to a hundred people to a three block radius. I don't understand
how people don't see this as potentially driving up additional traffic, driving up additional noise.
it's like we we already right now on the corner of this blog there's about 10 to 15 people
hanging out there which is a daily occurrence there's a new house that just got built there
and people are already hanging out on that doorstep of a building that's not there they are
utilizing i'm trying to explain here you know i understand that i live in the city and i
people are sitting on different people's stoops at all times during have you ever had a hundred
people on your door and partying until two o'clock do you have anything else why i'll do other than
this uh chair we can move on okay thank you vice chair sorry vice chair we have megan has been
unmuted please wait for the vice chair hello hi megan yes can you put your name on and please
spell your last name uh megan address sorry and your address megan poland m-a-e-g-a-n-p-o-l-a-n-d
I'm at 2444 Ingersoll Street. Okay. Do you swear to affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? Yes. Thank you. You may proceed. I just have a quick addendum. My husband spoke earlier
about the parking lot, and I'll just make this quick, but I just wanted to add the consideration
that the street is incredibly narrow, and if people are utilizing that parking lot from other
streets, that does create, I think, a concern in terms of the traffic on such a narrow street.
it's one lane um you know and and so that's one of our our concerns about having that park parking
lot located there specifically thank you thank you so much madam chair we're finished with witnesses
at this time okay meredith madam chair i will be as brief as i can try and respond to as many of
these things as i can um first just a general note i think you've heard that most of the concerns here
surrounding the project overall, meaning the project that has been planned over the course
of many, many years, and not necessarily the specific refusals that are before this board
today. As far as density is concerned, this proposal is less dense than would be permitted
by right on these lots. And I would be happy to bring our witnesses back up to testify to that,
but I can represent to you that by right, you could build nearly double the number of units
that are being proposed with this proposal on these same lots. Right. And the parking lot is
an issue. The narrowness of Ingersoll Street is an issue. Sure. People hanging in the corner is an
issue. I'm sorry, I missed the corner comment. 10 to 15 people going to 100 people hanging on
the corner? Nards can be controlled, and they're not zoning related. They are not zoning related.
You know, I already gave argument about that parking lot. I will also say that it is somewhat,
you know, it's conflicting, because we have heard a lot of concerns about the parking in the area.
And in fact, you saw in the photographs that people park on the sidewalks here. And yet,
if that parking lot were not there it additional units could be built there so you know it's a
little bit conflicting um just in regards to the commercial you heard testimony about the fact that
you know the commercial is intended for ridge avenue this is consistent with the planning
commission's 2014 lower north district plan uh which i do have sections of up on the screen here
uh you heard where the commercial is going to be focused in fact the lots have now been rezoned and
the commercial would no longer be required now regarding the parking um again this is responding
to many years worth of community concern about parking in the area so this is specifically
responding to that um the parking was also specifically contemplated in the lower north
district plan in the locations that it is proposed and you can see up on the screen here
the lower north district plan contemplated parking areas to accommodate
the Lower North District Plan contemplated parking areas to accommodate this revitalization effort.
As I mentioned, if the parking were connected to other lots, we wouldn't even be here for that
refusal. The dimensional refusals are largely de minimis and result from unique PHA design
considerations, existing lot orientations, or particular code interpretations. None of these
refusals in any way result from the proposed density. I know somebody did mention that,
and that is not accurate. These refusals have absolutely nothing to do with the density of
the proposal today. A full analysis of all of these variances and the hardships is included
in our memorandum of law at tab 18 as always we submit these are the least minimum variances
um this will not increase congestion will will actually contribute to mitigating it
no negative impact will result and will positively impact the neighborhood
as we hope the board can see this project is a culmination of many years worth of planning
and many years worth of community input.
And as the board can see,
and no disrespect to the new residents to the area,
but these residents simply were not involved
in that planning.
And that is unfortunate.
But as the board can see,
this is a lot of stakeholders
have gone into this project.
And this simply was not just put together on a whim
and has really resulted from a lot of stakeholder input
and do represent unique hardships that are minor and will contribute to long-plan revitalization.
If I can just have Nick quickly adopt my testimony. Nick Dima, if you can unmute yourself.
Hi, I'm here.
Nick, have you heard all of my testimony here today?
I have.
and would you agree that any testimony that i've given uh was true and accurate and would you adopt
that as if it were your own i would thank you thank you planning commission
miss chair lady yeah i'll i'll get to you next uh tom i just want to hear what the planning
commission has to say okay thank you good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
these properties are indicated for multi-family and single-family residential use in the
comprehensive plan the proposal is consistent with the density allowed under the zoning code
and the proposed use is consistent with comprehensive and district plans policies
regarding affordable housing we feel the variances are minimum necessary accordingly we recommend
approval of these variances thank you um any questions from the board tom i know you do have
a question. Yes, I have a question, counselor. I have a counselor. I am in agreement that this
neighborhood certainly could use a lot of new housing. And I think the project that you plan
out is great. My concern is the parking lot. Well, who will maintain the parking lot? The residents
or PHA. Ken, are you still on here? Ken Granderson?
Mr. Granderson, you can unmute yourself and speak. Yes, this is Ken Granderson and PHA will maintain
the parking lot. As I reiterated with Valk School being across the street and the PHA headquarters
being within walking distance, this lot will be maintained by PHA. As additional information,
there's currently a house for sale across from PHA's headquarters valued at over a million dollars
and that house is using as one of its sale points that PHA maintains the shrubbery,
the landscaping, and has a lot of people out there picking up trash every, you know,
weekly. So because we have a vested interest in this neighborhood, PHA is committed to
his beautification. Okay, so let me understand, PHA hires these people to take care of the
parking lot? Yes, we have both the in-house crew and we have a subcontractor crew that takes care
of mulching, grass cutting, etc. Now let me ask you this the lighting is a solo lighting or regular
lead lighting? It'll be lead lighting which what's defined as cut off so that none of the light
spills over into anyone else's property. So you'll take care of changing the bulbs? Yes PHA maintains
So you'll take care of changing the bulbs?
Yes, PHA maintains the parking lot.
The parking lot will not be a burden to any of the residences in the neighborhood.
So you'll take care of snow removal?
Fencing?
Abandoned cars?
Fine, thank you.
Thank you.
Does any other member of the board have any questions?
We're all ready to vote.
Calendar number 2332, 2301 Master Street.
Calendar number 0660, 2401 Ingersoll Street.
Calendar number 3314, 2400 Ingersoll Street.
Calendar number 3386, 2415 Master Street.
Calendar number 0663, 2418 Master Street.
calendar number 3132-2421, excuse me, Ingersoll Street, calendar number 3387-2411-Master
Street, calendar number 0867-2448-Master Street, calendar number 0866-2450-Ingersoll
street and calendar number one two three eight 2453 ingersoll street excuse me my vote is yes
yes to all yes to all yes to all sorry you guys thank you madam vice chairman and members of the
board for your time today oh thank you meredith and thank you darwin be careful
thank you i know i started choking calendar number 1861-2442 north 54th street the attorney is verne
anastasio oh could we just take a quick um five minutes we can take a 10 minute break
that'll be um 625 okay thank you thank you thank you jim we're here yes we're here okay cool
um i'm gonna call the case again calendar number 1861 2442 north 54th street um mr anastasio can
you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name sure it's verne anastasio
A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O
1315 Walnut
Suite 1006 Philadelphia
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
I'm already under oath from this morning
Okay, do you also agree to leave the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Do you email the exhibit packet with proof
of ownership tax compliance, refusal
referral, photos and or plans
five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO
and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all that.
Thank you.
Please present your case.
Thank you.
I'm going to share my screen, okay?
Okay, great.
Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm going to open with a brief statement, run through
my exhibit packet, and then wrap it up, okay?
Okay, great.
I know you're on a time constraint.
Madam Chair, what we're proposing today is something novel. It's a new concept in visitor
accommodations. My client, Kiteville, is a hospitality company focused on taking formerly
distressed properties, fully renovating them, and then offering them to visitors for short-term
or sometimes longer-term bases, whichever fits the needs of the traveler. Unlike Airbnb or the
CRBO, Kiteville home is professionally managed. It's not managed by the owner, with daily
housekeeping, round-the-clock maintenance, private sanitation removal, with strictly enforced
occupancy limits. But like a hotel, all linens and towels are provided and changed on a regular
basis, and the properties come fully furnished. This model also solves the problem of new
since rentals because unlike a traditional rental agreement where an owner would rent out a house to
individuals, there is no lease. There are no occupancy rights by the people who occupy
the space. There's no lengthy eviction process where troubled tenants could stay on for months,
sometimes years. When and if there are terms of service breaches, occupancy is canceled
immediately, just like any hotel. You break the rules of a hotel, you're removed.
Just like any hotel, you break the rules of a hotel, you're removed.
In my exhibit packet, I do submit documents and documented evidence that this particular property has not been a target or an issue for quite some time.
A 12-month search for 3-1-1 calls shows just one call over a year ago for a minor maintenance issue that was dealt with immediately.
A three-month search for 9-1-1 calls shows zero calls made for this address.
Also, please note, I believe you received a letter from one of the neighbors bemoaning the fact that people are purchasing these single-family homes in this area and chopping them up into duplexes and triplexes.
This proposal allows the property to maintain its single-family characteristic, but it will be well-kept and maintained.
my client understands this is a new and unique concept for a single-family use and as such a
healthy amount of skepticism from the community is both reasonable and expected so what we propose
here today what we proposed at the RCO meeting is that we seek a temporary variance for 24 months
giving Kiteville the opportunity to prove itself that this model works
and that this use will actually benefit the block.
And with that, I'm going to share my packet.
Yeah, I'd like to see where this is located
because I'm familiar with Winfield.
As I said, we utilize underutilized properties
by buying, releasing, and operating on behalf of the owners.
fully furnished safe environment short and extended stays who are transitioning or
temporarily relocating to the area customers book the stay online with personal information
financial verification and proof of identification they're provided with check-in and check-out
details they can book an entire home or shared space if it's large enough customers are provided
complete home setting with a lock system to their room, suite, or entire home.
Customers must comprehend the rules and responsibilities, and a stay can be canceled
immediately when the rules are violated. Both parties can rate one another. Low ratings may
result in removals from the platform permanently. Now, who's occupying? Who is the target market?
Relocating transitioning professionals who are moving to the area to find and acquire their next permanent residence.
Temporarily relocating individuals who are consultants, engineers, educators, turns, training and program candidates, or rotating medical professionals.
And short-term stay individuals who are here for seminars, conventions, events, or in town to visit family.
the vision is to bring positive energy to an otherwise blighted property help produce a
global carbon footprint that's reduced make on-demand stays not only convenient
but creating a lifestyle meaningful values for everyone my client budo banal has been working
in the hospitality and food industries across the country for over 20 years
and these are his specialties.
Each home comes fully furnished
and guests are supplied with all linens and towels,
fully equipped kitchen and a closed washer dryer.
There's professional housekeeping services
on a regular basis,
24-hour, seven days a week maintenance
for interior and exterior.
Property management contact placed on the facade,
commercial trash pickup twice a week when occupied sanitation and sterilization between
guest visits make it code compliant for covid parties and nuisances are prohibited will result
in immediate cancellation of the reservation and the guest removed and there's no need to go
through the lengthy eviction process as i said occupancy do you have a photograph of the block
Yes, I do.
We're getting there.
Want me to show you the layout or just want to go right to the photos?
I'd like to see the block.
Got it.
Here it is.
These are all twins up and down the street.
They're identical, the entire block.
entire block. So you're, this is really like a rooming house in a way.
So you're, this is really like a...
No, a rooming house is... Or a single, or an SRO. Because I'm looking, I know that Winfield
residents are opposed to this. They are, they are, because it's something novel and it's new.
but that's why i respectfully are requesting a temporary variance 24 months just enabled to show
the folks uh you know who have concerns that this isn't like a rooming house this is operated
completely differently it's professionally managed and maintained uh there's no there's no room for
this is the anti-rooming house basically because if a rooming house you have difficulty getting
folks out that's not the case here because there is no legal relationship other than a guest
which can who can be removed and that's that's the difference lots of times rooming houses have
leases people lease out rooms for long periods of time and those leases govern the relationship
Here, no such relationship exists.
Also, rooming houses aren't often very well maintained and cared for.
Rooming houses don't have 24-hour maintenance.
Rooming houses don't have...
This is a twin we're looking at, a twin home.
That's correct.
Okay, and I think the neighborhood wants it to remain a twin?
it'll stay it's it stays identical to what it is now right there's just a lot of people possibly
living there well for whatever period of time they are um no more no more than when would
normally fill the home with the number of bedrooms how many bedrooms are in the house let's go through
that first let's take you through i'm sorry lost it here's the uh the foyer living room dining room
and kitchen. Bedroom one, bedroom two, bedroom three, four, and five. And it's one, two, three
full bathrooms. And everyone is able to share the kitchen. That's correct, if they so choose.
Again, and the kitchen is kept through housekeeping.
I mean, it's, which is the guest in a traditional SRO or rooming house, it is up to the occupants
to maintain the property.
Here we have complete control over the maintenance of the interior and the exterior, as well
as the daily housekeeping.
Here are the 311 reports.
only one back in july of 2020
okay i believe all that in the interest of time uh is there anyone here to testify
i have my client uh budo who could raise his hand here's the 9-1-1 reports here's the subject
property and as you can see these these are where the blue dots indicate where 9-1-1 calls have been
made. Budo, if you raise your hand, you could be identified and promoted.
Mr. Budo has been unmuted. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I am. My name is Budo. Great. Can you put your name and address
on the record and spell your last name, please? Sure. My name is Budo, B-U-N-U-L, last name,
and the address is 721 Calvertwood in Morris Township, New Jersey.
Do you swear I'm firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Budo, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony if need be?
Yes, I do.
And do you agree that we are seeking a temporary 24-month variance to prove Kiteville's worth
to the community?
Yes, I do.
And do you have anything, very briefly, to add?
No, I think this is a brand new concept. I know we're all deep with the pandemic. It's a kind of trying time, but I have great visions and values to maximize the undervalued properties with the optimization of technology and as well as bringing values to the neighborhood and the community.
No, I think this is a brand new concept.
I know we are all deep with it.
Thank you. I have nothing further, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses?
Madam Chair, we have Michael Reed, who has been unmuted, please wait for the Vice Chair.
Michael, can you hear me?
Not yet.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, I can hear you. Name and address, please, and spell your last name.
My name is Michael Reed, R-E-I-D. I live at 2341 North 52nd Street.
Okay, and what is your position on this proposal?
My position is that I am adamantly opposed to this idea that he calls novel.
I've been living in Winfield for close to 20 years, and we are being inundated by investors and realtors and people like Mr.
who want to profitize by having renters and students living in these big homes here in
Winfield in this particular section that he's talking about these homes do have six bedrooms
and currently in a lot of his properties he has more than three unrelated students
or unrelated residents at one time, which is the law that you cannot have any more than three
unrelated residents. That's correct. I'm very familiar with the problem with St. Joe's University
and the Winfield Homes and the Overbrook Homes. Yes, ma'am. Let me say this, that Mr. Buno
has a property well i only want to hear about him he operates his business at a property right
across the street from me i look out every day and see no less than 10 cars come in and out of
that property across from me so he goes and services the his kite he says uh his kite field
properties i have to i didn't buy this home to see people come in with dirty linen
toilet paper trash vacuum i understand i understand how you feel is there another witness
i'm not trying to cut you off but i i get it
vice chair we have crystal morris please unmute yourself and wait for the vice chair
Crystal are you there can you hear me yes I can hi can you put your name and address on the record
please and spell your last name sure my name is Crystal last name Morris M-O-R-R-I-S address 4921
Parkside Avenue North in Philadelphia 19131 thank you okay you may proceed yes I am a president of
the winfield residents association and i've already sent you a letter so i don't want to belabor the
points that are in that letter uh but just to go ahead and respond to the things that
mr anastacio has said um just now that uh the feeling that it does solve the rental problem
it does not this concept is the rental problem because it's transient housing that and
And it's transient housing with a twist, because there's now no accountability. At least if you
have someone locked into a lease for a year, you can have accountability. It's not about ease of
getting them out. It's about them having no buy-in or sense of responsibility for coming in. So you
have, you know, occupancy rules that are just like any hotel, because it actually is a hotel.
and it should exist in a commercial corridor because it is a commercial enterprise so this
is a an idea that has been plucked into a strictly residential neighborhood
And it's a commercial enterprise with people coming forth, back and forth, a lot of, in excess.
and it's a commercial enterprise with people coming forth back and forth
So in reference to the three months of no 911 calls, I wonder what that would look like if we went back six months or a year.
Because these outfits have been operating since 2017.
17. And even though we're in front of you as a zoning board, they are still operating. So
there was a shooting at this property. And it was longer than three months ago, but it doesn't mean
it didn't exist. And we know that having this kind of folks coming in and staying for $30, $40 a
night brings a different population than you would have of someone who was willing to make a
commitment of a first and last month's rent and security. So the 24-hour variance, the reason that
we oppose that is because we feel like the gentleman who's running his business has already
proven himself. And that proof has been that it hasn't been going well. And though it's an idea
that may be welcomed in other neighborhoods, it's not welcome in our neighborhood. It's not something
that our neighbors want and they see it as it's already been proven as disastrous and it's it's
proven putting an unnecessary burden on the neighbors and removing the quiet enjoyment of
their properties so we don't want a rooming house and that's it thank you thank you just for a point
of clarification my client has not operated this this this home since 2017 i do believe the previous
the owner uh tried to to do whatever he did and it didn't work and that's why um kiteville stepped
in to clean it up but okay thank you i respect the witnesses uh testimony of course are there
any other witnesses i see no handshare thank you does the board have any questions no no no planning
Commission? Madam Chair, I just want to add, this is not unlike a bed and breakfast situation
in many ways. And that's been my client's sort of target for residents. And this does in fact
eliminate the need to go through a lengthy eviction process if there is a troubled person
there but that's all i have to say of course i again misgivings and concerns are reasonable
and expected which is why we thought a 24-month variance might uh solve that issue i know this
neighborhood and several of them around there are trying to keep the neighborhoods single family
or twins as they are. Planning Commission, unmute yourself. Good evening, Chair Peter Bernard for the
Planning Commission. This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive
plan. We feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property. Accordingly, we object to the
granting of the variance. Thank you. Calendar number 1861, 2442, North 54th Street, my vote is no.
My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
Have a good evening. Thank you. Calendar number 3326, 265 East Hoarder Street,
Matt Monroe is the attorney.
Mr. Monroe has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you.
Mr. Monroe, can you hear me?
Yes, you can.
Name and address for the record, please, and spell your last name.
Good afternoon.
Monroe, M-O-N-R-O-E, 2030 Pemberton Street, Philadelphia, 19146.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
Do you also agree to wait through reading the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance with an RCO, and do you have a letter?
We've done all of those things.
Okay, great.
Some of them multiple times.
Okay, you may proceed.
All right, Madam Chair, if I could, I'm just going to share my screen and I apologize.
All right, Madam Chair, if I could, I'm just going to share my screen and apologies.
I'm going to be like looking over slightly to the left as I'm doing this thing because
I have a new setup, but we're all in this together.
So Madam Chair, this is I think the third time we've been at the zoning board.
We initially came back in January 2020 after having met with the Eastmount Area Neighbors Association, I believe, three times in person and then multiple offline conversations.
Effectively, after we presented, Chairman DiCicco had asked us to effectively go back to the drawing board, see if we could address some of the neighborhood's concerns, which we have done.
And the last time we were on the calendar was January of this year.
We'd sent the updated plans to the RCO and near neighbors, I believe, about a week before the hearing.
They had asked us to request a continuance, which we did to give them some time to review the plans, and here we are today.
So basically, I just want to run through the exhibits that I have.
We have the deed at Exhibit 1, the refusal at Exhibit 2, the application for appeal at Exhibit 3, the RCO letter and notices with certificate of mailing, and then along with that, we also sent out notices to everybody who had entered their appearance previously in the case for this hearing.
We posted the notices, and we have photographs of that as well.
there's an extensive zoning archive though I'm not going to be going into that
we have the original plans which I'll show for comparative purposes
along with the updated plans in elevations which if if the zoning board approves the plan
and we and we hope you will we do have a proviso sheet and updated plans that we would request
that the zoning board stamp for permitting the tax certification is good which is always good
did you re-meet with the rco and come to an agreement we did not re-meet with the rco we
sent them the uh updated plans and we did not get additional feedback so um but that we did
we sent the plans in advance of the last hearing and it was uh uh that was the reason for uh we
requested this continuance and are on the calendar today um just so we know what we're talking about
I'll just show the board our original plans. So basically 265 East Horror Street right here
is a very long, narrow strip of land that has not been used basically for anything legal
in recent memory. There was a, in the 1960s, there was a short-term variance granted for
a bike shop with a proviso that it could be used for one year. There was a request to convert the
property to a retail use, which was denied by the zoning board also back in 1965. So to the extent
that there's any question about whether there's a hardship on the property, I think it's reasonable
just to take a look that it has never been used. What you're looking at right here is this narrow
strip of land and it's for the most part entirely asphalt. I mean there's some cracks in the asphalt
but it's it's broken up and things are growing up but it's just a big slab of asphalt. Back here at
the rear is a Napa auto parts store which has been operating for a long time. Chew Avenue is a street
road I'm sorry it's a state road and right here you have an existing curb cut. Nothing has been
going on here. The past owner before my clients, Marcel Donahue Properties LLC, purchased the
property. Nobody was really taking care of it. A lot of the opposition that we heard initially
when we went to go meet with the neighborhood group back in 2019 was, you know, concerns about
parking, which usually come up. But some of that was also based on some near neighbors who had
been using it for parking, but it was a neglected lot. It hadn't really been taken care of, and
my guys came in and cleaned it up and secured the lot. So here's the context. This is what it
looks like, the existing curb cut. The original site plans that we had called for six units,
and let me just pull it back, I want to make sure you can see.
Um, call for six units and it's a really, well, it's a really narrow deep lot. It's, it's pretty
big. It's close to 9,000 square feet. When you consider the, uh, minimum, and there's an RSA 5
property. When you consider the minimum lot size of 1,440 square feet, um, my clients initially
looked at developing something that would have, if it were laid out well, if it were
appropriately zoned, how many homes could they fit on there?
And the answer is six.
If there were six separate RSA-5 properties, they could put six single-family homes attached
there.
Because while they were not required to provide parking, they did opt to because they had
this existing curb cut, which had been used as a curb cut for the better part of the 20th
century and the beginning of the 21st century. They wanted just to make sure that the new
homeowners for this development, which would be a planned unit development, a PUD, would
have dedicated parking. And we had multiple, like I mentioned, we had multiple meetings
with the Registered Community Organization. And they raised concerns which were reiterated
at the zoning hearing. And just to kind of go through some of them, the concerns were
that this would substantially increase congestion in the public street, that it would impair
adequate supply of light and air. Those are terms gleaned from the code, but I think what they were
getting at was, and really what it came down to was their concern about density. And so while we
had proposed initially six units, or my clients had, after the January 2020 zoning hearing,
my clients decided to go back to the drawing board and to see if they could make
fewer units work they determined that they could and you know basically based on increased
lumber costs and material costs that have really substantially gone up over the last year
they they've come up with a plan that they believe can can pencil out at four units and that's what
they're they're proposing here so the updated plans would are changed to have four units
so this is the plan at exhibit eight that we've submitted uh that's done a number of things one
it has reduced the number of units from six to four two um they've widened the dry vial um from
by an additional three feet. That was another concern that the community raised. They thought
the dry vial was too narrow and that which would create a safety hazard, which was never really
clear how it would create a safety hazard, but that was one of the issues they raised.
And another was that somehow this would increase impervious surfaces. In actuality, it adds a
significant amount of pervious surfaces because as I mentioned before the the whole lot is basically
just a slab of asphalt this is going to break that up and we're going to add a lot of pervious
surfaces by way of the yards you can see here and so we've gone down from six to four units
I just also want to point out the tax search figure that's good and you've not and you've
not re-meet with the RCO? We did not re-meet with the RCO. We did, as noted before, we did
provide them with the plans back in January. And I think, you know, that was it. When we did,
they didn't ask that we meet with them again. They asked that we provide with them with the
plans and with additional time to review the plans. Okay. I want to interrupt. Does the board
of any questions? No. No. Planning Commission?
Board, Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission. Chair, I was wondering if you could ask the
applicant about the feasibility of trash collection and emergency vehicle access and the proposed
site plan. Okay. Can you answer that, Mr. Monroe? Sure. As far as trash collection goes, I believe
it's going to be a planned use, a PUD, as I mentioned. If commercial trash pickup is required,
If commercial trash pickup is required, if it were to be deemed a multifamily unit, my clients will absolutely require that commercial trash pickup be implemented.
if it were
If these were treated as single-family homes, I think that they would simply just put their trash out at the curb on trash day.
um that would be uh number one and i'm sorry uh mr bernard uh i i didn't catch the the second
question the second question was about the feasibility of emergency vehicle access
uh this is a single single lane in and out accessing four properties behind multiple
other buildings sure okay um yeah and let me just uh see if we can get a jp donahue uh if you could
raise your hand, Mr. Donahue. Mr. Donahue is an owner on the project. He's also the architect
on the project. Mr. Donahue, you've been unmuted. Please unmute yourself and wait for the vice chair.
Mr. Donahue, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Joseph Donahue, D-O-N-O-H-U-E, 1901 Washington Avenue, 19146.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed. Matt.
Okay, in terms of fire safety, we went and spoke with the planning commission previous to our first submission for the project and discussed with them the one drive aisle and were told that the width that we had originally provided,
which i believe was 14 feet um was enough for would be adequate for the uh for the for the
as a fire lane and with this revised plan we are widening the existing lane by another by another
three feet so you know based based on that conversation and the the additional space we
feel that it's adequate for an emergency vehicle to access.
Peter, anything else?
Those were my only questions, board.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, Mr. Bernard,
but I just wanted to, since we have JP on the line,
Mr. Donahue, did you hear the factual statements that I made in my presentation?
Please unmute yourself, Mr. Donahue. You can unmute yourself.
I did. I did hear what you said.
And was it accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your testimony?
Excuse me, Counselor.
I'm not certain. How many units is in this total project?
I think four.
Four total.
Each building?
I'm sorry?
There's four single family residences.
Single family residence, correct. Yes. It would be for a PUD. That's right. We went from six to four.
Okay. Thank you.
is there anyone else with any questions in the virtual audience
madam vice chair we had jeffrey hayes you may unmute yourself mr hayes and wait for the vice
chair yes hi can you put your name and address on the record please
yes this is jeffrey hayes j-e-f-f-e-r-y-h-a-y-e-s
and your address 73 15 boyer street okay do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do you may proceed hello um my name is jeffrey hayes um i'm the
chair of the land use development and zoning committee from east man area neighbors and i
I have a prepared statement, but I can't read that statement yet because I have to tell you that these drawings that you've been presented have never been shown to us.
The attorney's description of the events is pretty much right in terms of the, you know, asking for the continuance and giving.
the, you know, asking for the continuance and giving us drawings, but the drawings that we're
looking at, and I can share my screen if you want proof of this, they show a twin unit building
on the left side of the page, and then two singles. So it's the same number of units, but
a completely different design. Okay, so that's my first point. Second point is, as was described,
This project did start quite some time ago. There was a ZBA meeting in January of 2020.
The direction from Chairman DeChico was very clear.
They were to meet with the RCO and meet with council as well.
Immediately after the meeting, at the ZBA meeting, a meeting with the RCO was scheduled for February 4th.
And bear in mind, this was pre-COVID or early COVID.
The meeting was canceled by the applicant.
That was the last we heard from them.
331 days later, I think on Christmas Eve, I got an email from a near neighbor showing us a zoning poster that had gone up for the original six-unit proposal.
um we uh we emailed uh maddie to say what was going on or jp i guess to say what was going on
um they said they'd be in touch with new drawings so 15 more days elapse um and we finally do get
drawings and they are um they show the four units but it's a completely different design than what
we're looking at now okay this is what i think since you've not had an opportunity to see these
drawings you're going to have to be given that opportunity so i'm considering continuing this
case because we can't vote on it planning commission can't make a recommendation
i mean does the board have any thoughts on that
i'm in agreement we should continue it yeah this case is going to be continued and you'll
have to talk to Ms. Sunkit are you there? Yes I am. Okay and Mr. Monroe can speak to you?
If I could the case was presented would it be approved by you chair for a resumption hearing
for this one after they present to the community? Absolutely. It could just be feedback from the
community and then the final word from Mr. Monroe if that's okay. That's fine. It's okay so can
we give it a month maybe and I can give a date for yes May 19th at 2 p.m. That's fantastic.
Thank you kindly. Thank you. Yeah and and to be clear so Jeff so you'll you'll have an opportunity
to weigh in on that as well just okay next case calendar number zero four six seven
three six one three north 16th street the attorney is rachel pritzker
ms pritzker has been promoted to panelist
ms pritzker can you yes you can name and address uh on the record and spell your last name
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA-19103.
You're still under oath?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Do you also agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes. You may proceed. Thank you. We are still on the two o'clock hearing, so
however you can condense this, we would appreciate it. Absolutely. So this is 3613 North 16th Street.
This is a large RSA 5 property located in Tioga in North Philly. The lot is 25 by 100,
so 2,500 square foot lot. We are only looking for relief for multifamily. I will go into
a little bit of detail just specifically about the significant amount of multifamily on this block
and also the comprehensive plan. The biggest thing to note again is this is located in RSA 5, however,
thing to note again is this is located in RSA 5. However, it's been vacant since 2007 and the prior
use was multifamily. So I don't believe that there was a lot of single family use prior to that.
Just going to bring down the deed. So this is the lot, as you can see, as I had mentioned,
it's 25 by 100 as you can see there's other similarly sized properties it's too wide and
to subdivide as far as by right as the board clearly knows you need 16 feet in width this is
25 even if we were to half it you'd have like 12 and a half foot or yeah 12 and a half foot in
width once you put walls up you're looking at like maybe 10 9 feet wide which is not viable for
any building, let alone a single family. A single family on this lot would be out of character for
this side of the block in particular, the surrounding, a couple of the surrounding
blocks, and also would be unmarketable in this neighborhood given the current climate,
in addition to how large this lot is. I know better than to say that we could build an X amount
of size house because we don't have to build it that big, but just even on a small house meeting
the dimensional requirements of the code it would be it would far exceed anything that's um in this
neighborhood and that has uh ground up new construction um i just want to point out um also
that uh our proposal which is a three uh story semi-detached structure only has one refusal and
that's for use um here are the zoning posters on the property which we reposted a number of times as
they were ripped down as that you know tends to happen as it's important to note as well for this
site once I get to the this is the code sections this is the RCO meeting I'm going to just bring
up an aerial if I can let's see sorry it's a little hard to do with all these tabs I have
A lot of vacancy in this neighborhood, as you can see, we're sort of bound by Erie Avenue,
16th Street, Benango Street, just a few blocks off of Broad, North Broad Street here, which
obviously there's, you know, a need for additional density to help support some of the goals for
North Broad Street, according to the comprehensive plan. And as you can see, this lot is one of the
bigger lots on the block and again has been vacant for quite some time. I also want to mention for
the board that there are a number of properties that are zoned RSA 5 that are actually multifamily.
Specifically worth noting on this block is 3625 North 16th Street which is an 1833 square foot
lot. Again, ours is 2,500 square feet. That property has been permitted for six dwelling
units. Additionally, 3623 North 16th Street is three dwelling units. That property, however,
is 1,541 square feet. And there are, let's pull up the list.
there are several others that are uh smaller in size or if you look at them the unit to land
density for these properties um does exceeds what we're what we're proposing um we looked at the
classification of rm1 um 2500 square feet gets you six units by right for rm1 with obviously
no bonuses. We also wanted to take into consideration the demographics of this
neighborhood and the need for more price-conscious housing. Anytime that you go down in units on a lot
this big, obviously, if you try to provide larger units, the price goes up as far as rentals. We
also wanted to, you know, be considerate that we wanted to leave enough rear yard space and open
space. So we're not infringing on any of the dimensional considerations of this lot or the
near neighbors. The other thing I think worth mentioning before I bring up our architect to
just go through the plans is that it's very clear in the city's 2035 comprehensive plan that this
area has not been remapped recently. I'm sure it's in the goals of the planning commission as
they're busy doing a lot of this type of work. I just thought it would be important to note that
specifically in the city's comprehensive plan in Tioga in their north plan it says to encourage the
formation of new commercial corridor on 17th street which we're not far from obviously this
is on 16th street and redevelopment of vacant properties with multi-family uses. So I don't
believe that we are providing an overuse with the six units as it is less dense than what we're
with the six units as it is less dense than what we're seeing on other properties that are have
seeing on other practices.
been previously zoned rsa5 but obtained either variances or had uses for multi-family before
assuming that maybe the block was remapped at some point to rsa5 down the line additionally
it's important to note that the comprehensive plan also mentions that 12 of the north district
zoning is really inconsistent with underlining or desired land use. Additionally, specifically
in Tioga, it talks about having multifamily density around areas closest to single family
homes, especially revitalizing existing single family homes. Again, this is a vacant lot
and also making sure that new and affordable housing is located near 17th and Tioga. This is
right down the street. And this, again, we border Erie Avenue as well and North Broad Street,
which obviously I had mentioned were some, a lot of talk about that in the comprehensive plan.
We met with the community on, let me just bring it up in the packet.
On March of the 3rd.
They're changed forward to RCO. Yep. And their meeting summary is a little confusing. As the
board can see, it said 16 in opposition that are on the RCO board slash committee. All meeting
attendees was five. So that's those who are not comprised of, I guess, the RCO board and committee
in non-opposition. And then two affected RCO members also in non-opposition. We also have a
letter from a affected RCO, Upper North Neighbors Association, that was submitted to the board
evidencing that they are in non-opposition of the project based on the fact that the stated
intention of the project is to help eliminate vacancy and blight and to provide more affordable
housing units. Obviously, they also mentioned that their knowledge of the 3600 block of North 16th
Street and neighboring Venango and Erie Ave all consist of both rental household and single
family dwellings. So this is not inconsistent with what's already there. And they also acknowledge
that the developer is a community partner who has demonstrated a commitment to revitalization.
This developer in particular owns a number of properties and the neighborhood has worked hand
in hand with the community for cleanups to work through some of their goals as far as the 17th
Street corridor is concerned. And that was also one of the reasons that they felt it was important
to send, you know, non-opposition. In addition, because there was 16 people from the RCO board
slash committee that voted in opposition, we actually wanted to get a better sampling of
near neighbors. So we spoke with a number of them on the block and we have submitted letters of
support 3637 North 16th Street, 3617 North 16th Street, 3619 North 16th Street, 3620 North 16th
Street, 3323 North 16th Street. And then also, as the board may be aware, there is a school
nearby, it's called Cristo Rey. It's a school that takes in a lot of individual students in
Philadelphia and helps sponsor programs where they get involved with businesses. Long story short,
the CEO, the founder of Christo Ray, submitted a letter of non-opposition specifically stating
that he believes that responsible investment by responsible developers is essential for
restoring the vitality of Tioga. As the board may be familiar, Christo's Ray is located at 1717 West
Allegheny, so not very far from this site. They believe that responsible development should
impact respective preferences of the homeowners and complement the unique architecture. They
believe that this could meet that criteria and that the principles of the organization, because
they're involved with the neighborhood, you know, should be encouraged to continue to invest in
Tioga. So I wanted to just bring that to the board's attention as well. John McConnell is the
founder and president of Christo, right? He was on the call earlier, but given how long today went
for everyone he had to jump off. So I would at this time like to have Scott Woodruff from
Design Blends Architecture jump on and share the plans and then happy to take any questions
that the board may have. Great. Hello. Hello. Can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name? Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F. Design Bonds Architecture, 4001 Main
Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia PA 19127. Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you may proceed. I can just get out.
Okay, you may proceed.
I can just get promoted to panelists.
I can share screen.
I'm sorry, Scott.
What did you need to do?
He needs to be promoted to panelists.
i've just promoted scott woodruff to panelists thank you
thank you
um as rachel went over uh this is our property 25 by 100 um
proposing a three-story uh it's a little hard to hear you
Sorry about that. It's a six-story, I mean, six-unit, three-story building.
Some of the main things that we wanted to make sure that we did was taking some of the existing
contexts of the surrounding area. A lot of that is red brick facade, which was important that we
keep, as well as a structure that wasn't extremely tall, as a lot of the surrounding context is not
super tall in height. So we're right around 30 feet in total height. As you look at this,
as well as trying to take a few of the other cues, the curved kind of front entry window,
as well as not building to full lot coverage. As you see, we have an alleyway here to allow
light and air and also just not build full width on the site itself. This alleyway would
also be used for um trash which will be located in the rear of the property um as well as access
for tenants to the rear yard so there are two units per floor there are two units per floor
um you're coming in a little muffled again scott i'm sorry uh yes two units per floor uh two bedroom
one bathroom units on floors two and three on both and then there is like a one bedroom plus
kind of like an office work from home uh it's set up on the first floor it's in the front
of the building uh but yes the units are uh you know small two bedrooms around 800 square feet
um primarily for all of the all of the units with this this one bedroom being
a little bit smaller around 600. Thank you. Tom any questions? No. Just the board have any questions? No.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon board. I will specify that there is no proposed restriction to affordable housing
as part of this project so that point should be moot. This property is indicated for single
family residential in the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood was built and has been largely
maintained as single family residential. We feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property.
Additionally there is no hardship to regularly shape vacant lots. Accordingly we object to the
granting of the variance. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Yes. Would it be okay to get the community's
input? Oh, sure. I sometimes do that backwards. Is there anyone in the virtual audience
who would like to speak? If so, please raise your hand. Now, just to note, Madam Chair,
we do have quite a few people so it's your call as to when say when when that's nine people that's
far before we open it up i just want to comment i'm a little confused by the planning commission's
uh comment given their own comprehensive plan but i'll uh already kind of shared what i've
pulled from that and it's in the packet as well for the board um the other thing too
and I just want to add this to your tool belt, Madam Chairwoman, we would be willing to knock
it down a unit if given the Planning Commission's comment of overuse, although I will state that
it's 2,500 square feet. And so that is more than, that is exactly what's allowed by right if this
was R1, like the similar properties. And there's a host of properties in the area that are allowed
additional units despite having smaller lots than we do. So I just wanted to mention that on the
record. Okay, Ms. Sunfit, there's nine people who are willing to testify? Yes, if allowable,
Yes, if allowable, can we have Charles Richardson go forward first?
can we have Charles Richardson go forward first? Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Mr. Richardson?
Yes, Madam Vice Chair.
Hi, can you put your name and address?
Well, I know what your address is.
Put your name on the record.
It's been one of those days.
I was the first case at 2 o'clock, and I'm the last case today.
So Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room 312.
Well, I was going to cede to Charles Karn first, because he is the chair of the 13th Ward RCO, and I know that he's on the line, and he can lay out what, you know, their thoughts were about that.
And then I can come back at whatever point that you feel that the community has, that you've had too much in this time, you know, to wrap it up, and I can, you know, give the Councilwoman's opinion at that time.
Okay, and based on everything you've just said, do you swear or affirm the talk?
that you did tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yeah, sure. I'm still under oath
though. Okay. Okay. We'll listen to the, whoever is going to testify. Can we pick a couple of
people who can testify? Can they do that amongst themselves? I'm sorry. If I could assist Charles
karn you can go forward next i'm here okay hi mr karn name and name and address please
and spell your last name charles karn 3853 charles karn 3853 north 19th street i am the 13th ward
rco chair okay do you swear if i'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
nothing but the truth nothing but the truth okay you may proceed madam vice chair i've been on this
call since two o'clock also first of all i know you have i'm sorry i'm sorry the package i sent
in i actually wrote the summary but but it's also was five pages that um actually detailed
the community and stakeholders concerns about putting this unit on the block there um first of
all um when did they purchase the property um vice chair um i i don't know when was the property
purchased rachel do you know i believe it's on the city records um within probably the last year or
so i can look okay 2020 i got it okay but again right what i wanted to say um madam vice chair
um when they purchased the property they knew it was rsa5 now um so the hardship right they're
saying is here's what we want to put there but i'm like um council person i'm brian o'neill
right we can't go chasing everybody on the block about what they've done in their house and look
at the mailboxes like i just can't do that however i've been listening to and um at the rco zoom
meeting um the owner and his representative said right they couldn't build a single family property
on a block that is 90 legally legally single family dwellings and that's what the other eight
people that you're going to see or hear from that's what they're going to tell you the block
itself the 3600 block has parking on two sides of the street if we don't argue about parking we do
understand we do understand that right but um when i was reading the appeal for the refusal
it was saying well um it was a couple of questions about parking but it said
it wouldn't apply to the density of the block however during during the meeting um
the proposal was for five two bedroom one one bedroom so so six units and i'm adding
that up pretty much you're talking about 20 folks um in that house but if you go up and down that
block and i don't know where the letters came from from support i've walked through that block
to six um the 3600 block i've walked through venango street everything around it is single
family and that's what you're going to hear from the folks and that's what they're trying
And we're trying to stay consistent with the RSA-5 single family.
Thank you.
Ma'am, you know what?
I don't want to...
Are you ready for the next one, Chair?
Yes, I am.
We have Evanya Stevenson.
Good evening.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yes, my name is Ivana Stevenson, E-V-Y-O-N-N-A-S-T-E-V-E-N-S-O-N. I am a member.
s-t-e-v-e-n-s-o-n. I am a member of the 13th Ward and was in attendance at the March 23rd
meeting that was telling us about the proposed building that we see here. I am so confused.
May I interrupt you? Do you swear to affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I sure will. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. So I'm confused as to know who this
Dwayne Lilly is, who is a part of the Upper North Neighborhood Association. This person was not a
part of our meeting, so I'm unclear as to how he was able to present a letter to this organization
saying that he's all up and have the community's consent. I was also confused as to why
Crystal Ray the school that's on Allegheny Avenue how come that became so important to this
neighborhood when Allegheny Avenue is five blocks away from 17th and Erie and then two blocks over
so I'm really confused as to how they had a voice in this decision when they don't even live in the
neighborhood um I'm confused also as when the person purchased the property they knew it was
an RSA5 property, but you're going to change it to suit yourself? I don't think so. This
neighborhood, and I'm still a part of this neighborhood, has been my neighborhood for
over 50 years. I feel this an insult to the neighbors for people to come into the neighborhood
to say, well, we're going to change it just because of you. And also, the attorney never
showed the letter um that showed the oh she had the purple paper there that was not brought up
when she was making a presentation to us that said um that the variances hadn't been changed
for over semi for a number of years again that was not a part of the original conversation
and that's all i have to say miss stevenson okay thank you do you know what we're going to do um
This is going to be a resumption hearing
because everybody doesn't have enough information.
Tanya, can you give me a date for a resumption hearing?
June 2nd at 2 p.m.
Okay, calendar number 0467-3613, Road 16th Street.
We'll have a resumption hearing June 2nd at 2 p.m.
Thank you.
if i could just mention um that uh rachel no posting would typically be required um however
based on um what's going on with this particular case you can reach out to us and we'll give you
posters so everybody involved will know when it's scheduled okay thanks i appreciate that
Okay, calendar number 0424-626-30 by Burry-Rood.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
Mr. Ward has been promoted to panelists.
Hi, Mr. Ward, name and address on the record and spell your last name, please.
good evening madam chair members of the board sean ward on behalf of the applicant
trying to start my video there all right there i am do you swear if i'm to tell the whole truth
and nothing about the truth i most certainly do uh madam chair uh and you also agree to
weigh the rating of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy of course have you emailed the
exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral plans photos five
days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes i do
okay i would also like to mention that councilman brian o'neill and senator sabatina oppose
this somerton civic supports with a proviso i don't think somerton civic is recognized in that
area but go ahead you can present this i would respectfully disagree that somerton civic is the
recognized rco in the district they are the only rco in the 19116 19116 zip code which encompasses
all of somerton so i i don't know why they may be incorrect but i i yeah i don't know why they
would suggest that to the board if they infected uh but madam chair i'm going to share my screen now
i will try and be brief as possible given the late uh hour of the day and
hour of the day and what the board has been going through today.
what the board has been going through today
I've submitted to the board my typical exhibit packet.
I'll blow it up real quick.
I represent Yusuf Karakaglio, and for spelling, that's Y-U-S-U-F, last name Karakaglio, K-R-A-C-A-O-G-L-U-E.
He is the applicant tenant, and by virtue of a lease agreement, he is the beneficial owner of the property, so I'm here on behalf of both.
The city recognizes it as 626-30 Byberry Road.
Everybody in the neighborhood knows it as 630 Byberry Road, and it is calendar number 2021-000424.
So, in my packet, I have a copy of the notice of refusal at A1.
The application was for a permit for personal vehicle repair with an accessory business office, the office for the vehicle repair, and a one apartment on the second floor.
It resulted in two refusals. Ironically, personal vehicle repair is not permitted in the CA1, which is the commercial auto-oriented one commercial district.
In addition, the single family dwelling is not permitted in the CA1 district. Therefore, we need to use variances.
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal.
A3, the project information form.
A4 is proof of ownership.
A5 is the tax clearance.
A6, site elevation shouldn't be in there.
It's a site and floor plan.
A7 are photographs.
A8 is not in the packet, but I have it, and it was submitted to the board.
Sergeant Civic's letter of support.
A9, ironically, is Councilman O'Neill's letter of opposition.
A10 is the relevant zoning history.
As far as I, you know, I'm from the very far northeast.
And as long as I can remember, Marvick Supply was at that site.
They sold building supplies and materials for as long as I can remember.
I think they closed maybe in 2012.
Then we have the zoning map and aerial photograph.
um well i'll um yeah very quickly the days and hours of operation monday to friday 7 a.m to 6
p.m saturday 8 a.m to 1 p.m and sundays are closed currently there's two employees including
the owner uh he does have uh room for two more employees because he's got uh four repair bays
two having lifts all work would be performed indoors there is secured vehicle storage in
the back i could show you that and there's no auto body or painting uh you know contemplated
proposed or expected in the future so uh moving through the exhibit packet uh briefly uh this is
the notice of refusal um as you can see it is 626-30 bybury the two refusals again
Personal vehicle repair not permitted, and the single-family dwelling not permitted.
My transmittal letter to Tanya containing the application.
The application, page 2, the PIF.
Okay, moving on.
Proof of ownership.
The Philodoc site was down, so I could not obtain a copy of the actual deed.
But Philodox does have 626-30 recorded as the owner, Siltrent LLC.
And that property was purchased on or about May 31st of 2017.
As you can see, taxes are paid through 2021.
Okay, I don't want to interrupt you, but I am interrupting you.
Is the councilman still on?
yes i am thank you madam chair okay um i'd like to hear from you okay and let me clarify because
we had somerton civic earlier on the stevens road case um the uh somerton civic has not followed
and this hurts everybody not just um whether they're for it or against it uh who who's affected
by that. They don't hold meetings. They send out a proposal, a request that they get a copy
of the proposal, they'll email their membership, and then they get comments. It all goes through
the president that concocted all this, and he sends questions to the applicant.
And he sends questions to the applicant.
They send answers back.
No one sees them.
It's totally not transparent at all.
But then he doesn't follow the sheet because he can't.
There was no meeting.
He can't tell you whether the 18 people that are for it live two miles away in Somerton
or the 14 people that are against it live within a block and got the letters.
And that's just a fact.
It is not a recognized procedure by the RCO.
It's certainly the summer in RCO, summer in civics, been there for longer than I've been in office.
And that's pretty long. So I just wanted to clarify that it's really the process that they're not following and what the implications are for both sides.
Because you don't know who they who's who's for, who's against.
There was no meeting. You never had any personal contact.
In fact, the Zoom meetings work with every civic in my district.
In fact, I think we get more participation on some of the meetings.
So I'll just put that aside.
Mr. Ward, I have a lot of respect for.
I know him.
He's a friend.
But when he stated that this is a single-family use, technically, you can call it single-family.
we call it an apartment and a mixed use of of commercial whatever it is and an apartment so
it's an over it's starting right there with the with the residential it's an overbuilt
it's an overreach whatever you want to call it but i can tell you that neighborhood is one of
the nicest neighborhoods in the city and certainly the nicest and highest priced in my district
Madam Chair, at this point
I'm going to object to the
councilman pontificating
on the characterization
of the neighborhood
let's stick to the facts
and the property
let's stop it
strike that
but not what the councilman said
we're not going to go back and forth like that
continue
Councilman O'Neill
madam chair i would object i i would like to present my case
councilman o'neill you may unmute yourself please
hi councilman o'neill you're still there you can uh sean when uh there you go i'm still figuring
this system out so the the entire corner this is right it sits on bybury but it's right behind
a strip of stores that is owned by the person that bought this property. He also owns a very,
you know, a larger shopping center across the street. It's all his own CA1. He's been there a
long time. Nothing bad to say about him. Just like I got nothing to say about Mr. Ward. This is not
personal. This is a use that's not allowed in any one of those stores that he owns, the centers he
owns, or any of the other uses right there in that Busselton and Byberry, and everyone that I've
talked to personally. Alice from my office who does zoning and L&I for me lives in the area.
She's talked to people. We can't find anybody that lives anywhere near this that is not totally
opposed to having a repair station on a CA1 property right behind by the same owner, forget
it's a lease, the same owner that has the stores on Busselton and the corner that reaches to the
corner on Busselton Avenue. So I would ask the board to deny this application. Thank you. So
that's a strong opposition from you yes i believe senator sabatina sent a letter i was told that by
him personally today um i have that in my notes he did and he is also opposed to it uh thank you
sean do you want to continue or begin of course i do i'd like to make my case before i was rudely
interrupted by the council thank you oh come on i know you guys are friends but this is not okay
Okay, but this isn't the first time he's done this.
I've known Brian for 30 or 40 years.
Sean, I'm going to cut you off.
Okay, I object.
Note my objection, and I will do what I got to do.
But let me present my case, please.
I asked you to.
Thank you.
So, again, I've submitted my exhibit packet to the board, as I typically do,
which includes all the required documents as requested and directed by the board.
We do have, in fact, the copy of a site plan, but let me first show you that this property
But let me first show you that this property is extremely unique in that it is zoned, split zoned.
So half of the property is CA1 commercial, and I again reiterate that CA1 commercial is commercial-auto-oriented.
However, auto repair is not permitted in the district.
The other half of the property, the smaller half, is zoned RSD1.
Therefore, the CA1, because it's a majority of the property, the zoning of CA1 carries.
So with regard to the property itself.
There are, this is Byberry Road.
I'm going to reduce this.
Hold on a second.
Okay, so at the top of the page, you would have Bybury Road running from east to west.
Can everybody see this, Carol?
I'm sorry.
Just want to make sure.
I can.
It's a little bit small.
Okay, I'll blow it up.
But I just want to know that this is Bybury Road at the top.
And then the property is almost a rectangle going in from Bybury.
So when we blow it up, you'll see that there are three buildings on site.
the two blue dots represent the single building
that we are referring to in our application.
The two red dots are not part of the application.
Again, this used to be the property occupied and operated
as Marvix Supply for as long as I can remember.
And I'm sure Brian, Councilman O'Neill would agree with that.
But we are limiting our application
to what we're calling, I believe, is building C.
I think this is building A.
This is building B, which was basically an open-face storage building
for lumber and building supplies.
This was probably the latest building constructed on site.
The front portion consists of a two-story building,
which has an entrance at the front and then there's another entry here. Over here is a
separate stairway access up to the second floor and as I recall that first floor was used as a
showroom type display area for building supply materials and then this is just a masonry
clearspan garage with two bay doors and a manned door dead center.
And we have pictures.
We'll show you that.
So we're limiting our discussion to this building here.
The application has nothing to do with the original first building constructed on site
for Marvick Supply, nor their lumber shed, as I would call it, in the back.
Anyway, so with regard to the – we didn't do a floor plan for the garage because it's basically a two-bay door garage with nothing else to show on a floor plan.
But there is a basement.
It's for mechanical and storage.
This is the first floor, which would be used as the proposed office for the auto repair shop.
There is a man door right here, which takes you out, and then you would enter into the garage.
There is no pass-through from the office building into the garage.
And then on the second floor is what is fitted out as an apartment.
The applicant, Yusuf, is going to be the operator of the auto repair shop, the office, and he's going to reside.
in the apartment above. So just for the board's view, this picture was taken just inside the
property line from Byberry Road. It's showing the street frontage of the building, which is actually,
you know, in all intents and purpose, the side of the building. This door would take into the office.
around this corner is that entrance to the upper apartment, okay?
So what is typically the front facade of the building
is actually the side of the building.
You can see the display doors, you know, the double doors entry
for the commercial office area, and then the apartment above.
Then you have, this is looking into the garage to the right, there are two bays for vehicle repair.
then you have this is looking into the garage to the right
And then looking to the left, there's also two bays, but obviously they have the lifts.
My client specializes in pickup truck repairs.
It's not a commercial vehicle operation.
It's all personal vehicles owned by individuals.
Behind the garage is a fenced-in storage lot for vehicles.
This is a photograph of the entry door, which takes you from the...
Going back, would take you from right here on the site plan.
and the steps would come up and turn you into the apartment.
Okay, so again, that's the stair.
This is the office area.
You got a service counter, you know, to hang the keys,
a lunch table, an area for the clients or customers
to wait for their vehicles if they are in fact waiting.
This is the upstairs apartment.
There is a bedroom in the back here.
There is a kitchenette room with a stove area, a sink, cabinets, refrigerator.
There is an existing bedroom on the second floor, an existing full bath.
I couldn't get a picture with the door, but there's a tub shower behind the door.
Here is an aerial view. Again, this is Busselton Avenue. The site consists of, again, Busselton Avenue running north towards Bucks County, Bybury Road running from east to west towards Montgomery County.
um a half a block in this is the across the street is the old pavio's plaza i don't know if
you know some of us remember pavio's restaurant catering home which you know was a
the place to go back in the day um but there again there's three buildings
okay so you have the building that we are talking about right here this is the original
Marvick Supply Building. And then this was the lumber shed
located to the rear.
Again, the property is split
zoned. It's zoned CA1 and RSD1.
Obviously, this building cannot be
reasonably used as a RSD1 residential
property, unless you've got like 18 Hummers that you want to park in your garage.
I would point out that we did meet with, well, not in person or a Zoom meeting with Somerton
Civic. However, Somerton Civic has adopted a program whereby in order to hold their meetings,
and it's well explained in our letter, that they ask the applicant to post a presentation
or provide them a presentation, which I did. And they then post it online. And part of that process
is the applicant providing a letter of notice
of the virtual presentation slash meeting,
and they afford all the applicants or all the neighbors
to provide questions, not just one session of questions,
but two sessions of questions.
So there's a first round, and then we provide answers,
which we did.
Then following that, there was a follow-up set of questions, which we responded to.
And as a result of that, you know, one of the things Somerton usually does is they ask us to agree to a prohibition on certain uses.
Adult-oriented mechanical or services, drug paraphernalia, gun shops, detention and correctional facilities, the list goes on.
I indicated that my client doesn't own the property, but he himself, as a tenant, would agree to not seek those uses.
not seek those uses thereafter it came down to in response to all of our questions whether we would
Um, thereafter...
agree to a proviso on the variance that all vehicles would be stored overnight would be in
the rear of the lot or within the building and and that any and all vehicles situated out front
would be for customer pickup as scheduled to that we agreed so you know in in the end any any
customer vehicle waiting for service would be parked behind the building and what i did was i
i gotta i gotta move this uh i don't know why my my thing's at the top of the page but
okay um no that's not the one okay so i i this this was not part of my packet but i i i printed
this up off of Google Earth. Again, here's the garage. Here's the office with the apartment
above. These two yellow lines here designate fences and gates. So the entire rear portion
of the property is secured from the public out front. And this would represent the parking
area for customer vehicles um if i can get to
all right oh there i got it okay um so again this is this is looking at it from bybury road
so you can see there's a fence here and there's a fence here this parking area out front um we
have agreed that we would not park customer vehicles waiting for repair out front so as
not to detract from Bybury Road, which is rather a pleasant sight when you're driving up and down Bybury Road.
The only time a vehicle will be parked out here is if, in fact, a customer is picking it up that day.
So they would move it from the rear lot, park it out front, customer would enter, pay his bill, grab his vehicle, and off he would go.
Okay, Sean, I am going to interrupt you. Is there anybody in the virtual audience who would like to testify? It's now almost eight o'clock.
Carol, I do have Yusuf, if the board's willing to testify, if he was called, he would verify my representations to the board, and he would adopt my representations as his own testimony.
Okay. Is there anyone else?
Vice Chair, we have Senator Sabatina. Would you like for me to unmute him?
Yes, I would.
Senator, you may unmute yourself.
Thank you.
Hi, Senator. Can you put your name and address, your name on the record?
Sure. It's John Sabatina, J-O-H-N-S-A-B-A-T-I-N-A. I'm the state senator.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed.
I just wanted to echo Councilman Brian O'Neill's opinion in that this is an overuse of the property and that, you know, that I'd be opposed to it.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Senator.
Madam Chair, can I be heard on one more point?
Oh, sure.
I would point out that for decades, this was a building material and supply company where contractors came in day in and day out to pick up lumber, drywall, screws, hammers, nails.
And, you know, unfortunately, that business, you know, probably due to Home Depot and, you know, Lowe's, unfortunately left us in or about 2012.
to to utilize or adaptively reuse a portion of this property for a small auto repair business
with the owner residing in the apartment above and using the downstairs as his office
represents a reasonable adaptive reuse of the property and will not create an adverse effect
upon the community um yeah i mean a building and material supply company has traffic all day long
um especially early in the morning and in this case that would not occur i can appreciate the
councilman's uh you know uh deference in trying to uh protect the somerton community uh i was born
I was born and raised in the far northeast.
and raised in you know the far northeast i was on the other side of the boulevard but
I was on the other side of the boulevard, but this is not an impactful use.
And with the owner residing on premises, he is certainly not going to want an adverse impact upon his neighbors
because he himself is a resident of the neighborhood and would not want that effect.
So I would ask that the board take that into mind.
Planning Commission.
Good evening, board.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Good evening.
Good word.
This property is indicated for auto-oriented commercial use in the comprehensive plan.
The proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan's recommendations regarding street frontage
the proposed uses are incompatible. The paved front yard does not meet with the city's
landscaping standards. Accordingly, we oppose the granting of the variance.
Madam Chair, with regard to the Planning Commission's recommendation, it's an existing
paved lot and we're not proposing any new parking lots and therefore I don't understand
why the planning commission would say that it's inconsistent uh with with the with the plan uh
we're not changing anything that's out front we're just here for a use permit and all storage would
be in the rear of the building in the fenced in new york thank you calendar number zero oh does
supportive any questions no calendar number zero no or two four six two six dash 30 bybury road my
vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
thank you that concludes the two o'clock hearing are we taking we're not taking any break right
unless we're getting tripled over time.
So I would just like to check with the court reporter
and see how she is.
How are you?
Would you like a break?
I would, maybe a five-minute break.
Sorry.
Sounds good.
No worries.
That sounds good.
How about 810?
Come back at 810.
Thank you.
Mary, I'm the vice chair of the zoning board
of Adjustment. I'll be the Acting Chair this evening, along with, let me say, Board Secretary
Confessor Plaza and Board Members Thomas Holliman and James Snell, Board Administrator Fatina
Owl, and Board Attorney Rebecca, I can't remember Rebecca's last name, Cole, okay, are also in
attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated 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 individuals, 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. This is available to the public on the web or otherwise. Third, for anyone
participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
then star six to unmute yourself. Star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. To enter an
appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and address of the
property at issue. The number again is 267-270-5548. Fourth, the question and answer box is not for
testimony. Any comments are to be directed to Ms. Tanya Sunkit or Fatina L. Are there any
continuances. Okay, the continuances I have are calendar number 1856, 1715 North 59th Street.
That will be continued. Calendar number 1562, 279 Grape Street. That is also continued.
calendar number zero three two eight four six oh nine hedge street that is all also continued
if you do have any requests for continuances or disagree with what i've read please raise your
virtual hand okay calendar number i'm gonna
Okay, calendar number, I'm going to begin the hearings, calendar number 1307-1127 North Lee Street, the attorney is Zen Jin.
Mr. Jin has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Mr. Jin?
Name and address for the record, please, and spell your last name.
Yes, Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia
PA 19103.
It's so late, I don't know if I saw you before, but do you swear for me to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I'm kind of at a little loss here.
I'll be honest, I don't have this case listed on my calendar.
I actually had it, I had the 5108 Haverford as the case we are presenting today.
So I don't know if we made a request for continuance on this.
If not, I would like to make one because we would not be ready to proceed.
Okay, calendar number 1307, 1127 North Lee Street.
This case will be continued.
thank you um and you know since you're on i'm going to go right to your case calendar number
1567 5108 haberford avenue yes thank you do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos plans five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and
Do you have a letter?
Yes to all except for the RCO letter.
We do not have a letter from them,
although we did meet with them.
I do believe that the council office
did send an email type letter,
which I attached with my exhibit.
Yes, she did.
And she is in opposition.
I don't know if Andrew Goodman is here.
he's not on the line last year okay and um mr jen the 44th democratic board achievability
parkside association west philly together all are opposed to this but their letter is not
included in the exhibits so you can go ahead and present your case thank you um i will go ahead
and share with the board the information related to this case if you could just bear with me for
one moment. Sure. We have all the time in the world. I understand it's a long day and
everybody's tired so I'm going to try to move as quickly as possible. Thank you.
So this is an application to use what is an existing
location which is zoned residential but has an existing commercial space on the first floor.
My client essentially wanted to open a store in the commercial space. He entered into a lease
agreement with the landlord and then realized that the food and beverages use itself would not be
permitted and therefore made an application. We did meet with the RCO. The main objection that we
found is that their feeling is another store which is a grocery candy type store is not what
the community wants despite the fact that the property itself really is a commercial style
building even as it exists. What you'll see is that it is already set up with the handicap ramp
and other parts that are related to the commercial use.
The owner actually, because it's set up as a commercial use,
the owner actually rented it to my client as a commercial space
when they entered into a lease.
So my client was not aware that the zoning would not permit the use itself.
And now he's kind of caught with the space already rented
and looking at inability to use it as the commercial space.
We totally understand the councilman's position
and the RCO's positions.
They're essentially saying that they feel that this building
at its location, I'm sorry, I'm going to use the pictures better to show.
They're saying that this building at this location,
because there are stores located up and down Haverford Avenue,
that a commercial use here would not be really consistent.
that a commercial use here would not be really consistent with what they would like to see.
And they just don't want to see more grocery store or grocery candy type store. They don't
feel that it is a benefit to the neighborhood. And they also know that my client owns another
store already nearby. And therefore, they feel that if he already has a store, why would he need
a second store? So it's a competition issue as far as they're concerned. So do you feel that
it would be beneficial at all to go back to the community. My client is here with us. I think he
indicated he does feel there are neighbors who already frequent his store that does support him.
We decided to move forward partly because I was unable to get updated information regarding
support from my client at the time that the exhibits were due. So we decided to go ahead
and submit. I don't know if things have changed. I think he is here with us. Maybe he can shed
light on whether a continuous would benefit him. Okay, because we also don't have a letter
from the 44th Democratic Ward Achievability Parkside Association West Philly together.
So on my own, I think I'm going to continue this case.
Understood. Okay, thank you.
Madam Chair. Yes, Tanya. Would you like to do a resumption?
Um, okay. That seems to be the best thing. Since it was basically presented and we just
need feedback from them, we can do June the 14th. Okay. That sounds good. I'm sorry. I'm at the
wrong calendar. Is that June 2nd? June 9th, I'm sorry. June 9th at 3.30. Okay, great. Thank you,
Mr. Chin. Have a nice night. Thank you. I just want to point out that the RCO may not be willing
to meet with us again, but I will update at the resumption hearing. Okay, great. Thank you. As a
final technical issue, I don't believe 1127 Lee Street should be my case if the board could
kindly look into that as well. So if you could contact me regarding that, it would be great.
And Mr. Zinjin, if I could request, although this is a resumption hearing and typically no
posting is required, I would request that we repost because of the nature of this here case.
Understood. Thank you kindly. Thank you. Thank you. Next case, calendar number 0116-2055
North 2nd Street. The attorney is John Griffin.
If I share, I'm not showing Mr. Griffin, unless he's done a different device.
Okay, I'll go to the next case. Calendar number 3225-2241 North 15th Street. The attorney is Alan
Nockamson. Mr. Nockamson has been promoted to panel. Good evening. Can you put your name and
address on the record and spell your last name, please? Yes, good evening, Madam Vice Chair,
members of the board. My name is Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N. Last name is Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, photos,
plans, refusal or referral five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter? Yes, in all respects. Thank you. You may proceed.
May I share my screen? Sure you may.
So I'm here to present, sorry, 2241 North 15th Street.
You'll see my traditional packet of materials.
We'll start.
Well, you'll see the deed.
The property is owned by Harry Hawkins.
He actually purchased the property, you'll see, from the estate of his aunt.
This property has been in the family since 1980.
His family, Mr. Hawkins' family, has lived in this part of North Philly or in North Philly since the 1950s.
So I'm going to go here, show you the deed that's owned by Mr. Hawkins.
So I'm going to go here.
I'll show you the deed that's owned by Mr. Hawkins.
You'll see after that the Certificate of Tax Clearance showing that Mr. Hawkins is in good standing with the City of Philadelphia with respect to the real estate taxes.
He just paid his tax bill. It was due last month.
After that, you'll see the Notice of Refusal.
So this is a RSA 5 property that's over 1,500 square feet, the lot size. The building structure is over 2,500 square feet. And again, this is an RSA 5 property. This property has been used as a multifamily structure since 1951.
Here, you'll see that what we're trying to do is really just restore the use of his previous use.
So the only refusal we have is for the use of the property.
We're looking to put three units in here.
We are looking to put an addition on the third story, but there are no dimensional variances.
Just a little background.
Mr. Hawkins, when he was much younger and his aunt owned the property, he actually lived on the third unit on the third floor.
so he's well versed in the fact of how small that third unit was and that's why he's looking to
expand it out. You'll see the proof that this has been a multi-family structure since 1951.
It was four units in 1951 and then when Mr. Hawkins' aunt took ownership of the property
she downgraded it to three units. So basically we're just trying to restore the use. We're not
TRYING TO CREATE A NEW USE, WE'RE TRYING TO RESTORE THE USE FROM THE TIME THAT HIS ANT OWNED THE
PROPERTY IN 1980. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I AM PROVIDING YOU WITH DIFFERENT ZONING PERMITS
SHOWING THAT THERE IS MULTIFAMILY USE ON THIS PROPERTY, 2216 NORTH 15 STREET, 2243, LET ME JUST
Street, which is right next door to us. And then also 2247 North 15th Street, which is
Oto Lamonte family. Okay. And you've met with the RCO? We did. And the reason why I'm just giving
a little bit longer presentation is that we did, it wasn't well attended. How about this? I'm going
to save time because I know everyone's tired. So this is what the RCO said, right? I'm going to
Look, we're going to read it verbatim.
So there were five people that attended, which I don't know if there were because I was at the meeting, but they said four were in opposition and one were in non-opposition, right?
Okay, and that's the Uptown Entertainment and Development Corporation.
That's right.
And they stated that the reason why they said the RCO and the developers met for an hour or so, and then the RCO committee deliberated for a bit over an hour, voting against this project in favor of the decision of the ZBA, which the ZBA hasn't decided, citing parking and trash concerns.
So just to address those, and you'll see this from the drawings.
there is no basement use in this property other than for trash storage
and for tenant storage and we would agree to a proviso in that respect we're not changing the
physical structure of this building there's a unit there's a two bedroom one bath on the first
floor two bedroom one bath on the second floor and then we're expanding out on the third floor
two-bedge and one-bath. But it's an unfinished basement. It's not connected to the first-floor
unit. All units would have access to that. And as we indicated during our presentation to the
community, that would be where the garbage would be stored. Also, there would be tenant storage.
But again, just to reiterate, we would agree to provide no living in the basement,
just so you understand that. So again, and just a little more matter of background,
the first floor unit it's like this is a family owned property this family has lived in this part
of north philly since 1950s his mom is actually moving into this unit the first floor unit so
this she's a 76 year old woman she's look she's retired he's he's putting her in the first floor
unit and then he has to rent out to the next you know the second and third units in order to like
you know make make make this sense have this make sense in the sense of how much money they're
putting into the property uh the continuing the letter from uptown they stated that there were
issues about parking again we're a block and a half away from north broad street where the
susquehanna dolphin street uh station is okay that's where people you know usually go in and
out from the city and there's a bus line as well so again this family is very well versed with what
This family is very well versed with what the situation is with regards to this property and the neighborhood in general.
this situation is with regards to this property and the neighborhood in general.
And we indicated that that's where people would take the bus or the train.
Now, they said this as the last sentence.
The greatest concern the RCO members had was establishing another precedent-setting shift that has the potential to displace local Philadelphia residents.
We're not doing precedent-setting.
This was a four-unit from 1951 to 1980.
After that, when my client's aunt purchased the property, it was converted into a three unit. All we're trying to do is restore the property to what it was ultimately prior to her death and ownership.
Now, so you understand, we did reach out to the community because, again, many members, this is an older section of the community.
Many members are not technologically savvy.
This was during a Zoom.
The community meeting was during a Zoom meeting.
So my client actually walked the neighborhood, and he got 44 signatures in support of this project, all with all either on the block that is, you know,
you know the 2200 block of north 15th street where he got 17 signatures or he got it on
sitaham which is the next block over but he got and he wants to put an additional floor on this
no there it's already a three-story what he's doing three-story yeah he's just expanding out
the third floor but there's no dimensional variances so there's there's no issues in
light and air that that's not even discussed in that and i think that's part of what the
community didn't understand. They're like, well, you're adding a third story. We're like, no,
there's already a third story there. And we're not creating any dimensional variances. So again,
we have 44 signatures in support within a one block radius. And I can read like it's in your,
you know, on the screen in your packet of materials. But 17 of those signatures
are of resonance on our block. So we really kept it tight. I told my client to keep it tight. We're
not randomly giving addresses out there i can read all the addresses they're all next you don't
have to we got it yeah yeah and then so does the board i have to interrupt you does the board have
any questions no is there a board where's where's my board no that was you tom right
did confess to say anything okay jim i said no earlier okay no carol yeah so this is very
impactful um for my client because again his mother this is a place for her to stay you know
and again it'd be devastating if they didn't get this variance i would just have mr hawkins you
know virtually raise his hand adopt my testimony okay have him do that now please yes
Mr. Ali please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
I'm sorry we were supposed to be getting Mr. Hawkins right Mr. Hawkins oh I'm sorry I
misheard I'm so sorry Mr. Hawkins you've been unmuted please uh wait for the chair
Mr. Hawkins can you state your name and address for the record
harry hawkins hi and do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do okay you may proceed mr hawkins you heard everything i stated today
is it true and correct it was true and correct and do you adopt this in your own testimony
yes i do now just again as an officer of the corps i'm going to keep this really
quick he does have his mom on the phone i think she's not technologically savvy but she's on the
phone and I would give a proffer that she would testify that she is going to be living in the
first floor unit and that her family has like lived in this neighborhood for almost 70 years.
Okay I'd like to hear from the Planning Commission.
Good evening Madam Chairperson and the Board. This is Mason Austin representing
Hi, Mason. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. Hold on a moment, I apologize. So the property is indicated for residential
multi-family in the city's comprehensive plan, but was remapped to single-family zoning in 2014.
Given the history of the property and the recommendation of the comprehensive plan,
the Planning Commission has no opposition to the granting of the variance.
Okay, calendar number 3225.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
Please, I'm so sorry for the interruption,
Please. I'm so sorry for the interruption, but we didn't get the community input. Would you like to?
but we didn't get the community input,
which you need.
I would love to. I always would love to.
Thank you kindly.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak about this property?
Please raise your virtual hand.
If we can get Tina Marie Russell on the record.
Oh, great.
Ms. Russell, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
we got one time Tanya
good evening hi how are you oh I've been on here like everyone else since this morning right
I know I know name and address and then I'll swear you in Tina Marie Russell 35 excuse me 13
16, I forgot my ass been lost. I forgot where I'm at. We are at RCO at 1631 West Susquehanna Avenue.
Okay, do you swear in front of me to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Okay, so this is a historically, I mean, if you look up and down this block, you'll see nothing but
mostly single-family houses. There is the one at the 2216, which has four different units in it.
I haven't validated whether or not it's legal or not legal, since it has four units. But basically,
what you're seeing on this block is single-family homes. This is one of our last Mohicans, so to
say of a traditional what Philadelphia used to be with single family houses. Our RCO is also a CDC
and it's our focus and our motivation and our mission as well as Uptown Theater which is the
coordinating RCO to keep this neighborhood as single family as possible because it fits in with
our 25-30 year plan and it also fits in with our mission statement as a CDC. I really don't see a
hardship to have so many units here for your mom to stay. I appreciate the fact that she wants to
move in. Her neighbor would be also not too far down. She's one of our older residents in a single
family block. She's 103 years old. And we appreciate that most of the people here are in
there in that age range. And we want to keep them in a place where they are comfortable. So I
understand that she wants to move back. But my concern is that if you look at the condition of
the house, it's one of the only houses on the block that has been left with no attention to
it over the years. And it's been a source of blight within the community. So our question has
always been, where have you been all these years? And with that being said, we wondered then whether
or not your the tent might not be what it is but we do want to support our neighbors coming back to
the community so you know we don't want to be in agreement with this project but we would like to
put some provisals in um just you know because i don't want to have a senior not come back to their
home but that wouldn't be nice and the fact that her son wants to um actually make a space and that
he wants to live in a space with us in that so you know I can understand that. I would like to
try to put less density to it because once the properties change to apartments it's stuck that
way and the next thing you know we have students and not and it's going to be more traumatic for
people within who's been living there of age. Great what are your proviso what are the provisos
you're looking for and actually i was actually coming on this call just to say no
so um we want i don't know uh and i don't know well now so so back to you and bring that back
to you alan well so tina murray like so we've we've had to delay this multiple occasions so i
would like i stated at the beginning you know we will agree to no living in the basement so that's
going to show that we're not trying to cram people in there we will well i'm just telling you i'm
just trying to state some reasonable provisos that will we will store trash in the basement
as well um but it's not my concerns i mean i hear you with the trash and i hear you with the
because we know how that goes those if there's nobody there's no property manager one day this
you know a bunch of students and the trash is there because again once the continuous grant
is granted. So we're stuck, right? So I'm trying to think of something that's going to be more
long term. Is there any way we cannot build additional to the property that why do we need
additional space? Because he's spending so much money just and again, just so you understand the
Because he's spending so much money just, and again, just so you understand, the reason why this property is in disrepair is Mr. Hawkins' aunt died.
reason why
That's why, so it's, you know, it's been a family-owned property for almost 40 years, but she died, and that's why it's in disrepair, and they do apologize for that.
But just given the amount of money that they're going to have to spend, they have to have the three units.
And again, the expansion of the third floor, there's no dimensional variances.
We're not trying to build up.
We're just trying to build that.
I got you.
They can probably spend money to repair the property, though, without adding on.
I'm sorry.
May I interject a few more?
There's a whole tree going out of the house.
I'm sorry.
I'm about to say that sentence.
If it's up to the chair, but would it be a suggestion if we maybe hold this decision waiting for two weeks for Allen to get a proviso letter from the RCO and then the board can vote?
That sounds fair.
That would be fine.
That sounds fair, Ms. Hunkett.
and if i could just suggest um mr um knockison this would not be a typical resumption hearing
it would just be a hearing for you to return in two weeks to state what the provisals are
the board can vote on on record and only put the provisals on that are agreeable by the board if
that sounds right. I'm sorry, Tanya, I saw you say something outwards here. I don't want to go
against the coordinator as well, because he put in a letter of denial, right? So I'm not trying
to go against him. I just think that we need a little bit more time to come back and have a
discussion, not just about provisos, but, you know, again, I have to, I don't want to go against
the coordinator so is there another way position is so that we can um just have this give me a
couple that those two weeks not just do a proviso but just to you know talk to the coordinator and
see if we can come to a different type of position yeah you think that would be fine
you're having an emotional moment and i understand that but i whatever you can do within the next two
weeks would be good and if it's only to come up with a proviso alan with you and the and the
development corporation that's good as well would you agree tanya
yes madam chair so today is i i don't even know what day we are it's april 7th i think right
yes so would that be miss sunke would that be april 21st yes we would present that at the
beginning of the listing um at the two o'clock well actually we're at the 3 30 listing the
beginning of the 3 30 3 30 just to put on what the agreement was for the provisals and the board can
vote at that time okay thank you so therefore this will be clear for me if we if the um the
coordinator still says he he stays with his his statement then it's still open for discussion
with the board right it can be voted on by the board correct i believe we have all information
and documentation that was presented so the only thing i believe that should be discussed
is the proviso but we have i'm not trying to be smart but we just have to move forward
so it's not clear so i'll send you an email for clarity then okay okay all we're doing on
on the 21st is getting a proviso so we're not going to take a vote you're saying unless you
come back after you met you've met with uptown entertainment and they decide that they're not
going to oppose it then that'll be something different okay so they decide they still want
to oppose it do we still take a vote yeah we have to take a vote okay yes i don't know i'm sure
sometimes i just like some type of exceptions like this i don't know so i just have to ask
So if we could, any other questions present to me offline, but I would like for us to move ahead.
Yes, yes.
And Ms. Sunke, I will email you this packet because I think there was something added to this one
that was not on the original presentation materials.
I'll make sure the board has it.
And thank you very kindly.
And as always, it will be discussed with Ms. Saleta so that we can present on the 21st
and be able to have the board vote.
Okay, great.
Thank you for your time.
Have a great night.
Thank you.
You too.
You too.
You too.
Is Attorney John Griffin here on 2055 North 2nd Street?
We already called that case.
I don't see him, Chair.
Is anybody here for 2055 North 2nd Street at all?
2055 North 2nd Street at all? Anyone?
Anyone?
Okay, so the calendar number...
Excuse me, Vice Chair, we have Sloan Folks with his hand up. I'm going to unmute him.
Okay. Hi, Mr. Folks. Name and address, and then I'll swear you in.
Good evening, Vice Chair Teneary and ZDB Warstone folks. S-L-O-A-N-E-F as in Fire, O-L-K-S, Office of Counseling Maria Keynes. I've been sworn this already earlier today.
Okay, great.
I'm just here. We received a letter of non-opposition from the courting RCO regarding
this various requests. So for the record, we are also going to go on record as not opposing.
We did not send the letter, but we want to put that on record now.
We will forward a letter, you know, if and when, you know, if it's resumed
or if this case is continued or however this happens.
Thank you so much, Mr. Folks.
Tanya, we'll just continue this case, correct?
That sounds good to me, Madam Chair.
Okay, so calendar number 0116-2055 North 2nd Street will be continued.
Do we have one last case on Algonne Avenue or do we already do that?
No, we do have Algonne Avenue as the last case, I believe.
Thank you. Calendar, and it's Councilman O'Neill's. Calendar number 1560-7810-20 Algon Avenue. The attorney is Gary Lightman. The exhibits were not submitted until 4.06 at 2.30 today.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
We discussed this at our executive session this morning.
The attorney that I have is Mr. Stamps for this, if he can be promoted.
He's been promoted already.
Hi, Mr. Stamps.
Can you put your name and address on the record and I'll swear you in?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Lyle Stamps from Lightman and Menacee here instead of Mr. Lightman.
1520 Locust Street, 12th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property?
five days in advance of this hearing.
And if you met with the RCO, do you have a letter?
All of those are yes, Madam Chair,
except for the exhibits.
Some of the exhibits were not received
by the board until yesterday.
And my apologies, as I expressed earlier
to the Chair on that.
Okay, Tanya, do we move forward with this?
Do we get a chance to review them, Carol?
i'm sorry professor did we review the i guess we didn't have a chance to review the records
we we didn't have a chance to review them yes actually sharon said this morning she did oh
she did oh sharon did okay and it was the call of the chair and frank this date earlier to mr
lyle stamps that we would go ahead and hear it okay present your case please thank you madam
chair and board and um we appreciate your your willingness to work on that i would uh
to briefly point out that almost all of the exhibits were already included
in in our uh submission to the board when we filed for the appeal um my client is alga galman algon lp
galman algon lp purchased the property at 78 10-20 algon avenue otherwise known as algon flats
And they have literally poured millions of dollars into this property to change it from a very outdated and frankly an eyesore to the community to the very nice looking and desirable place to inhabit now.
And they're simply seeking to put a sign projecting slightly off of their building that will be completely contained and over their property, not extending over a sidewalk or anything like that.
these are you know it's a lightweight banner pennant type sign they'll just be attached to
the side of the building um to say you know new apartments wow apartments something to you know
to say you know new apartments wow apartments something to you know catch uh you know the
community's eye so you know they can appreciate uh what my client's done for the community here
have you met with your rco uh yeah yes madam chair it was it was a little bit of a challenge but
uh we finally did manage to have the rco meeting uh they've submitted their letter of uh support
from all those that were attended there were no objections no questions and councilman o'neill's
office also submitted their letter in support we do know that councilman o'neill supports this
does the board have any questions no
is there anyone in the virtual audience who has questions please raise your hand
i see no handshake
planning commission um madam chairperson and members of the board
uh hold on sorry um although it was known for a single family residential i'm so sorry sir
could you please put your name on record absolutely sure uh mason austin uh speaking
for the Planning Commission. He's already been sworn in, Tanya. You may proceed.
Sure. As though it is zoned for single-family residential, the property is indicated for
multifamily residential use in the city's comprehensive plan and is currently in that
use. Planning Commission staff does not object to the granting of a variance for a non-illuminated
sign on the slot okay ready to vote this case calendar number one five six zero 7810-20 algon
avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes okay that's all thank you mr stamps uh this
thank you madam chair and board sure the 330 nightly seance carol what was the result of
uh the first case on the 330 list 1127 north lee street uh continued okay thank you sure
everybody on this thank you so