If we can get it another minute, let them all come in.
Chair, you're looking like it's good to go.
Okay. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing
this morning's ZBA hearings. First and foremost, we want to tell you that we're sorry for any
inconvenience, but Zoom is down citywide. With me today is Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And Ismail Shahid, our Secretary of the Board.
I'm here, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Zoning Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit is with us,
and Board Attorney Sharon Soleta. Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Please be advised these proceedings will be recorded. By participating, you acknowledge
your agreement to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting Board Administrator
Tanya Sunkett at tanyasunkett at phil .gov. Second, for the benefit of our court sonographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to ID themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third,
Third, if you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, raise your hand by pressing
star nine and then star six to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548, leave your email address and the address
of the property and questions.
That's 267 -270 -5548.
And finally, please note the question and answer box is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments should be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our board administrator.
So we're going to take a look at our continuances first.
In our list, I see number nine, MI 2021 -003189, 813 South 17th Street.
that's a request for continuance is there anyone in the audience that objects or has a comment
relative to that
here we have a miss sullivan
sure i can please oh mr state your name and spell it for the court reporter sure
uh liam sullivan l -i -a -m sullivan s -u -l -l -i -v -a -n do you swear a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do yes sir proceed and just to confirm uh this is
020305053 uh no which one are you concerned with this is 8 uh 813 south 17th street yeah i have it
is 003189 oh then it's my my apologies uh chair he's he might be referring to the zp rather than
the mi number if it is the same address it is likely the same case okay what what what would
you have sir what do you have for sure no problem so i'm an adjacent neighbor um and you know i had
spoken before the the rco about this particular issue and to start off um you know the the fence
was put up in a way. So here's what we'll do. Here's what we'll do. We're continuing the case
today. We'll make sure that you're notified for the next hearing. Okay. Hello. Okay. Thank you.
Sorry. Sorry. I was muted. Apologize, but thank you. Yes. Yeah. So we will make sure you're
notified for the next hearing. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Right. Any other issues
relative to that case no hands chair okay is there any other continuances out there that anyone wants
to bring up.
Bring up.
Chair, we have Mr. David Orphanides.
Mr. Orphanides, you can unmute yourself.
Can you hear me?
Good morning.
Good morning, David.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter and we can hear you?
Certainly.
Great.
David Orphanides, Orphanides & Toner, 2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
Thank you.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed.
I'm requesting a continuance.
In case number MI, 2021 -003189, 813 South 17th Street.
I believe this is the first hearing.
We were just recently retained following the coordinating RCA meeting.
That's the one, David, we already did that.
Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
I beg your pardon.
Not a problem.
Any other cases?
No hands, Chair.
I'm sorry, Chair.
If I can just ask if Mr. Orphanides is requesting a regular continuous or attorney moving party, just to be on the safe side.
attorney moving party please i thought so thank you very kindly thank you all right so we're
going to go to our add -on list mi 2021 003110 1705 the 13 north 7th street rco letter in support
counsel clerk's office letter in opposition attorney is sean ward ward he's coming in
now as a panel okay
mr ward could you state your name and spell for the court reporter good morning mr chairman
Sean Ward, S -H -A -W -N -W -A -R -D, attorney for the applicant. My address is 331 East Street Road,
Trevos, P -A -19053. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Okay, proceed, sir. Wait, I'm going to have Thomas Holliman, or could you please ask the
appropriate questions, Thomas? Yes. Do you agree to the reading of the refusal
DO YOU STIPULATE TO HIS ACCURACY?
YES, I DO.
WE HAVE RECEIVED DOCUMENTS, RICO LETTER, AND COUNCILMAN COST LETTER.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WILL NOW SHARE MY SCREEN IF ALLOWED.
Can the host enable me to screen share, please?
You should be able to, it should be like that green button at the bottom of your screen.
Yeah, I'm clicking on it and it's got a message host disabled participant screen sharing.
It will check on my end as well.
Thanks, Pauline.
in the meantime mr chairman i i apologize for last wednesday evening uh i i i spent the last
five days uh getting my computer um you know support came in and uh hopefully corrected
everything yeah you you guys felt my pain this morning um do you mind trying to go out and come
back in please on my end it's showing that you should be able to as well all right i'll be right
all right i'm back let's try it again nope still getting the same message host disabled
participant screen sharing okay um so if i could ask chair miss saletta counselor saletta sent you
all the documents um if you would allow mr ward to proceed if it's really necessary i can try to
bring it up but i'm trying to deal with some other stuff on my end as well so mr warden we
So, Mr. Ward, we do have the documents. Why don't you proceed?
we do have the documents why don't you proceed very good
Very good. Let me go to my documents so I can read off of them.
Yes, Mr. Chair, I represent Fence Development LLC as the developer.
Their affiliated company, 1705 -13 North 7th Street LLC, is the owner of the property.
Property is located at 1705 North 7th Street.
We filed an application for a permit for the erection of an attached structure for
use as a four -family dwelling. Resulted in one refusal, whereas multifamily is not permitted
in the RSA 5 District. Accordingly, we seek a use variance. That was A1. A2 is the ZBA
application of appeal. A3 project information form. A4 proof of ownership. A5 tax clearance.
A6 is a survey plan. 1705 was subdivided from 1705 -13 and that plan has been approved. A7 is
a site and floor plan for the new construction of the four -family dwelling at 1705. At A8 are
site and floor plans for a church which is located and has the address of 1713 North 7th Street.
uh that is also owned by an affiliated company uh actually the same owner and that that church is
currently being rehabbed and preserved uh but with a change of use adaptive reuse into 22 dwelling
units in that structure a9 are photographs of the subject property and street views
uh a a mislabeled but another a9 is the rco notice of meeting and notify address list
A10, as the administrator indicated, is the RCO letter from APMRCO by a vote of 10 to 3 in support
of the application. A11 is the district council letter in opposition, and I will address that.
A12 is relevant zoning for the properties. Again, pre -1933, it was a church in a vacant lot.
An application was filed in 2000 for a church and a daycare center. Again, 2001 church and a daycare
center. And then in 2020, the aforementioned 22 dwelling units for the church building on premises
B, which was granted as a matter of right. A13, the relevant zoning hearing for other properties
directly across the street on the property known as 701 -07 Cecil B. Moore Avenue is
uh permits rescued for the new construction of a 32 dwelling unit structure uh which again is
directly across the street a 14 is the zoning map a 15 are the aerial photographs so when it when it
comes to the use of this property given the fact that we have a 22 dwelling unit directly next door
and a 32 dwelling unit going up directly across the street uh we feel it's it's the change in
character and nature of that corner is such that to require a
single family dwelling to be erected there on would be
problematic for the for the property. And therefore, we're
seeking variances today. I'm not sure if the councilman's
office or the councilman was aware of those two dwellings,
multifamily dwellings being instituted at that site. So we
would ask again and basically his his opposition uh was drawn in by complaints from some of the
neighbors on that block um i i don't believe i believe some of them may have attended the rco
meeting uh certainly if at all three and um but the meeting was held in due course according to
the cba rules and regulations and the code and by a vote of 10 to 3 the neighbors present at that
that meeting voted in support of this application.
I have present with me today, Mayor Badouche, if he could raise his hand, and he could be
brought in to verify and adopt my testimony.
Sir, you can unmute yourself.
Would you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
sure mayor madoush m -e -i -r d -a -d -u -s -h do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i affirm see you council mayor you've heard my representations to the board
yes are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
yes they are and do you adopt them as your own testimony yes uh with that i'll turn it over to
the board if there's any questions of either me or the applicant we'd be happy to address same
Questions from the board?
questions from the board no mr chairman
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Testimony from the virtual audience.
Yes, Chair, we have Mary Jones.
Chair.
Counsel, could you state your name and spell for the court order, please?
Yes, good morning.
Mary Jones, M -A -R -Y, J -O -N -E -S, from Council President Daryl Clark's office, room 494 City Hall.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Proceed.
Yes. The Council President has submitted his opposition to this project, yes, based on, as you've seen in the letter,
due to complaints from the near neighbors about all the added density coming to the street.
The, as on council mentioned, there's going to be 22 units, 32 units, but there are also still homeowners and single family homes on the street and they're, so they do not want to see another multifamily unit just to pile on adding to the density and traffic concerns, et cetera.
um further the um council has not um noted a a cognizable hardship dealing with the land um that
um prevents them from complying with the zoning code as written and so the council president does
oppose the granting of this ordinance thank you not one experience mr chair if i could respond to
that. Thanks, Mary. I would submit that, yeah, we do recognize that there are single -family
dwellings on the block. However, they're all located on the other side of the church,
you know, moving up the street. And across the street, again, is going to be multifamily.
Next door to us is multifamily. So we would, in essence, be an island of single -family homes
stuck on the corner. And that's why we believe that, you know, the ability to market such a
property as a single family dwelling would be severely compromised, given the fact that
there's 22 dwellings to our left and 32 dwellings building directly across the street. So we think
it's problematic. And, you know, this property is such as that, this property is unique in that
It sits on the corner and it's going to be surrounded by large multifamily dwellings, and therefore it's unreasonable to require this to be used as a single family parcel.
Thank you. Other testimony from the virtual audience, please.
No hands, Chair.
Okay. Planning Commissioner.
Good morning, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Last name spelled H -E -G -A -R -T -Y.
Thank you. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Okay, proceed, Ian.
Thank you. Members of the board, in 2017, this area was remapped from RM1 to RSA5, single -family zoning,
and this was done in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan and with the support
of city council the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance
with the code criteria as the board is well aware the mere presence of adjacent non -conforming
properties does not on its own establish hardship the zoning in 2017 embodies an intent to encourage
single -family residential development on these blocks, and that was done intentionally and
partially in response to previous multifamily development.
So in this case, we're going to recommend that the requested variances not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -003110, 1705 -13 North 7th Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is no thank you sir thank you Mr. Chairman
MI 2021 003289 101 West Wyoming Avenue no RCO letter individual letters and support from neighbors
Stephen Sabuto attorney
And he's coming in now as a panelist chair.
good morning mr chairman good morning could you uh state your name and spell for the court reporter
please yes steven zafuto that's s -t -e -p -h -e -n last name z -a -f -f -u -t -o you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes mr holliman has a few questions for
you thomas do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy yes
we have documents that we receive rco letter and individual letters in support from neighbors
thank you proceed sir um excuse me chair i don't believe we do have the rco letter right you're
right uh was there an rco meeting yes there was a meeting in last month um i had some
communications with the rco liaison for esperanza and as of last week she had indicated that they
didn't have um they hadn't decided anything so i i guess if they haven't today then
and there's no objection
okay so why don't you proceed okay uh all right so i think i have a witness that should be on
via the phone line, as well as Mr. Kashif Jones, who is the applicant.
I believe he's in the video, in the video meeting.
So I'm just going to go through.
We entered a PDF with, I think, 14 numbered exhibits.
Just very quickly to go through.
There's one refusal.
I'm sorry, Steve.
you have it that you could put up please yeah should i share my screen yeah you should yeah
yeah i'm getting the same message host disabled
can you also please try turning off your video and then trying to um share your screen if i hit
stop video first um yes okay it's the same message same message okay i think it might
be an upgrade issue i'm going to check on that okay well it's the it's the same um packet that
that is in the pdf that was set out last week um should i just i guess go through it verbally
uh chair is just tanya if we could um allow him to go forward and i'm fine i can pull stuff up
because we like the virtual audience to see what's going on as well so i'll try yeah i can make some
references to the exhibits if if it's not practical then i can just you know make the references and
and you could be able to look at them you can continue as normal it's just the audience that's
not going to be able to see it okay sure so that exhibit one i guess we'll say a1 is the refusal
A2, the appeal application, we did not have a copy of.
We were retained, I guess, some point along the process,
so we didn't have a copy of that,
but I think that could be obtained.
A3, the project information form.
A4 is the lease for the property.
We, Mr. Kashif Jones is the tenant.
a five posting photos a six are some archive site photos there's a collection of street view
either google street view or the city's uh you know street view photos taken from the city's
database as well as gis images of the lot um seven photos of the property
eight is the zoning map nine and a current aerial photo 10 is the rco notice letter like i said we
did have that meeting last month 11 tax clearance certificate 12 are the nine support letters from
neighbors and 13 i have a and b a is a 1988 zoning permit for this property and b is the 2013 use
permit for the same property and then 14 we entered the opa's information for the property
so what i would like to do i want to make sure that so the owner of the property is named mark
eisen he has agreed to to testify as a witness today he is connected via the phone line what
What I would like to do is basically an offer of proof, read through some summary of his testimony and then have him adopt it.
What I would like to do is basically an offer of proof, read through some.
So if you could.
So why don't you have him come in, state his name and spell for the court reporter?
What would be the last four digits of the number?
Give me one second.
Five, eight, eight, eight.
Okay. And sorry, you can unmute yourself.
He may need some. Is it just pressing the mute button?
Star six.
Yes. Mr. Eisen, if you press star six, you'll be unmuted.
mr eisen
i see that he's in the in the meeting but i just texted him to press star six we'll see if
that works okay here we go hello this is mark eisen could you spell it please for the court
reporter? First name Mark, M -A -R -C, last name Eisen, E -I -S -E -N. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. Okay, I will give a summary
of this testimony first. So Mr. Eisen has owned the property at 101 West Wyoming Avenue since
1985 he constructed the there's a garage building and a trailer on the property he constructed both
of those um and in 1988 he obtained variance relief from the this board uh for quote erection
of a trailer parentheses for use as an office and parentheses accessory to auto sales lot on the
same lot as a garage structure, parentheses used for auto repair and accessory storage
and parentheses, end quote. And that is in what's provided at Exhibit 13A, that's that
1988 zoning permit, the application number 105204. The property was used in that manner
for for 25 years as auto sales uh in on the lot with the trailer used as an office and then the
garage building used as repair and maintenance for personal vehicles
mr eisen was himself a principal of the used car business during that that time he was very proud
of his record uh having you know not had violations from the city or and you know not
being the subject of of lawsuits from his clients and providing service to the community
just to quickly refer to exhibit six there there's letter numbered
photos included so six c d g and h show
different photos from the time that the property had been used
for this used car sales lot. So Exhibit 6C was from 2004.
D is from 1996. G and H, I apologize on the outline, it says they're December 16th. They're
actually from 2008, these photos. And there are street view photos that show what the lot looked
like at that time. Unfortunately, Mr. Eisen had a horrifying incident where he was held up at
gunpoint, had two guns pointed at him. He suffered symptoms of PTSD and eventually stopped running
the the used car business after that this would have been around in the early 2010s
around 2013 he entered a lease with mr humberto de la cruz for the property and um mr de la
cruz obtained a use permit in 2013 for personal vehicle repair and maintenance mr eisen was not
aware of this this application being made um i believe he said he had moved and did not get
notice. He didn't give consent for Mr. De La Cruz to run. He ended up running a tire shop on the
property. There were there were multiple city violations for the use during that time. And he
and Mr. Eisen himself actually was engaged in a lawsuit, did get a judgment against that tenant.
um was engaged in a lawsuit did get a judgment against that tenant um since that time i don't i
don't know exactly when uh the mr de la cruz um was you know left the property abandoned the
property was sometime around i think 2017 2018 since that time the property has been vacant
um excuse me this is sarin saleta so yes you are representing mr eisen not mr cruz no i
Sorry, yes, I'm representing Mr. Jones. I thought it made sense to put Mr. Eisen's testimony first.
Because he could testify to the historic use.
I asked only because the only proof of ownership that you, or an ownership interest in the property that you submitted was the lease, not the deed.
Is that correct?
Okay. If you are representing the tenant, that is fine.
Yes, that's correct. Okay.
um so so why do you have do you want to have your testimony adopted for Mr. Eisen is that
what you're saying um yes is that is that right Sharon
yes that's fine but also um since Mr. Eisen is not his client whoever his client is so why don't
why don't we bring your client on is that okay yeah sure so that my client is Kashib Jones
i believe he is in the in the meeting as well
mr jones you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr jones state your name and spell for the court reporter please
Hashif Jones.
K -A -S -H -I -F
Jones.
J -O -N -E -S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay, proceed, counsel.
Okay, and just to wrap up
the testimony for Mr. Eisen's part,
I want to make reference to
Exhibit 13A again, that's that 1988 zoning permit.
There is a site plan that's included in there.
It shows the location of the trailer, of the garage, and there's, I believe, 27 marked spaces for display of cars on the lot.
The lot is configured exactly as it was in 1988.
Essentially, that site plan could be used for this application.
Nothing else has changed.
um so mr mr eisen stopped using the property himself due to the incident but he has he has
since hoped to find a new tenant to lease the property for the same use that's used car sales
and repair and maintenance uh mr jones the applicant and mr eisen executed a lease in
April of 2021 for that purpose. Shortly after discovered that the tenancy of Mr. De La Cruz
apparently resulted in the loss of the used car sales use you know pursuant to the previous variance
and so now I would ask to have Mr. Eisen answer a few questions. Are you still there Mark?
Yes, I'm here.
Were you present for and did you hear my earlier comments?
Yeah, I did. And everything was correct, except for one clarification I'd like to have made on the record.
And that was about the garage. When I purchased that property, that garage had already been sitting there for many years.
I did not build a two -car garage.
That was part of the property when I purchased it.
And was all, other than that, was all the information I presented true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, everything was true and correct.
And do you adopt my statements as if they were your own testimony?
Oh, absolutely, yes.
Okay, and do you support this application being brought by Mr. Jones today?
i i i certainly do all right and if the board has questions for mr eisen he will be available
i don't know if it makes sense to do that now or i have a few questions for mr jones as well
money money move on with mr jones okay sure all right uh mr jones could you are you i guess he's
already sworn in he was okay mr jones you live you live a few blocks away from the property
And you're very familiar with the area?
When did you enter a lease, the lease of Mr. Eisen for this property?
When did you enter a lease, the lease of...
Around May last year.
Of 2021?
Yes. No, of this year, 2021.
And that's included as Exhibit A4.
So you knew you wanted to lease property for a used car lot, and what attracted you to this property particularly?
The intersection is a four -street intersection.
Also, the fact that it's me starting my first business in the neighborhood I grew up in.
And is the property set up specifically for vehicle sales use?
Did you know that it was a vehicle sales lot before?
all right and you um so you found out shortly after you obtained the lease that you would need
zoning relief to conduct used auto sales yes i mean you went in and had somebody help you
fill out the application yes i've
and and you uh i guess you engaged my firm after being advised by uh the rc the representative for
the RCO of the needs of bank council okay um since you added the lease what business have you been
conducting in the garage area uh doing uh mobile detail not mobile but detailing cars okay and
have you also been making improvements to the trailer and the lot in the property yes
Could you describe what improvements you've made?
Well, first it was just like regular things like cleaning, ripping down all the bushes.
Like it was like a lot of weeds growing around.
Then we remodeled.
For the most part, we're not always done, but remodeled the trailer, the office trailer.
okay and we have um in exhibit seven there are photos of the property taken recently
and you can see that the lot has been cleared of overgrowth the trailer has been repainted
and the interior has been renovated do you plan to make additional improvements if this
variance variance is granted yes there's a lot more things that need to be done
I just didn't want to, you know, start investing money into, you know, use car sales and I won't be able to sell cars.
Understood. Did you attend the RCO meeting with Esperanza last month?
And there were concerns raised primarily with parking. Is that right?
uh you you said at that meeting but could you explain uh how the proposed use would actually
alleviate parking issues along the frontages of the property i will be there to like stop people
you know and once people see that as a running business like as of now look kind of vacant so
people would just park anywhere but i'm pretty sure like once everybody see that it's an open
business they would respect the fact that you just can't park blocking car driveways and none
of the cars that's doing that is you know have anything to do with the car lot is more so just
people not not uh you know obeying the law when it comes to parking because there's nobody there
they just feel like it's vacant they can just you know okay and at the meeting um concerns were
raised regarding the potential for you to park extra in extra vehicle inventory from the lot
on the street why is that not a realistic concern because when you park right now
well for one is insurance purposes if you park a car outside your your garage i mean your lot
anything happen to the car they won't cover it so that's what the lot is for is for you to store
cars i wouldn't park on the street because there's no reason okay um after the rco meeting did you
did you circulate a support letter for this application with with neighbors yes did you
personally go door to door yes and that's exhibit 12 we have the nine support letters signed by
neighbors. Did you take some feedback from members of the
community after this RCO meeting and consider conditions or
conditions or provisos yes on the property okay and have we communicated those that you know
provisos on the property?
the neighbor support letters and the openness to the conditions to the rco yes
okay that's if you have um anything else that you'd like to say to the board
you can do so now. If not, both Mr. Jones and Mr. Eisen will be available for any questions.
Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
Excuse me. This is Sharon. I had one question. Can you, Mr. Zafuto,
describe what the suggested or requested conditions were?
um i don't know how much sense it makes but i think that we had discussed um limiting the
amount of of cars that can be displayed on the lot um and we would be open to a condition on
that i don't know that that would help really address the parking concerns but as far as uh
The previous used car sales lot, I believe the site plan from 1988 had like 27 car spots.
We wouldn't need to park that many cars in the lot.
I think that there's some flexibility, I think, as far as how many would be displayed.
So there's no specific condition that you would be asking the board to add a supervisor?
So. No, I guess we had discussed, you know, openness to some, but there was without the RCO feed, you know, the RCO has not responded.
So I don't. OK, thank you.
Questions from the virtual audience. Yes, Chair, we have Sloan folks.
Mr. Folks, you can unmute yourself.
good morning uh chairman bergman cba morning i would like to my name is sloan folks uh
office of councilman maria canada sanchez sloa any fs and fire oil chaos i would like to hold
off our response uh if just to see if there's anybody when you swear let me let me swear okay
okay you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do, sir.
Thank you.
We would like to hold our testimony just to see if there is anybody from the community that is present that would like to testify prior to our testimony, if that's possible.
You can.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience that wants to testify relative to this?
There's no hands at this time, Chair.
No hands, Mr. Folks.
Okay. Our office was available at the community meeting for this property. Unfortunately,
the coordinating RCO, Esperanza RCO, did not send us a letter. And unfortunately, we did not receive
any supporting letters for the VAERS request from the appellants. What we did receive is letters
in opposition of the variance request to our office.
We received three, actually.
I'm going to just mention one.
One was from the Feltonville Community Organization.
Their president, Maria Vivier,
she cited a number of issues that she had
with the variance request.
And she was at the meeting.
The issues include increased traffic congestion if the variance is supported, decreased residential parking, overflow parking because of the lack of parking when the auto retail opens,
use of the fire hydrants for detailing and auto services as being problematic, and that's
happening now. So while the RCO has not submitted a letter in opposition or support, our office
does have concerns um we would like to see the concerns addressed um we would like um to to know
what um mr safuto's we would like to know if they if the rco did have any um uh provisos and mr
uh provisos and mr fruto answered that as best as possible what they were but given those things
groups of people to answer that as best as possible what they
our office at this present time can't support this variance request thank you mr folks
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian eggerty for the philadelphia state planning
commission comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to cmx 2 .5 at this location
the present zoning is CMX2. Proposed use not permitted in the existing or the recommended
zoning district from the comprehensive plan. And members of the board, we have not heard any
evidence from the applicant's attorney that there's any physical hardship, unique physical
circumstances or conditions of this property. The structure that's on the lot doesn't prevent
a conforming development here or really limit the owner to the proposed use in any way.
And so the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the variance. If the board does decide to grant a variance here, we would ask the board to consider two conditions. One, that the use permit be limited to a term of three years, and two, that no body work or spray painting be permitted in conjunction with this use. Thank you.
MI 2021 -003 -289 -101 West Wyoming Avenue. I vote no.
Ishmael Shaheed, vote no.
Mr. Holloman?
Attention.
I'm sorry, I'm having a problem.
Fire alarm went off in my billboard.
is being verified okay can we get a vote for just this case and we'll pause for a minute
yes my judge is yes the fire alarm has been activated in this building
thank you thank you um so we need three votes
excuse me we're going to have to re -vote this case after another board member has
the opportunity to view the video.
It's been activated in this building.
Thank you, Kelly.
Can you give me a second, please?
Can you hold?
Do not use elevators.
Can you hold just a second?
While we're holding for Mr. Holliman,
do you think we can ask any attorneys
that want to present if they can leave
Zoom and come back in?
Because I made some changes to the account
and they might not take effect until people
come back in.
Okay, let me, give me one minute.
That concluded our hearing?
Yes, you're concluded.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Have a good day.
Thank you.
Pauline, you see my share, right?
Yes, I do, Tanya. Okay, so it is working. Good. Did you even go back in? No. Okay.
I'll see if I can get an attorney.
Why don't we call the next case and let Henry Clinton do it?
No, Chair, we have to wait because we need a full quorum.
Excuse me, Tonya.
Attention, attention.
Can you contact me offline?
Thank you.
Um, chair, I would ask, could we have a 10 minute break?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, Chair, this is Tanya.
We're on a 10 -minute break.
We're waiting for Mr. Hallamann's fire alarm to go off.
In the meantime, may I request that Mr. Zinjin be promoted to a panelist?
Mr. Zinjin, if I could use you as a guinea pig and see if you can share your screen because
we're having so many technical issues, I would just like to do a test with you.
And staff, could you please promote Mr. Zinjin?
Thank you.
Good morning. I'm going to go ahead and try to share.
Thank you, Zen.
You're welcome. Now, it's still saying host disabled participant sharing on my end.
Okay, Zen, would it be an inconvenience for you if you could just go out while we're on the break and come back in? I promise we won't discuss anything while you're going.
No problem.
so if you can totally go out of zoom and come back in and then we're going to see because
it's some kind of technical glitch that we're having okay no problem thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
Tanya, did he come back in?
Yes, Chair, he's coming back in now.
Hello.
All right, let me try again.
it's saying the same thing host disabled participants screen sharing okay well thank
I actually registered just to be sure, but it was showing the same.
you so much registered just to be sure but right it was showing the same
Yeah, we're just having some issues.
Thank you, Zen.
You know, I always appreciate you.
No problem.
My pleasure.
All right.
Okay, staff, can you demote him?
And Chair, if I could make a recommendation that we just move forward with the cases just during the presentation without the video, but again, it's always your call.
I think we have to move forward.
Thank you very kindly.
So once I hear back from Mr. Holloman, I'll brief you.
Okay, thank you.
Mr chairman glad to hear you thomas yeah uh sorry about apologize no you can't you can't do anything
about that thomas i'm back online thank you all right thank you tanya we are ready to go forward
chair thank you for your indulgence sure okay mi 2021 003 338 13 11 north 60th street rco letter of
support. Henry Clinton is the attorney. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Henry Clinton here for
the applicant. Henry, do me a favor, spell your name for the court reporter. Sure. Henry, H -E -N -R -Y,
Clinton, C -L -I -N -T -O -N, 1313 South 33rd Street, Queen Memorial Building, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Holliman has a few questions for you.
you agree to the reading and stipulate to his accuracy i do we did receive all the documents
and the rco letter thank you mr heilman proceed i'll try to share the screen okay it still says
host participant is disabled we're having a problem with that okay i'll just walk through it
so uh my submission package which was provided uh four or five days ago contains table of contents
AA through A10. I won't read every one since it's a matter of public record. I have the refusal,
which is, this is an RSA 5 zoning district, just this particular house. The rest of the block,
as I'll show you on the zoning map, is RM1. And the request was for a three -family dwelling
in this property. We met with the community on two occasions, and we downsized the application
from three to two at the suggestion of the community group. And in light of doing that,
reducing the count by one unit, there was a letter of support dated November 14, 2021.
There was a letter of support dated November 14th, 2021, in support of a two -family dwelling.
And that is attached with my exhibit package.
I have photographs, aerial photographs, which you can't see, but basically on 60th Street,
every property to the north of my property, and there's about, excuse me, of my client's property,
about 15 to 20, are in the RM1 zoning district.
I also have an aerial map, which is color coordinated, showing that on this particular side of the block, there are three and four unit dwellings already, about five or six on the block.
I also have photographs of three properties, 1329, 1331, and 1333, showing respectively that each one of those properties has two or three meters and three mailboxes on the front of the property indicating multifamily use.
I also have photographs of the interior of the premises. I also have a rough floor plan, tax certification. And what the key document really is, is the zoning map. And if you were able to see it, you would see that on 1300 block of North 60th Street, that encompasses approximately 18 homes.
Every home is zoned RM1.
And for whatever reason, my client's property at the end of the row is zoned RSA5, which
resulted in the refusal.
Had it been zoned RM1, I would not even be before the board today.
So basically, we have a change in use, not much of a change.
If you look at the zoning refusal, again, if you could see it, in 1964, this property
was approved for a triplex.
but again we're coming before the board with the support from the community simply for a duplex
my client is alan dotty he was on the call by phone but i don't know if he's still on or not
mr chairman excuse me mr clinton according to the deed the owner is a corporation sabog is that
correct correct sabog rentals llc and alan dotty d -a -d -i is the managing member of that llc
Thank you.
Mr. Clinton, if he's not on, will the testimony
is fine?
Yeah, I would represent that my client would adopt my testimony if he were on the call.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Testimony from the virtual audience?
no handshare planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city
planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing single family zoning however the proposed use is consistent with documented previous use of
this structure and with the rest of the attached structures on this block face the city planning
Commission recommends that the board grant the variance. 2021 -00338, 1311 North Sixth Street.
I vote yes with the proviso. It's reduced to two. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -003 -339 -2539 Grays Ferry Avenue, RCO South of South Neighborhood Association
has a letter of support.
Council?
good morning just uh state your name and spell it you're already sworn sure david orphanetes
last name is spelled o -r -p -h -a -n -i -d -e -s thank you thomas do you have some questions please
do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do we have
all of the documents including the rco letter thank you i proceed yep um we're here today on uh
2539 um grace ferry avenue um the um the property uh is located here you have a photograph at the
beginning of the exhibits we presented at the southeast corner of grace ferry avenue and
captain street um as mentioned we do have a letter of support from the coordinating rco the south
of south neighborhood association um they held a meeting on november 17th 2021 uh where we
They held a meeting on November 17, 2021, where we presented the application, which is to change the previously approved use of the ground floor, which was approved by a variance in 2017, calendar number 30494, and zoning permit 775636, which I'll show you in a minute, for the retail sales of food, beverages, and groceries.
and to change that use from that to a business and professional office.
At that meeting, as you can see, I guess I can't share my screen,
but as you can see from the materials at Exhibit 1 that I provided,
that the vote was 25 in support, zero in opposition, zero in abstention.
So we had full support of everybody who was at that meeting.
The refusal, which is included in Exhibit 2 of our exhibit book,
indicates that because the property has an RSA 5 zoning classification, which, as you know,
is a zoning classification for single family use, dwelling use, the proposed use of business
and professional office was refused as not being permitted in the district.
If you were to look at exhibit three of our package, you would see in the first a number
of aerial images and you would see that the property is located catty cornered across
craze ferry avenue from the vicinity energy plant which i believe is located at 2600 has
an address at 2600 christian street massive massive facility as i scroll through the remainder of the
aerials you can see that the area other than the vicinity plant is made up of a series of row homes
there's some further newer residential multi -family residential and single -family
residential development towards and on washington avenue many of those row homes as i would be able
to show you in our in our photographs at exhibit six of the block both on grace fair along grace
ferry and even a little bit on kimball street around the corner are used for non -single family
use um you can see page three if you were to turn to page three of exhibit six i have specific
photographs of specific properties on the 2500 block of grace ferry that are usually utilized
for three family two family even though the zoning classification if i go back to exhibit four
on my exhibit book show those properties uh to the i guess the south of us on our side of grace
ferry are also zoned rsa 5 single family to the opposite corner from us on the northwest corner
of grace ferry and uh and catherine are rm1 properties many of those properties are used
for non -single family use so you have a very extremely mixed block and mixed area immediately
surrounding the property, single family, multifamily, and obviously industrial use
right in the immediate vicinity. This property, I went back and pulled street view images at
Exhibit 5. You can see the history of this property dating back to 2007 when the property
was a boarded up or unboarded up vacant building. I include images, street view images from 2007
2007, 2009, 2011, 2014, showing the condition continuing, 2016. And then in 2017, my client
purchased the property and demolished that building. And you can see in the image here,
back in July of 2017, that blighted vacant building that had stood there for so long
have been demolished by my property or by my client. And then as indicated in 2017, he pulled
a permit that required a variance for the use of the ground floor again for the building that I
showed you that was recently, well, still on the verge of being completed by Zato's Construction,
which is a neighborhood construction company. The owners live in the neighborhood
um and they uh what they're they're actually going to be the tenants of the business and
professional office essentially they're like a family member that came to stay for a for vacation
and decided to stay um they while they were completing the construction of the building
they were not the original contractor the owner or my client john baird had issues with the
contractor uh that he initially hired to uh complete the construction of the project zedo
stepped in and finished the construction of the project. And while they were there,
And while they were there, they liked the property so much, they asked John, the owner, whether he might consider a change of use of the ground floor from the variance zoning permitted retail sales of food and beverages and groceries to the business and professional office.
they liked the property so much, they asked Jim
And that's what brings us here today.
And stepping back to the zoning map real quickly, I wanted to show you the second map that I show you, shows you the great number of corner properties that are used for non -residential purposes, as historically has been the case in our neighborhoods.
And this, of course, is a corner property. I've circled up further up Grays Ferry Avenue towards South Street, both the South Street market, which exists, has existed for some time at South Street and Grays Ferry, but also at Grays Ferry and Bainbridge.
soon after the permit was issued in 2017 that included the resale sales of food and beverages
and groceries, the giant heirloom market went in that project and that property actually that I
came to this board for. And it really made the idea between giant heirloom going in in 2019
before the construction was completed for the subject property.
And also the pandemic makes the idea of a retail sales of food, beverages, and groceries a hardship here.
And in our presentation to the community group, we indicated that the proposed use would be much less dense,
generate much less traffic, much less trash than would be generated by the approved use,
which is, again, the retail sales of food, beverages, and groceries. And for that reason,
we believe that the community group, that helped lead to the full support of the community group
for the application. My client has lived in the neighborhood since he was young. I believe he
might have even purchased his property from the woman who used to babysit him when he was younger.
My client, as I indicated, purchased the property in 2017.
I have included a copy of that deed.
Our tax clearance we've provided to the Zoning Board showing that taxes have been paid.
Here's a copy of the hearing notice that was posted at the subject property in compliance with the zoning code requirements.
You can see those exhibits are those photographs are included in Exhibit 14.
A copy of the zoning hearing notice is at Exhibit 13, and as I indicated, the deed is at 11, and the tax clearance documents are at 12.
Our 14 -303 notice, or the 14 -303 notice that was prepared and sent out in advance of the November 17, 2021 SOSNA Coordinating RCO Community Group meeting is attached to Exhibit 15.
sasa also requires uh notice that they uh that they prepare be posted at the property
and that was and here's a copy of that at exhibit 16 along with photographs of the posting of that
at the um at the subject property um again um i'm gonna quickly go to the zoning archives
which are Exhibit 7. And here's a copy of that Zoning Permit 775636, dated July 31st, 2017.
It's a little hard to read, but it does call for the complete demolition of the existing structure,
which we showed you photographs of, historical photographs from Street View, and then the
erection of the structure that you presently see there with residential dwelling units on the second
and third floor, and then the retail sale of food, beverages, and groceries at the ground floor.
Again, that was – that non -residential use was granted a variance by the Zoning Board, and here's notice of decision.
Again, that was issued on July 2017.
And so we feel that – and here's a notice of refusal.
There was a rear -yard depth refusal for this structure.
It was an irregularly shaped lot, as you can see both from the aerial images that I showed to you.
and um so we believe that the conditions that existed that warranted the zoning board
back in 2017 granting a variance for the retail sales of food beverages and groceries still exist
at this property and actually the hardship that warranted the granting of the variance at that
time maybe even more so now with the uh with the heirloom giant heirloom market that's gone in up
the street in the intervening years and obviously with the uh with the pandemic that we're still in
the middle of and uh for those reasons we would request that the required relief that we need in
order to have the zoning permit issued by the department of license and inspections be granted
by the zoning board if you're flying out to councilman johnson's office i don't know if they're on on the
It's your client out to Councilman Johnson's office. I don't know if they're on on the call
attempting to ascertain their position. We hadn't received word back from them directly before
today's hearing. So if they're here, obviously. Is your client client here? Yes. Do you want the
testimony adopted, please? Yes. He's he had a an appointment at the VA that he's waited four
months for. That's at 1130. But he I believe so he's not in front of a computer, but I think he
was going to call in and so i've john if you could um i forget how you're supposed to raise
your hand when you call in star nine star nine i've had somebody um tom yeah oh yeah use yeah
use tom please yes and he hit star six uh no we don't have a call in he could just be promoted
it so that he could use his audio yeah i have john here with me um on the phone he's going to speak
in john can you hear i can hear could you do me a favor could you state your name and spell for
the court reporter john j baird b -a -i -r -d okay do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth thank you i do thank you proceed counsel john i'm gonna ask you just
a couple questions john did you hear the statements that i made to the board today
i did yes and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes they are and would you adopt them as your own
yes yeah sorry all right i have no further questions questions from the board no mr chairman
no questions mr chairman other testimony in the virtual audience
no more hands here planning commission thank you chair bergman e hegarty with the philadelphia
City Planning Commission. Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map
change to CMX1 at this location. And so the proposed use is consistent with the recommended
zoning and with documented prior uses on this property. City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant the variance. MI 2021 -003 -339 -2539 Grace Furry Avenue. I vote yes.
thomas holloman my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you counselor thank you
have a good day and have a happy holiday everybody mi 2021 003 288 2601 south 7th street
Zin Jin, please. RCO Whitman, letter of support.
He's coming in now as a panelist.
Good morning.
Will you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. Zin Jin, Z -H -E -N -J -I -N.
that is 1617 john f candy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia apa 19103 here on behalf of the
applicant do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do mr holliman has several questions for you do you agree to the reading of the refusal and
stipulate to his accuracy i do we have received all of the documents including the rco letter
you can proceed. Thank you. I will refer to the index of exhibits we have submitted with the
application for this presentation. One of the first exhibits is the refusal. As shown on the
refusal, this property is zoned RSA 5 in the comprehensive plan. However, we are proposing
the use for a takeout restaurant with retail sale of food beverages and groceries. The reason that
my client feels that this property is fit for this particular use is because it's historically
been used in this way. If you look at Exhibit 2, the RCO is also in support. As Exhibit 3,
we have attached an extensive neighborhood petition in support. Part of the reason the
neighbors are so strongly in support of this use is because this property historically has been
used this way. And for the most part, it is already set up as such. The photographs we have
at the exhibit four, I'm sorry, exhibit five shows that the property is actually
I'm sorry, Exhibit 5 shows that the property is actually already set up.
I'm sorry, I want to correct myself.
That is Exhibit 4.
It is already set up as a commercial space and would be basically continue to be used in a similar format to what it was used before.
My client intend to certainly renovate the space and improve it and continue to use it as a grocery with hot food takeout, essentially qualifying it as a takeout restaurant.
The plans are at Exhibit 5, and it shows the layout for the first floor.
We have no particular changes to the upper floors. This is simply to allow the first floor to be used as the existing grocery with hot food takeout that it was before.
So with the neighborhood support and also with the hardship of a pre -existing non -conforming condition, we would ask the board favorable review of this application.
Do you have your client with you?
Yes, I believe Mr. Charles Williams should be with us.
Mr. Williams, can you click on the raise hand feature to be identified?
Mr. Williams, you can unmute yourself.
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Charles Williams, that's C -H -A -R -L -E -S.
Williams, W -I -L -L -I -A -M -S.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Council?
Thank you.
Mr. Williams, did you hear my presentation to the zoning board?
Can you verify that what I represented is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the single -family zoning here.
However, the proposed use is consistent with documented previous use of this structure.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance.
Thank you.
2021 -003 -288 -2601 -2601 South 7th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Heileman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -003 -025 -3344 Tilton Street, we have no exhibits, this is the first listing.
Vieta Urban
Chair we have
a Greg Urban
state your name
and spell it please
are they unmuted
they're unmuted chair can you state your name and spell please for the court reporter
okay this is the first listing we have no exhibits at all that we see i'm great can you speak
hello you're unmuted can you speak
okay chair we can go for it we're for continuance with this let's continue that must be tried the
next time yeah mi 2021 003343 hello yes hi i'm sorry something happened uh yes my name is gregory
urban um i'm gonna try to represent myself uh with that i'm sorry wait a minute wait a minute
wait a minute we we have no exhibits did you send in your exhibits yes i didn't i didn't know i have
i thought i had sent everything but uh after all these cases i realized that uh i should send it
again because i remember on the very beginning when i applied for permit wait a minute wait a
minute but the thing is this we don't have your exhibits now okay so we're going to have to keep
in this case we're continuing it must be tried the next time okay okay thank you all right thank you
okay thank you all right thank you let me go back MI 2021 -003 -343 -4827 A Street
let me go back
RCO 42nd Ward letter of support
Thomas Lockwood
and he's coming in now as a panelist here
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
so you can unmute yourself okay
How are everybody doing?
Could you state your name and then spell for the court reporter?
My name is Thomas Lockwood.
Spelled T -H -O -M -A -S, last name L -O -C -K -W -O -O -D.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
All right.
Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
We did, yes, we did receive all the documents and the RCO letter, so you can proceed.
Okay. So, I'm here to represent myself for the single family. I'm trying to change it to a duplex.
um i purchased this house in august um it was um semi demo so i pretty much just had to clean it
out once i cleaned it out um so i thought if i'm going to redo the whole house um to maximize um
the space in it um if i can do zoning to make it into a duplex so that's why i'm here and i'm hoping
that um y 'all can approve of me for um a duplex okay um
you went to the rco meeting yes um we went to the rco meeting they um they sent me an approval
letter for that also um on everything that um y 'all told me to send in i sent everything as
as the refusal letter from L &R, the application that I sent for the RCO, I mean, for the ZBA,
sent, I have also a tax clearance certificate for me. The letter that they, from the RCO,
they did approve they said they support me also I also sent pictures of the outside of the house
and inside of the house just after I cleaned it up and I'm over you can see it the first floor
and the second floor a lot of the walls the stuff was majority the house was the way I looked but
it just was like the demo stuff that was in there so I pretty much how looking at I just clinked
everything out. And so what I do, what I planned on doing is when I put everything back together,
I was planning on just making it to a duplex. There are, as I was on hand hearing everybody
else testifying, I wish I would have, it's two other properties next to me that are duplexes
already. I think it's 30, I think it's 29 and 31. So that's what gave me the idea. I don't know if
They went to zone on the wet, but it do have the mailboxes do have two meters on each of the properties and it's one other one damage further down the street to have two meters in the mailbox set up and everything.
So that's why I was hoping I can have support from y 'all to making this a duplex also.
Questions from the board.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
question or testimony from the virtual audience yes chair we have sloan folks
mr folks you can unmute yourself
morning chairman bergman zba board sloan folks office of councilwoman maria keyona sanchez
from 508 city hall i've been sworn on already do me a favor spell your name again yes
S -L -O -A -N -E, folks, F -S -A -F -I -R -O -L -K -S.
The applicants, having met with the coordinating RCO
and having received a letter of support,
the Councilwoman offers no opposition to this various requests.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comments from the virtual audience?
no more hands here planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty from the philadelphia
No more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you.
city planning commission staff members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change
from the existing single family zoning at this location and on this entire block
we really haven't seen any evidence of a hardship here there's no unique physical circumstances or
conditions of the property um the only thing that we've heard from the applicant is that uh
he's renovating anyway and he thought it might be good to have two units i don't think that that's
a hardship the city planning commission recommends that the board deny this variance
mi 2021 003 343 48 27 a street i vote yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my bonus yes as well thank you mr lockwood thank you have a good holiday
mi 2021 003188 6637 caster avenue rco take back your neighborhood letter of non -opposition
zen jenny
good morning just state your name again zen yes zen jen z -h -e -n -j -i -n here on behalf of the applicant
so i um again this is an application that was uh forwarded just just a minute this is
do you agree to the reading refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do we did receive all the
documents, so please proceed. Thank you. I will refer to the index exhibits. Number one is the
refusal. This is an application in the CMX1 district on Caster Avenue, 6637 Caster Avenue,
whereas the proposal is for a takeout restaurant that is normally not permitted in CMX1. However,
Castor Avenue, particularly at this portion of the location, is predominantly commercial in nature.
In fact, if the board would reference the photographs of the property, you can see that we actually have a restaurant on either side of this business already.
Because of such, the community understands that this use is very consistent to what is in the neighborhood and is not out of place.
In addition, we have both a rear access as well as ability to have drop -off not come off of Castor Avenue, making this space perfectly viable for the intended use.
The plans show that the proposal is to upgrade what is currently approved as a seafood business into cooking the seafood and presenting it to the community.
That is actually due to customer request.
As a result of the need for the hot cooking, as well as the function of the location where it is in the neighborhood, we would ask for the board's favorable review of this matter.
Is the owner here?
Unfortunately, I do not believe he is.
Mr. Lee was traveling this morning and had difficulties getting on Zoom.
You're an officer of the court.
We'll take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Testimony from the virtual audience?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission, please.
Thank you for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to CMX 2 .5 at this location in keeping with the referenced commercial nature of this corridor.
The proposed use would be permitted by special exception under that recommended zoning, just for the Board's information.
The proposed use is also broadly consistent with the commercial nature of Castor Avenue, and the building is a commercial structure.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -003 -188 -6637 Caster Avenue.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
MI 2021 -001 -115 -7037 Ogance Avenue.
RCO 10th Ward Democratic Committee.
Letter of Opposition.
petitions from nearby neighbors in opposition um the attorney for the property please
Um, the attorney for the property, please.
Chair, the attorney is Shoshana Bricklin.
And she's coming in now as a panelist.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Hey, ma 'am, you're still muted. Just unmute yourself.
Shoshana Bricklin, S -H -O -S -H -A -N -A. The last name is Bricklin, B -R -I -C -K -L -I -N.
I'm the attorney for the applicant for this property 7037 Oguns Avenue I guess
we're not going to be displaying Miss Bricklin do you swear to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do could you just hold on
one moment please I need to mute myself
Thank you. There was some background noise and I was sure. Sure. Okay. Mr. Holman has a few questions for you. Do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
We did receive all of the documents and RCO letter.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
This is a request for a permit to change the, to have a smoothie takeout operation at the corner at 7037 Oguns Avenue.
This property is at the corner of and is part of a commercial corridor, which is right up the street.
And if you look at the last pictures of this in the packet, you will see the aerial view that shows exactly where this property is located.
Um, at the end, it's right at the edge of a strip mall where the DMZ, um, Ogance Avenue, um, Department of Motor Vehicles is. There's this, there's a wine and spirits store. There are commercial properties across the street as well.
Um, we are asked, the applicant is asking that, um, he'd be allowed to operate this, um, this
takeout smoothie, um, smoothie operation in, in the property. Um, the property, you will also see
the property, the, the picture two above the, the picture two before the aerial view will indicate
that this property is always, has been, has physically been created to have a commercial
space. My understanding from the history that I was, is that this property has been used
commercially for many, many years. And so we are asking that this continue to be, that the
applicant be allowed to operate this operation, this smoothie operation, health food,
um drinks and um in this property i'm happy to answer any questions the applicant was here
earlier but he had to leave um as well given all of our we will take your testimony as an
officer of the court thank you very much board questions yes mr chairman will there be a takeout
window there will only be a takeout window it is not an in -person um operation there will be no
seating as at any point thank you any other questions from the board no seating inside nor
outside correct no seating inside or outside absolutely questions or comments from the virtual
audience yes chair we have hillary emerson miss emerson you could unmute yourself
good morning mr chair members of the board hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman
sherelle parker e -m -e -r -s -o -n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed thank you um mr chair the councilwoman um joins the community
in their opposition to this proposal um while ogance avenue does have a significant amount of
commercial uses on it the block that this property um is the corner of is actually a residential row
house block. It also is adjoining to other residential blocks.
It also is adjoining to other residential blocks in this immediate area.
There's also a church on the same side of Ogons, but across the street.
There has been commercial history in the past with this property and this ground floor.
However, it was significantly lower impact than a takeout establishment.
Other uses were a real estate office and a tailor shop, uses that would be during normal
business hours.
And those hours and days of operation, which were discussed at the community meeting, was
one of the many concerns that the community raised and was also a concern to our office.
The applicant had proposed being open seven days a week.
The community was concerned with having the takeout window, that there'd be trash and loitering.
The applicant proposed that the business would be seasonal.
However, takeout doesn't have to be limited to smoothies and ice cream, as he suggested.
It could be expanded.
So there was concerns about that, that it could be expanded to other food items.
There was a concern raised about parking.
The church across the street that I mentioned does not have parking, so parking can get tight there with all the residences and then the church use.
Also, the street that you turn off of Ogon's Avenue alongside the street, 71st Avenue, is a one -way street.
So there are concerns about people going the wrong way on that street.
and I received a call from a former block captain this morning who still lives on that block telling
me that people tend to speed down Ogons and make sharp turns onto 71st Avenue in a very
in a very dangerous fashion. There were also concerns discussed and raised at the meeting
about the property not being kept up well currently. The owner at the time admitted
that he was not visiting the property as regularly as he should. He also leased it to another tenant
previously who had started to set up a barbecue establishment before he realized and was cited
by the city for starting a business without having the proper zoning and permits and licenses in
order. Lastly, I would like to note that we don't believe there is a hardship. In this case,
There are other uses possible here, and the community had also, I've had a couple community
members suggest to me that it might actually be more appropriate to turn this former commercial
space into a residential dwelling unit, given the residential nature of this section of
Ogons Avenue.
And I believe there may also be other community members who are present who would like to
speak.
I know they were, at least one of them was trying to get on this morning.
I do not know if he was eventually successful in getting on.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any other community members in the virtual audience want to make comments?
Yes, Chair, we have Walter Butler. Mr. Butler, you can unmute yourself.
Yes. Good morning. Could you do me a favor, state your name and spell it for our court reporter?
Yes, my name is Walter Butler, W -A -L -T -E -R -B -U -T -L -E -R.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, sir.
Okay. So this property is zoned RSA5, which is residential.
There are commercial properties across the street.
there's a shopping center across the street um there's a lot of traffic in the area
uh we feel concerns with the traffic going on with the elderly crossing the street just trying
to minimize as much traffic because they'd be flying through their left and right and we just
fear for our neighborhood also we are concerned with the integrity of the community itself uh
being a residential area and not changing that particular block or structure to a commercial unit in any fashion.
That's basically what I wanted to say.
I mean, again, you know, we make the suggestion of converting the property to a studio or a single apartment building instead of a smoothie shop
or any other food or services thank you thank you for calling in mr butler is there anyone else who
has a different viewpoint or wants to offer a different uh comments would you like to um
comments. Would you like to, Mr. Chair, would you like any response from us? Well, I thought maybe
let me see if there's anybody else and then I'll give you a chance to respond. Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else? Council respond. Nope. No more hands, Chair. I'm sorry.
counsel uh thank you mr chair um this property as was stated has been used commercially
for many many years the owner of this property first of all i don't think it is um appropriate
to to penalize the owner of this property for past illegal use of the of the space um by way of the
barbecue, I think was mentioned, a barbecue operation. The owner plans to not have this
in operation any more or any less than the adjacent strip mall, which is really basically
right across the street from that, as close or maybe even closer than the church.
Because of the nature of the business, a smoothie operation, the anticipation would be
that there will be a lot of walk -in traffic, not parking. So I think that the parking issue is
not really dispositive in this nature. As the community has also talked in their letter,
mentioned something about trash. The nature of a smoothie operations is very minimal trash.
There's a cup and there's a straw. This is a takeout business with no seating and no indoor
um indoor operation and uh there apparently there has been no problem with this there's a strip mall
that has a wine and spirit store there i don't think that there's been an issue of loitering
and that kind of and and that kind of behavior at all and we think and believe and the other thing
is that the city has an open maps app i believe i have it someplace i don't think of course we
can't share that, which really shows that this property is wrapped around into that commercial
corridor. It is very much consistent with the area. And physically, it would be a hardship
to make this into a residential unit in that it has never really been a residential unit. It has
always been a commercial property. And let me just see if there was anything else.
And for those reasons, we would very much ask for this variance to be granted.
Thank you for your comments.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single -family zoning on this property.
we do think that the existing structure presents a hardship for single family use given its
configuration to include a ground floor commercial space however we agree with the council member
that the proposed use represents a greater overall impact than the documented previous uses on this
space if we're using that as a baseline and so the city planning commission would recommend that the
or deny the variance for this use thank you and mi 2021 -001 -115 -7037 ogons avenue i vote no
thomas holliman my vote is no ishmael shaheed my vote is no thank you
mi 2021 00027 9201 busselton avenue leo mulvihill no rco letter if yes would
provide those as per amended refusal dated 8 18 21. mr mulvihill
good morning chairman members of the board
leo mobile on behalf of the applicant and just to correct the record we received a rco letter
of support very early this morning from the sorry mr mobile could you please spell your name on the
record please of course m as in michael u l v as in victor i h i l l do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do answer a few questions for mr holliman
please yes do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy as amended
yes some some documents are missing but you can proceed yes the one document that we did
Yes, the one document that we did have missing was the RCO letter. Members of the board, I received a copy from Jack O 'Hara this morning. I believe it was copied to the zoning board itself. It is a letter of support from the client's proposed use.
had missing was the RCO letter, members of the board.
Mr. Mulvihill, this is Sharon Saleta. Can I just ask that you forward a copy of that letter to me after the hearing so that I have it for my records? Also, one more question.
to the RCO box. Thank you. Yes. Also, can you confirm that you submitted revised plans, but I believe those plans were the same plans that were reviewed by L &I in the amended application. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so they do not need to be stamped by the board. Thank you. Excellent. So members of the board, I have submitted my packet for purposes of the record. I just will review that as a refusal appeal project information form on page one.
Area zoning maps at 6, my client's lease at 8, commercial activities license at 11, tax clearance
certificate at 12, zoning notification letter and proof mailing at 13. The RCO letter is now
attached to Exhibit 7. I have photos of the property page 16 and plans beginning at 32.
So members of the board, this is relatively straightforward. The existing structure at this
location is a temple. There is space inside that had previously been used for a daycare.
my clients sought to get a zoning permit for use as a daycare, including a freestanding
accessory sign, which is along Boston Avenue. The daycare itself is meant for younger children
that's not going to be open for 24 hours or anything along those lines. However, this is
zoned a residential district despite being a house of worship with this attendant daycare.
And as a result, this daycare is not allowed in this zoning district. Same thing with our proposed sign. It's not allowed in this zoning district, even though there's already a sign for the temple there as well, right across from where our proposed sign is located.
So this is located in the middle of an RSA 2 district, members of the board.
What I'll do is, since I've incorporated my packet already, with the exception of this letter, I'll just read part of the RCO meeting summary letter that I received today into the record.
Greater Baselton Civic League sent a letter dated December 15, earlier this morning.
There is an RCO position of support.
22 meeting attendees supported the project.
none opposed, and there were none who abstained or otherwise in non -opposition. The rationale for
their position was that the community supported the variance request for the use change to the
daycare center from RSA 2 Residential Zoning District and for that freestanding sign. That
was signed by Jack O 'Hara, the president of the Greater Busselton Civic League. My client,
Ms. Benita McFadden, may be on the line right now. If that's the case, I would just ask for
to unmute and to adopt by testimony as her own. The hardship in this case is essentially members
of the board. If this daycare were affiliated with the temple, then my understanding is we
wouldn't even need a variance, but because it's a separate entity, it's a separate business
structure, we are asking for the variance, and there's plenty of space inside the building for
use of this and has been used previously, to the best of my understanding, as a daycare center as
well. So, Ms. McFadden, if you are able to unmute yourself, would you please do that at this time?
Yes, I am here.
Great. Ms. McFadden, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, my name is Benita McFadden. That's B like boy, E -N -I -T -T -A, McFadden, M -C -F as in Frank,
A -E -D -D -E -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Good morning, Ms. McFadden.
I know you can't see the documents that I prepared and sent it to the board, but I know you've seen them previously as part of our presentation to the community group.
Do you agree that all those documents are true and accurate?
And you've heard my testimony with respect to the community meeting, and although you did not receive a copy of that letter, was my testimony true and accurate with respect to that meeting?
Is there anything else you'd like to add at this time?
Okay. Ms. McFadden, you otherwise adopt all of my testimony today as your own.
Thank you, Ms. McFadden. I don't have any other questions for you.
Questions from the board, please.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Any testimony from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Bernard.
Bernard you can unmute yourself yeah can you hear me yes could you state your name
and spell it for the court reporter please Bernard Jadach J -A -D -A -C -H okay do you swear
Okay. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes
Yes. I'm the zoning chair for GBCL, and I just wanted to confirm the letter that he stated that we did send a letter.
Unfortunately, it was only sent this morning, and everybody wasn't sent it in advance.
I have to apologize for that, but I just wanted to confirm that it was a letter we sent.
Thank you for calling in, sir.
any other comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have temple best
okay could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
i think it's me um kenneth harrison i am the chairman of the board of do me a favor could
Would you stop a minute and spell your name for the court reporter?
Kenneth, K -E -N -N -E -T -H, Harrison, H -A -R -R -I -S -O -N.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir.
Counsel?
I am counsel.
I am the chair of the board and counsel to Temple Bethlehem Synagogue.
I am, you know, I'm here to say we support this petition.
we are the owners of it anything i want to correct is you keep calling it bustleton avenue is
actually old bustleton avenue thank you um and if anyone has any questions about the site i'm here
for it we have had a daycare there since mid -1980s i was on my way so thank you for calling in sir
we appreciate it very much planning commission
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 2 zoning at this location. The structure
has a legal religious institution use that's well established. With regard to the refusal for use
as a daycare center, this proposed use is regularly associated with religious assembly
and could be considered a logical extension of community service associated with the existing
use. With regard to the refusal for a freestanding sign, we would oppose that particular variance,
but support the variance for use of the structure. MI 2021 -00027 -921 -Ole -Bustinton Avenue.
I vote yes, but no sign. Excuse me, Chair, if you could also add the proviso as per
thank you members of the board if i just may if i may retort to mr hegarty's position
uh the sign itself is relatively small it's freestanding in the opening driveway of the
temple itself the temple and the synagogue itself does have its own significantly larger sign it
this is merely to denote the difference between the fact that there is a religious institution
there and also a daycare services center now if we were able to screen share today i'd be able to
show you the dimensions and the size of the sign. It's not particularly onerous or large,
and it's actually located in some landscaping, some hedges around it. So it's not directly on
the street. It's located quite off the street itself. Mr. Haggerty, you still have the same
position. Yes, we do. We don't believe that the applicant has demonstrated there's a hardship
that's preventing them from not having the sign. We don't think that the sign is necessary for the
um to for economically necessary for having this use in this location okay so i i vote yes
and and uh to put the proviso no sign thomas holliman my vote is yes with no sign and provisos
dismal shaheed i vote yes no sign proviso thank you very much mr mokal thank you members of the
board. Have a good afternoon. And Ms. Saleta, I did send that letter to you moments ago.
Tanya, I think that's it. We want to check with the audience if there's anybody left in the
virtual audience that wasn't heard today. Yes, Chair. Thank you. Anyone who hasn't been heard,
please raise your hand. If not, we will conclude this hearing.
Thank you, everybody. It was a complex morning, and I appreciate it.
It really was.
Thanks for everybody's support.
I apologize for the fire, Laura.
I apologize for Zoom.
I think you all are great.
No apologies necessary.
We'll see everybody at two.
See you then, Tanya.
All right.
All right.
Let me know what people are in.
let me know what people are in we're all here and ready sir the audience do
yes they're still there from this morning oh great my name is bill bergman and i will be
chairing this afternoon zba hearings the board members with me thomas holliman board member
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Ismail Shahid, Board Secretary.
Present here.
We also have our zoning board administrator, Tanya Sunkit.
Our board attorney, Sharon Saleta.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
First, be advised the proceeding is being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting the Board Administrator, Tanya Sunkett, at tanyasunkett .phila .gov.
Second, for the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, if you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, raise your hand by pressing star 9 and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email address and the
address of the property in question. The phone number again is 267 -270 -5548. And last, please
note the question answer box is not for testimony or comments. Any comments will be directed to
Tanya Sunkit our board administrator. So let's start with continuances and I'm going to read
four continuances out. Number two MI 2021 003885 138 Tasker Street. Number five MI 2021 003882
2021 Germantown Avenue. Number 9, MI 2021 003851 5328 Wakefield Street. And number 11, MI 2021
003880 610 to 40 High Street. Anyone have any issues or comments about those
contingencies. Please raise their hand.
Yes, Chair, we have
David Orphanides.
David,
just state your name again for the court reporter
you've already been sworn. David
Orphanides.
And just real quickly on
2021 -003885
138 -40
task on 135 Furnan, I did
send in a letter i did request that i'd be named as uh the attorney that be continued as with
attorney moving party that's fine thank you sir thank you anybody else yes chair we have
mr stephen you can unmute yourself
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board steven pollack on 5328 wakefield street it's a
pleasure to appear in front of you, Mr. Bergman, for the first time. We are unable to get an RCOB.
Do me a favor, state and spell your name, and then I'll swore you in.
Okay. Stephen, with a P -H, Pollock, P -O -L -L -O -C -K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, hold the truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
This is with regard to 5328 Wakefield Street 2021 -003851. As you stated, we are requesting a continuance. We were unable to get a RCO meeting in a timely fashion. We were just hopeful that we could get it as early a date as possible for the continuance, if that is possible, Mr. Chairman.
I have to go to Tanya for that. Tanya?
so mr pollack i would suggest you do a charity moving party and then once you are able to secure
your meeting with the rco you reach out to me and i will work with you with a good date
i appreciate that uh madam uh administrator and mr chairman thank you very much and members of
the board thank you very much that would conclude my business all right any other continuities today
no hands no hands share
so before we start with the list the city of Philadelphia school district has request
Before we start with the list, the city of Philadelphia School District has requested that be permitted to file non -proton appeals for its properties, 7809 Castor and 321 Ryan Street.
I vote yes for both properties.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes for both properties.
Ishmael Shaheed votes yes for both properties.
Thank you very much.
First case, MI -2021 -004 -507 -1420 North 7th Street, Attorneys Richard DeMarco, appeal against L &I.
Chair, if we could also promote Leonard Reuter, the attorney for the city.
Yes, and they're both coming in now as the panelists.
Good afternoon, everyone. Can you hear me?
Sure. I didn't hear Sharon. Forgive me.
She's here. She's here. I know. But when I was connecting and promoted to panelists, Sharon, did you need anything from me?
What was your comment? Just that Leonard would also be promoted.
Thank you. Mr. DeMarco, identify yourself and spell your name for the court.
Yes. Richard DeMarco, D -E -M -A -R -C -O, on behalf of appellant.
so white woman is the city attorney on uh yes hi um may please the board leonard f reuter
senior attorney for the city of philadelphia spell your name for the court reporter please
uh first name is l -e -o -n -a -r -d last name r -e -u -t -e -r thank you do you swear affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr demarco good afternoon everyone
So I'll try and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to lay this out. It's kind of a technical issue. It's a little bit muddled, the history here. I'll go to the exhibits.
Hi, this is Tanya Sankit, the administrator. Mr. DeMarco, we're having technical issues. Can you attempt to share your screen? If it doesn't work, then you can go forward without sharing.
it says host disabled participant screen sharing okay no problem if it um is okay with the chair
we can move forward without any kind of sharing screen and we'll just take your audio thank you
kindly that's fine with me oh all right i'll do my best in that uh to shame but let me try to
explain it then as best i can the appeal to ellen against ellen i is an appeal from a denial of an
administrative review um this board granted um a variance for a for new construction at this
property for five units um with dimensional variances for open space and rear yard uh this
was in 2019 my client purchased the property immediately thereafter and went in for an
administrative review to construct a different footprint than what the board had approved in the
2019 case. So what's important to understand is that this board already found hardship and granted
a dimensional variance for open space in rear yard in 2019. The only change that my client
was seeking was when he was granted administrative review for his building there was an atrium
interior atrium contained in the structure. We are asking to remove the atrium from the site
and build to the same footprint that was the subject of the administrative review which was
granted last year. The atrium was 4 % open space that I would show you if I could on the screen.
It was only 4 % open space, but the open space now, it was 14 % with the atrium. Without the atrium,
it's 10%. So the minor error that appears on the denial by L &I from the administrative review
is that we're going from what was 14 percent to 10 percent open space. I'll have the architect
with us in a moment, but what has happened was while very a good intention,
while well -intentioned at the outset, the atrium has become architecturally unfeasible
for a number of reasons. One, and this is why we feel, and the reason why we feel L &I should
have granted the administrative review is because it's an open space variance that this board has
is because it's an open space variance that this board has already granted, and we are altering
already granted.
the site plan in order to get approval from L &I, and it's the same exact variance that was already
granted by the board. But what has happened with the atrium is that it has become untenable,
one, because we need two means of egress, and the original plan that was approved by this board in
2019 only had one stairway, and L &I has become far more strict since that time in requiring
a second staircase. There is less room to include the atrium because of that.
Secondly, the atrium never functioned as open space. It went straight down,
and it was never providing direct sunlight. It was only providing indirect light,
and it's a privacy issue.
The atrium was too small
and the tenants would be able to look
into each other's units.
And we realized, again,
while well -intentioned at the outset,
it was a privacy issue as well.
Thirdly, the COVID -19 economy
has created some supply issues
for the materials necessary for the atrium
and has driven up costs.
So while the developer was able
to incorporate these items prior to when this board initially approved the matter. Since then,
the market has changed significantly and caused a cost issue as well. The open space is actually
being provided at the upper level. There is a roof deck. While when we had the atrium,
that space was not available, that space is being returned on the roof. And of course,
the rear yard is available to all tenants. While it's only 10%, it's still available open space and
all tenants can access it. So that's the issue. In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask our architect
to just adopt what I've stated as correct and accurate, and we'll have the developer do the
same. We're asking for leeway here from the board in a nutshell. This board has already granted the
variance that we're asking. There is a 4 % increase in the variance, which is why L and I denied
the review, but it's a, what we think is a de minimis change. It's been rendered necessary by
architectural reasons that this board already granted the variance for the construction,
the variances for the construction. So can we, um, why don't you put your, that's it.
uh so i'm sorry mr chairman i should put put your put your architect first and ask
i'll ask plato marinakis to be um uh authorized please sure
mr marinakis can you hear me yes hi i'm state your name and spell it for the court reporter
please yes plato marinakis p -l -a -t -o -m -a -r -i -n -a -k -o -s one of uh you want my address
107 south second second street philadelphia pa do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes i do mr marinakis was my summary as to the history of the property
accurate and true and accurate and would you agree with it as your testimony yes i would
And did I state the architectural reasons for the removal of the atrium accurately as well?
And can you adopt that as your testimony?
Yes, you did.
Depending on the ad, I mean, did I leave anything out as to why the atrium is not viable at this property?
Mr. DeMarco, before he answers that, can I ask one question?
Looking at the examiner's comment on the administrative review request, I'm reading it now.
The proposed amendment further reduces the required open area to 10 % from 21 .6, which was granted by the ZBA on 11 -6 -2019.
That's not the same as the numbers that you stated. Can you explain that?
Yeah, I can. I can. In reviewing this closely, what appears to have happened is that the plan that was approved by that administrative permit,
um had 14 open space so it appears that um that was not accurately stated the atrium plan
had only 14 open space so um it appears that potentially l and i may might not should probably
not have granted over -the -counter the administrative review request last year, but what
over the counter, the administrative review request last year. But what I want to make
clear is that the property was framed out with the plan that included the atrium. And
while those numbers are correct when compared with the 2019 plan that was granted by this board,
um the administrative review that what that that was successful last year
was far less than 21 percent open space it's 14 percent hope that makes sense it does thank you
okay back to plato plato um do you have anything to add as far as the architectural issues
with the only thing i would add is you need two stairs but the stairs have to be remote
so that has to not to get into the weeds but the stairs can't be right next to each other
and because they have to be remote that makes it harder to have the atrium in there that's that's
why if that makes sense yes so um i believe i believe liz casey is the developer's representative
i'll just have her adopt my statements as chairman accurate
state your name and spell for the court reporter please
Do you see Liz Casey?
No, I'm not seeing no one by that name.
If you're in the audience, can you please raise your hand?
For Ophir Camarian.
Raise your hand virtually, whoever's on for us.
It is Liz Casey.
Hello, sorry.
State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Elizabeth Casey, E -L -I -Z -A -B -E -T -H -C -A -S -E -Y.
Right.
Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Ms. Casey, did you hear my factual testimony to the board?
Do you agree with it and adopt it as your testimony and is true and accurate?
so mr chairman and members of the board uh we appreciate um your time here that's basically it
i just want to reiterate that the board uh that this matter was not opposed by the neighbors of
the 2019 case the property was granted multiple dimensional variances so the board has already
found hardship we don't dispute that we have increased a slightly increased the amount of
the dimensional variance, but it was to change what was a very well -intentioned architectural
feature initially. The removal of the atrium is not visible to anyone in the general public.
The change is happening within the building, so there's no impact on the community, and it just
is not working for us architecturally. So in the current environment, we appreciate the board's
leeway in allowing us to remove it and uh have the two stair towers as as necessary um and we
appreciate your time thank you mr reuter going to testify uh thank you sir um this the uh position
of the city here is that the code section uh relating to administrative review which is 14 303
sub -16. It says that the only issue on an appeal of this nature is whether LNI properly denied the
request for the administrative adjustment. And I believe Mr. DeMarco, and we appreciate the fact
that they are essentially saying that LNI was correct in its denial because they are in fact
increasing the intensity of the variance of the dimensional variance for the open space that being
said i just want to know ask and perhaps mr demarco can answer this if he could just verify
that the procedures that were required by the administrative review precision were followed
that is did you and whether or not it was submitted to the board that is did were copies of the
administrative adjustment sent to each of the RCOs, to district council person, and to all the
persons who had previously entered an appearance for the variance case? Were all of those persons
and entities notified of the administrative adjustment request? I recall that they were,
Len, and I can confirm that's, well, I would say this, the original application,
uh i did not have records availed to me it was the prior owner um but we did notify
uh who we were required to notify for the second administrative review but i didn't have
appearance slips for that case but i would note that uh the board granted the case
for that case but i would note that uh the board granted the case of 2019 i did check with the
attorney and there was no opposition at the original case well again there was i did not
have appearance actual appearance lips available were the rco and the district council person
notified uh annie moss is the rco and was notified i'm sorry you dropped any loss okay
okay and did you i'm sorry mr reuter mr demarco you know how sometimes you go fade in and out
could you just yes stay close to the mic thank you sorry no worries so um again if
if you're saying that you did notify the rco of this administrative request and the council person
on this administrative request, and that there has been, are you saying that there has been,
you've not received any response, there's no opposition today for this administrative request?
That's what I'm, that's, yes, exactly. So Annie Moss was in support of the original application.
Well, again, I'm not asking if they were in support of the original application,
I'm asking if they were in support of this administrative adjustment.
they were notified they did not take a position either way okay that's fine great um now so again
we would just reiterate for the record that there has been no error alleged on behalf of l and i in
this case uh nevertheless uh the city will defer to the judgment of the board um on on this matter
in other words the strict reading of the of the uh the code uh is that the request should be
denied and they should just simply seek a new variance um but given that uh we're being told
that the rco and the council person were notified um and that they've received no negative response
um you know we will just leave it to the board's discretion i would only thank you len i would only
respond as far as the, this is what we would call a minor adjustment. I would agree with Len that
Helen and I filed the technical requirements. I would say to you that this variance that is
only being slightly increased and it is a minor deviation from the original plan and the rules as
as to administrative review do allow minor deviations?
Well, just for the record,
just to correct that, it is only if it reduces,
if the minor change reduces the intensity
of the previous approval.
We understand this is much different
than prior administrative approvals,
but this is the new language in the code,
new -ish language in the code since,
well, it's been amended a couple times
since it was first introduced in 2018
and it's been amended twice uh in 2020. that being said again we'll defer to the judgment of the board
i might mi 2021 -004 -507 1420 north 7th street uh the appeal is granted
thomas holliman appeal granted ishmael shaheed appeal granted
thank you everyone thank you for your time everyone have a good holiday thank you that
concludes my business i hope thank you sir thank you okay mi 2021 003853 1457 north howard street
RCO, South Kensington Community Partners, letter of support, Dawn Tangrady.
And she's coming in now as a panelist.
Ms. Tangrady, state your name
and spell for the court reporter, please.
Dawn, are you there?
or possibly alex goldberg if dawn is not here i'm here okay good good
state your name and spell for the court reporter please
sure it's dawn tancredi d -a -w -n my last name is tancredi t -a -n -c -r -e -d -i
My last name is Tancredi, T -A -N -C -R -E -D -I.
You swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Palman has a few questions for you.
Do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
We have received the required documents and the RCO letter. Please proceed.
Thank you. And welcome to the board, Mr. Berklin.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
So, as I said, my name is Dawn Tancredi. I'm here on behalf of Francis Mastromarco, who is the owner of 1437 North Howard Street.
He is here today. I do ask that these submission materials we turned in be incorporated into the record.
and I understand that I'm unable to share my screen so I will go through my presentation
and please ask any questions if you have them. Thank you. So the goal here is to create two lots
of equal size from a single lot bringing both new lots into conformity with the neighboring
properties. Currently the site is a 2 ,000 square foot property. It's occupied by a single family
home that faces Howard Street and a vacant lot that faces Hope Street.
Both streets, Howard and Hope, are comprised of single -family homes.
So the applicant has proposed a lot line relocation equally dividing the 2 ,000 square
foot lot into two parcels measuring 1 ,000 square foot each. There are two refusals,
parcels, one for lot area and one for rear yard depth on the proposed lot facing Howard
Street. As for why the variances should be granted, there are several. First, L &I has
a history of treating these parcels as separate parcels, so arguably we should not even be
here today. The L &I archives, which are included in the packet, include a zoning permit for
single -family home on 1436 Hope Street back prior to 1985. L &I also has a separate folder for 1437
North Howard Street. Therefore, these lots are treated separately for zoning purposes.
Further, the City's Office of Property Assessment already recognizes each lot as a separate tax
parcel. The lot facing North Howard Street has a recognized address of 1437
North Howard Street and the parcel facing Hope Street has a recognized
address of 1436 Hope Street. In addition, records such as deeds and mortgage
documents are independently recorded against 1437 North Howard Street and
1436 Hope Street. The current deed along with prior deeds from 2002 and 1981 call out 1437
North Howard Street and 1436 Hope Street as two separate addresses. Next, the zoning code itself
supports the granting of the variances. Section 14701 -2b -2 allows lots like this
to be subdivided into lots with a minimum size of 800 square feet, provided
that 75 % of lots adjacent to the lot are 1 ,000 square feet or less. Here, there
There are three adjacent lots. Two out of the three adjacent lots are 1 ,000 square feet.
So we have 67 % rather than the 75 % of adjacent lots are 1 ,000 square feet.
This exception was included in the code for the purpose of encouraging property developers
to build houses that conform to the character of the neighborhood.
The policy behind this exception is met because the proposed lot line relocation conforms to the overwhelming character of the other lots in this immediate vicinity, as is shown in the tax map in the submission materials.
More reason to grant the requested variances is that the proposed lots conform to the character of the lots in the area.
Many of the surrounding properties are about 1 ,000 square feet similar to our
proposed parcels and this can be seen on the text map as well.
And this can be seen on the text map as well. Similar variances have been granted to other property owners on this block.
A variance was granted to the owner of 1429 North Howard Street for the relocation of lot lines to create the same thing, two lots from one existing lot.
Five identical variances were granted for the owner of 1411 through 19 North Howard
Street for the relocation of lot lines to create two lots from nine deeded lots.
As for the specific refusals for the rear yard depth and open area,
first we believe that the house as built is already recognized by L &I. Both of these parcels
are recognized by the Department of Licenses and Inspection.
Next, these refusals would disappear if we moved the lot line further closer to Hope Street.
However, then it would create a smaller lot facing Hope Street and create additional
hardships for a house to be built on Hope Street. And as you mentioned,
we do have a letter of support from South Kensington Community Partners.
With that, I would just ask my client to be able to speak so that he could adopt my testimony.
And may you ask your client to raise their hand?
Sure. Frankie, can you raise your hand, please?
i'm not seeing any hands raised at this time
okay you're anybody up yes there i am okay could you do me a favor state your name and spell for
the court reporter? Sure. Francis Mastromarco, F -R -A -N -C -I -S -M -A -S -T -R -O -M -A -R -C -O.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Mastromarco, did you hear my presentation
and my statements? I did in its entirety. Okay. And are they true and accurate?
it yes 100 do you adopt my testimony as though it were your own i do thank you
i have no further questions
any questions for the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
other testimony in the virtual audience anyone have any points to raise
no hands at this time chair planning commission
good afternoon this is greg waldman uh planning commission staff
spell your name for the court reporter please sure it's uh greg or gregory g -r -e -g -o -r -y
last name waldman that's w -a -l -d -m -a -n do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed um good afternoon chair members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single family residential
at this location undersized lots are a prevailing condition on this block
subset subdividing this through lot in the manner proposed would be consistent with the block
and requested dimensional variances are de minimis accordingly we recommend that the
requested variances be granted. MI 2021 003853 1437 North Howard. I vote yes. Thomas
Holloman my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes. Thank you very much. Thank you.
MI 2021 003778 1438 South Front Street.
RCO, PennSport Civic, letter of non -opposition.
Councilman Squill, non -opposition.
Council?
The attorney is David Orfanides.
And I'll let you get sworn in before I ask anything.
I agree. I agree.
David? Hello, good afternoon again. Good, good, good. Just state your name for the record,
you've already been sworn. Sure, David Orphanides, last name is O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
So our council is going to speak to you. We think that the changes, or not the changes, the record that you put in the plan needs to be reviewed by L &I. Sharon?
So, so, well, our council is going to speak to you. We think that
Yes. David, would you, Mr. Orphanides, would you like to go forward today on the original proposal or continue the case and have L &I review the revised plans?
We're going to go forward with the original plans, Mr. Chairman, and as I discussed briefly,
the council previously contacted me about this that uh the the changes are more informational
in nature they are extensive because there are six slots that we're proposing here so everything
is multiplied by six um and i was specific in delineating the changes but given the industrial
zoning characteristics um it was just additional information so we're fine moving forward with uh
the original plans um and they're not any different than uh in any way material way to
what was presented to the community group in fact they're two inches the buildings are two inches
shorter than what was presented to the community groups honestly you haven't thomas do you have
some questions yes do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy
i do wave the reading and as to the accuracy i have had emails with the zoning plans examiner
regarding some questions i had and the refusal is as far as i know still remains the one that
was original or last issued by him that's included with my zoning package at exhibit two okay
we have received the required documents including rco letters please proceed
i would assume i should not even bother to try sharing my screen at this point
to add insult to injury. In any event, again, my name is David Orfanides. I'm with Orfanides
and Toner LLP, a law firm here in Philadelphia. I'm representing 1438 Front LLC, which is the
owner of the subject property, 1438 South, known as 1438 South Front Street. The property does
extend from front street to south howard street it is located between reed street to the north
and dickinson street to the south directly across the street from us we are on the west side of
south front street on the east side is i -95 the parking underneath of i -95 and then the commercial
establishments on the other side fronting on the west side of Delaware Avenue just to give you a
sense of where we are. The property and it's unfortunate that you kind of similar to a hearing
this morning you can't see my exhibits at least share them with those people other than the board
but if you're looking at it the very first photo I have with my exhibits show a one partial two
story structure uh that's boarded up it's been there it says salon europa i couldn't even find
a zoning permit for it in the zoning archives that is a business that was there before my clients
owned the property they just recently acquired it in connection with this proposed development
but the building's been boarded up there have been squatters in the building and i believe the
community will acknowledge that my clients have taken actions together with the police to have
squatters removed and kept out of the building but it is a uh it's a blight the property's a blight
um and it's been that way for quite some time um we are located we're sandwiched between
a dialysis a devita dialysis uh facility to the south of us which then fronts on the north side
of reed street at the what northwest corner of reed and south front i mean i'm sorry dickinson
sorry, fronts on the north side of Dickinson Street on the northwest corner of Dickinson
and South Front. And then a development very similar to what we're proposing to the north
of us from 1422 to 36 South Front, where in a similarly zoned I -2 property, in fact,
this whole block between South Front to South Howard from Dickinson up to Reed is all zoned
I -2. And back in 2015, similar variances were granted use refusals or use variances were granted
for residential use in an I -2 zone property. And those eight homes at front on South Front Street
back up to seven homes at front on South Howard Street that's similar to ours in both the use
and then the size are four -story structures with roof decks, with a deck off the rear of the second
floor, with front -loaded parking for one -car parking. So essentially if you're looking at
So essentially, if you're looking at either the first page of my exhibit book showing the existing structure, you can see to the right that development.
either that the first
And you can see in the second page before you get to the index are proposed renderings that show our three buildings, both on South Front and on South Howard, located just to the south of that other residential development from back in 2015.
that was again also developed on I -2 property and had the same use refusals. Our notice of
refusals exhibit two again indicating that we have the use refusal for the residential use
there we have at the top of the fourth floor to the front similar to what exists with the
properties located to the north of us and if you look at exhibit five you can see at the bottom of
page three where i have the interior photos of that development to the north of us the south
front street properties they also have decks at the front of their upper floor so we have a balcony
or a deck at the front of our upper floors our fourth floors that under today's zoning code
generates a refuel generates a refusal and then we had some relatively de minimis rear yard refusals
for some of the lots and in the i2 zoning district the rear yard depth of eight feet is required
And we were a little over seven feet, a little a little under seven feet.
And part of that refusal is created by the fact that we the current building code requires us to provide rear egress between the properties that front on south front and front on south Howard out to a public street and rear yard depths get measured to the edge of a property edge of an alley rather than the rear property line.
So that shortens what would otherwise be a compliant rear yard depth to something slightly less because we have a three foot egress alley running back between the properties that then leads out to South Howard being three foot wide.
That's a foot and a half on either side. And as you could, if you do the math, you could see that that gets you up and over the feet.
um here's an area tab exhibit three we have aerial images of our property um you could see in the
first image uh our our property there to the west of i -95 then the delaware avenue uh commercial
operations on the east side of 95 and on the west side of delaware avenue
um our property as you can see in the second image you can see to the above i -95 uh you can
actually see the development to the north of us under construction with the aerial images from
Google Maps and then our existing property to the south. And then scrolling down, you could see
other developments surrounding us. So there is a similar development back behind us on south on the
east side of South Howard Street through to South Hancock Street that was also granted use refusals
back in 2017 for 11 residential units, single family units on an ICMX zone parcel on South
Howard Street and 13 units on South Hancock Street. And you can see those in some of the
aerial images as well as you flip through, if you were to flip through those just to the west of us.
Also, you're able to see to the south of Dickinson Street, there's a development
that was done back in 2004 that has similar G2 property at the time, which is now I2,
which was for a total of 16 units that was granted a use refusal, again, for residential
single family and similar rear yard depth refusals for a couple of the units. The property, as
mentioned, is zoned I2 in the block. If you look at Exhibit 4, my exhibit book, the block from
As I mentioned, from Reed to Dickinson, from South Front to South Hancock is I -2.
The block behind us from South Howard to South Hancock is ICMX.
And then the blocks below Dickinson and above Reed, again, between South Howard and South Front Street, are largely zoned I -2, similar to ours.
at the front of my exhibit book along with an exhibit six you'll see the renderings of what
we're proposing you could see the front deck or balcony off the upper floors and they're
the cookie cutter images of each other three on south front three on south hancock there are
existing curb cuts um if i were if you were to look through the photographs exhibit five
both in front of the building on south front street and at south howard street there's a wider
curb cut on South Front Street, a smaller one on South Hancock. There's no parking on our side of
the street on South Hancock, so we'll not be taking away any on -street parking for the three
So we'll not be taking away any on street parking for the three front loaded garages there.
front -loaded garages there.
And on South Front Street, we actually have will be filling in some of the sidewalk or some of the curbing and actually creating some additional on street parking space as compared to what is presently available with the existing building and existing uses.
So the original I'm not going to go through the revised drawings, because, again, we're not putting those to the board right now.
Now, the original drawings that were filed with L &I, which generated, were reviewed and resulted in the notice of refusal being generated at Exhibit 11.
And if you were to take a look at that, you can see what I mentioned, both three structures fronting on South Front Street, three structures fronting on South Howard.
You can see the alley that I mentioned, the egress alley that runs on an angle parallel to South Front and South Howard Street that leads in out to an alley on our property under what the northern most building on South Howard Street at the ground floor level.
Our lot subdivision survey plan is Exhibit 2.
And again, these materials were all presented to the coordinating RCO.
which is the Pennsport Civic Association. And as referenced in the beginning, we have a letter
of non -opposition from them. Exhibit 13 is my appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Much
of what I've spoken about already is outlined there, particularly the other developments
adjacent to us or budding us in the immediate surrounding area where I2 properties have been
transformed over to single -family residential uses with off -street accessory parking.
I do have the zoning archives for all both for our property at Exhibit 14, which, again, other than the demolition, a demolition permit for the existing structure that we pulled.
And the building has not been demolished as of yet, for your information.
But at 15, 16 and 17, I include all of the zoning archives for those residential developments on industrial properties that I've already spoken about.
There are a lot of pages there, so I'm not going to go through all those.
The deed for the property is at Exhibit 18. Again, my clients acquired title to the property back in May of 2021.
We have we provided the HUD form, the HUD one, HUD state, the closing statement for our tax clearance.
Copy of the zoning board hearing notice is at tab 20.
photographs of the posting of that notice along with a copy of the notice of refusal is at tab 21
and then in exhibit 22 is the email from the planning commission designating the
Pennsport Civic Association as a coordinating RCO for this matter
the list of addresses that we pulled from the utilizing the planning commission's link
the 14303 notice for our community group meeting with the Pennsport Civic Association on November
1, 2021, notifying them of that meeting, notifying the recipients of the notice of that meeting on
that date and at that time, as well as today's zoning board hearing Tuesday, December 21 at 2
p .m. Copy of our notice for refusal, instructions for appeals were included, and I've provided a
certificate of first -class mailing of the notice on October 4, 2021, again, on compliance with
the requirements of the zoning code heading back up to exhibit one as has been referenced a couple
times now on december 14th the pennsport civic association issued their letter of their position
letter in the matter and they do reference the neighbor to the north of us on south howard street
having concerns regarding the demolition of the existing building at our property and we continue
to work with that neighbor. It's not zoning related, but we continue to work with that
neighbor to make sure that that demolition is done in an appropriate way, that their
building is not harmed, and that we're going to strive to, it looks like we're going to
be able to keep a portion of the building up to serve as a privacy screen for their
decks at the second floor level. So we expect that to go well. But that's referenced in
the letter, and I just wanted to let the board know that we're going to continue that
communication with them and cooperation with those neighbors, even after today's hearing.
And with that, I have both a representative of the owner on the line, Bill or William Guzman,
and I have Alex Duller from FUSA Design the Architect, and I'd have them
unmuted so that they may adopt my statements.
Yes, we have.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Hello.
Hello, this is Alex Stuller.
Could you do me a favor, spell your name for the court reporter?
It is A -L -E -X, D as in David, U -L -L -E -R, Alex Stuller, Fuster Design, 622 North 3rd Street, Philadelphia, PGA 19123.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Hey Alex, how are you doing today?
Pretty good.
Good. Did you hear the statements that I made to the board, the architectural and engineering related statements?
And and most importantly, in terms of the letter from maybe not most importantly, but at least as importantly to the zoning matter,
the statements I made regarding our discussions and ongoing attempts to cooperate with the neighbors to the north of us on South Howard Street.
Did you hear those statements today?
and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes they are and would you adopt
them as your own i would yes i would and then real quickly if i could have a bill or william guzman
g -u -z -m -a -n unmuted
promoted to available chair hello okay yeah could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
William Guzman, G -U -Z -M -A -N, address 100 Snowflake Road, Huntington Valley PA 19006.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Bill, good afternoon.
You heard the statements that I made to the board, the non -architectural related, well, the architectural and non -architectural related statements I made to the board.
Is that correct?
are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes they are and would you adopt them
as your own yes i would thank you and with that um i would ask that our exhibit book be moved into
evidence into the record and um questions questions from the board yes mr chairman
in my opinion as an architect does only board need to read need revised architectural
joins in order to review the 20 changes to this project that's my opinion mr chairman
so we're not again we're not we're those revised drawings are not what we're presenting to this
board or asking this board to review or approve again they were they were just informational
information details um that i asked to be put in when i first got involved in the project
just to assist us if we were ever asked a question through the course of our
presentations to the community to the zoning board we are not asking that those be reviewed or be
considered by the board at this time if following today's hearing the board were to vote to grant
the variances that were cited based upon the original zoning drawing submitted to the zoning
board and again which served as the basis for the notice of refusal if the some zoning examiner or
building plan examiner required some additional information or changes we would see whether we
would submit those back to you know through the administrative review or the amended built
amended amended permit process but at this time we're not asking anybody on the board to review
those revised zoning drawings or anything that i put forward on the revised proviso plan form
i do not understand counselor why did you give us a zone board of adjustment advised proviso plans
because there's additional information that i thought would be helpful through the process
later down the road and because there's six units six parcels that's why they there's so many i
guess because everything is times six so if it's three times six it's 18 and i'm very specific as
i think we're supposed to be and what noting what those changes are but again it was just details
and additional information it doesn't change the design in any material way the only thing that it
did change was it it talked about a two inch increase in the height of the buildings which
we thought was going to be the case when we originally when we originally revised the plans
however that's not going to be the case the buildings will be what was originally provided
in the original zoning drawings which is 45 feet four inches if not shorter than that so
I'm sorry I'm sorry council I'm not understanding what you're saying excuse
me mr. Holloman maybe I could explain I I advised mr. Orphanides that the
revised plans that he submitted were too detailed to there were too many changes
for the board to consider adding them as provides though and suggested that he
and suggested that he could either go forward today based on the original plans without the
could either go forward today based on the original plans with
revisions that were submitted or he could continue the case in order for lni to give us feedback
he decided to go forward with the original plans so we're you're no longer considering the revised
plans okay thank you sharon you're welcome and just to be clear both you know the the
community group saw the original plants so okay thank you anybody else on the board
yes uh this is ishmael shaheed my only question is i know uh council chair and i know you said that
he's going to go forward with the other one so to be clear he does he do not have to go back to the
streets department where the additional stamps correct no because you will not be adding those
plans as approved by so if you approve them he is just relying on the originally reviewed plans
today which i believe was by this by um okay my streets yeah the original plans are stamped by
streets on july 8 2021. fair enough so um virtual audience comments
yes we have one hand okay foster you can unmute yourself can you hear me yes state your name
please and spell for the court reporter my name is don foster f -o -s -t -e -r thank you for the
opportunity wait a minute wait a minute do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do uh thank you thank you thank you for the opportunity to be heard
um as mr orphanides referred to there is a property owner to the north that has raised some
concerns and that property owner uh is me and my wife who's sitting here beside me
uh i'll be brief our concern is the still undefined nature of plans for a party wall that is
connected to our house and which separates the proposed development from ours. It's our
understanding that there's shared ownership of that wall. And Mr. Orphanides is correct that
there is dialogue that's going on regarding how that wall is to be dealt with, but it provides
a significant amount of privacy and security to us and to our neighbors to the north.
Our front door is the only front door of any of the properties that has been mentioned,
both on Howard or on front, that actually enters from the side on an alleyway.
And we actually, when we walk out of our front door, we look at that party wall.
um so we have to i'm not sure that this is the right time procedurally the right time and place
to be mentioning this but it is my first opportunity um in a public forum uh to articulate
our concerns and and and that has to do with the the potential for tearing down that party wall
that we would object to for the privacy and security reasons we we actually are planning
on using that law as partial support for a security gate to prevent people from, and we've
had intrusions of people walking in off of Howard Street and going back into the rear behind our
property and the properties of our neighbors. So we were going to use that for a security gate.
So I had submitted four photographs. To the extent that you do have them as part of the record,
I asked that they be admitted there.
They're photographs that actually show the house straight up from from Howard
back to the house in the rear of us, which is actually front on on South Front.
So that concludes my comments.
I'm certainly available to answer any questions.
And I thank you for your time and patience.
Mr. Foster, thanks for calling.
Counselor, do you have any response to this?
The only response would be is there. Mr. Foster did speak at the coordinating RCO meeting, so there was that that public forum as well, and we have heard him.
The plan is to leave the wall up in the area.
So their alley, where their door enters onto, which serves as the egress alley from the
rears of their development, fronting on front and south front and south Howard, will be
right next to our alley, egress of our alley, leading out to south Howard Street.
egress of our alley leading out to South Howard Street. The intention is to leave that wall there
The intention is to leave that wall there.
between the two. So the question really, and we've hired engineers to look at this and to see about
leaving the portion that is between the rear of Mr. Foster and his wife's house and the rear of
the property behind them on South Front Street, the one that abuts us just to the north, and leave
as much a portion of that wall as possible in place to extend above their second floor decks.
I will say that, and we're striving to have that done, and it'll be an additional cost to my client.
Pilasters may have to be created in order to support it because it'll be a pretty tall,
freestanding wall. And I say freestanding in that despite what Mr. Foster stated,
he has communications from the developer of his property indicating that his building is not
his home is not tied into that party wall and that none of the houses in his development are tied into that party wall.
They're freestanding structures.
I do agree that it will provide some level of privacy once the building, our building is torn down and residential homes are erected there.
And we're doing everything added, you know, it's not a zoning related matter, but everything within our power to, you know,
that we can do to to appease their concerns and provide them with some additional privacy.
Thank you. Anyone else in the virtual audience have a comment?
No more handshare.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. This is Greg Walden, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends changing the zoning at this location from medium industrial to industrial commercial mixed use.
There are active industrial uses on this block and adjoining blocks.
in addition to the adjacent row homes
that were approved by the Zoning Board
on August 5th of 2015.
Commercial and light industrial uses
permitted in the proposed zoning district
are viable at this location.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate hardship
for requested use in international variances.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Board
deny the requested variances.
MI 2021 -003 -778 -1438 South Front Street.
i vote yes to the original plan thomas holliman i vote yes to the original plan
ishmael shaheed i vote yes with the original plan
thank you thank you have a good day happy holidays all right number six mi 2021
1 0 0 3 8 4 8 2100 washington avenue no rco letter at this point robert ransom the attorney
and sir you can unmute yourself
good good hello oh could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
Yes, Robert Ransom, Robert spelled R -O -B -E -R -T, last name Ransom, just like the word, R -A -N as in Nancy, S -O -M as in Michael, with the law firm of Straley, Ronan, Stevens, and Young.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Can you answer a few questions from Mr. Holloman, please?
Do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
We have received the required documents except for an RCO letter.
Was there an RCO meeting? And do you have a...
Yes. And I am attempting to share my video. For some reason, it's not working.
um and uh the rco letter was sent directly to the zoning board on uh yesterday uh
it was sent directly to the zoning board on yesterday we met with the rco the point
paris development coalition on january 6 uh and it was on yesterday that we um at the same time
that the zoning board received the letter of support um that we received the letter of support
um and i did not resend that letter uh being that it uh it was sent directly to the zoning board
uh mr ransom this is the zba administrator your video is not working
uh i am i click hitting start video and for some reason here you go okay see myself and
Here you go. Okay. I can see myself and I hope you can see me as well. Thank you. Okay. So as I was stating, we wanted to submit the letter of support from the Point Breeze Development Coalition along with our other materials that were submitted on last Wednesday.
i hope you can see me as well thank you okay
However, due to the holidays and everything else going on, we did not receive the letter of support from the Point Parade Development Coalition indicating their support for our project, both the community's support and the coalition's support.
excuse me this is sarin saletta board members i checked and we did receive the letter after the
summaries were completed uh the rco is in support with a proviso they're requesting that uh there
be a staff member who will stand inside the front of the business and intake animals in an attempt
to calm parking issues that is correct thank you
go on sir mr chairman uh again thank you uh for your time uh this afternoon uh again rob branson
on behalf with the law firm of stradley and ronan uh on behalf of uh the subtenant of the property
located at 2100 washington avenue the subtenant being washington avenue animal retreat a copy of
the sub -lease agreement was submitted along with the materials submitted for this application.
We're here with regard to an application for a special exception to allow for the applicant's
proposed doggy daycare and boarding operations at the property located at 2100 Washington Avenue.
That proposed use by the code is interpreted as animal services and boarding and other services.
The animal boarding and other services is a use permitted by way of special exception pursuant to the zoning code, which is why we're here today.
specifically the property located at 2100 washington avenue is within the i2 medium industrial
industrial zoning district in the west washington avenue overlay zoning district the pro property is
approximately 0 .37 acres in size upon which a 16 16 250 square foot warehouse exists
we're proposing uh an interior fit out of uh approximately eight thousand eight thousand
square feet uh an eight thousand square foot portion sorry of that existing warehouse structure
to accommodate the proposed um animal services and boarding and other services use and um
we're not there are no uh external site improvements proposed as part of this application
Merely it is a change in use. As indicated, we did present before this application to the Point Breeze Development Coalition to really fill the questions, obtain community support, and that brings us here today.
A public notice of the December 6 meeting was mailed to the property owners within the nearby property owners.
And again, that December 6 RCO meeting took place in addition to that public notice of this meeting, along with the notice of referral, was posted and affixed to the building to provide notice.
further notice and a picture evidencing that notice being fixed to the building
was provided as part of our materials. We did provide to the board several photos of the
property. Again, there are not any, we don't propose any external site improvements,
but for some, obviously, cleaning up the facade of the building and adding some lighting fixtures to illuminate along Washington Avenue and 21st Street.
Today, I have with me on behalf of the applicant, let me bring this up, Dr. Peter Lance.
Dr. Peter Lanz, he's actually the chief medical officer of the Washington Avenue Animal Hospital, which is located in the Point Breeze neighborhood at 1900 Washington Avenue.
And he's actually.
And Jennifer West, the medical director of Washington Animal Hospital, was here today on behalf of the applicant, the Washington Avenue Animal Retreat.
And at this juncture, barring any, I really, given the fact that there are no external
site improvements, really to address the use and mitigate any off -site impacts, the applicant
is proposing sound attenuation features to mitigate any noise from the site. There will
not be any dogs being walked outside of the property. All operations in connection with
the proposed use will take place internally. The applicant provided testimony to the RCO
regarding waste, how waste will be handled and indicated that they will hire a private
hauler who will, same thing that they've done at the Washington Animal Hospital, who routinely
retrieve of waste each day. And at this juncture, we are able to answer any questions that the
board may have regarding the proposed use in a special exception, as we do not see that the
proposed use will, you know, impers any burden with the nearby property owners and others within
the community. You have a client you want to adopt the testimony, your testimony? Yes, that would be
dr peter lands chief medical officer uh peter p -e -t -e -r lands l -a -n -d -s if we could
have uh mr lands activated yep all right
mr lands you can unmute yourself wait for the chair
state your name and spell for the court reporter sir sure peter lands p -e -t -e -r lands l -a -n -d -s
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir good counsel
that's peter uh would you uh uh characterize my testimony regarding the proposed use uh to be
accurate and yes and uh would you adopt uh the same as your own yes thank you questions from
the board? No, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Questions from the virtual audience?
No, Mr. Chairman. Planning Commission, please.
You're muted, Planning Commission. Sorry about that. Good afternoon. This
is greg waldman from planning commission staff the comprehensive plan plan recommends changing the
zoning at this location from medium industrial to industrial residential mixed use there will
likely be no impact to the block from what would norm what one would normally expect from a proposed
animal boarding use accordingly we recommend that the board grant the request of special exception
MI 2021 003848 2100 Washington Avenue I vote yes Thomas Solomon my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes thank you Mr. Branson thank you Mr. Chairman and board have a
great holiday. Thank you. MI 2021 -003881, 2224 North Howard Street, no RCO record at this point,
Alan Nockelson. He's coming in now as a panelist. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Yes, A -L -A -N, last name Nockamson, N -O -C -H -U -M -S -O -N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Thank you. Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
DO YOU AGREE TO THE READING OF THE REFUSAL AND STIMULATE TO ITS ACCURACY?
DO YOU AGREE TO THE READING OF THE REFUSAL AND STIMULATE TO ITS ACCURACY?
YES, I DO.
WE HAVE RECEIVED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS EXCEPT FOR AN RCO LETTER.
WAS THERE AN RCO MEETING AND DO YOU HAVE A LETTER?
I ACTUALLY, OUR OFFICE JUST EMAILED, PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST HALF AN HOUR, UPDATED MATERIALS
WHICH INCLUDED THE RCO LETTER AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT REGARDING A DEMOLITION
PERMIT.
I emailed that to Ms. Sunkit, as well as Ms. Saleta. I believe that they both should have received it by now.
Did they?
Yes, I can confirm this is the ZBA administrator. I did receive it, Ms. Nanakamson.
Yeah, so we didn't get the letter until yesterday ourselves.
It is a letter. It's stated it's in opposition, but I would like to go over the letter because I don't believe it's in opposition.
BUT WE CAN GO THROUGH THE LETTER.
THANK YOU.
I GUESS THE BOARD IS HAVING TROUBLE
WITH SHARING SCREEN OPTION TODAY?
SO IF YOU HAVE THE LETTER IN FRONT OF YOU,
WE 'LL GO THROUGH THAT LETTER IN GREAT DETAIL.
BUT LET ME JUST...
ONE SECOND.
All right. So what will be in front of you is first our notice of refusal. So this is an RM1
property. What we're proposing to do is have a two -unit structure here. We're not being refused
for the actual square footage of the lot. We're allowed to have a two -story structure here.
What we're being refused for is some de minimis dimensional variance requests.
The first of which is the rear yard depth. Nine feet is required. Seven feet is proposed. We'll go through the drawings and the pictures of the nearby properties.
But you'll see if you go even on Atlas, 2218, 2228, 2230, 2232, 2250, 2252, and 2254, at least according to Atlas, would run afoul of many of these refusals.
So, it's not uncommon for a property on this block to need variance request relief.
The second refusal that you'll see in front of you in your materials for your notice of refusal is the minimum rear yard area.
Kind of goes hand in hand with the minimum rear yard depth.
Required is 144 feet.
Proposed is 105 feet.
Again, just to put this in perspective, this is a 15 -foot wide lot.
So when you're 39 feet short of the rear yard area, essentially you're 2 .5 feet too shallow in terms of rear yard depth.
I will point out that we have an alley of 3 feet, which I know we can't count towards the rear yard depth or any of these dimensional variances.
but it does give some type of breather to any of the nearby neighbors.
The third refusal that you should see in your notice.
Excuse me, Mr. Malchamson, if I can interrupt for just one minute,
I wanted to let the board know if they have access to their email.
I had just emailed them the updated exhibit packet.
Thank you.
So the third refusal that we have is the maximum occupied area.
75 % is allowed for this RM1 property. That means 585 square feet. 86 .54 % is proposed as 675 square feet. Again, we're 90 square feet short. This is a 15 square foot wide lot, meaning that ultimately we're short six feet in terms of depth from what would be allowed as of right.
and we'll go through the floor plans you know we would not be able to have a functional floor plan
if our building structure had to be six feet more shallow than what we're proposing ultimately we
would not have a functional floor plan there would be to be honest one one one unit we even have
bedrooms uh of the two of the two so which would destroy the fact that this is an orm1 property
The next thing that you should see in your revised presentation materials is the correspondence from Norah Square Community Alliance.
So they indicate that this is a letter of opposition, that the community is against it.
But if you, and I'm assuming you have that letter now in front of you, if you look at the vote count, and we're just going to go first, all meeting attendees, three meeting attendees supported the variance request.
meeting attendees supported the variance request, one opposed it, and two supported it with
one opponent.
conditions. So essentially five out of the six community members that attended the meeting were
in support of this project. The issue is that the executive boards who are not nearby neighbors
opposed the project. Five members opposed it on the executive board, one supported it with
conditions. So again, five community members in close proximity to this project supported this
project. One opposed it. On the flip side, the executive board, which is not nearby neighbors,
one supported it, five opposed it. And if you look at the letter, nothing had to do with zoning
related. So unfortunately, when my client purchased this property, it had a building structure on it.
It was in very, very bad condition. My client had to demolish the existing building structure. He did everything I said right. So when we got this letter, one of the reasons why we revised our presentation materials, I wanted to show you the demolition permit that we had.
I wanted to show you the inspection reports that followed up with L &I showing that we did everything the right way.
We got a fully licensed, insured, and, to be honest, experienced contractor.
Manguela Demolition is actually one of the contractors that the City of Philadelphia uses for their demolition projects.
We then had L &I actually inspect the property.
Their concern was that we hurriedly and irresponsibly demoed the property, but nothing can be further from the truth.
We did it because we had to. We did it under the law through a demolition permit.
We hired someone that the city itself uses for their demo projects, and that demolition work was blessed by L &I.
Now, the next door neighbor has some concerns about the future underpinning of the property. Maybe there were some issues caused by the demolition work. My client, he's here, my client's representative, Ghazi Ada Seven, he will testify that he's tried to work with this nearby neighbor.
Like the last thing we want to do is cause any harm to any existing properties.
But that's not zoning related.
That's, you know, construction related.
We indicated that assuming we get a zoning permit, we have to apply for a building permit, which require additional inspections, both, you know, structural, geotech.
We would have to hire, you know, licensed and insured contractors.
But if you look at their letter in opposition, it has nothing to do zoning related.
It has to do with the fact they don't want this property developed because they're concerned the effect it would have on the next door neighbor.
And when I say they are opposed, it's the RCO's executive board.
The community voted overwhelmingly in favor of this project.
So, again, this is an RM1 property.
You'll see from my presentation materials, the zoning maps, or the maps, which, again, shows that this is an RM1 property.
We're not trying to increase the density of this lot. There's enough square footage in terms of lot size for the actual use itself. There are unfortunately dimensional variances, and it's not uncommon. Again, if you look on Atlas, 2218, 2228, 2230, 2232, 2250, 2252, and 2254 North Howard Street, all run afoul of the coverage requirements of the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
So if you look at photographs of the property, it is now a vacant lot.
As you can see, that's a current picture or picture taken, I guess, just before the community meeting.
Again, we keep the lot clean.
We try to be responsible property owners.
My client has been in full communication with the neighbor next door.
You have pictures to the right of the property on North Howard in your presentation materials, properties to the left of North Howard.
in your presentation materials, there's a nearby duplex. Again, this is not a variance for
your request, but I just put it out there, 2220 North Howard is a nearby duplex.
Then in the updated materials, I thought it was really important based on the letter we received
yesterday to highlight the fact that my client demoed this property legally. You'll have a copy
that we took a screenshot from Atlas showing that there was a demolition permit, that it was a
contractor was Manguel Demolition Inc. And again, to reiterate one more time, this is a demolition
company that the city of Philadelphia uses for their demo projects. After that, I gave the board
and the inspection report showing that we passed the inspection for the final demolition. If there
If there was any issues with our demolition work, we would not have passed that inspection.
was any issues with our demolition work, we would have not.
Again, we want to be responsible property owners.
We're hoping the board grants our variance.
We'll go to the next step with the building permit stage.
We want to make sure that we hire people that are insured, responsible, and experienced.
And even during the community meeting, my client even stated that he's perfectly willing to put the next door neighbor as an additional insured on any general contractor's policy during construction.
Our plans and drawings, again, you'll see where we are.
We have a three and a half foot alley in the rear that kind of diffuses or at least helps out the issues in terms of the rear yard.
But if you look at the left, there's two pictures. The existing conditions front, that was the property before it was demoed. And then more importantly, if you look at the zoning location map down on the site plan, you'll see our property highlighted.
But then you'll see pictures of other properties on that block, just a little snippet of it, showing that most of these properties in this picture are almost complete coverage of the building structure on the lot.
So what we're asking for is not out of character to what the other properties on that block are.
And again, I gave you examples of seven others or seven properties on that block in totality on that side of the block that would also run afoul of many of these dimensional requirements of the zoning code.
After you saw that, you know, the site plan, you'll see the elevations.
Again, this is, we try to keep a traditional brick facade with a modern twist, but we really try to keep it where, you know, there's a cornice with a nice cornice, you know, line and, you know, architectural interest.
and then after that you'll see the floor plans again most importantly unit one is a one bedroom
two bath unit two is a three bedroom three bath but with unit one basically if we had to comply
with the maximum occupied area and essentially take six feet away from the depth of the building
structure that would completely eat away at our bedroom on the first floor which is our only
bedroom so ultimately we wouldn't have a bedroom in unit number one which again there's our
hardship again for unit number two both of our bedrooms are in the rear of the property that
would destroy that so that three bedroom three bath would only have one bedroom in itself so
again it would be impossible for all intents and purposes to have a duplex if we had to fulfill
the requirements strictly of the zoning code. After that, and I don't want to belabor the
point, but you'll see our meeting notice, we sent the community meeting notice, we sent
it to 172 addresses. Of those 172 addresses, six individuals from the nearby community
showed up, five voted in favor of it, one voted in opposition, so we did get overwhelming
community support. Unfortunately, the executive board took it upon themselves to vote against
this project. And in their letter, when they say the community voted against it, that's not the
case. After that, in our presentation materials, you'll see our deed to the property showing that
Maestro Real Estate and Development LLC owns the property. And then finally, our certificate of tax
clearance showing that we're in good standing with the city. With that being said, I would like
to have my client Ghazi Adasevan virtually raise his hand to adopt my testimony. I would like Mr.
Adasevan to state what efforts he's made with the nearby neighbor to, you know, to try to work with
them in terms of demolition and what efforts he wishes to make with the nearby neighbor during
construction. So, Mr. Adasevan, if you can virtually raise your hand, that would be great.
Yeah, I was already unmuted. Hi, my name is...
Could you state your name and then spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Gazi, G -A -Z -I.
The last name is Araseven.
My address is 2424 East York, Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Go ahead.
Yes, thank you.
Mr. Araseven, you heard everything I stated today.
Yes, I heard it.
Is it true and correct?
Absolutely correct.
and do you and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes all right can you just again
i usually don't go beyond this but i really think it's important for the board to understand
what efforts you made in terms of responsibly demoing the the old building structure
in terms of responsibly demoing the the old building structure and what efforts you've made
since to work with the nearby neighbor um and talking to her about construction hopefully of
the new building structure yes uh actually i was expecting the um support letter from them because
i even give i gave them my personal cell phone number because the meeting looks to me it went
well because most of the question i was asked it wasn't related to zoning it was related to
construction stage they even asked me uh underpinning they even asked me framing they
they asked a lot of things related to construction uh i tried to answer all of them with my best
ability and knowledge and they asked me to give the cell phone number i gave them my cell phone
number they asked me uh i mean i have been in contact with the neighbors i told them yes and
And I gave them their names and their numbers that I have been communicating with them.
Since, I mean, before we demo, even most of my project, I always communicated with the community.
So I really want them to make happy whatever they ask me to, even out of my scope of work.
So I did it so far.
And I met the neighbor right next to 2026, I think I spoke with the lady and I gave them a same guarantee that we can have her put her name under additional insurance.
I talked to the left, right of the property's owner and I told them the same thing. And also I communicated with all the executive members.
um so we the reason uh we asked this i mean variance as our attorney said so we really were
affected uh from covid so we were planning to uh we have the property and sell it but
it came middle of the covid we couldn't do anything at least three or four months the
house really was deteriorated and the structural compromise so the lni told us i mean we need to
demo this building. So that's what we did under the supervision of the engineer, under the
supervision of the LNI inspector. So we passed the final inspection. We hired, even we pay more than
the average market value to hire the really experienced demo company, which they, I mean,
being used for city's job as well. So everything went well. I mean, from at the beginning to
until this point. So that's why we're kind of expecting the support letter. And
so they asked me everything about the construction. I gave them all the information they need.
than here where we are.
Mr. Adesab, you're also a licensed real estate agent, right?
Is it economically feasible to build a new construction home,
a single -family new construction home at 222 for North Howard Street?
Yeah, that's what I was coming to that.
So the reason, I mean, even as a real estate agent,
to suggest that to my partner
to going to variance
because the unit one
is going to be a real hardship
if we cannot get the variance.
So the unit is going to be first
and it's going to be,
it's not technically the first unit.
It's kind of living space.
Maybe if we can fit the one bedroom,
that's all.
And after we made all the investment,
so we're really trying to
not make money
we're trying to really cover our loss
because we purchased it as a house
then we demo it
now we're trying to do new construction
thank you very much
no problem
questions from the board
no Mr. Chairman
no Mr. Chairman
questions from the virtual audience
yes Chair
we have Sloan folks
mr folks you can unmute yourself good afternoon chairman bergman zba board sloan folks sloan e fs
of fire lks office of councilwoman maria canyona sanchez from 50 city hall the applicant has met
with the coordinating rco they did not receive a letter of support from them unfortunately the
Councilman does not support this various request. Thank you. Thank you.
Any other people in the virtual audience chair? We have Stephanie sent Diego.
okay um good evening everybody my name is stephanie santiago s -t -e -p -h -a -n -i -e last name
Um, good evening.
s -a -n -t -i -a -g -o okay you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir let's see so um i am the one of the nsca rco representatives um from north square
Community Alliance, I just want to speak on the 2224 project. So with concerning the letter of
support, just to clear it up, those that are the votes that are in support with conditions are only
counted as yes votes from the community if the conditions stated in the letter are supported
in writing. Just for future reference to the ZBA board from the letters on NSCA, and we will
further explain that in future letters to ensure that there's no discrepancies. A lot of the issues
that the community has been having concerning this project and others that have been coming
into the community have to do not only with the density but the parking issues and the fact that
that there have been issues concerning demolition and other issues as stated.
So the community did ask a lot of questions concerning construction because we have had a
lot of projects within the Philadelphia area as you know and have seen on the news
that have been damaged by demolition,
damaged by excavation and damaged through other means.
Not saying that anybody's doing them purposely,
but residents in our area cannot afford lawyers
and cannot afford the means to truly support themselves
if their properties are damaged by other people.
And also just to clear up that the RCO board
or committee of the Norris Square Community Alliance
is made completely of residents.
So the five opposition votes
and the one that is in support with conditions
from the RCO board committee, the executive board,
are residents. Four of those residents live within one block of the 2224 project, so they are
adjacent neighbors. They are directly involved with the community, and they live directly around
them. I also have Ms. Pat DiCarlo here, who's a resident, and the chair for our RCO committee
board, who would also like to say a few things on the project. My name is Patricia DiCarlo,
P -A -T -R -I -C -I -A
capital D -E
capital C -A -R -L -O
You swear a firm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So I understand
that construction and
destruction of property
is not a zoning issue, but we
purposefully wanted to raise
it to the
zoning board so that they
understand, because I'm sure you do
know that it is an ongoing issue in this community it is destroying people's properties people's
homes and there is no solution to the problem because it's being seen as oh well you demolished
according to the code too bad that the property went the adjoining property then just fell apart
and they no longer have a home or it's been destroyed and now your insurance doesn't want
to cover it and the other insurance doesn't want to cover it because quote it's a pre -existing
condition that it's a hundred year old home well somebody needs to take responsibility for this
and my sense in our community sense is that because zoning gets to take a vote before
the actual damage gets done, you have a responsibility to make sure that you look at
the issue when it's an adjoining property. We can't continue to approve construction
next to an adjoining building without taking into account what measures have been taken in advance
to protect the property in this case they went ahead and demolished the property and when they
demolished their property they damaged the adjoining property so that doesn't look good
that doesn't feel good that is an example of what's happened in the past we just had one on
front street they were digging down to demolish they caused the damage next door and the next
property, Ellen and I came in and had to tear it down because it was in danger. So I understand
that the gentleman here doesn't want us to talk about the damage of demolition to an adjoining
building, but somebody has to assume responsibility for it. And saying that the guy is a licensed
contractor for demolition that the city approves and that he did it according to code does not
answer the question that the property was damaged. And that's before they dig in and dig out to build.
and that's before they dig in and dig out to build. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, can I just respond? You can. Yes. So, again, we're not dismissive of,
you know, any alleged damage. My client has worked with the property owner next door,
gave his information, his phone number. He's been trying to work through the issue.
We honestly have not seen that damage.
We indicated, you know, obviously during the building permit stage, we would have to revisit having a structural engineer in order to do any additional work.
But we obtained a demolition permit.
That work was approved during the demolition and after the completion of any demolition.
We're not aware of any violations due to any issues with the adjoining building structure.
But with that being said, my client has reached out to the owner, has his cell phone number, has been diligently trying to work with them, wants to work with them during construction.
So it's, again, none of this is zoning related.
The provisos were not zoning related either.
If you had the letter in front of you and indicated that we were going to guarantee doing work on her home, and we indicated that the only thing we can guarantee is that we're going to follow the rules of the law and science in order to build a sound building structure, which is not going to cause any harm to her.
We even agreed to put her as an additional insured on our GC's construction policy, just in case if there are any issues, she would be covered.
So we were pretty forthright in all respects.
Are there issues with other property owners and builders?
Do mistakes happen sometimes, not purposefully?
But we've tried to work with this building owner.
We didn't want to demolish this property.
My client purchased this property in October 2019.
his intention was to use the pre -existing building structure because of the condition
of the property through no fault of his own because this property has been you know uh
abandoned for all intents and purposes prior to 2019 but through no fault of his own
he was advised by a professional that the building structure his building structure was unsafe
and needed to be demolished because of that we're asking you know to allow us to build
a multifamily structure which is allowed as of right we're asking for de minimis variances
under the circumstances to allow us to have a functional two -family dwelling with that being
said we hope that you would approve uh this various request thank you there are there any
other questions that are any issues different in the virtual audience than what's been already
spoken please raise your hand no hands at this time chair planning commission
you're you're muted i i keep missing that button apologies um good afternoon my name is greg
waldman planning commission staff this property was part of a community driven zoning map amendment
that changed the zoning from single family to multi -family residential at this location
given the narrowness of the law and the de minimis dimensional refusals we recommend
that the board grant the request of variances MI 2021 -003881 2224 North Howard Street I vote no
Thomas Holloman my vote is no
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is no
Thank you.
MI 2021 -003 -776 -5220 Chester Avenue.
RCO, letter of support.
Civic Association, letter of support.
Chair, if I could also mention that after sending out the summaries,
we received an email from Andrew Goodman of Councilwoman Gauthier's office.
she is also in non -opposition thank you attorney is Isaac Slepner
hello good afternoon chair members of the board Isaac Slepner here from Mattione limited I
represent the property owner on this could you could you spell your name for the court reporter
please sure thing first name Isaac I India S Sam double a alpha C Charlie last name Slepner S Sam
I am L. Larry, E. Elvis, P. Peter, N. Norman, E. Elvis, R. Robert.
I am with Mattione Limited.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
Do you agree to the...
Do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
The board has received the required documents, including RCO letters. Please proceed.
Thank you, Chair and members of the board. As I mentioned, Isaac Slepner with Matt Eoney Limited.
I represent the owner of the property junk property LLC with regard to 5220 to 24 Chester
Avenue and my client should be here LeVar Clark who's the principal of the LLC owner as well as
our architect Logan Dry. I understand there's been some glitches with the technology. I'm
going to click this share screen button and if it doesn't work we'll I'll narrate. So let me try
nope doesn't work okay if uh if the board has the documents and and would care to follow along i will
take everybody through our uh presentation so the very top is our table of contents exhibit one
are tax clearances for 52 20 chester and 52 22 to 24 chester exhibit two is our refusal
and we were only issued a single notice of refusal for 5220 Chester.
Exhibit 3 is the meeting summary form from Earths Keepers, Inc., RCO, and the letter of support.
That was 3A, rather.
3B is a similar letter of support from Concessing Area Civic Association.
Exhibit four is our site plan.
So if you look at that across the, to the left there is Chester Avenue, on which this project mainly fronts.
And the project is from Chester Avenue between Lindenwood and Wilton Streets, just west of 52nd and Chester, on the north side of Chester Avenue.
And actually, I think at this point, I'd like to call on Logan Dry to offer just a walkthrough of our floor plans and site plan.
Logan, are you there?
There he is.
Yes, I'm here.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Logan Dry, L -O -G -A -N -D -R -Y, KCA Design Associates, 6525 Tulip Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19135.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
All right. Logan, if you would, starting with Exhibit 5, walk the board, and I know that there's technology issues, we're not sharing the screen, but you have our plans in front of you, I'm sure.
the board has our plans in front of them if you could just walk everybody through
beginning from exhibit five sure so i'm assuming exhibit is the exhibit five is your is your zoning
site plan right uh four was our site plan so yeah you may as well start at four go ahead yeah i mean
i'll be brief um you know we're proposing a a 17 unit uh multi -family building with some light
uh ground floor business professional use um looking at the site plan again to orient yourself
moving from left to right. You've got Chester Avenue towards the right. Most of the plan is
your rear yard. In a nutshell, we designed the building to be dimensionally compliant with the
zoning code, with the only exception being the building height. So as far as coverage and things
like that, we're permitted 75%. We're only asking for 72%. Open space permitted 25%. We're providing
27 .9%. We have side yards on this property as well, just so that all the units have windows
and access to outdoor space that you'll see in the floor plans when we get to. The maximum height
in this district is 38 feet. And again, our building is clocking in at 41 feet, so three
extra feet above. And that was just simply to get some additional ceiling height for that ground
floor uh light commercial space that we'll discuss a little bit later um you know what we have here
is again a building that has two means of egress we've got two staircases as well as a uh elevator
so um you know all four floors the building as well as the uh roof deck and the uh cellar are
going to be fully ada accessible um you know designed obviously in accordance with 2018 ibc
You know, the next exhibit, Isaac, if you want to move into Z2, which would just be the elevations you can see here, you know, the black and white elevations are pretty, you know, straightforward.
You know, the black and white elevations are pretty, you know, straightforward. Obviously, when we get to the renderings, you'll see we had a little bit of fun with the RCO as well as the client in developing some murals that we want to propose on this new construction building, which is something you don't see very often.
But the black and white elevations, again, nearly just demonstrate the 41 -foot height that we're asking for compared to a 38 -feet.
And then it also shows the pilot houses and the elevator overrun for 10 feet, which, again, is permissible, all of which are meeting the required front, rear, and side setbacks of the property.
Again, the only ask is the additional three feet dimensionally for the height.
um if you want to move into the floor plans um sure i can give you an idea here if you're looking
at the sk1 sheet you'll see the cellar plan as well as the first floor plan um that first floor
area again you see kind of moving towards the bottom of the page where your entrance is that's
chester avenue and again the top of the page would be your rear yard for this property so again the
ground floor you've got your common mail lobby bike area for the residential you'll see your
two staircases that are you know center line the building with the hallway and your your elevator
again for that ada accessibility over on the left hand side in the front you'll see a bi -level
commercial space which again is is bi -level with the basement that you know the owner who's on the
call can discuss a little bit more it's going to be his you know office space in the future
so you can get into a little bit more of the details there but we've got a business professional
you know office style use for that commercial space that we're asking for here and then you
know throughout if you go to the next page isaac on sk2 i'd say basically you've got a typical
floor plan what means is your second floor third and fourth floor are all identical so for each of
those uh each of those floors you've got uh you have uh let's see here one two three so you have
four units per floor um on the upper floors um again they're a mix between two and one bedroom
units um i believe the mix in the building total we've got a total of 10 two -bedroom units and seven
one -bedroom units again all of which have their own private uh balcony spaces uh which we feel
is important to work into these so everybody has their own private balcony spaces that are at least
five by ten and then again they all have that access whether it be the stairs or the elevator
up to the shared roof deck again your square footages of these units range in size on the
small end for the one bedrooms are about 675 which is actually pretty pretty large for a one
bedroom considering some other development in the city you know where you can cram here we had a
a decent amount of space in the lot that we could kind of really, you know, make these units a little
bit larger. So again, ranging in size from 675 square feet to looks like the larger end is about
950 for those two bedrooms. And again, all of the units are designed to be compliant that are type
B accessible, as well as the required number of type A units that we need. And again, that elevator
helps us, you know, provide a greater access to accessible units and, you know, types in a
building of this size that, you know, not having the elevator would prohibit us from. So we felt
it was a good choice to put that in there. Other than that, I mean, the roof deck plans, the last
page of the floor plans. And again, just from this, I would point out that we have our minimum
roof deck setbacks from the front and the rear. Our pilot houses and our elevators are also set
back more than 10 feet which is required and we located all of the mechanical equipment again
towards the rear of the property on the roof again the idea being that you didn't want to see any of
that from the streets so we kind of tried to tuck it in the back and then just I guess kind of while
we're in the back of the property that's also where we have our trash enclosure which again
can be accessed from either of the side yards the owner's going to have private collections since
were over the six unit uh minimum for that so it would be you know private trash collection
uh probably two or three times a week and again we have all of that all the tenants have access
to that uh you know fenced off uh trash enclosure area in the back and then on on trash day you know
the collection company would would access that from either of the two side yards and and do their
thing there um isaac the next one's the rendering i'll kind of just touch briefly on that and you
know that that's probably all I have for my part at least but um thank you thank you thank you
Isaac would you want to bring the owner on and adopt sure um yeah LaVar I would like to um
call my client uh LaVar Clark who is the principal of the LLC owner uh junk property LLC
who is the principal of the LLC owner, Junk Property LLC.
LeVar, are you there?
Can you guys hear me?
Yes, I'm here.
Okay, LeVar, state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Name is LeVar Clark, L as in Larry, E as in Edward, V as in Victor, A as in Apple, R as in Robert.
Last name is Clark with L and E.
Thank you.
and um uh chair i guess uh just want to be sure that the witness is sworn as well
yeah i'm sorry yeah do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you uh lavar you heard all the testimony that i offered to the board today
yes i did and did you hear the testimony that logan dry offered to the board today
yes i did and would you adopt all that testimony as though you had offered it yourself
Yes, I would.
Is there anything that any other facts about this property in your proposed development that you wanted to share with the board?
I wanted to share that the commercial space, which is like business space, will be occupied by my team, which is very company development.
We plan on bringing our real estate office there.
That's where our home base is going to be located.
We can provide education, also lending, and also we're bringing our nonprofit, which is BEAT, Building Equitable Action Together, all in that location to provide services to the community.
There are also community benefits that we've talked about with the neighboring RCOs.
Two of the units will be affordable units at 60 % AMI.
Also, we've coordinated with RCOs.
we would like someone from the community to uh design and when the building is built is imprint
the the murals there that represent the history of the concessing neighborhood um as it sets so
that way when a new development comes on they have a part in the development itself so those are
pretty much some of the things that we we want to do in regards to coming into the community
thank you mr clark thank you questions from the questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr chairman okay questions from the virtual audience
yes chair we have minister l you can admit yourself greetings mr chairman and uh members of
the Zoning Board of Adjustments, Minister Enoch Amarayal, E -N -O -C -H -A -M -E -N -R -A hyphen E -L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Thank you, sir.
Earth Keepers was the coordinating RCO in this proposed project, and we supported the
project in reference to the reason of refusal, not repeating any testimony.
We supported the property in reference to, you know, we understand that the height was exceeding the three feet of which is required by the code.
Such additional footages we deem necessary for the owner's office space, which would bring management presence as well as the community area, including a conference room for free of use for the community.
With that being said, we support the project and further has determined that, you know, this community development would benefit the community in its diverse capacity and would encourage the honorable members of the Zone and Board of Adjustments to concur.
Thank you very much for testifying.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the virtual audience?
No more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
making sure i hit that unmute button um hi this is this is greg waldman planning commission staff
this property was part of a community driven zoning map amendment that maintained the existing
single family residential zoning at this location however given the lots location along a transit
corridor or the the lots uh plural location along the transit corridor and adjacency to a vacant
structure previously used as a mixed -family multifamily building. We have no objection
to the proposed multifamily use, but we would request a proviso that no more than 15 units
are built, which would be the maximum allowed under the RM1 zoning, the most common multifamily
zoning in this area.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT - Counsel, do you have any comment?
MR. Well, I would say that the
We proposed 17 because after, you know, reviewing our...
Because after reviewing our plans, our square footage, and our uses, we believe that we can effectively provide management of the extra units, I think, would not be incredibly difficult.
This is an experienced property management company to the two extra units would be the affordable units as well to take, you know, two units out would likely.
I don't want to say likely, but it could lead to the possibility that we may only be able to devote one unit to affordable, whereas if we have the 17 total units, we would definitely be able to offer two of them as affordable at 60 percent of AMI.
So that would be, you know, that would be our position on that.
And I, you know, I understand why that's planning's position, but, you know, we're striving and my client is a local neighbor.
He he intends to run his business out of this property.
He intends to be on site. He already is very involved in the neighborhood in terms of his his planning and his development,
but also in terms of community benefits that he already, you know, gives back to the community and would like to put in these two affordable units at this site.
So, MI -2021 -003776, 5220 Chester Avenue. I vote yes with provisors from planning.
Excuse me, Chair. I'm sorry, but you will have to state the provisor specifically, so it's on the record.
Is that maximum of 15?
Maximum 15.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with maximum 15.
Correct.
Thank you.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
We'll provide those 15.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the board.
Thank you very much.
MI -2021 -00889 -5921 Haverford Avenue, no exhibits, third listing.
Lotus -02A -LLC.
No hands, Chair.
I vote we dismiss.
Thomas Holloman, dismiss.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
MI 2020 0028176948 Keystone, no exhibits, third listing, Latrice Burrell.
No hands, Chair.
I vote we dismiss.
Thomas Holloman, dismissed.
is there anybody left in the virtual audience that has a case that wasn't called or they're
still waiting no hash thank you everybody great work no i'm sorry chair um a hand did just go
okay sure mike you can unmute yourself yes i was here for the uh 138 tasker meeting wait a minute
do me a favor could you identify yourself and sure my name is michael harrigan h -o -r -r -i -g -a -n
uh i thought there was going to be a meeting for 138 tasker street so let me let me just
swear you real quick do you do you swear from tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
yes sir so at two o 'clock today we continued one through one through the eight tasker street
at the request of the applicant's attorney.
Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
That's okay. That's okay. We'll make sure
you're notified the next time.
I sat through a lot of meetings.
Well, two o 'clock, we did announce it.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No more hands, Chair.
All right. Thank you, everybody.
Great job, Bill.
All good. Thanks.
Sorry again about the Zoom issues.
have a good night all good night everyone as well good night good night everyone be careful