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