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,