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