how's the audience look tanya
they're coming in slowly okay
Okay, Chair, we're at 46. You can begin as you wish.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Ishmael Shaheed, our board secretary.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
I know he's here.
And James Snell, our board member.
Present Mr. Chairman.
Also with us is our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit, and our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Before we begin, here is our virtual format.
Be advised that proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkit at philip.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and address to the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
Any comments have to be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett.
Let's look at this morning's continuances.
Number two, MI 2021, 004-544-4900 Reno Street.
That case is continued.
And number 15, MI 2021-001-971-6443-49 Van Dyke Street, that case is continued.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who has a comment relative to those two cases?
are there any other requests are there any other requests for continuance
i see no hands chair are there any requests for withdrawals
i see no hands chair thank you we're going to go to case number one
am i mr chair i'm sorry this is hillary can um we call up the two um ridge avenue cases
oh sure first yes so we have two cases that are appeals against l and i
number 10 mi 2022 004 653 66 49 ridge avenue and number 12
12 MI 2022-004-565-6778-84 Ridge Avenue. Mr. DeMarco is the attorney.
Mr. DeMarco is coming in now as a panelist.
good morning everyone all right mr demarco state your name please and spell for the court reporter
richard demarco uh d-e-m-a-r-c-o all right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes hillary don't we have a city attorney that's getting on too
yep we have we have two we have uh mr reuter and miss davis okay they're both in both of the men
miss davis can you raise your hand please yes i'm in
Ms. Davis, can you raise your hand, please?
Yes, I'm in.
Good morning, Ms. Davis.
I'm sorry.
Good morning, Ms. Davis.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, good morning, Desjane Davis, on behalf of the city of Philadelphia.
For the record, that is D-A-V-I-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are we ready to go?
Chair, I'm sorry. This is Tanya Chair. Can we ask to have her spell her first name?
Yeah, please spell your first name, please, Ms. Davis.
D-E-S as in Sam, J as in John, E as in elephant, N as in Nancy, E as in elephant, E as in elephant.
All right, thank you. Hillary, are we okay to go?
Mr. Ruter, are you speaking as well? Do you need to be sworn in?
Um, no, I, I, well, I have a case later, but, uh, not, uh, Ms. Davis will be handling these
Thank you.
Thank you.
Proceed, Ms. Davis.
Um, good morning again.
So with regards to the properties located at 6649 Ridge Ave, as well as 6778 Ridge Ave,
um, the parties have stipulated to the ZBA granting the appeal against the Department
of License and Inspection, also known as LNI.
okay thank you hillary we don't have to vote do we uh yes we we do need to to vote still
and mr demarco did you did you want to add anything no uh i want to thank the law department
for uh for reaching this agreement uh and it's on both cases by the way mr chairman but we can
do one at a time i'm going to read both when i vote okay yeah and we agree to the to the stipulation
as to Len's email, and I thank Len and Desmond Nye.
So MI 2022-004-653-6649 Ridge Avenue, and MI 2022-004-565-6778-84 Ridge Avenue,
I vote appeal granted.
appeal grant my name is carol tenary i vote to feel granted thomas holliman my vote is appeal
granted james snell my vote is appeal granted ishmael shaheed my vote is appeal granted
thank you everyone thank you thanks everybody i appreciate it so we're going to go to case
number one, MI 2021-004-548-4306-08 Parkside Avenue. The attorney is Darwin Bovee, and also
the attorney for opposition is Steve Master. We have letters of opposition from the East Park
Civic, East Park Residence Association, and we also have letters of support from the Business
Association. We also, Councilwoman Gossier's office is also in opposition. Mr. Bove and Mr. Master.
They're both coming in now as a panelist here. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the court. Good to see you.
Can you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Darwin Beauvais. That's B-E-A-U-B-A-I-S. Counsel for the applicant. I'm located at 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1910.
All right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
All right. Is Mr. Masters on?
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Steve Masters with the law firm of JustLaws. I represent two RCOs, East Parkside Residence Association and Centennial Parkside CDC.
Could you spell your name just for the record, Mr. Masters?
Sure. S-T-E-V-E-M-A-S-T-E-R-S.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right. Mr. Beauvais, we'll start with you. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is German Jakubov, and he should be somewhere in the Zoom ether. He will be one of my witnesses. I also have a witness, Salim Lucas.
okay also be all right so our advice our vice chair carol tenere has a few questions
So our vice chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Good morning.
Have you emailed the exhibit?
Do you agree to wait the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
I just wanted to put an objection on the record
that the tax, there is no tax clearance
in the exhibit binder that was submitted by the applicant.
There is tax compliant and I'm glad you mentioned that.
But however, it's my time and Mr. Chairman,
members of the board, I too want to start off
with an objection uh uh counsel for the opposition actually submitted their uh materials in less than
the five-day requirement uh so i would say uh and they further exacerbated that by sending material
at nine o'clock last night so i i do ask that the board before we start uh actually
and agree that any of his exhibits
or because they were out of time
cannot be used in today's hearing.
Hillary, when did you receive it?
Do we know when you received it?
Mr. Chair, I have to double check the dates.
I know there was an additional cover sheet
that I received last night.
There were exhibits submitted prior to that
by Mr. Masters, but the board policy has been that exhibits by opposition can be submitted
after the five-day window, recognizing that the opposition may want to submit
exhibits reflecting what was in the exhibit packet submitted by the applicant. Typically,
I HAVE ASKED THAT OPPOSITION PROVIDE THEIR EXHIBITS AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE BOTH TO THE BOARD AND TO THE APPLICANT FOR REVIEW.
ALL RIGHT, SO DARWIN, WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED.
OKAY, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I WANT MY OBJECTION TO STILL STAND.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND JUST IN TERMS OF KEEPING THE RECORD STRAIGHT, WE'VE SPOKEN, I'VE SPOKEN TO DARWIN SEVERAL TIMES ON THIS CASE.
He knew what was coming when, and we did submit our original exhibit binder five days in advance,
but one of our new exhibits that was submitted yesterday was because of a retaliation that Mr. Bove's client did
where he is evicting one of our witnesses who's a tenant in one of his properties,
and that happened only a couple days ago.
Why don't we proceed?
Carol, you done with the questions, Carol?
What do you have to share your screen?
members of the board good to see you uh before you is a proposal that has undergone a significant
transformation over the last several years of response to community feedback with the goal of
enhancing a critical section at parkside avenue and belmont avenue in the city's east parkside
section the property is located at 4306 parkside avenue in west philadelphia and it has a cmx
to zoning classification.
The property was historically used
as a YMCA athletic field in the 1930s and 40s.
There are no structures on this property.
Famously, the Philadelphia Stars,
a Negro baseball team played a home game at this location.
And there's a historical marker directly across
from the property marking the occasion.
Now in 2005, a Memorial Park opened with the assistance
from the Business Association of West Parkside.
This included the installation of a mural
located on the side of the adjacent property
at 4304 Parkside Avenue.
Although the lot is private property,
the owner of the applicant here today
in support of the community has agreed to move the mural
with the help and guidance of the city's mural arts program by the property owners estimation this will cost about $90,000 to move the mural.
with the help and guidance
of the city's mural arts program.
by the property owner's estimate,
Now the project as originally designed in 2020 included 15 residential units with a commercial space and was issued refusals for rear yard, open area density and height.
Now, the ZBA heard argument in May of 2021 and in June of 2021.
The community mounted a significant but largely misinformed protest that was more targeted towards the developer himself versus the details of the project.
And we can talk about that more later.
The project was significantly redesigned in October of 2020.
That person reduced the units to 12 from 15 with a commercial space. However, the refusals that were
issued totaled six. They included roof deck access structure, rear yard, open area, high density,
and as well as lack of bicycle spaces. Now, despite the reduction from the 2020 proposal,
the community still remained unsatisfied. Accordingly, prior to presenting the case
in October of 2021, the project was again redesigned. Now the project includes 12 dwelling
units, no commercial space at the request of the community, and now only has three refusals,
which now includes the lack of convenience space, rear yard, and density.
And you can see that in our exhibit five, which I mean.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
I'm wondering if it would make more sense for when Mr. Bovee finishes his opening for me to give a counter opening
so that you can understand the basic contours of our positions.
and then he could go forward with his exhibits.
Yeah, we could do that.
Well, nonetheless, the exhibits are here.
So our refusals right now stem, you can see from Exhibit 1,
this board granted us leave to amend our application,
which created the different refusals from October of 2021 to today.
And as I mentioned, it's having the lack of commercial space, rear yard, and density.
Now, we do submit to a hardship on each of these refusals, given the lock orientation, the physical limitations, and the context of the neighborhood.
Now, with respect to rear yard, our hardship stems from-
Excuse me, Mr. Bouvet, let's let Mr. Masters do his opening, and then we'll let you go into the details of your presentation from there.
all right thank you go ahead steve um okay i'm going to um darwin can you um unshare your screen
please. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Board. Last time that the Zoning Board
was considering this project in 2021, you wisely voted to deny the variances. The appeal