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
in front of you, as Mr. Bove said, was for 15 units with commercial space on the first
floor. This is, as he noted, mixed commercial residential use, and so the commercial space
on the first floor is required by the CMX2 zoning. Back in 2020 and 2021, the developer
sought to build to locate a community style cafe with a retail area for selling baseball
memorabilia on that first floor as required by the code and he then was proposing 15 units
above that which would exceed the height and it would have been six stories total and then it was
reduced to five. He also offered to repave a driveway and put a couple units below market
rate, although with no commitment and no actual application for that. At the time that you
considered this project last time, the Planning Commission was clear in their testimony. They
testified twice at the May 5th and the June 23rd, 2021 hearings. They testified that the degree of
proposed variances exceed the minimum variance to afford relief.
afford relief. The Planning Commission did acknowledge that there would be some hardship
The Planning Commission did acknowledge that there would be some hardship
from the dimensional aspects of the refusals because of the shape of the lot being a triangle,
and that was in terms of the open space and the rear yard, but they said in particular looking
at the number of dwelling units and the height, there was no hardship for that and there was no
minimum variance. In addition, Council Member Gaudier personally testified before you in
June of 2021 and she strongly was against this project because of the density and because
it was out of scale with the neighborhood. So we are here today now on a slightly modified
project, but as opposed to last time where the developer offered and proposed the correct
required commercial use on the first floor, now the developer is not putting any commercial
on the property and therefore he's drawing an additional refusal, which there's absolutely
no hardship for because he proposed and he was intending to put commercial on the first
floor last year. In addition, the developer is only entitled to four units of dwelling
units above the commercial, and instead he's proposing 12. And there's absolutely no hardship
for that, and it's clearly not the minimum variance necessary. That's our position. And
we will be presenting witnesses from the two RCOs and also near neighbors. The last thing
in terms of our opening is that this is a developer that is well known to the community
because he has developed a number of properties in that vicinity. And unfortunately, one of the
reasons he is well known is because he has distinguished himself by prolonging blight
and nuisance uses at his properties by refusing to properly maintain them, by drawing a very large
number of LNI violations and we have photos that we're going to present you that show that even
today one of his historically designated properties is in terrible condition and there are
rodent infestations that he refuses to address in another one of his properties.
I have to object, right? Because what does this have to do with this application?
and and this is a zoning hearing this is not this is not property maintenance
mr mr masters yes let's let's concentrate on this property well sure but mr bove
i understand what you're saying but i i want to move on and concentrate wait but i just wanted
to point out that in mr bove's exhibits he he presents a number of different projects that
have been permitted from his client in a number of different locations i agree that we are here
for a unique situation mr bobe starts his testimony we'll hold him to the same
okay okay and and and and mr masters are you done yes okay thank you thank you and
if the board can indulge me um one of my witnesses i was just informed he he has to
he he has another appointment so he did want to highlight his support for the project uh if i
can just put them on now and then i'll continue my presentation so if we can promote salim lucas
salim if you're hearing this please raise your hand virtually
are we sharing the audience salim lucas in the audience can you unmute yourself and wait for the
chair. Good morning. Could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter?
Salim Lucas, L -U -C -A -S. All right. Could you spell your first name too for the court reporter?
Salim, S -A -L -E -E -M. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you uh uh i know you have to go so i appreciate
you squeezing the time to help us along here um i understand you support this project
can you tell us why um i like like so i own the building right across the street from
German, the 1238 Belmont Avenue project, I felt like it is that it's doing a lot
good for the community. It's bringing different type of individuals into the
neighborhood. I just feel like as a developer he's getting beat up on but um
I just feel like as a developer, he's getting beat up on.
But I actually like the way he's invested into the neighborhood.
He's giving back to the community.
He talked to numerous people trying to cater to the wants and needs of the neighborhood.
I just feel like it's a good thing for the neighborhood.
I think a lot of people.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to object to this point.
He's testifying the hearsay.
Steve.
Let him concentrate on this property here and what he thinks about this property and this development.
All right. So, Selene, what do you do?
I own a body shop in Collision Repair Facility.
And do you live in the community?
I actually own properties in the community as well. I actually live in New Jersey, though.
Okay. And just along what you've seen as a fellow investor, have you seen German treated differently than other investors and developers?
I'm objecting that this has nothing to do with what your case is for a unique hardship on this piece of property.
well if you can show if you can show photos for properties right so wait a minute he has he's not
showed what what darwin concentrate on this property here what does he think of this property
and what does he think of this particular development all right when it comes to this
him pushing forward on this property right and his interaction with the community
what's your opinion on how he's been treated i'm objecting that there's there's no relevance here
Mr. Masters, I'm going to let that testimony, as long as it's about this particular project, and you can counter it later, but let's move on and let him do it.
I just feel like they're not being fair with him. I feel like, you know, based off of previous properties, like, they're reaching far, like, reaching into other CDCs, asking for help, when in reality, he's trying to compromise with the neighborhood.
But this is this is like the third time that he changed the plans catering to the neighborhood, trying to do right by the neighborhood.
Like I feel like people need to stop fighting growth and just like work with each other so that the project can get done.
I think it's a great location. It's a strategic spot on the corner of Belmont Avenue.
I feel like there's a lot of developing going on all over the city.
I feel like we should be able to develop West Philly
and give back to our neighborhood
so that the people that's in the neighborhood
can reap the benefits from it.
Darwin, are you done with Mr. Lucas?
Yeah, for now.
I'll reserve the rebuttal.
Mr. Masters, you have a follow -up?
Mr. Lucas, you testify you don't live in Pennsylvania.
You live in New Jersey.
Is that correct?
but you do have a business that's close to this area yes and you own some investment properties
yes um were you ever at any of the rco meetings that involved um this project
yes which ones were you at i was at the last two three of them
okay the ones that were on zoom yes and you heard um the the um the number of people who
who were opposed to this project yeah i definitely um uh i seen the different people
from viola street giving their feedback on how they felt about the project um definitely was
aware of everything i mean are you aware that or would you would you agree that virtually
everyone who went to these rco meetings was against this project
I've talked to a few people in the neighborhood, a lot of the people not in the Zoom meetings
and trying to figure out what was their perspective on it. And a lot of people, they got mixed
emotions about the project. More so one of the biggest concerns like trash and things
of that in the memorial covering the painting and stuff like that right but at the at these
meetings virtually no one voted yes in fact that one meeting there was a hundred people who voted
no and no one voted yes were you at that meeting yes okay um i have no further questions thank you
so celine were you allowed to vote uh i didn't vote at the time though
Do you believe you were allowed to vote?
No, I just felt like I didn't want to say anything because there was so much hostility and so much kind of like negativity coming into the room.
kind of like negativity coming into the room i just didn't say anything i was there
I just didn't say anything. I was there. I just didn't say anything.
i just didn't say anything yeah so so you heard mr masters make mention of of other properties
and and the like do do you recall protests being held against this project yes okay do
Do you recall any descriptions of what the project would have been?
I'm objecting you're going beyond the scope of your direct, and that's not permitted to be direct.
You were asking him whether or not he attended RCO meetings, right?
Attending these meetings would be any time that the RCO would meet.
No, you're talking about street protests.
It's also whether or not they're looking to...
so no darwin darwin mr masters listen talk about what happened at the meetings i think we're fine
with that and and let's just move on i think you're making your point mr bowie all right i
have no further questions okay thank you so much you want to call your next witness
i don't have to get i i can start with start with my presentation thank you very much at the right
time for maximum impact so like i was saying before um mr masters wanted to rehash what took
place in may of 2021 um in june of 2021 um uh master also made mention of other properties that
we possibly have listed. Nonetheless, let's just focus on this property here. We currently have
an application that has generated three refusals. We've had other iterations that, and a couple of
the other iterations, generated more, but this application today has generated three refusals.
and and we do submit that we have a hardship for these refusals because of the lot shape
the physical limitations in the context of the neighborhood so starting with the rear yard
our hardship stems directly from the property's unusual triangle shape as you can see from the
site plans. Let me just share the screen again. This is Exhibit 5 in your packet. If you can
see my cursor, this is the lot. It is a triangle. That is an unusually shaped triangle lot and
it's roughly 2 ,200 square feet and it sits at the convergence of Belmont and Parkside
avenue given the triangle shape designing any form of development
what implies with the dimensional requirements of cmx2 is impossible without significantly
jeopardizing the usable living space in a triangle building the applicant
We submit that this is the Minimus because the rear yard.
Darwin, you're breaking up a little bit,
if you could stay close to the mic.
The rear yard, which totals a little bit over five feet,
if you can see our red balloon here.
and it goes from belmont to parkside it's in the rear the this this is the adjacent property
that actually has that's currently holding on to the mural and we tried to comply with the code
and the most that we could spare was five feet now typically nine feet would be required but but
But this was the most we could do with in splitting the baby, so to speak, the rare, the adjacent property owner wanted us to not touch her property.
And we were also looking to comply.
But given the constraints of taking away from our units or the square footage of our units, five feet was all we could do.
And we're submitting that this is de minimis.
Now, with respect to density, this is a predominantly multifamily area and additional units are needed.
This is a predominantly multifamily area and additional units are needed in order to ensure
that the units are congruent to the context of the area, especially in light of challenges faced
as a result of the unusual law. Now, the ZBA has approved multiple other similar developments in
recent years reflecting that the proposed density is consistent with the area. Now, I've listed
exhibit I'm going to be objecting to all of these exhibits because there's nothing there's nothing
in the code that speaks to what happened at some other property and on some other street on some
other parcel we're here only for a unique hardship and and the minimum variance for this property
alone it really doesn't matter so what happened Mr Masters I'm going to allow him to show
other properties for for density issues and and and okay so we just want our objection to be noted
thank you i'm sorry i'm sorry this is tanya um could i please make a special request of you
gentlemen um please keep this very professional and please do not over speak the court reporter
is going to have a hard time trying to keep this as a clean record so please when one starts to
talk the other please stop i do thank you all very kindly thank you tanya so and but to respond to
mr masters um you you have to understand the nature of the neighborhood and look at other
properties in order to determine the impact this is multi -family and i'm showing that
there's multi -family in the area and hold on let me just go to exhibit nine
Here is a map.
If you can see my cursor, this gray point is where we are located in this area.
And the red is the multifamilies that were recently approved.
And our Exhibit 10 actually consists of the actual permits of these, of the multifamily.
But this is illustrative here. But you do notice there's 1238 Belmont Avenue, which has 84 units. 4146 Parkside Avenue has 28 family units. 1203 North 41st Street has 8 family units.
So, it's clear that the proposed density is consistent with or significantly less than other developments in the area, which is the point that I was trying to make.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it boils down to this.
Erecting a co -compliant four -unit proposal will not be feasible in this location.
It would generate unit size that are significantly out of character and unaffordable for the surrounding community.
We're proposing units that ranges an average of about 500 square feet for each unit, which is the norm for the area, and our scheme does include both one - and two -bedroom units.
The triangular shape of this lot further contributes to a significant hardship as it relates to density.
Designing units for this unusually shaped lot is extremely challenging, and these units are designed to ensure minimum interior pinch point and maximum comfort.
Now, you have to also note that although a financial hardship cannot be the sole basis for finding a hardship, the ZBA can consider unusual or extreme costs associated with a project when finding a hardship.
particularly when it relates to density. In this case, the cost of relocating the mural, as well as the costs imposed by the GA tech findings for this property support such a finding.
Now, the geo check tech is exhibit six, which is here, page 39. And here, it basically says, we can't, there's, we have a groundwater issue.
Mr. Chair, I have an objection.
So I'll let him do this.
No, no, I need to put the objection on the record.
Well, I could say what it is, Steve.
Sure. Mr. Bovee is not an expert witness. He's quoting right now from an expert report. That expert is not here. He didn't produce him, and he didn't indicate that he would be here for a witness.
Mr. Bovee is not an expert witness.
He's...
I can't cross -examine this report because it's a document, and I don't believe I can cross -examine Mr. Beauvais since he's the attorney and he doesn't have any expert ability to give his opinion in a professional way.
He's also been testifying concerning cost issues, but he doesn't have any witness who actually has cost data. So none of his statements are actually probative or constitute evidence that would go into your findings and could constitute a substantial evidence for hardship.
So either this line of comments by Mr. Bovee are stricken, or he has to produce an actual expert who can testify to this so that I could cross -examine them.
Mr. Ministers, we take note of your comments, but we're going to proceed. Mr. Bovee, proceed with your comments.
Yes, and we will have the applicant who can shed light to all the exhibits that we're producing here.
Nonetheless, when it comes to financial hardship, the costs that are involved can be considered by this ZBA.
and it is in conformance with the supreme court and and related case law in the lower courts
now with respect to commercial space you please note and and it's being made to seem uh i believe
in uh mr master's uh opening statement that we had commercial we didn't have commercial
that this was done on a whim.
The board has to note that our lack of commercial space
is in direct response to the desires of the community.
Although there are commercial uses along Belmont Avenue,
this corner of Belmont and Parkside is solely residential.
When we started this process,
we offered to move the mural
from its location. And because that location did host the mural, we were going to put a Philadelphia Star, a Negro League baseball themed coffee shop as part of our commercial as to give back.
We were told that that they didn't want that. So we took the commercial out. And that's why we have a new scheme and a new application for
for this project. I'm just going to object that Mr. Beauvais is now alluding to hearsay. We don't
have any identity of who the mysterious people are who have been directing his client to put
or to remove commercial uses that are required by the zoning code. But we do know that the zoning
code says that he must have a commercial space on the first floor and he has a refusal for it.
So I'm asking the board to just strike the comments from Mr. Bovee that don't identify who these mysterious forces are in the universe that are conspiring on commercial spaces.
So, Mr. Masters, we take note of exactly everything you said.
Mr. Bovee, continue.
just just let just just so you know we we have this schedule for an hour i'm getting up to about
you know 55 50 55 minutes right now so what i think i would want you to do mr beauvais is to
start to finish up and then we're going to have to have a resumptive hearing understood understood
but just mr masters you understand that too is that okay i do well that's your call mr chair i'm
i'm good with what your call is so let's let's let's mr beauvais start to get to the point
where you're finishing up where you are and then we'll plan where we're going to be the next time
where you know where we left off understood mr chairman so but but just on a side note and quick
response right you know the testimony the notes of testimony for the last two hearings where it does
discuss uh the that commercial shouldn't be uh is not desired is there in a packet and
and mr masters could could look for himself who in his clients organization
mr masters could could look for himself who in his clients organization has uh uh suggested this so
um let me just see where i am uh so given given the the
lack of commercial space
we actually decided to follow the community because we actually
agreed with them. Commercial space will most likely be a struggle because of the lack of
pedestrian traffic and because the community did say to us in more than one occasion that they
believe commercial use on the ground floor will create vehicle pedestrian conflicts and it will
probably create more congestion in that area so we agreed and we believe that that with that
it makes sense because we're in a residential area and this will make it solely residential
now i'm just going to call my witness if the board doesn't mind and then i i i think if you
If you call your witness, your witness will be on a little bit and they'll be crossed.
So I think we should start to end this now.
Now, I would say they tell me that the council person may be in the audience.
I would like, if I could, to get her on record before we have a resumptive hearing.
You're both okay with that?
Yes, definitely.
Is the council person in the virtual audience?
Do we see her in the virtual audience?
Yeah, Ms. Gaudier is in the audience with her hand raised.
Okay, thank you.
May I allow her to speak?
Yeah, please.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Jamie Gaudier, J -A -M -I -E -P -A -U -T -H -I -E -R.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm here today to oppose the proposed variances at 4306 to 08 Parkside Avenue.
I testified in opposition last year as well and I'm back again for similar reasons.
This new proposal is less of an overbuild but it's still an overbuild. Though the plot is uniquely
shaped it is comparably sized as many of the other two or three unit multi -family parcels along
Clarkside Avenue. We know the community would welcome a by right proposal with ground floor
commercial for housing units and 38 feet inches of building height this was made very clear during
the series of community meetings about the original proposal last year and it was reiterated
yet again this year but it still falls on deaf ears adding insult to injury this year's proposal
removes the only component of the project that could have been considered to be community serving
which was the ground floor commercial space. The applicant has stated that this was in response to
community feedback but really this just figures to better serve their own interest because they
replaced the commercial space with more housing units bringing the total number to 12 units which
is still a significant overbuild. The community of East Parkside has spoken very clearly and
unequivocally, and I ask that you hear them today. Between both these proposals and a half dozen
community meetings over a two -year period, each vote taken results in overwhelming opposition.
In fact, some of the strongest opposition I've seen since assuming this role. So I ask you today
to deny this variance, and I thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Beauvoir, Mr. Masters, any
questions i just have an acknowledgement uh councilwoman i appreciate your passion
thank you mr masters um i uh the council member is is a witness on the on our client side so we
um we wholeheartedly endorse her comments thank you council thank you very much um so we're going
to end this down we're going to schedule a resumptive hearing um tanya you'll be in touch
with them when the next hearing will be on no chair i have the date um typically resumptive
No, Chair. I have the date. Typically, resumptive hearings have to be announced for the record.
hearings have to be announced okay
So December 20th at 930 a .m. is the date that I have.
And we will allow enough time for them to complete their presentations.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Can I just ask each of the parties to advise how much of a presentation they have left,
number of witnesses that sort of thing so we can plan accordingly why don't we do that darwin you
go first what do you have left yeah i i know i have the applicant um jermaine yakubov and um um
i may have one other so let's just say a total of two okay and how long do you think that'll take
you um to to for both of them to testify uh maybe about 20 minutes each 40 minutes okay
mr masters um we have four witnesses um members of the board we have the two leaders of the rcos
we have um two near neighbors one uh it's going to testify concerning um the the safety um and the
the fear that they have with this alley that's being uh proposed in the design and the other
one is going to um testify to um the the irresponsibility of of the of the applicant
and the public the public harm that's going to call that would come from putting um a property
that he would control in that location i i know you object to that but mr masters well everyone
objects to his conduct that's good that mr bovay joins me on that let's go back mr masters how
much time do you think you need um i think we're going to need an hour for your presentation well
yes because i imagine that mr bouvet will be um cross -examining our witnesses so we're talking an
hour and 15 20 minutes for both is that possible hour and a half i think an hour and a half would
be a good a good allocation darwin um yeah how much what let me ask you tanya what do you have
to give um so if we have to do more time than the typical hour we would have to push it into january
can we do it in an hour um mr chairman it sounds like january well my my concern
my concern mr chair is that um um since mr bouvet hasn't concluded his um his presentation
he may, as has happened, and not that he's done this before, but other applicants' attorneys have
run out the clock on some of the cases that I've been involved with. So if there were strict time
limits put on Mr. Bovee's witnesses, then we would understand if there were also time limits put on
ours but um up till now um this has been mr bouvet's um you know sole presentation and it's
taken quite a long time so let's let's let's say a half hour for each one hour we're going to finish
this in an hour i'm sorry this is tanya in order to keep it clean how about we do january the 18th
at 9 30 in which they will have enough time to give their full presentation and i will limit that
schedule well okay we'll we'll do that i i appreciate that okay all right thank you
thank you both by the way frustrated but i love you tanya thank you both we love you too all
all right mr chairman this is definitely the city brotherly love today thank you
thank you for um the accommodation okay thank you
Case number three, MI 2021 -004362 -105 Bethlehem, Ike, Henry Clinton.
I'm going to bring Henry on and then I'll do all the, I'll list the rest of the cases.
Mr. Clinton?
Chair, Mr. Clinton is coming in now as a panelist.
Morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Morning, Mr. Clinton.
State your name and spell for the court reporter.
You're Henry Clinton, C -L -I -N -T -O -N, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA.
You are Henry Clinton, C -L -I -N -T -O -N, 1313 South 33rd Street.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Clinton, we're going to list all your cases at once, and my understanding is you'll then do an opening for all of them, and then we'll go each case. Is that okay?
That sounds good, Mr. Chairman.
So I already called your first case.
The next case, MI 2021 -004 -356 -18 Hilltop Road.
Next case, MI 2021 -004 -359 -8532 Germantown Avenue.
Next case, MI 2021 -004 -361 -101 Bethlehem Pike.
I'll be right with you.
Next case, MI 2021 -003 -132 -8622 Germantown Avenue.
MI 2021 -003 -131 -8624 -26 Germantown Avenue, MI 2021 -004 -363 -7928 Germantown Avenue,
MI 2021 -004 -360 -8137 Germantown Avenue, and MI 2022 -000 -448 -8042 -44 Germantown Avenue.
Mr. Clinton, could you identify your client and their relationship to all those properties?
Sure. My client is Bowman, B -O -W -M -A -N, Properties Limited.
And the principal is here on the call, Richard Snowden.
And I will have another witness who is an employee and a director of leasing for Bowman Properties, David Hoylman, H -O -Y -L -M -A -N.
Right. And our vice chair, Carl Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Clinton. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do with regard to all the cases, Ms. Tenneri.
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the properties,
five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all nine projects.
Okay, you may proceed and please begin to share the voluminous screens that we're about to see.
All right, well, first I want to do your opening statement and then tell us how you're going to list the properties.
Okay, so I appreciate, first of all, Ms. Sunkett, she's getting a lot of shout outs today, but I'd like to join in that chorus because this was a yeoman's effort to get nine cases scheduled at the one time.
So our sincere thanks, both my client and me, to Ms. Sumkin.
So I basically have an opening statement.
I'm going to try to do this in an hour.
Not that I'm going to go fast, but I'm going to try to be as thorough as possible and stick to the facts.
So first, I want to talk about Bowman Properties.
I want to talk about Mr. Snowden, the project, the legal end of this, preparation for it, and community organization.
So first, Bowman Properties.
Bowman Properties is a long -term holder of numerous commercial properties as well as
residential properties in Chestnut Hill. Mr. Snowden and his grandfather started this company
in 1981 and been in continuous business for 41 years since that time. They have a sensibility
and an historic feeling for Chestnut Hill. Mr. Snowden has about eight employees and he also
has about 15 field employees who are doing renovations and work on his properties. And he
has in excess of 62 commercial tenants in the Chestnut Hill area. But most of them, 47 of them
or so, are mom and pops, small stores, galleries, you know, gathering places for people in Chestnut
Hill. And over the course of his 41 years, he has restored about 75 historic buildings in
Chestnut Hill. That would be part A of my opening. Part B is Mr. Snowden himself. He is the principal
of Bowman Properties Limited. He'll be a witness today. He lives in Chestnut Hill.
He lives in Chestnut Hill. His office in Chestnut Hill. He breathes Chestnut Hill. He loves Chestnut Hill.
His office in Chestnut Hill. He breathes Chestnut Hill.
He has made at least 18 contributions to the conservancy at Chestnut Hill of conservation easements.
And he shops at the stores that are his tenants and he eats at the restaurants that are his tenants.
the project the purpose of today is projects and requests to the board are in in seven of the nine
cases is to basically change the commercial makeup of some of the storefronts on germantown avenue
and off germantown avenue and lessen the square feet of the commercial spaces without changing
the front, you still have a storefront, but in the rear, making those rear areas into residential
spaces. Now, there's a couple where we're actually converting the commercial fully to residential,
and there's a couple that we're legalizing former uses, but I'll get through the detail of that as
we work through. One thing, it's really important, every residential unit or one bedroom apartment
that we're suggesting will have parking. The other thing that's really, really unique, and I think
the board will like this. Bowman Properties takes out the trash for every commercial tenant,
takes the trash cans out literally when necessary, where they have commercial pickup, and then make
sure the trash cans go back from whence they came. Again, Mr. Snowden walks these streets. He wants
to make sure everything is looking tidy and neat. And that's one of the things that his company
engages in, which I find unique to many people that we see present before the board.
So we're basically decreasing the size of the commercial storefronts and in the rear of those properties, putting in one bedroom residential units.
And there's a need for that, not only because these commercial spaces have sat vacant for a number of years, but also there's a lot of calls for some of the individuals in Chestnut Hill who are retiring and they want to stay in Chestnut Hill because it's a vibrant community and they want walk up living.
They want to be able to walk into their apartment and then walk to the avenue and enjoy the amenities that Chestnut Hill offers.
Next is an overview.
Why are we doing this?
Well, because the retail spaces, not only at Chestnut Hill, but throughout the country are struggling.
I think they're realizing that they don't need as many square feet as they thought they did.
They don't have the back office and they're not using the back office for storage.
so they're looking for a smaller footprint. Smaller footprint translates into less dollars
devoted to rent and more dollars devoted to marketing. So we have calls and Mr. Stoding
can address it. We've gotten calls from entrepreneurs, startups who don't want the
square footage that a lot of these spaces have. The beauty of this proposal is you're still going
to maintain the storefronts. Everyone will see it's a storefront. We're not going to go dark
And in the back, you'll be able to have an apartment with one car parking.
There's no demolition involved with any of these projects.
Everything is going to be done up to par.
It's going to be any interior renovations are going to be done to the Interior Department's regulations with regard to adaptive reuse.
And again, in keeping with Mr. Snowden's past history, in this case, I think past history is an indication of his future performance.
He wants to make sure these buildings stay the way they are.
So in terms of preparation, again, because he's a member of the community, Mr. Snowden did not want to curveball anyone.
He sent out 340 pieces of mail on his own.
I actually gave him the addresses that the City Planning Commission would use for all nine projects.
So we overdid it with mailings and had an informal community meeting.
In my first presentation, I'll show you a little bit about what that presentation consisted of.
And I have a lot of redundancy, Mr. Chairman, in my presentations because I gather the board will vote on each project alone.
And I wanted to make sure each project had a full and complete record.
I'm not going to regurgitate what I'm saying now, or I'm not going to regurgitate what's in the first presentation.
But in terms of material preparation, I have to have that in each presentation.
so Mr. Snowden and his staff engaged the neighbors at one of their locations one of
their vacant commercial spaces and they presented these projects seven of the projects because only
two of them are legalization so they really weren't presented but the seven projects where
we're either converting commercial to residential or converting commercial to commercial slash
residential so we had 40 attendees at that meeting it took place about a month or so
a month and a half before the formal meetings with the RCO,
and only one person expressed displeasure with one or two of the projects.
And only one person expressed displeasure with one or two of the projects.
So again, we're part of the fabric.
We want to give the community the heads up.
And then we went through the gamut of the Chestnut Hill Civic Association, the numerous
committees they have, which were very thorough and gave us some good ideas.
Finally, or next to last, I want to talk about the legal aspects of this project.
You'll see in my first presentation, there's a letter from Midge McCauley.
She's an expert on retail throughout the country.
And when I get to the first presentation, I'll talk about that more in depth.
But basically, her thesis and her theme is prior to, but as a result also of the pandemic,
retail is realizing, which I referenced earlier, they don't need the square footage that they
did prior.
The pandemic forced people to downsize, coalesce their operations, and they can get lean and
mean with less square footage which means any of the spaces that we have which are let's use the
term large we're not we're not able to rent they're sitting vacant we don't want vacancies
the business district as you'll see from you know their strong support they don't want vacancies
and i believe the majority of chestnut hill does not want vacancies so in terms of that letter i'll
go through it and you'll you'll see what i'm talking about you know she actually even says
in Europe, you know, you would expect the retail to be about what we have in terms of square
footage, and it's 25 % less. So that's one aspect. She talks about other, you know, small towns where
they're doing the same thing that Chestnut Hill is. So from a legal perspective, in terms of
hardship, I want to run through about eight or 10 categories that I think we hit the mark on
all eat. We have some unique circumstances in Chessna Hill and in the physical layout of these
properties, which warrants the variances. We are not altering the essential character of the
neighborhood. The storefronts are staying the same. We are not impairing any development of any
adjacent properties. We're not putting on any additions. We're not demolishing. We are providing
parking for every apartment that we're doing, but it doesn't take away from anyone else.
we're not detrimental to the public welfare we're certainly in harmony with the code because a lot
of these refusals and mr chairman every property is cmx1 but because it abuts an rsa3 designation
in most categories we're getting refusals for uses but because cmx1 does permit retail as well
as residential we're in harmony with the neighborhood again we have overwhelming support
for nine, excuse me, for seven of the nine projects, and one organization is opposing two,
although the councilwoman is staying neutral on that, and they're the last two that I'm going to
present, and we'll save them for the last because they might be the longer of the two. We're not
increasing congestion. We're not endangering the public health. There's no adverse impact
on transportation or sewer or safety, and we're certainly not creating any environmental damages.
Finally, the neighborhood groups that are involved in this presentation have
watched the presentation, have weighed in, include seven or eight organizations.
And I just want to list them for you as we go through.
We have the Chestnut Hill Conservancy. We have the Chestnut Hill Business District,
which is composed of the Chestnut Hill Business Association, Chestnut Hill Business Improvement
District, Chestnut Hill Parking Foundation. And we also have, those groups support all mine,
right? The business folks want this. They see it as a catalyst. I'm reading into their letters a
little bit, but they certainly are in favor of all mine projects. The designated RCO is Chestnut
Hill Civic Association. They're in favor of the first seven projects. They oppose the last two
projects. Councilwoman Cindy Bass, Councilmember Cindy Bass is in support of the seven in line
with Chestnut Hill Civic Association and on the other two where the Civic Association opposes
she's taking a neutral position and perhaps Mr. Richardson is on the call and can echo that.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, that's my opening statement. I'm going to ask that that opening statement be incorporated into all nine presentations, although, frankly, the first two, the opening statement doesn't apply to that much, but some of the illegal ends of it do.
I do have an order of presentation, if you would indulge me, Mr. Chairman.
So I'm going to start off with 8622, just to give you a preview. 8622.
I'm going to start off with 8622 Germantown Avenue. Then I'll move to 8624 Germantown Avenue.
Both of those projects are legalization of historic uses. Then I'm going to move to 18 Hilltop,
79 28 germantown 81 37 germantown 101 bethlehem pike 105 bethlehem pike and then the last two
80 42 germantown avenue and 85 32 germantown avenue so the first one is 86 22 let me see
where that is for me. That's number 11, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Hillary. So number 11,
MI 2021 -003 -132 -8622 Germantown Avenue, letter of support coordinating RCO, letter of support
Councilwoman Cindy Bass, letter of support Chesson Hill Conservancy, and letter of support Chesson
Hill Business District. Mr. Chairman, can you see my screen? I can. So I had the presentation
broken up into five because frankly I couldn't get them all on one on one PDF which is too
voluminous. So 8622 Germantown Avenue is the first. This is my you know introductory page
it's the same on all projects. These are my exhibits a little bit too fast.
Here's my exhibits at A3, excuse me, A1 through A10, which I asked to be introduced into the record.
This is the overview of what we did at the community meeting I mentioned at the outset.
We basically had all the folks that were there come into a room, and we were able to give them the aerial view as well as a summary, and then we went through each project.
But this is the letter I talked to you about at the outset from Midge McCauley, and I highlighted some areas that are going to apply to most of these projects.
She talked about the downsizing of individual store footprints and the overall square footage devoted to retail and food uses
are likely to have a substantial impact on Chestnut Hill's main commercial district.
And these are recommendations that Ms. McCauley gave to the business district.
And basically what she was saying is that some of the restrictive zoning that are on the retail corridors should be lifted
and that residential should be permitted
because you're bringing more foot traffic to the area.
You're not losing your commercial frontage
or your storefronts.
And at the same time,
you're letting other citizens who are selling
maybe their larger homes in Chessau Hill
and want to stick around in the neighborhood.
They can do that if they are able
to have a first floor apartment.
So again, not to belabor the point,
but she suggested review of the viability
of shrinking deep retail spaces
so residential could qualify as a permitted use at the back of the spaces.
That's exactly what we're doing in the majority of these projects.
Again, I've said this before, I don't want to beat it,
but deep spaces are tough for retailers.
It's a common issue in historic areas and districts across the country
with Chestnut Hill, and residential reuse of inappropriate retail space
is an excellent solution.
Again, bringing people and activity to the ground floor.
excuse me. These are the support letters that we're getting. This is the list of people that
were invited to the neighborhood meeting even before we met with the RCO. And this is just a
flavor of what Mr. Bowman and his staff did at the community meeting. Basically had a board
for each property, a table, a sign -in sheet for each property. Also had refreshments
to get a gauge from what people's reaction would be
and also to inform, to let them know
that they're not, all of a sudden,
sometimes neighbors get a mailer in their mailbox
about an RCO meeting, they can't make it.
But here was something where people could come out
and just be relaxed and walk through step -by -step.
The refusal, again, every property is same X1.
And the refusal has to do with the fact
that there's a two -family living in this household,
excuse me, a proposed two -family household living, but historically, this always had a commercial
use on the first, and it had two apartments above since the mid -1940s. So we're asking this project
for a legalization of an existing use. Again, to refresh, the current use is not what is reflected
use is not what is reflected in the zoning records. The zoning records say you only have a
in the zoning records, the zoning records say,
commercial and one family. If you went to L &I and asked for an L &I certificate, that's what they
would give you. But when you go through the historical records, which I have, you can see
from 1950, this has always been a commercial and two uses. These are the support letters we got
from the Conservancy, as well as from Chestnut Hill Business Districts, which I went through.
I don't want to go through those again. This is the photograph of the property. Again,
this is what's in the L &I records, but this is the actual use. We've had this use. It's referenced
1933. I was able to find records in the 50s, and there's one reference at 33. I don't want to
stretch it too much. So basically what we're saying, we're asking the board to legalize the
first floor commercial and one bedroom on the second floor and one bedroom in the third floor,
which has been there for basically 70 years.
Here's some interior photographs.
Mr. Clinton, there's no change in the commercial of this property.
No change in the commercial.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience on this particular case, 8622 Germantown Avenue?
i see no hands chair planning commission good morning chair bergman ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission last name is phil h -e -g -a -r -t -y do you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do proceed thank you chair good morning
board members. The comprehensive plan recommends this property for CMX 2 .5 zoning. This proposed
use conforms to the recommended zoning in the comprehensive plan. And so the city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the use variance. Thank you. MI 2021. Mr. Chairman,
can I have my client adopt my testimony? And then can I, unless you want to wait till the end,
he'll adopt it all at the end. I thought maybe at the end you could adopt all your testimony.
That's fine. Is that all right?
That's fine, Mr. Chairman.
MI 2021 -003 -132.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
If you're going to vote, you should probably have him adopt the testimony for this individual case, just briefly.
Let's swear him in.
Mr. Snowden, can you raise your hand?
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
is in the audience yes rich snowden can you raise your hand yeah my name is rich snowden
can you spell for the court reporter please yes sir s n o w d as in david e n right do you swear
firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Proceed,
counsel. Mr. Snowden, were you on the call when I presented the project for 8622 Germantown Avenue?
Yes, sir, I was. If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your
own and as true and correct? Yes, I would. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Snowden. In Hike 2021, 003 -132 -8622
Germantown Avenue, I vote yes. Carl Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Collins, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.
Next case, MI 2021 -003 -131 -8624 -26 Germantown Avenue.
Letters of support from all the people we've mentioned before, all in support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, my presentation package is attached.
It's going to have some redundancy, but I'll move through it to streamline the presentation.
This project is also requesting a legalization of a use that's been in place since 1950.
Again, my table of contents, AA through A10, which I ask to be admitted into evidence.
I also ask to be admitted into evidence, my opening statement.
And this is the introduction that I went through on the first project.
I don't think we need to go through that again, Mr. Chairman.
Concerning Ms. McCauley's
letter about retail spaces and meeting with the community.
I'll get right to the heart of the presentation.
This is a refusal against CMX1.
There's already a sit -down restaurant there and has been, but the refusal concerns a sit -down restaurant, but historically, it's been used as three commercial and one residential, although if you went to L &I and asked for certification, which prompted the refusal, they would say one commercial and one single family.
There's already a sit -down restaurant there and has been, but
Again, letters of support, which we mentioned at the outset, from the stakeholders.
This is a picture of the front of Casimo's Pizzeria, the listed use, commercial, one
family, historical use, and you'll see why when I show you the plans, Mr. Chairman, historical
use has been for three commercial and one residential, and that's what we're asking
today to legalize that use, which has been in play since 1950. These are some interior photographs
of the apartment. But here's the lot size, Mr. Chairman. It's gigantic. And basically,
we have a vacant commercial in the rear, restaurant in the front. And this is a
non -profit, which is taking up this entire parcel. And the one bedroom is above the non -profit.
So we are asking, again, just another site plan to show the board that there's a rather large piece.
We're asking that this property be legalized.
Again, with the first one, Mr. Chairman, we don't have any violations.
We're coming to the board with our arms out saying, look, here's what it's been used for,
and here's what we'd like to have legalized within the zoning records.
And I actually can show you the other zoning records from the past, which indicate that there have been zoning uses such as these projects in the past.
So with that, I would rest and ask that my client adopt my testimony or we hear from the Planning Commission.
All right. Mr. Snowden, just mention your name, please. You've already been sworn.
Mr. Snowden, can you raise your hand again?
Maybe you should just stay unmuted for everything.
All right. Mr. Clinton, you're the officer of the court. We will take your testimony.
Go ahead, Henry.
Mr. Snowden, again, have you been on the call during the presentation of 8624 Germantown Avenue?
Yes, I have.
If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I would.
Yes, I would, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Snowden.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission board members the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment to cmx 2 .5 at
this location as well the proposed use conforms to the recommended zoning and so the city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the variance. MI 2021 -003 -131 -8624 -26
Germantown Avenue. I vote yes. Carol Tenneri, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
thank you my vote is yes
okay we have the votes mi 2021 004 356 18 hilltop road
morning again mr chair members of the board henry clinton on behalf of the applicant
Bowman Properties Limited. This request is to convert the entire commercial building,
which is a small building, and you'll see it really looks like a residential building,
into commercial use. Right now, the current use is first floor vacant office and has been vacant.
And the second floor is a two -bedroom apartment. We're asking basically to convert the commercial
on the first floor to a two -bedroom apartment. So we'll have two apartments at this location.
Again, my table of contents, AA through A10, I asked to be introduced into record as well
as my opening statement at the outset of the presentation of these nine cases.
This is the overview that we gave the community again.
I'll get right to the heart of the presentation.
Refusal, here's that reference I made at my opening statement.
this is cmx1 abutting rsa3 uh so we did get a review
This is CMX1, a budding RSA3.
So we did get a refusal saying you can't have two residential units in this particular space
because the first floor, or at least one floor, should be commercial, hopefully the first floor.
These are the letters of support from the various stakeholders, which we've spoken about before.
And this is the photograph of the front of the property.
Again, it looks like a house.
It really does.
It was a vacant, I mean, it wasn't an office for many years.
It's now vacant.
It's not on Germantown Avenue. It's off the Avenue. Difficult to rent as a commercial space.
So again, in line with Ms. McCauley, we thought this would be the time to make this
a fully occupied space and convert the first floor to a two -bedroom apartment.
We're going to raise the sill on the window, the proposed apartment. Entrance is over on
left -hand side. Again, some more photographs really to show the board that it really looks
like a house, not like a commercial space. It is not, definitely not a storefront.
Could you, could you have Mr. Snowden adopt your testimony?
Mr. Snowden, are you still on the call?
Mr. Clinton, you're an officer of the court.
Yes, I'm here. Yes, I adopt the testimony.
Okay, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman.
All right, questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment
at this location from cmx1 to rm1 multifamily the proposed use is consistent with this
recommendation and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance
thank you mi 2021 -004 -356 -18 hilltop road i vote yes
thomas my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes carol tennery my vote is yes
no shaheed my vote is yes okay thank you let's move on here to let's see here
um next one 7928 what number is that anybody have it in front of them
MI004 I have it yet MI2021 004 363 7928 Germantown Avenue
Letters of support from all the existing RCOs and the council person.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Henry Clinton for the applicant Bowman Properties Limited LTD.
Table of contents in my presentation package AA through A10,
which I ask to be incorporated into record,
as well as my opening statement at the outset.
This is the overview that we have for each project, and I'll get right to the heart of it.
Basically, we're asking for an addition of one apartment in this commercial space.
Refusal, again, CMX1 is abutting RSA3, and the refusal is multifamily household living is prohibited in this zoning district.
here are the letters of support from the stakeholders and this is a photograph of the
property retail is on the first floor this is what the properties used to look like before
mr snowden was able to reconstruct and make them look like they used to and here's the issue
this is an alleyway between the two buildings and this is where we're going to put an apartment
in the rear of the first floor.
The property was purchased in 1993,
and we just think it's time
to make the commercial space
a little bit shallower
and add the residential space.
Here's the view of the rear of the property.
There's already an apartment upstairs.
We're going to have another apartment
on the first floor.
and bring more vibrancy to the neighborhood,
bring more individuals to the neighborhood.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor the point.
This is pretty straightforward.
And I would entertain -
On this one, you're reducing the size of the commercial.
on this one yes by about 810 square feet and then make a an apartment of a similar size
On this one, yes, by about 810 square feet.
this is really right here this is a synopsis we're reducing the size of commercial uh and
then taking the reduction in the commercial and converting it into a one bedroom one bath
no change in the apartments excuse me mr clinton this is hillary um just to clarify
by the commercial space is currently vacant.
Mr. Snowden, can you answer that question?
Mr. Snowden, you're available.
You just need to unmute yourself when a question is there.
I can answer that, I can answer that.
It's empty right now and it's gonna be marketed
as a retail shop or a gallery.
Thank you, Ms. Emerson.
Okay, thank you.
I have Mr. Snowden adopt your testimony, please.
Mr. Snowden, are you still on the call and can you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Mr. Snowden, can you unmute yourself?
Mr. Snowden.
Mr. Flint.
Yes, yes, I can. It would help if you didn't mute me after each one of these because the unmute button doesn't come up.
But yes, I'm happy to adopt it.
That's the nature of it. We will meet you to prevent feedback and you can just unmute yourself when you're asked a question.
Yeah. Thank you very kindly.
I appreciate that.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment here as
well from cmx1 to cmx2 the proposed use is consistent with the recommended zoning so the
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2021 -004 -363 -7928
Germantown Avenue. I vote yes with proviso. Use registration required prior to occupancy for
commercial space. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso. Thomas Tollum, my vote is yes with
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Shahid, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
MI2021 -004 -360 -8137 Germantown Avenue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I'm with the board.
Henry Clinton for the applicant,
Boomer Properties Limited,
concerning 8137 Germantown Avenue.
Again, my presentation package, ISB Incorporated, Exhibits AA through A10, as well as my opening statement at the outset of the presentation of these nine properties.
These are the introduction to the community that I've been through several times, and I'll get right to the heart of the matter.
the refusal again is a cmx1 abutting rsa3 and the proposed use three dwelling units is
expressly prohibited we're not we are having three dwelling units because there's three
separate buildings in this package and i'll explain to you why the refusal came back the way
it did nevertheless these are the letters of support from the community organizations
which are referenced in my table of contents and this is part of the property so basically
there's three properties on this one address and you can see this property is 8137 Germantown
Avenue this has an address of 1416 east to Hartwell and this is 10 east Hartwell but when
When you apply for this application, it has to go under the address of 8137 to 39 Germantown Avenue.
Nothing is being done with this building to the right.
Nothing is being done with the building in the middle.
The building at the end right now is first floor vacant, second floor vacant.
And it is a budding residential area, and it's more attuned for residential.
So the proposal before the board is to make this cottage, and that's really what it is, a residential cottage, and that it become an 805 square foot cottage.
cottage. It's really, again, if you look at it, you would think it's residential,
It's really, again, if you look at it, you would think it's.
it's perceived as residential, and it really should be residential.
So nice terrace in the back. So we're asking that the commercial nature of this building
be entirely switched to residential because it is vacant and it's difficult with all these
properties. It's been difficult to rent them, and that's why we're here. My client's in the business
of having people occupying the properties. He doesn't want vacancies. So again, a summation
converting the cottage into an 800 -square -foot, one -bedroom, five -level home, deck, shared
courtyard, parking, and no change to the other properties, Mr. Chairman. So Mr. Clinton, the front
of Germantown Avenue would still be commercial? Correct. Okay. Have your testimony adopted,
please. Mr. Snowden, can you raise your hand? Mr. Snowden, you can unmute yourself, please?
Yes, I am unmuted, and I adopt the testimony on this property. Questions from the board?
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission board members the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment from cmx1 to
cmx2 at this location the proposed use is consistent with the recommended zoning and
And we also note that it's directly related to the existing physical configuration of the multiple structures on this lot.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance.
MI 2021 -004 -360 -8137, Durham Town Avenue. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
number seven on our list mi -2021 -004 -361 -101 bethlehem pike
letter of support from coordinating rco letter of support cheslin hill conservancy
letter of support from cheslin hill business district
what is your chairman members of the board henry clinton on behalf of bummer properties limited
I present my package of exhibits, AA to A10, which I asked to be incorporated into the record,
as well as my opening statement made at the outset of the presentation of these nine properties.
The first exhibit is the presentation that we made to the community group,
which I've already addressed in my opening statement.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm putting this in each package for the record
to preserve the record.
The refusal, again, this is a CMX1
abutting an RSA3 district.
The refusal is for a proposed
two -family household living
is prohibited in the zoning district.
The current use is a vacant commercial
on the first floor
and one three -bedroom apartment
on the second and third floor.
Second and third floor,
we're not asking for any change.
On the first floor,
we're basically following Ms. McCauley's recommendations
and we are, or suggestions,
we are carving out the rear portion of this property
into a 425 square foot residential unit.
But again, keeping the facade, the elevation,
the classical look.
So when you walk by,
you'll still recognize it as a store.
Again, you can see it's vacant right now,
but the idea is for Mr. Hoylman,
who is on the call. When people call now asking for smaller spaces, he has that available as
well as residential units. So we're going to keep the mixed use. And again, we're just shrinking
the vacant commercial space for the reasons I enunciated and putting a one -bedroom, one -and -a -half
bath apartment in the rear, 425 square feet. Getting some photographs. There will be no
alterations to the existence. These are the separate doors to the apartments. We're going
to have a tourist area outside as well as a deck. Mr. Snowden, can you raise your hand,
please mr snowden can you unmute yourself please
and we're going to market this as a retail
and we're going to market this as a retail shop mr clinton mr clinton you're at well
for the court we will take your testimony um questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr chairman oh mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
Commission. For this one, 101 Bethlehem Pike, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
commercial mixed use zoning of this property. We recommend that it remains at CMX1. This is a
5 ,560 foot square lot, which could yield additional dwelling units as a matter of right if the
applicant chose to participate in the mixed income housing bonus program. And so for this case,
we're arguing that there's no unique physical condition of the lot that prevents it from being
used in conformance with the code. We recommend that the board deny this variance. MI 2021 -004 -361 -101
Bethlehem Pike. I vote no. Mr. Chairman, can I address the planning commission's commentary on
that? You could. All right. So I think Mr. Haggerty is talking about the size of the lot.
what our hardship is that we have a blank empty space on Bethlehem Pike that really
should be occupied. We have tried to rent the space. We're finding that the larger 1 ,230 square
of feet of space is not warranted. It's not been marketable. And I can have Mr. Snowden
testify to that, but we certainly wouldn't rent it, but it's just too large of a space for the
type of uses that are deemed decent at this location. So in an effort to spur that and to
try to bring in a tenant, we want to be able to decrease the size of that commercial space
and then have a small bedroom in the rear
that will then use that space
and the commercial can use the front space.
And I'd like to rely on Ms. McCauley's letter.
And certainly I can have Mr. Snowden testify
as to this if the board warrants it.
We understand what Mr. Snowden's testimony would be
and thank you.
Ian, your position is still the same, am I right?
Thank you for the opportunity, yes.
chair bergen that's correct our position is that given the recommendation in the comprehensive plan
um we feel that the applicant has a buy right option if they were to participate in the mixed
income housing bonus program but they've chosen not to do that in this instance okay mi 2021
004 361 101 bethlehem pike i vote no carol tennari my vote is no thomas holloman my vote is no
James Snell, my vote is no.
James Snell Shahid, my vote is no.
MI 2021 -004 -362 -105 Bethlehem Pike.
Letter of support from Coordinated Garcia, Councilperson Bass Conservatory, and also the Business District.
can I proceed
proceed good thank you again good morning Mr. Chairman members of the board Henry Clinton on
behalf of Bowman Properties Limited concerning 101 Bethlehem Pike this is my exhibit package
concerning the table of contents AA through A10 which I asked be introduced into the record as
well as my opening statement at the outset of this presentation of these nine properties.
Current use is a ground floor commercial and second and third floor, three apartments.
We'll get to the refusal. The refusal, again, we have CMX1 abutting RSA3,
and partly because of that the refusal has to do with multi -family household living is prohibited
with such a designation again our letters of support from all the stakeholders our photographs
so again the current use right now is commercial the proposed use is that we make or convert the
rear of the property to a one -bedroom apartment and have retail in the front. Again, not changing
the facade, not changing anything with regard to the commercial nature.
not not changing anything with regard to the commercial nature, but just shrinking the footprint of the commercial.
Because, again, we are experiencing vacancies. This property is vacant.
We're experiencing vacancies because of the larger spaces.
It's over one thousand square foot commercial space on the first floor.
And the shrinkage of the commercial space is warranted, hopefully, and supported by all the stakeholders,
because having blank spaces on Bethlehem Pike
or Germantown Avenue is certainly not a viable concept.
So we're asking that the board
look kindly upon this application.
There's no change on the second and third floor
of this building that's going to remain residential.
It's just that we are adding another unit
and shrinking the space of the commercial
so that we can make this a viable rental.
I can show you also additional photographs of the rear, as well as the plans for this property.
We're going to market this property to a small retail shop or a gallery, as we will with some of the other presentations we made today.
With that, I would rest and ask that my exhibits, as well as my opening statement, be incorporated into the record.
could you have your testimony adopted if he's on mr snowden
mr snowden can you unmute yourself please
yes i'm unmuted now um yes i will adopt the testimony um am i allowed to make a comment
about the Planning Commission's view?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Similar to 101 Bethlehem Pike,
with regard to 105 Bethlehem Pike, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to this
existing CMX1 zoning. This is roughly 6 ,750 square foot lot. Again, if in this case the
applicant had chosen to participate in the mixed income housing bonus, there would be a buy right
option for adding additional dwelling units here. And we don't find that there's any unique physical
condition that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the code city planning
commission recommends that the board deny this variance and mr clinton your comments are the
same as the last case yeah basically we're talking about a hardship because uh we're unable to rent
this space it's not viable no one as evidenced by the supporting letters no one who's weighed in on
this. Once a vacant commercial space, everybody's in tune with everyone, every organization,
as well as the councilwoman is in tune with making the property alive, make it come alive
on the pike. Thank you. MI 2021 -004 -362 -105 Bethlehem Pike, I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no
James Snell, my vote is no
my vote is no
number six
wait a minute
80 -42, hold on
8042, or is it 8032?
What's next, Henry?
You're correct, Mr. Chair, 8042.
Okay, what number is that on our list?
On my list of presentation, it's number eight.
That's number 17, Mr. Chair.
Perfect, thank you.
so mi2022 000 448 8042 to 44 germantown avenue um so letter of opposition from coordinating rco
councilwoman cindy bass has taken no position
a letter of support from Chester Hill Conservancy
a letter of support from the business district
it's the RCO that
as a letter of opposition.
has a letter of opposition
correct Mr. Chairman
Correct, Mr. Chairman.
May I proceed?
Please, sir.
This is the next to the last presentation.
This is number eight of the nine projects.
8042 Germantown Avenue.
My presentation package contains exhibits AA to A10.
And I'll walk through.
This was the introduction.
Again, members of the community came out
and we're allowed to preview the projects.
This is the expert report, Ms. McCauley,
supporting the change from full commercial to residential.
This is the refusal, CMX1, adjacent to an RSA3 designation.
The proposed use reason for the refusal,
six dwelling units is expressly prohibited.
again, because we are adding a unit on the first floor from five to six. Here's our letters of
support, as the chairman mentioned at the outset. Here are photographs of the property. So basically
the current use is mixed. It's restaurant and apartments. Second and third floor are apartments.
We're basically taking the ground floor. It's a large space, 3 ,000, over 3 ,000 square feet. Again, it's been vacant commercial for a period of time and decrease the commercial to make it more viable for a restaurant.
Again, restaurants, no business really wants to overpay for space that they may not use.
So in keeping with some of the other projects that we've presented today, the idea in the project is to create a one -bedroom apartment of 1 ,000 square feet at the rear of the building and maintain a 2 ,000 square foot space.
We believe, based on the calls that we've gotten, that that will be more in line, perhaps for a restaurant or some other retail space, to occupy rather than 3 ,000 square feet.
We're not changing anything on the second and third floor.
The business groups are solidly behind this for obvious reasons.
They do not want to see vacancies.
It doesn't help the vibrancy of Chestnut Hill or the surrounding areas or Germantown Avenue and some of the individuals in Chestnut Hill who wish to remain in the area now will have a walk up one bedroom apartment so they can still enjoy the neighborhood as well as the commercial corridors.
These are some photographs of what we intend. Again, this is all going to remain. You'll have
a commercial look, commercial feel. The existing services in the back to receive commercial goods
will still remain. And we'll get some new windows and doors along Abington. And these are the
locations of the entry door for hopefully the new apartment. So in a nutshell, we're reducing the
commercial space and converting that space basically into a first floor living apartment.
The hardship is what I went over with the board at the outset.
The legal reasons is what I went over at the outset and also my commentary right now in
this presentation.
Mr. Clinton, what's the position of the RCO?
What are their comments?
Let's go back to their letter.
they basically think that we can find a restaurant that'll fit in there but if we could
we would have uh mr snowden you know he can unmute himself and he can he can address why
why they're really just misinterpret not misinterpreting but you know they they think
based on what I don't know that a bigger space will work and reality tells you it's not. Again,
my client is in the business of renting spaces, not to leave places empty. It just doesn't
benefit anybody. But you can see they voted to oppose because the kitchen is not functional.
Well, when we, you know, redo this and redo the apartment, any functionality, everything's going to be upgraded in terms of equipment.
So I don't know if they mean functional in terms of square footage, but it's not renting and we need we need to do something to make it viable.
It's a nice corner in Chestnut Hill and the business folks are silently behind it.
The business folks are solidly behind it.
So, you know, with all due respect to the RCO, I think you have to go on past history here.
So, you know.
This would take you from five apartments to six?
We would increase by one apartment.
Do you want to hear your testimony adopted?
Yeah, Mr. Snowden.
yes i'm here yes i adopt your apology your i i adopt your testimony do you want me to
speak to the situation with that first floor space yes i would like to because you i mean
you've been in there numerous times you're more acquainted with it anyone so if you could just
make some brief comments that would be great yes i think the rco has misinterpreted the space that's
there. When we bought the property back in the late 90s, we increased the size of it significantly
thinking we would be able to find a restaurant that would fill the space. And we have not been
able to. It has not had a tenant in 20 years. We are increasingly finding interest from small
independent restaurateurs. And what we've done is basically shrink the size of this
commercial space from about 3 ,200 square feet to 2 ,000 square feet. It is absolutely usable.
The kitchen can be installed in the space that's there. But I'm afraid that if it's left the way
it is, it condemns it to another two decades of vacancy. So I really think that this is the thing
to do. That's based on your 41 years of commercial experience in Chestnut Hill. Absolutely. I mean,
I think that after all of those years, I'm fairly expert about what is leasable and what is not
leasable in that neighborhood. And currently it is not leasable. I increased the size of that
first floor by more than a thousand square feet, because 20 years ago, larger spaces were more
viable. I'm now basically looking to lower the size of it to the size that this was when I
purchased the building and have a one -bedroom apartment in it. Thank you, Mr. Snowden.
All right, questions from the board? No. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Mr. Alfant in the audience.
Mr. Alfant, unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Can you hear me okay?
Yeah, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
My name is Robert Elfant, spelled E -L -F, like in Frank, A -N -T.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Good morning. As you know, my name is Bob Elfant. I'm a Philadelphia real estate broker for over 50 years,
and I'm here speaking on behalf of myself and many other significant property owners
and business operators located in Chestnut Hills Commercial District.
We all oppose the Bowman property's request for variances to convert sizable portions
of heretofore vacant commercial space into residential space.
The Bowman company has for years, and in the case of 8042 -44, the one we're speaking of now,
held many properties vacant, this one for decades. Bowman Properties owns and accounts for the
majority of long -term vacancies in the defined business district. However, the company owns a
minority of the properties, 15 % of the 291 recognized properties. Many of the Bowman -owned
properties are in poor condition, both on the exterior and the interior, basically in unrentable
condition. Approving Bowman properties with a variance to convert valuable commercial space
to residential in one of the city's crown jewels and commercial districts. Mr. Alfon, could you do
me a favor? Could you just concentrate on this particular property, your position on this
particular property? My position on this particular property and others is that it's in poor condition
and the argument that smaller spaces are more rentable belies the truth of the Bowman existing
portfolio as many of their existing vacancies are a thousand square feet or less and they continue
to sit vacant. The other concern we have is that this sets a potential dangerous precedent
this sets a potential dangerous precedent for the entire chestnut commercial district
for the entire Chestnut Hill Commercial District.
as it would potentially encourage other owners when faced with commercial vacancy to seek
additional conversion of commercial space further increasing the already negative impact to fellow
commercial property owners and business operator operators alike so in this particular case we are
opposed to that and i'd like to add excuse me let's see you like that i would like to add that
Though it's been represented that they have various support from neighborhood organizations, with the exception of the Chestnut Hill Community Association, the signatories of this letter, which I have, and I'll tell you who signed this letter, the signatories of this letter, their noted board or their general membership, none of them have been consulted other than the Chestnut Hill Community Association.
And I'm signing respectfully as Bob Elfant, property owner, principal broker of Elfant Wissick and Realtors, Paul Walsh, property owner, president, broker, Elfant Wissick and Realtors, current board member of the Chesney Mill Community Development Corporation, past president of the Business Improvement District, and past president of the Chesney Mill Business Association.
Barbara Bomback, president, CEO.
If those individuals are here, Mr. Chairman, they can speak for themselves.
I understand.
Mr. Trey, this is Hillary.
I just wanted to note if we did not receive a copy of the letter.
So if Mr.
Alphant wants that to be part of the record,
he needs to get it to the zoning board today.
If you could instruct me how to do that,
I will,
but let me just finish the names on this letter,
please.
But we're going to,
we're going to have the letter.
That's fine.
Alphant.
We understand exactly what your testimony is.
You won't have this letter and these people until after you make your vote
though.
I think we're fine.
We're fine.
Any other questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have a Ms. Laurie in the audience with her hand.
May I allow her to speak?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
I'm sorry, Chair, quickly, could I just put on the record for staff to put the email address
so that that document can be submitted for the board?
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Alfond a question?
You could, Henry.
We're two.
All right.
Mr. Alfond?
Mr. Alfond?
Please unmute yourself, sir.
Mr. Alphant.
Well, Henry, if he's not here, you can, you, you, Mr. Alphant, are you on?
I'll just make a comment.
Mr. Alphant, can you unmute yourself, please?
Mr. Alphant.
he's available chair he just had to unmute himself
mr alfano mute yourself please
mr clinton you can make comment what what's your comment
my comment is i just wanted to find out he's a commercial realtor in the area
obviously he testified to that and has he ever brought a viable
tenant to my client to occupy that space uh i think the answer is no but
all right thank you is there anyone else in the virtual audience
we have yes i have miss laurie with her hand raised hi laurie laurie hello hi could you state
your name please and spell for the court reporter sure laurie salganikoff l -o -r -i -s like sam a -l -g -a -n
I -C -O -F -F. I'm the Executive Director of the Chestnut Hill Conservancy.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed.
I just wanted to make the note that the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, as has been mentioned, voted to support this variance request.
I, though, did want to also note that the Chestnut Hill Conservancy is a registered community organization.
So I just want to make it clear that there have been public meetings where an RCO has voted to approve this application.
It's an important corner and an important alteration, in our opinion, to maintain the building as viable.
to maintain the building as viable.
It's a very unusual shape.
It's a very unusual shape.
And in order to preserve buildings,
we need to allow them to be flexible and to sustain them.
They need to be able to shift as needed.
And the storefront being maintained as a storefront
serves every purpose that we see needed
for maintenance of our historic commercial.
All right.
Thank you very much for calling in and your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Mr. Alfont, it's available.
Yes, I just figured out how to unmute myself.
I apologize.
Mr. Clinton, you want to have your question answered?
Mr. Alfont, you testified that you're a commercial realtor broker
in the area.
You've been in Chestnut Hill for many moons.
have you ever been able to bring a viable tenant for this space to occupy it?
We were asked a number of years ago to try to find tenants for the property,
but the condition of the exterior, the condition of the interior,
and the rent structure was unfathomable at that time and now.
All right, so the answer is no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Could somebody give me the address of what I need to send this letter to or the email?
Tanya?
It'll be available in the chat, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
For this property, 8042 to 44 Germantown Avenue.
the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment from cmx1 to cmx2 the proposed use is
consistent with the recommended zoning and so the city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the variance in my 2022 00448 8042 to 44 germantown i have no i vote yes carol tenary my
vote is yes thomas holland my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
it's no shaheed my vote is no
henry what's our last property last property is 85 32 germantown avenue okay
where's that on our list team
i don't know i'm i'm looking for that's number six chair okay thank you thank you hillary
mi 2021 004 359 8532 germantown avenue um
rco um letter of opposition councilwoman bass is not taking a position conservancy
is in favor, business district's in favor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for your patience
as well as members of the board patience
as you went through these nine projects.
I know it gets lengthy at times.
So this is the last one, 8532 Germantown Avenue.
I'm here on behalf of Bowman Properties Limited,
and my presentation package is on the screen,
table of contents AA through A10.
I ask that that be incorporated into the record
as well as my opening statement I made at the outset of the presentation of these nine
properties. This is another situation where we have a large vacant commercial space on the ground
floor. And we're asking that the rear of that commercial space be converted to residential
so that the commercial becomes more viable, more and more rentable. This is the refusal
dual CMX1 zoning district. Again, because we're adding a residential unit, multi -family household
living is prohibited according to the refusal. Here's our letters of support from the business
folks and from the conservancy. This is a photograph of the building. Beautiful building,
beautiful Tudor structure. Right now, we have, and for a long time, we've had a vacant commercial
space, almost 2 ,000 square feet on a very, very visible corner in Chestnut Hill, Germantown
Avenue.
And we're basically asking that the vacant commercial space be reduced by about 500 square
feet, no change on the second and third floor, no change in the structure, no additions.
No change on the second and third floor, no change in the structure, no additions, and that the 535 square feet of retail, excuse me, that the 1 ,768 square feet of vacant commercial be reduced by about 1 ,100 square feet, and that become a one bedroom, and the retail become more manageable at 535 square feet.
This is some of the renderings of the side of the building.
We would restore the window that's here that was blocked up with stone.
Again, Mr. Snowden wants to keep the historical nature of the buildings in tune with what they used to look like before.
There used to be a larger window in the back.
The red is not indicating the size of the window that's going to be installed, but this window is an afterthought.
but, excuse me, we're going to reactivate it.
This window is blocked up on the inside.
So while it appears to be a window,
it really doesn't provide any light into the property.
So we're going to reactivate that window
if this proposal is granted.
We're going to restore a door to the apartment
that was once right here.
And then the corner retail is going to remain.
These archways are going to remain.
The windows are going to remain.
The doors are going to remain.
Again, just showing you some of the unique nature
of this property.
And we do have sensitivity to this property and to others.
This alley gate is gonna be removed.
There's gonna be steps to the apartment right here,
reactivate that.
And there's a rear garage for parking
for all the apartment dwellers.
So again, the argument is similar
to what was in the prior presentation.
business community. Most folks in Chestnut Hill want to see vibrant
corridor on Germantown Avenue. To do this, we need tenants, my clients in the business of having
full occupancy, almost full occupancy. We don't want empty buildings. We don't want empty
structures. Our marketing and the calls that we get to our commercial leasing department
tell us that smaller spaces are the way to go. Nationally, that's the trend. Ms. McCauley,
the expert whose letter is referenced at the outset of this presentation. That's what she
suggests. And that's what my client's expertise over 41 years is telling him. So again, no change
to the second and third floor, reducing the size of the commercial space to a manageable 535,
converting the rear portion of the first floor to a one -bedroom apartment.
it. That is the proposal, Mr. Chairman. Can you have your testimony adopted, please?
Mr. Snowden, can you unmute yourself once again?
Yes. I adopt your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Snowden.
questions from the board and mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission okay thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission board members the comprehensive plan recommends a
zoning map amendment at this location from cmx 1 to cmx 2 .5 the proposed use is consistent with
the recommended zoning and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the
variance. MI 2021 -004 -359 -8532 Germantown Avenue. I vote yes with proviso. Use registration required
prior to occupancy for commercial space. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Toloman, my vote is yes with proviso. Sorry about that.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Could you please stay on for the next case?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right. MI 2022 -001 -158 -1424 Pemberton Street. Letter of support from South of
South Davis Association. Mr. Clinton, you've already been sworn. Could you identify your
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
client, the relationship to this property.
Sure. My client is Philip Conway, C -O -N -W -A -Y, and Mr. Conway is on the call.
Okay. Could you ask a few questions from our vice chair, please?
Certainly.
Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
voters under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, you may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Thank you, Mr. Neri. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I'm here today on behalf of 1798 Investors, LLC.
That's an entity of which my client, Philip Conway, is one of the principals.
Concerns 1424 Pemberton Street.
Again, my table of contents containing exhibits AA to A10, which I ask to be admitted into the record.
This is my appearance statement.
And this is the refusal.
This is an RM1 zoning district.
We are not asking for multifamily.
We're asking for a single family, and we do have a number of refusals with regard to minimum yard depth, but I can address that because behind the property, there was a small street called Senate Street, which has been stricken, which helps my client pick up an additional number of square feet, which has not been calculated by the L &I examiner.
And we have not included that as part of the project, which would bring these percentages down.
But I'll show the board that little street behind our property.
The height, we're basically smaller than the house next door.
And we're smaller than the houses across the street.
Even though we're at 41 feet, we're still lower than those properties.
And the rear yard, again, this existing property was 100 % lot coverage.
So even though we're keeping 100 % lock coverage on the first floor, we've pulled back the second floor.
And when you pull back the second floor, we're opening up some of the area in the back.
And when you count Senate Street as open space, it really helps the property come closer to conformance.
The same response with regard to the maximum occupied area.
And then also in the RM1 zoning district, it indicates that parking has to be from a shared driveway or a rear street.
And you'll see this property is on a dead end one way street that has numerous other garages on the street.
In fact, this property was a garage.
So here's a letter of support from Sazna, as the chairman referenced, pretty much overwhelming support.
Here's photographs to give the board perspective.
This is an aerial photograph.
We're looking south.
This is the south side of Pemberton Street.
Pemberton Street is off of 15th.
You take a left and it dead ends right around here.
This is Broad Street.
This is a Keller Williams real estate office,
which is accessed through a pathway from Broad Street.
and then these homes on
Bainbridge, correct, I was going to say
a carpet on Bainbridge Street, they actually use Pemberton Street to come down
and there's a gated entrance here, they enter through Pemberton
and they have parking in the rear, so you'll see as I give you
a closer photograph of this property, it's an existing
two -story garage, which is 100 % lock coverage
Now we're looking east down to a Broad Street, standing almost on 15th.
Again, here's the garage.
Here's some larger buildings here.
These properties are now developed, and you'll see the photographs that the architect has.
You can see where these homes are pretty substantial in size.
We have a proviso form if the board looks kindly upon this application.
So this is the front of the garage.
This is a cutaway of the property.
So basically, as it exists now, the property is two stories, goes all the way back, and occupies 100%.
We are removing the rear of this property, so you can open up the second floor a little bit,
and we can have a deck, which provides some open space for the family, hopefully, that will purchase this property.
Then on the second and third floor, it's kind of a strange, I don't want to say strange, because the architects are excellent,
But it's an unusual layout only because we're trying to mirror the house to east of us.
Their fourth floor is set back.
fourth floor is set back and at the request of the neighbor, we set our fourth floor back
And at the request of the neighbor.
so it's in conjunction with the front elevation of his fourth floor.
Again, this is a top -down view reiterating what I just mentioned at the top. The second floor
of the building is going to be removed so we can open up the area for outdoor space.
These are just photographs of the houses across the street.
I referenced them in the aerial photograph, which was a vacant lot.
They're now fully built out.
They're four stories and they're, excuse me, they're higher.
They're actually higher than our building according to the L &I records.
Here's another photograph of the house next door.
And this is our project.
So we're going to obviously demolish that and build a new structure.
This is the floor plan, first floor. There will be no basement here because it's already a slab in the entire first floor. We're going to have a garage here, an office in the rear, a bathroom, and then access to get up to the second and third floor.
There's also going to be an elevator in this property because it's four stories, and the elevator will carry all the way up to the rooftop deck.
Second floor, we'll have a living dining area with the kitchen.
And as I said, since we're taking off the second floor in the rear,
it's going to be a walkout deck in the rear of the property
to provide some outdoor living space for the family.
And then the second, excuse me, third and fourth floors are bedrooms
and the rooftop deck.
Here's a rendering of the property.
Again, there's other garages on the street, several brick,
some bays on the front, set back the upper floor, fourth floor, and then the pie out house on the
very top. What I just want to show the board and get part of the record is, again, based on what
we've seen in the zoning records, some of the houses across the street, they're 46 feet high.
Sony records indicate this property is 42 .8,
and we're going to be 41 to the roof
and then a little bit higher for the parapet.
And then the Keller Williams building is about 44 feet
down toward the end of the block.
Again, a cross view to show how the property fits in
with the property next door.
The gray is the property at 14 .22.
two, so we set it back so we're not really interfering with the house next door. This is
a front rendering, a lot of brick. I said bay, excuse me, they're just large, a lot of glazing,
large windows to bring light into the property since it faces north. Again, just giving you
context of how it's going to fit in with the house next door. These are the original plans,
Mr. Chairman but I don't see the necessity of showing you the new the original plans because
we did did make quite a few changes I guess the only thing I didn't point out which I should
because I mentioned it during the presentation is
here so this used to be a street senate street uh behind the property I've been back there it's
overgrown. Nobody really uses it. And it's really part of our property. I think we have to do a deed
probably of consolidation, consolidating this lot with our property. We didn't want to go through
that at this point. We wanted to see if we could get approval for this project and maybe just keep
that the way it is. We're not really determining what we want to do, but really that should be
consider some open space for our
property. And really, no one, none of
the homes on Pemberton, whose
rear yards
back against the street, use it in
any way. Maybe that will change over time.
So with that, I would rest
and turn
it over to the Chairman of the Planning Commissioner.
Is your client here
to adopt your testimony? Yes, Mr.
Conway, are you on the call? Can you raise your hand?
Philip, can you raise your hand?
Yeah, can you hear us?
Mr. Conway, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
It's Philip Conway, P -H -I -L -I -P, last name's Conway, C -O -N -W -A -Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Conway, were you on the call when I presented your project at 1424 Pemberton Street?
yes and if you had the opportunity to testify would you adopt my testimony as your own
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony?
and consider it correct yes i would thank you mr conway questions from the board no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location. As we've seen
in this presentation, this is a relatively small and shallow zoning lot, and so it presents several
hardships that would be addressed by the requested dimensional variances. The requested variance for
front access parking would not negatively impact the surrounding blocks. We feel this is a unique
conditions since this block of Pemberton lacks on -street parking is not a through street. And
then finally, with regard to the requested height variance, we find this to be de minimis. City
Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant all these variances. Thank you. MI 2022 -001 -158 -1424
Pemberton Street. I vote yes with proviso. Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA September 20th,
2022. Carl Tannery, my vote is yes with Proviso. Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Gaines Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso. Thank you, sir. All right, thank you,
Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Have a great day. You too. Number eight, MI 2022 -003 -483 -335,
Franklin Mills Circle. Brett Feldman is the
attorney.
66 Ward RCO sent a letter of support.
Hi, Chair. I'm going to promote Brett Feldman.
Yes, please. May I
put something on the record, Chair? You most certainly can.
So, a correction for this
morning's case for 4306 to 08 Parkside Avenue. The corrected date scheduled is January the 17th
at 930 on a Tuesday, and all parties involved will be notified by our office of the corrected
date and posters will be mailed out so that all the community will know the new date. Thank you
so much, Chair. Thank you, Tanya. Mr. Feldman? Yes, good afternoon. Hi, could you state your
name and spell for the court reporter, please? Yes, Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 19103. I represent the property owner. Mr. Feldman, just spell your name,
please, if you get a chance for the court reporter. Brett, B -R -E -T -T, Feldman, F as in Frank, E -L -D -M -A -N.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
the property owner Ray Kondam Incorporated okay our vice chair has a few questions for you
hi Mr Feldman do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
I do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
a copy of the 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?
Yes, to all, and as the Mr. Chairman said, we have a letter, I believe, of almost unanimous
support from the RCO on this application that's in our exhibit package.
Okay, great.
You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Second here.
Try this again.
Can everyone see my screen now?
Great.
Great.
So I will get right to this. I know it's been a long morning. This is an application for a new Starbucks coffee shop at the, I guess it used to be called Franklin Mills Mall up in the Northeast. And let me just get right to the pictures here.
We also have with me our property owner, member Alexander Spivak, as well as our project engineer, John Anderson from Cornerstone Consulting.
as well as our project engineer, John Anderson from Cornerstone Consulting.
So let me just get right to this.
So let me just get right.
We have exhibits one through 11, which I'd ask to be incorporated into the record.
And this is a special exception case.
The property is owned commercial, but we need a special exception for the takeout at this location.
So here is the location.
This is the building.
It was for many years, it was an Exxon gas station, and it's been now vacant for a number of years.
The tanks have been removed.
It's been cleaned up, and it is now in a great position to be redeveloped as a Starbucks.
Just to further orient you if you've been up there, this is Franklin Mills Boulevard.
This is Franklin Mills Circle Road, and then this is the actual mall itself here.
So these are the out pad sites.
There's a Wendy's, there's a McDonald's, there's, I think, a Burger King, a number of fast casual, including also, I think, a beverage distributor and a state store that are out in this area here.
That's the aerial.
Here's what it looks like on the ground.
There's still the building for the Exxon that's there, as you can see, and then these are the posting photos.
but again the tanks have been removed and you can see it's really really become a blight on
the neighborhood here is the referral we are fully code complying every manner as far as use
other than the the exception parking landscaping dimensional so again this is solidly as a special
exception case under 143037, as I'll get to. And here is the site plan. It is a, I think even
the neighbors were clear, they agree, a very attractive Starbucks with a drive -thru with
access points off of the Franklin Mills Boulevard, as well as Franklin Mills Circle,
two drive point entries here, especially designed to make sure that there's no challenges as far
as queuing. There's plenty of area to queuing. We meet the parking requirements. We meet the queuing
requirements for the streets department and for L &I. The building is approximately 2 ,200 square
feet. We're adding in additional landscaping, new stormwater management, really just an upgrade in
every possible respect here at this location. Here are the renderings are really attractive.
um just just a complete transformation of this location uh in terms of the uh what was what's
there now what was there and what will be there um it'll be a great amenity for this area another
place to um uh you know to attract uh to attract business to to the mall area and to have the type
of support services that are helpful for customers and also just helpful for employees of the mall
this whole neighborhood um here are the um corresponding elevations probably best seen
again on the renderings that i showed you um floor plans uh there's an indoor section uh there's the
drive -through uh so again a place for for people to uh to meet uh and to congregate in this area
uh we we met with the rco uh here is the letter with the rco um that was uh everyone either
supported this or non -opposition this really was uh just folks are so happy to see uh the blight
in that condition uh removed with the attendant that uh really everyone wants uh in that in that
part of the in part of the city um here's the notice the community meeting um as required and
And all of our group in that, we have our streets department approval.
We work closely with the streets department to make sure that there's safe ingress and egress.
And as far as queuing, we work with planning as far as on the landscaping.
And again, this is a special exception case.
I think as I've shown, we fit within the special exception criteria as far as it's fully compliant other than the specific use.
And then as far as under 14303, E .2, specific detrimental impacts.
We don't believe there's anything here more than you would expect for this type of use, the congestion in the public streets or transportation.
Again, this is a very well -serviced location with very strong means of egress.
And again, our queuing for the drive -thru is very, very robust.
There's no overcrowding in the land. We aren't even close to any of the occupied area.
You'll see there's significant way over way under what you could put on this property as far as density.
uh there's no impact on the adequate supply of light and air we're not close to any any height
There's no impact on the adequate supply of light and air. We're not close to any.
requirements nor any any negative impacts uh as far as any negative impacts on burning water
we're actually as i said i will be having storm water management so this again is a big upgrade
um as far as impacting or impairing permanently conforming properties this only actually this is
the example of a very positive impact to adjacent properties. And we believe that this is absolutely
consistent with the comprehensive plan for commercial CA1 to keep that Franklin Mills
Mall and commercial area strong and robust. Mr. Feldman, do you have someone to adopt your
testimony? I do. I'll just ask, I'll ask the owner, if you could promote Alexander Spivak.
He is on behalf of the Anderson.
Alexander?
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Spivak, can you unmute yourself, please?
My name is Alexander Spivak.
Good afternoon, Chairman and the Board of Trustees.
Could you, Mr. Spivak, could you please spell your name for the court reporter?
It's S -P -I -V -A -K, Spivak.
First name is Alexander, A -L -E -X -A -N -D -E -R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, sir.
Proceed, counsel.
Great.
Mr. Spivak, you're here on behalf of the property owner, correct?
Yes, sir.
Okay. And were you, have you been, were you on the call and heard my explanation of the application and how this property, this project will be upgrading the neighborhood in the area?
Yes, sir.
And do you adopt it? Was it true and accurate?
It was very true and very accurate, sir.
And do you adopt it as your own?
Correct, sir.
Great. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CA1 zoning at this location.
This proposed use will have no more of an impact than would be reasonably expected at this location.
And so the Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the special exception.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -003 -483 -335, Franklin Mills Circle, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Feldman.
Great. Thank you for your time and consideration. Be well.
Okay, so we're going into our last case.
um we're going to go over a little later than 12 30 is everybody okay
no problem mr chairman okay no problem chair hi this is tanya may i respectfully request that we
take five minute break and then come back that's fine yep thank you so kindly that's for you john
five minutes guys thank you thank you very much i appreciate it
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
hi mr kelly are you back yes i am thank you okay chair we are ready to begin again as you wish
Okay, Tanya, is everybody back?
Yes, Chair, we're ready for you.
um so carol you're okay with time right yes you're okay with time
what is time though is it 2 30 3 no no we're talking 1 30. oh yeah cool okay
and jim you may have to leave right
correct i'm gonna try and hang in there to 1 30 though okay perfect thank you okay
Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay. MI 2022 -001 -570 -500 -08 -North 2nd Street. This is a resumptive hearing. Stephen Pollack is the attorney. Leonard Reuter is for the city. Mr. Pollack.
MI 2022
mr pollack is coming back in as a panelist here great
okay hi hi mr pollack how are you i guess we have to say good afternoon now i was going to
say good morning but it's if you state your name and spell for please for the court reporter sure
Mr. Steve Pollack, Steve S -D -E -V -E, Pollack, like the street in South Philly, P -O -L -L -O -C -K.
And I am the attorney for the applicant, Transport Workers Union Local 234.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Reuter, are you there?
Yes, I'm here.
Thank you, Leonard Reuter, R -E -U -T -E -R.
First name is L -E -O -N -A -R -D for Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Who is he?
So I think the last one we left off, we left off with your TWO rep testifying.
Am I right?
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
I was in the middle of questioning Joseph Cochia.
Okay, let's bring him back.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask you this question because I knew it came out that you can't have both of us on the screen at one time.
I was wondering, since you all know what my ugly little face looks like, is there any way that we could have Mr. Cochia be on the screen?
Because, you know, Mr. Reuter can tell you, and I know I can tell you that when you go to, when you go and you look at court opinions, it always says the zoning board is the arbiter and determiner of credibility.
And I always thought one of the ways you determine credibility is not just from hearing a person, but you get to see them and see how they testify.
If you can't accommodate that.
Can we arrange that, Tanya?
Sure, Chair, as you wish.
We'll do it.
Okay, that'd be great.
Mr. Reuter, are you okay with that too?
oh i i have no objection i think probably you just elevate them to panelists
right can he be just become a oh the last time there was a i think there was a technical
issue the other one housekeeping thing mr chair members of the board is that i believe member
snell was not here at the first hearing so i have no objection to mr uh snell participating
in this and agree
to allow him to read the notes of
testimony. Yeah, we'll take
care of that. Yep. Okay. I have no objection
to that.
I'm sorry, Mr. Pollack.
This is Tanya. May I ask who we would
be promoting? Joseph
Cochio. Joe Cochio.
C -O -C. Has he
already raised his hand?
I don't know. Joe, you have to raise your hand.
Is he under a different name?
Because I don't see him. Unless he's
so we'll proceed if he comes forward i'll keep you posted thank you very kindly
i don't joe are you on i've been talking to him and i thought he was on the whole time
it looks like he might be under you we can promote that other name okay
uh joe oh you know he may have you know what tanya he was having trouble getting in
and i sent him the link that came up when i registered this morning okay could that be why
he's showing up that way yes so he might have signed there he is looks like he's there okay
so do you think you have to get rid of me to see him live you can proceed we will handle all the
technical behind the scenes work you can proceed okay all right um mr chairman members of the board
There he is up there. The other Steve Pollack. There's Joe. Joe, you were previously sworn in.
We're in the middle of your testimony the last time we were here on June 15th, correct?
That's correct. Joe, do me a favor just for the record. State your name, spell it for the court
reporter and I'll swear you in again. Good afternoon, everyone. It's Joseph or Joe. C -O -C -C -I -O.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Powell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joe, last time when we were, when the hearing had to be stopped,
You were going through your correspondence and conversations with Joanne Parkins of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and we had introduced all of her correspondence with you.
you were going through your correspondence and conversations with
And can you tell us, Jo, did she discuss the billboard location of a non -accessory sign at this location relationship to PennDOT requirements with you?
um absolutely as evidenced by uh all the emails that uh her and i uh you know exchanged back and
forth um and ultimately she stated that uh our sign met all of the uh qualifications that would
again i'll just uh raise again the same objection i had last time which is objection to a hearsay
testimony uh we'll accept the letters and the emails that were received by mr cocio but
as far as, you know, him discussing conversations and what those, what the content of the emails
in terms of like, as for the truth of, of, you know, what, what she said, we will object to
hearsay. So, so I hear you, I honor that objection. Mr. Powell, just have him talk about what he did
as a result of it. And then you have the letters that you can submit. There are, they are submitted,
they've been read into the record already previously and as we said you know the one of
the things the hearsay rule does not apply to hearings like of this nature and you have to weigh
the credibility uh and the veracity based on the circumstances so it's not it's not a it's not a
it's not a criminal court or even a civil court when it comes to the application of the rules of
evidence okay so we're going to move on we're going to try to give you a little leeway but
so let's move on yep yep so joe um we what we have is already as it's been shown and if i could
i do really need my associate nico riabuto uh given some permission to be because he's going
to handle our screen if we're going to handle your technical things right yeah yeah okay
Hopefully, Nico, you're still there.
Joe, the current sign is used by the union 24 hours, seven days a week?
Yes, sir.
And it's currently a digital sign.
Isn't that correct?
And again, for right now, it's about eight feet by 17 feet in dimension, correct?
And it faces especially the station at 2nd and Spring Garden, correct?
That's correct.
That's the station for the L?
Yes, sir.
And why was it important to have this sign even at that location facing that way?
For basically the same reason that we chose this location to move to, access to our membership.
And the Market Frankfurt line is our busiest line
It's our most traveled line by our 5 ,000 members
And basically it connects with all of the rest of the system
And it was purposely chosen so that this would be a central location for the membership
As well as for us to communicate to those members who do ride that train every day
And night for that matter
Okay. So, Joe, does the union own any other outdoor advertising signs anywhere in the city of Philadelphia?
No, not at all.
So if there's a requirement, one of the refusals is that in order to get a digital sign, you need to take down two existing lawful signs. Do you have any lawful signs to take down?
No, we definitely do not.
And you and you and the union are not in the business of being a a non -accessory billboard company that has other locations.
Is that correct? That's correct. OK.
Now, the sign is supposed to is going to be updated and upgraded to where it'll be 12 .33 feet by 31 feet.
Is that correct? Yes, sir.
And that means that we're going from about 142 square feet to about 383 square feet.
Is that correct?
But the sign's going to stay in the same position on the roof, correct?
Yes, the same roof mounts with some minor adjustments just for support.
And the sign will still be a single -faced sign.
Isn't that correct?
Yes, sir.
same manufacturer, same basic design, with, you know,
market improvements.
Okay, isn't it true that local, if given permission to convert the sign,
Local, if given permission to convert the sign, that local 234 is going to be the one that pays for the sign, will be in control of the sign structure, and will own the sign structure.
that local
That's correct, yes.
Okay, so this is not going to be a billboard or the ordinary outdoor accessory sign that is owned by and put up by at the cost and expense of a third -party billboard operator, correct?
That's correct. Okay. Now, also, the sign continue to be used by Local 234. If you were allowed to convert it into the new proposed billboard sign, outdoor advertising digital sign.
Absolutely.
So the purpose of this is it's going to be sort of a mixed hybrid kind of use. Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
So you'll still be able to do what you've been doing with the ridership public and your membership with public service announcements?
That is our plan, yes, sir.
And you'll still be able to, if you're riding south on I -95, be able to get the weather and the time from your sign that we've all been able to get over the years?
Yeah, that's correct.
Okay. Now, just to bring back, refresh the board, at the time PennDOT even got involved with you.
You were having a sign up that was talking about Pond and Lihockey. Isn't that correct? The law firm?
Yes, sir. And that we did have a picture of that showing that you were advertising that and Pond and Lihockey are the law firm that provides many legal services to the Transportation Workers Union.
Isn't that correct? Multiple services. Yes, sir.
And in fact, even at the time when you had correspondence with an involvement with Joanne Parkins of PennDOT, Pond and La Hacke actually had a physical office inside your building.
Isn't that correct?
They had everything essentially but the actual desk.
I mean, they participate in our meetings, our functions.
They occasionally set up shop in the building.
But I wouldn't say at that time we had a dedicated, say, here's your desk, here's your office.
Although we were willing to do that, there really wasn't the necessity.
So from your concerns, what you were doing was really just putting up the name of the vendor and the law firm that rendered service to your membership, correct?
Well, one of the calls, one of the many calls we get all day long is what's the number for
Pond Lahaki or who is the attorney that we use for the many issues? And so that was one way of
making it easier. We certainly were interested in letting, we have such an issue with people
retiring and not knowing, and we just really wanted to get the message out there.
We had ran it past an attorney at that time, and he assured us that since they were affiliated with us, it really wasn't a problem.
So, one of the refusals is that we can't be, we have to be, you can't be more than 25 feet above the road surface from which the advertising message is intended to be principally viewed.
And that that's in the refusal that's part of the record. Are you aware of that one? Yes. And right now we're proposing that we're at 28 feet because 28 feet is the height of your building off the off of Second Street.
Isn't that correct? Yes, sir. But we'll have testimony from our expert witnesses about this.
But, Joe, isn't it the intent that the road surface from which this is principally viewed will be the off ramp from Calla Hill as well as the main elevated roadway for I -95?
Yes, that's correct.
and uh joe so aren't aren't you at least with regard to uh the roadway of an elevated roadway
of 95 that's above you isn't that yes above your building and also you're pretty much probably
about level with some of the off -ramp at cattle hill is that correct that's that's very accurate
okay so the only way and you're putting the sign in the same spot same location so uh
The only way you could comply with that would be to tear down part of your building to lower the roof line. Is that correct?
That's correct. Yes.
Okay. Now, Joe, and Nico, I don't know if you can get me our A3A through A3D aerials that we had shown previously, because I just want to go through the neighborhood.
If I could, we could allow Nico to share the screen.
Here we go.
So where we've circled, that's where your sign is, and that's where the existing sign
is, and that's where the new sign is going to be, correct?
Yes, sir.
Okay. So, Joe, let's see what the environment's like around here. We have right in front of the building, that's 2nd Street. Is that correct?
And if you go to the – that's it. And then if you go to the right to the next roadway, that's the off -ramp coming down from I -95. Is that correct?
Yes, that's the Callahill off -ramp.
Okay. And then we have the next roadway is the southbound roadway of I -95, correct?
Okay. Now, in this sign, in your neighborhood, aren't there other outdoor advertising signs already?
Well, when you say in the neighborhood.
Nico is putting a hand at.
yes there's there are others in the name but i didn't know like how far you're well but i mean
even in this picture joe right now yes where nico's hand is that's that's the closest one
spring garden and is i don't know i don't know the official address other than i will say
that um some may be familiar because there was probably a few zoning cases in front of the board
over the years that's where delilah's den is located correct that shopping center yes an
enterprise rent -a -car okay and so there there's a billboard sign there uh then we go up just
across the street at quain oak isn't there a billboard sign in front of that property now too
yes on the side of their uh their building okay that's across the street on on spring garden
street no actually uh you were there you were there back back back where you were nico and
and across the street. There you go. But the sign faces the 95, not Spring Garden Street.
The hand is basically on Spring Garden Street, where the sign is actually in between the building
and 95. Yes, right there where the hand is. Okay. So this neighborhood already has signs in it,
correct yes and if we go um to um let's show a3b the next picture
uh again and we show where the sign is now to the left of you um just above you at second right at
the corner of second and and spring garden is a black roof building yes and then when we started
this case back in June, that black roof building was there. Isn't that correct? Yes. And now if we
have new pictures, because there's been a change in circumstances, that building has is in the
process has been torn down. And in the process, they're building a new high rise residential unit
with some commercial, I believe. Isn't that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Nico, can you go to
what we've marked in our supplementals
as the photos of construction
for 200
spring garden
so this is what
this is taken Joe right from second
spring garden is that correct
yes sir and if we go
this is getting now we're
getting still showing that and all
the construction go down
and we're showing more construction along the
way and these are all
our photos as we go down we're getting towards your building uh in between this new building
and your union headquarters is still de simone auto uh shop right auto sales and body shop
it's actually a body shop yes okay uh keep going nico
i'm gonna object uh just to the relevance of uh the new construction
well the relevance is why don't we talk about where we're going with this
would be easier well what i'm what i'm going to say is that there's we're going to show you that
would be easier. Well, what I'm going to say is that we're going to show you that there's a new
there's a new
building that's going to be built. The new building is going to have a 60 -foot property wall that'll
have no windows that'll be facing us so that we're not going to have any spillage or light isn't
going, you know, there's this change in circumstances. Here it is. So what we're trying to do is show
that there is a, you know, we don't want to have to be candid to the tribunal and the candidness is
there's something new that's happened in between the application okay okay okay put it on so here
we go so you see where it says rooftop roof landscape update pending yes okay now there's a
a dark wall or like a brownish wall yes sir and that that is the orientation that's going to be
facing uh your building because your buildings to the south of that correct yes and the white
The whitish building that's sort of shown down below is the DeSimone property, correct?
And we'll present it through our engineer.
Our sign goes back about 16 feet right now, the roof sign.
Right.
And it's angled such that it angles out towards traffic southbound on 95 on an angle, correct?
Yes, sir.
So this wall is 60 feet deep.
So we're not going to be impacting any new housing or open windows for any other property.
Is that correct for this new property?
We didn't before.
And this will even further ensure that there's even less chance, even though there was a zero chance of us impacting anybody.
Do you feel that the visibility of even the proposed sign will be curtailed and cut down by this building once it's up?
It's really hard to visualize, I would say yes.
It certainly isn't improving our view of the sign.
If anything, it's limiting it.
now joe um so what we've got that out uh let's let's go back to um either a3b a3b would be
great if you could get that um where the hand is right now that's the l that's the station for
spring garden street isn't that correct on the yes sir that's correct frank market frankford l
yes sir okay and i think we've mentioned it before when you were testifying but
that actually acts as a block visually so that if you were northbound on the northbound side
of I -95, you can't really see your sign. Isn't that correct? You can't see it at all. Right. So
we're not going to be visually impacting any northbound traffic with regard with the sign.
is that correct that's correct okay and um
where i think i think we will have a map that shows it but um we're not supposed to be within
500 or 500 face 500 feet of any residential district or face any residential district
within a thousand feet and we showed on the zoning map before then you have to go all the
way up to like second and brown i think it is i recall that yes yeah to be able to get
to get to uh or fair for second and fair amount i'm sorry uh to be able to get to where its own
residential uh that's correct okay so even from there right now they can't and you've walked that
second street corridor i'm sure uh and looked over can you see your your your sign from there
No, in fact, I frequently walk that area, whether it's to the restaurant or to the bank or to the state rep's office or to any number of the businesses that I do business with in there, including the notary and some others.
okay and so whatever the current sign and even the uh proposed sign um really uh won't be able
to be seen from in your opinion right from from like if you were second and green or second and
fair amount. No, not at all. Okay. And the you have engaged you engaged engineers and they have
told you that this sign will be a stable insert and sturdy and
This sign will be a stable and sturdy and we'll be able to withstand any winds and everything, so it's not going to be a hazard or a danger to the public health and safety.
Well, safety has always been paramount for us, and that was always our number one concern, even with the initial construction.
So we definitely had all eyes on that.
Okay. And Joe, do you believe that you've existed all these years and you've said there's never
been a complaint about your existing sign? Not one. Okay. And so doing what you're, go ahead.
The only correspondence I ever got was when Ms. Parkins called me.
Now, if this sign gets changed into where it can have a component of accessory plus non -accessory,
you will still continue to use it for the union and get your message out, correct?
Oh, absolutely.
We have to.
and was there a sign was there another sign of outdoor advertising sign that's actually
been taken down that was in the neighborhood recently yes a little closer to the bridge
so if we headed towards callahill street uh yes so so downward like a little bit down towards
Callahill Street. There was a sign sort of right at that little triangle right below little Callahill
Street. And that's been taken down. Isn't that correct? Yes, that's that's that's gone. That's
gone. Okay. So there's actually been at least somebody removed the sign in the area, right?
Yes, sir. So Joe, why why are we asking for this sign now? You gave an opening in the beginning,
But just reiterate why, again, we're looking for this sign now.
Well, for a lot of good reasons, steady income, I would be lying if I didn't say that that is certainly part of this.
Like all nonprofits, you know, we have bills to pay.
We struggle to make ends meet.
We have 5 ,000 frontline workers that need a lot of support.
The pandemic hit us very hard, very hard in so many ways.
And we look at this as a possible steady source and the ability to keep the lights on and, you know, the building up and running in the worst of times.
And to continue to provide the support, stay in the neighborhood, afford to survive and continue what we've been doing for the last 80 years.
for another 80 years. It's an expensive business we're in. And needless to say,
getting the message out to the members is always important. And we have multiple ways of doing it.
This has been a very effective tool. But also, you know, to have this tool, to have this sign
and to keep this sign up and running, even that costs money. So once we found out through PennDOT
that there really was no reason from their end, as you'll see in those emails, that they would deny us the right,
then we seized on the opportunity to try to get this done.
Somebody's going to have a sign there. I don't see why it wouldn't have been us.
Okay. And Joe, from what you understand with the proposed modernization of your existing sign, that you'll be able to control and enhance visibility.
Those are just some of the benefits, you know, longer lasting.
And you will be able to control the illumination so it doesn't spill out onto the other adjacent properties, correct?
It's a lot more manageable.
All right.
With that, I would conclude my direct of Mr. Coccio.
And I'll be moving all our exhibits into the record.
Anything that we've used so far, I'll move into the record.
And Mr. Chair, I'll be moving all our exhibits, which have been pre -marked A13, through our new supplementals to get us up to A17.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, do you have any comments about this?
I don't have objections to moving the exhibits into the record, with the exception, again, that we, you know, I don't, you know, just to preserve my objection on the relevance of 200 -3 -Dart.
And you have no cross -examination?
I do have a couple cross questions on cross.
i do have a couple cross questions on cross well i let them just let the record show you said you
Well, just let the record show.
were not going to become a party to this and participant you were just wanted to get the
position of the planning commission out now you're acting as an attorney by asking questions so i just
want the record to reflect that okay all right and you're representing the city of philadelphia
correct correct yeah okay all right mr rudard and again the question was right so right mr
karchia um again you you just testified uh uh that um with respect to uh the sign that uh you
are proposing that uh you believe that it will not be visible or will not leak out onto adjoining
properties is that right yes sir okay uh and but the whole purpose of the sign is to be seen
uh isn't that right yes sir and it will be primarily seen by uh persons driving vehicles
on southbound 95 isn't that right we'll basically be reaching the same audience for the most part
that we have uh been reaching only we'll be reaching them better more effectively clearer
and uh with the tree lines growing and everything else there on that the on that off ramp uh you
don't change a sign without going with an improvement no different than if you bought
a tv you're going to buy what's available and it's usually better technology okay it's typically
bigger. Okay. And this is a lot bigger, isn't it? I mean, this is more than twice as large. It's
probably about three or five times larger than the existing size. Objection. I think the size
speaks for itself. We've said what it is. It's 142 to 383. Okay. And it's not even close to full
size billboard size either it's a it's about halfway uh now you also mentioned the sign uh
across on the other side of the highway um where there's the little strip mall uh do you know
what's on that particular sign well it's actually a double sign and honestly i couldn't tell you
what ads are running if that's which if that's what you're asking okay uh if would you all right
So if that sign were advertising businesses located at that strip mall, would would you know whether or not that was true?
I could honestly say that I have not seen ads that were specific to that.
No, I'm not going to say I'm not going to say that they have not maybe for a period of time in time snapshot in time where they may have.
Okay. So you're saying that the large billboard is not a large billboard for Delilah's Den, which operates at that location?
Oh, no, it's definitely a commercial billboard, not owned by Delilah's, so to speak.
For Delilah's, right.
Right. It's one of the big advertiser signs. I don't recall whose.
Okay. Now, with respect to what your intended content for the proposed sign is, you said that you would continue to broadcast messages on behalf of the transit workers, but you've also testified that your intention is to generate income from the sign.
And wouldn't that actually require you to have other types of advertisements for other, you know, whether it's other businesses or other things that are not related to what's happening at 500 to 508 North 2nd Street?
well in order to generate income we would have to open the door to other sorts of advertising
yet maintaining yet maintaining control by owning the sign right but it's still i mean you applied
for a non -accessory sign isn't that correct that's correct sir and you agree that the existing sign
leaving aside uh what may have been advertised for pond lahaki uh that existing sign is permitted as
an accessory sign on the building right uh yes you didn't need a variance for that sign or did
you well we had to we we had to jump through a lot of hoops and we did have to get a variance
and and all these issues that you you mentioned about the the visibility in the homes and the
blocks we've but you you know that's been satisfied you needed the various because it
was digital right uh say repeat that please but again you needed the variance because it was
digital right it was an accessory sign but you needed the variance because it
But you needed the variance because it was a digital sign. Isn't that right?
was a digital sign isn't that right I believe that's correct
I believe that's correct.
Okay. You've also said that you and Citi doesn't dispute that you don't you don't run a sign business, right?
That's correct.
Okay. And you were aware and your attorney pointed out that you did not, that you don't have other digital, other billboards that you could take down, which is one of the requirements to get a digital billboard. Isn't that right?
Yeah. Well, as we found out, that is a requirement that no, we do not have any other digital signs.
Did you ever reach out to any owners or operators of other billboards to see if you could get an agreement for them to take down their sign?
No, I wouldn't even begin to know how to ask them.
And who would give up that income for somebody they don't even know?
But were you not made aware that that is what has commonly been done?
in order to meet the requirement
that certain billboards would have to be taken down?
Objection outside the scope,
but I'm not going to present as an expert
in how to comply with the code.
So, Mr. Kaccia, other than
your property is
a CMX3 property, is that right?
I mean, if you don't know what that is, that's fine. Okay. So have you explored other types
of uses that are available at that property? For our property? Yeah. No, we want it for what
it is. We have no reason to look into anything else. We don't plan on doing anything else with
it. So, but you would agree then there's nothing particular about the property itself that would
prohibit it being used for other purposes that would be permitted under the zoning classification,
right? Objection, Joe, if you understand the question. Have you sought any other tenants
for the property? Oh, absolutely not, no. Right, okay, so have you sought any other types of uses
for the property? Just our general office use that we currently use it for. Okay, so there's
nothing preventing you to continue using that property for the purpose that you have it,
Right. Well, it's it's getting harder and harder to afford. Real estate taxes go up every year. I have a Northern Liberties business tax I have to pay now. I mean, every time we turn around, it's getting harder and harder to afford to stay in the area. Right. But there's nothing to sign would definitely help.
OK, so, again, the sign you want to sign primarily for the additional income that it would provide to you, to your transit union.
In addition to getting our message out to our members, which was the original intended purpose, as well as the intended purpose going forward, with the added hopeful possibility of bringing in additional income, enable us to stay here indefinitely.
I don't have any further questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Park, you want to move on?
Do you have another witness?
Yes, I have two more witnesses, two more experts.
This time I'd like to call.
Well, if I might, the city has another agency which is going to be meeting at 1 .15 to 1 .30, Board of L &I Review, so I will have to have a hard stop in at a quarter after.
Well, then we'll, let me ask you this, Mr. Powell, your next witness, can you get it on in 15 minutes?
Probably not.
He's an engineer, and we're going to go through a lot of the criteria, a lot of the distances, a lot of the spillage.
how long how much visibility issues i think i've still got wait wait listen to me listen to me
how much more time do you need probably an hour because i'm trying to plan for the next time too
an hour and a half at the most okay and leonard how much more time would you need
um you know again what we're just trying to get into the record here uh to make sure that uh that
all of the requirements for obtaining a variance are discussed. I don't have any witnesses to
present myself. Obviously, the city planning rep, as required, will be presenting their
recommendation. Okay. So let me say this. Yes. I'm going to say this. Leonard's got to leave at
1 .15. It's a little after
1 now. I think
we should break, you know,
Mr. Powell needs another hour and a
half. At Tanya, we're just going to have to
plan the time for in the future. There's no sense
starting another witness, and then
the next time you've got to go back, and
what did he say, and things like that.
So I think we need to break now.
Chair, we cannot accommodate
Chair, we cannot accommodate another hour and a half until maybe well into March or April.
another hour and a half
until...
We don't have that kind of leave.
I think the issue is this, Tanya.
I mean, he says he needs another an hour and a half.
There's nothing else we can do.
I mean, unless you can shorten it up, can you make it an hour?
At the most, an hour.
You know, at the least an hour.
I mean, we can probably get it done in an hour.
I do apologize, but we were we were informed that that the zoning board had a hard break at 1230.
We did. We did. And here's the issue. I'm I'm I'm the attorney for my client, but the solicitor's office.
In fact, I saw there was a young solicitor who was on with Leonard earlier this morning, as many people that could be here to fill the role for the city, at least, especially given the nature of this case,
because we'd like to get it on and like to be able to so mr mr park let me say this much i think
i think you had mr coachy on for quite a bit today and i think his testimony was was good
testimony i think i would appreciate i think we have to put an hour limit on the next meeting
okay i as long as as long as it's here as long as i get an hour of my my
questioning, because Mr. Rudder did take a few extra moments with a cross -examination.
He only did a few, but I think we've got to bring this to closure. I don't think we should
wait to April, May. So I think, Tanya, what can we do if it's an hour?
It still will have to be next year. I'm looking for a date now.
okay i mean i um just so we clear we never give this much time for cases i don't know where that's
why it's been becoming a hardship so i can put it in february um the third tuesday in february
okay you want to give me now you want to give us a half hour somewhere i mean but i think there
would still be and there would still be a limit to one hour mr chair yeah i i think we have to
We have to put a limit on it. It'll be one hour.
I mean, I know this isn't this. I understand the difficulties in scheduling, but there is fundamental fairness and due process.
We're going to have to order the notes of testimony. And, you know, I don't know how any of us are going to remember this whole case.
And it's sort of, you know, under the suburban zoning boards have a time limit as to how long they have.
I know to get a case heard and how much time they have to give to a case.
I was chairman of a zoning board where we had like 20 hearings on a methadone plan.
I know, but Mr. Powell, this is what we have.
And I think everybody's going to go out of the way to make sure everybody has their due process here.
But we're saying we want the due process to be done in an hour.
And I think we can do it.
Now we'll push ourselves to do it in an hour.
I appreciate it.
Mr. Chair. Mr. Reuter is gladly to work along with this.
Sorry, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I know the
head of the RCO has been waiting to testify.
I don't believe his testimony would be in another half an hour.
That's fine. That's fine. Take his testimony now. Thank you.
Okay. What's his name, please?
Larry Friedman from Northern Liberty.
Sure. Hi, Mr. Friedman. We have no objection to Mr. Friedman. Go out of turn.
Hi, Mr. Friedman. Mr. Friedman, can you unmute yourself?
Hi, can you hear me? Hi, Mr. Friedman. Could you speak your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. Larry, L -A -R -R -Y, Friedman, F -R -E -E -D -M -A -N, R -C -O, Northern Liberties.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And Mr. Friedman, could you give us your position on this case?
Yes. I could do this in three minutes. You got three minutes?
You know, Mr. Friedman, we appreciate that.
Thank you. Our letter that we sent in very, very simply says there's no hardship to enlarge the sign or to go from accessory to non -accessory.
and actually we saw this in 2016 and one of our and part of our letter said it is the strong
consensus of the neighborhood to limit or alleviate all digital billboards and I just
wanted to quickly point out on the refusal that the second refusal says whereas the proposed
digital outdoor advertising sign non -accessory is expressly prohibited in the CMX3 zoning district.
is expressly prohibited in the cmx3 zoning district so our position is
we don't want to be known as the digital side non -accessory mecca uh of the city because
as you know north liberties has a lot of roads coming in and out a lot of highways
and a lot of buildings that this could happen um and we feel that you want to put a billboard up
someplace or where it's allowed, that's one thing. But where it's not allowed, we don't want it. We
don't want to see it. And there's no hardship here. And as everybody knows, as much as we all
like to increase our income, that is not a zoning hardship. So, Mr. Friedman, thank you. Mr. Powell,
do you have any comments real quick? Real quick. Mr. Friedman, isn't it true that back in 2016,
Norton Liberties opposed even the digital sign that needed a zoning for an accessory digital sign.
Correct.
A digital sign.
Right.
But you opposed it being an accessory digital sign back in 2016, correct?
That's correct.
Okay. And how about, do you recognize that if, that there is a spacing requirement in the zoning code that billboards cannot be within 500 feet of another billboard on any side of the highway in Philadelphia?
You're asking if I understand that?
Are you aware of that?
I believe so.
I believe it's on the refusal.
Well, you've been the zoning chair for, I don't know, how many years, Larry?
And so on the refusal that you looked at, there was no refusal for being within 500 feet of another billboard.
Is that correct?
You're talking about the current refusal?
if i suppose so there's nothing that's not why well i'm looking at the one that says it's not
allowed it's what i'm asking you i'm asking you if there's a refusal for being within 500 feet
of another billboard with on either side of the high which one let me ask you which one is that
on the uh refusal i'm saying i'm asking you do you see it on the refuse do i see it on this refusal
Yes. Let's see. Whereas the proposed digital sign prohibited to be erected or converted from non -digital to digital within 500 feet.
Larry, you can read it silently to yourself and just tell me if you've got it.
Well, what are you asking me about that?
I'm just asking you, is it being refused because there's another sign within 500 feet of it?
I don't know.
Okay. Nothing further.
All right. Thank you. Mr. Reuter, are you still on?
I'm still here.
Okay. Do you have any questions?
Real quick, Mr. Friedman, are you familiar with the location, for lack of a better way to put it, where the Delilah's is located?
Are you familiar with the billboard on that site?
Yeah, and I believe it's accessory, but, you know.
Okay, if you don't recall what's on it, that's fine.
Yeah, and I know Delilah's very well, so I could get that information if you'd like.
No, I don't mean it that way.
i'm friends with the owner uh you know hillary um yeah and the family that's all they've been
neighbors for forever nor the liberties okay okay any other questions just real quick since
you raised it i just real quick because i there's going to be an issue about this and
go to a a a3b for me quickly uh nico a a3b
i'm sorry you're talking to me no i'm talking to my nico riabuto if nico can share the screen
a3b okay so if there is a billboard up at the very corner of a long seconds along spring garden
street if we go back towards the other end of the lila's uh shopping center there's another
structure that surely does look like a billboard. Is that a billboard, Larry, that advertises
prop building uses that aren't on that premises, or don't you know?
I don't know. I don't know.
Okay, so there's more than one billboard, really, structure, at least.
If you're asking me, I believe it's accessory to Delilah's.
You believe both of them are?
That's what I believe. Now, I can go down there and take a look.
That's your testimony. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
that's all i have mr chairman all right thank you um thank you everyone um mr coach thank you
Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
thanks for bearing with us um and we'll be in touch did we get the date tanya what date yes
chair the date would be february 21st at 9 30 a .m okay yep thank you thank you everyone thank
you for your patience thank you just to be sure tanya there's no one left in the virtual audience
this case wasn't heard take care everybody thank you very much thank you everybody it appears as
though everybody is going here thank you thank you very much have a good night and thank you
see you all tomorrow bye bye bye thanks for hanging in there pauline i appreciate you
good afternoon bye everyone bye