No, I just saw it.
No worries.
No worries.
All right.
It's like the hands are going up and down.
I apologize.
No, that's not your fault.
No problem.
With that, Carol, we can begin calling the cases.
Calendar number 38224918 East Shelton Avenue.
Tuck Lum is the property owner.
And this is an application for a two-family dwelling in an existing structure.
it is refused for the one-year rule. There's also a use refusal for
multifamily in RSA 5. An RCO meeting was scheduled for August 1st and
there's no letter. Can you put your name and address on the record? Oh wait, is
talk long here and
for anyone here on calendar number 38224
For anyone here on calendar number 38224, 918 East Chilton Avenue.
I just promoted TAC LOM.
Thank you.
TAC, do you want to put your name and address on the record?
Mr. LOM, can you hear me?
Sharon yes I saw you go I thought you were going to say something I was before this I know that
Mr. Schwartz had his hand up when you were announcing the continuances and I know that
one of the cases that was continued was listed as his case that we did not receive exhibits for
So at some point, maybe we could go back and see if he had a request.
Can you hear me?
Spell your name for the record, please.
My name is Tak Lam, T-A-K-L-A-M.
Hello?
Schwartz, are you here on the...
Yeah, this is Billy Schwartz.
This is all new to me.
I don't even know what the heck I'm doing here with this computer.
I'm sorry.
I've only been doing this for a year, but I didn't know about this until about 10 minutes ago, actually.
And I don't even know how to get on Zoom.
I had to get somebody to get me on here.
Okay, so now you're on.
Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Schwartz, what case are you going to be testifying on?
You can unmute yourself, Mr. Schwartz.
I unmuted you.
Mr. Swartz, unmute your mic.
Mr. Lamb, is Mr. Swartz representing you?
No, right?
I'm sorry.
Two different cases.
I probably shouldn't have confused things, sorry.
I sent in a request yesterday when I found out about the continuance.
Mr. Swartz, can you please?
Mr. Swartz, you're not involved in this.
Please wait.
I'm sorry?
Please wait a second.
What case are you testifying on?
This is case number 39045, and it's 2810 Frankfurt Avenue for the 2 o'clock list.
we don't have it on our list
it's the continued cases it was okay what 2810 sharon right right
so mr schwartz are you asking for us not to continue this case no i'm asking you to continue it because
I didn't know about the case until yesterday. Mr. Swartz, slow down. We already, it's already
been on the record. We're continuing the case. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I
will get in touch with the RCO to have them finish up what they have to do and we'll be there when we
have to. Okay, Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, let's go to Mr. Lamb.
Hi, Mr. Lamb. Did you put your name and address on the record?
Yes, I did.
You did?
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, can you present your case?
My case is about turning a single-family home into a two-family dwelling.
So my architect was supposedly helping me do this,
but he was admitted to the hospital on the Thursday.
So I believe everything was submitted.
I'm not really sure about that.
so I'm going to continue on with this case by myself, if that's a feasible.
Do you have any information you can share with us, war plan, photographs?
That was all submitted.
I'm not really on the computer right now, so I cannot share it in the computer.
The one thing that we didn't receive is the RCO letter.
Did you get a letter from the RCO?
uh no i did not get the letter okay my architect assumed that it was mailed to the
to the zoning board but you did have the meeting on august 1st is that correct
yes thank you tell us what the results of that meeting was they agree with the
yes thank you tell us what the results of that meeting was
with the zoning
go ahead with the family let me do this out a little bit out of order is anyone
else here to testify on this case
Mr. Richardson you can unmute yourself
Mr. Richardson you're still under oath from earlier today
Charles, are you there?
Chair, I have another hand up.
Leonard Brundage, are you here regarding this case?
i'm not sure what's going on chair but you can proceed as you wish
yeah uh charles isn't here as well right he's here and unmuted i'm not sure what's going on
now he's not all right well mr lam if you don't mind we're going to go to the next case and then
come back and see if we can get the witness from the councilwoman's office
to testify okay have you had any interaction with the councilwoman's office
i'm you mute me
now let's go to case number two
calendar number i'm sorry since the applicant can't share his screen i will
email the board members uh floor plans and photos right now but you know what maybe what we can do
this uh if the board agrees what what let's hear from the planning commission
you're talking about um chelton yes which one 9 918 east chelton right okay
All right. So this property is indicated for residential single-family use on a city plan.
We believe the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated unnecessary hardship regarding
the requirements of the code. The application is not consistent with our adopted district plan,
nor is it nor is there there any unique physical circumstances or conditions to the site
restricting it from development compatible with the surrounding character of the block
therefore we recommend the request for variance not be granted
okay thank you ron uh is i'll try one more time if mr richardson if you're there would you please
raise your hand. Can you hear me? Hello? Now we can. Now we can. Yes. I had to go out and come
back in. Okay. I just wanted to clear up a little confusion. I checked. I saw that it was on the
calendar for today, that this property was on the calendar. And I noticed that I had not received
any correspondence from the RCO. So I contacted the chair of the Shoe Bellfield neighbors, and
they actually did have a RCO meeting and they did do a letter. I think they just probably
sent it to you, even though it was dated for August the 10th of 2020. It does say that
they are in support of granting the variance. Three, six, ten, ten, four, one opposed and
one non-opposition at that meeting. Total number of attendees was 13. In so much as that is the
case, the Councilwoman is in support of granting the variance. Okay, thank you. Looks like flying
blind here. We don't have anything to look at. Mr. Lam.
I did just email you the floor plan, if that helps. I'm not sure where he went. He's gone,
it looks like today's unusual sharon i don't have the plan i'm worried about losing everything if i
try to get it is it already set up as a duplex could you could you tell from the plan um hold on
Hold on.
It appears to be, yes. It appears to be a legalization.
I'm trying to find the photo, sorry. No problem.
there are no units in the basement I can tell you that they are set up on this first second and third
floor I don't know if the board got to see what Sharon sent over I have it on my phone it's a
little hard to read any questions from the board no no no all right calendar number 38224
918 east chelton avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you calendar number mi2020-000-896 and the address is 300 rouse boulevard refusal and
referral. The attorney, Robert Careless and Thomas Witt. Mr. Careless, you have been promoted to a
panelist. You can share your screen and unmute yourself. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Madam
Vice Chair, members of the board, Robert Careless, C-A-R-E-L-E-S-S, Cozen O'Connor,
1650 Market Street, Philadelphia. Thank you. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Madam Vice Chair.
Would you like to swear me? Yes. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I will agree to waive the reading of the refusal. Since we are appealing the determination of the
examiner i i will not stipulate to the authenticity or the accuracy of the uh refusal
present your case
uh thank you we're here in connection with an application made for the property of 300
rouse boulevard in the navy yard otherwise known as navy yard parcel 7ss there is no physical change
proposed in connection with our application today uh what we're proposing to do is subdivide the
property to create two lots uh proposed parcel a would would encompass the existing building
and the future building of the building's on construction right now which is 1b with some
accessory parking in the parking lot as i'm indicating uh proposed parcel b would be the
remainder parking lot here um we are proposing that that balance would be subdivided and conveyed
back to paid. This application is mixed, but it's relatively straightforward in the CMX-3,
a subdivided surface parking lot proposed for parcel B requires a special exception from the
board. In addition, the examiner refused the application on four other grounds related to
bicycle parking, ADA spaces, van accessible spaces, and minimal aisle widths. We've appealed
those determinations and in the alternative requested a variance from your code. I have
submitted an exhibit packet to the board that has the required documents, some additional documents.
They are marked A1 through A10. We have met with our RCO, the Veterans Stadium Neighbor
Civic Association. We have their support. We also have support from our councilman's office.
I'll summarize our application and keep it brief. With respect to the special exception,
Our request is fairly straightforward here.
This property has long been intended to be developed with two commercial buildings and accessory parking, with some parking being shared between the two buildings.
The proposed surface parking lot on parcel B here will exclusively serve the building on parcel A.
We would respectfully assert that there is no detriment to the public here in granting the special exception.
Again, there is no physical change here.
We're simply asking to subdivide the property such that we can convey the balance of the parking lot back to paid.
With respect to the refusals, first, with bicycle spaces,
the examiner is asking that we have 29 bike spaces be located on Parcel B just by virtue of the subdivision.
So we are showing bicycle spaces on parcel A, but more importantly, our position is that bike spaces aren't required because parcel B would be a private parking lot, not a public parking lot under your code.
We are showing bicycle spaces on...
There is no charge to motorists here, so under your code, this would not constitute a public parking lot.
The code requires bike spaces for public parking lots. It's silent on private parking lots.
and in addition to that the way you measure bike spaces under the code is by gross floor area
there's no building proposed on parcel b so even if uh you know i'm using a gross floor
calculation the net calculation for bike spaces would be zero um in the event that the board
upholds the examiner's determination uh we're asking to not provide the 29 spaces on parcel b
again we have parcel we have bike spaces on parcel a um there's no physical change here
everything is the same with the exception of the subdivision and you know we would respectfully
assert that the public would better serve by having those like spaces closer to the buildings
and not locate somewhere else on parcel bay with respect to the ada spaces and the van accessible
spaces we are we have appealed i'm just going to try to flip this around for you so you don't
have to crane your necks here bear with me for one second i might have to zoom out here
Okay, let me zoom in for you.
just to orient the board to what you're looking at here
this is the buildings this is parcel a with the with the accessory parking here this would be
the balance of the parking lot that we're asking to propose that to subdivide what what the examiner
is refusing is he's asking that we locate ada spaces and van accessible spaces on parcel b
again by virtue of the subdivision um oddly enough the the subdivision is creating more
van accessible and ada spaces than what's required for the buildings um but in any event what we
were relying on with the examiner was section 148029 of your code which allows spaces to be
located on adjacent parcel within a thousand feet under common ownership or under an agreement
um we would respectfully assert that um the the we should be able to do that under 14802 but in
that the board agrees with the examiner, the variance would be in further to the public health
here and safety of people with disabilities. We would obviously respectfully assert that people
with disabilities should be parking closer to the building and not elsewhere in parcel B further
back away from the buildings. Lastly, with aisle widths, although it wasn't entirely clear from