Tech, that's who it is.
Hey, recording has started.
It has started locally, though.
We have some issues to resolve.
It just popped up, but it is recording.
Thank you.
Okay, Chair, we have 35 attendees.
you can proceed as you wish. Thank you. Good morning everyone. My name is Bill Bergman and
I will be chairing the ZBA hearings this morning. With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid. Present
Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member Cheryl L. Gaston. Present Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member Tanetta
Graham. Present Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member Michael Johns. Present Mr. Chairman. And our
Also present is our attorney, Hilliard Emerson, and Catherine Grady, the Deputy Director for Planning and Zone.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting ZBAExecutiveDirector at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for testimony.
All comments or testimony should be directed to our deputy director for planning and zoning.
Here's our, let's look at our schedule for this morning.
Number eight.
M.I. 2024-003-045-6427 North 13th Street.
That case is continued.
Number 11.
M.I. 2024-003-240-422 Morris Street.
Roger Perry is the attorney.
I understand there may be a request for contingents.
Mr. Perry.
Good morning, Chair.
This is Yvette Benton.
I'll be your co-host for the day.
Roger Perry, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Okay, hopefully I'm unmuted.
You are, sir.
Mr. Perry, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Thank you.
My name is Roger Perry, P-E-R-R-Y, and I'm representing the owner and applicant for 422 Moore Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Perry, I understand there may be a request for continuance.
Am I correct?
Well, let me tell you what happened in short.
It was a request by John Disley through Councilman Squilla's office.
We had two RCO meetings, just for the record, but there was no authorized representative
from Dickinson Square West.
So they contacted me yesterday and asked if they could proceed with a continuance or ask for a continuance.
And, of course, in conjunction with the councilman's office and Mr. Disley, we're not going to oppose that.
So that should be it to you.
All right. Thank you very much.
So MI 2024-003-240-422 Morris Street, that case is continued.
Thank you, Mr. Perry.
Thank you.
Number 13, MI 2024-003-268-3501 G Street.
That case is continued.
And number 16, MI 2024-003-373-532 West Ellett Street.
That case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Chair, we have Steve Masters. Steve Masters, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Masters.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Masters, are you calling about 7121 Yocum Street?
yes i am so mr masters this is the third listing would you give us please an update
Yes, I am.
So, Mr. Masters, this is the third listing.
Would you give us, please, an update?
of where we stand with this absolutely um and um i apologize for the delay but um i submitted a
written update um a few minutes ago to um board council and to the director so this um we we were
brought into this case um last uh this past february and um then immediately requested
that the board give us leave to amend this application back at L&I.
This is a property that since the mid-1950s has been zoned,
has been authorized through a variance for the exact uses that our client wants.
But for a reason that we believe was a mistaken reason,
L&I thought that this use had been abandoned,
And so they denied his application to continue the uses that have been around for basically 70 years.
We have now located two witnesses who are prepared to create affidavits to demonstrate that the use has not been abandoned.
going back to the 1990s. And unfortunately, it took us a while, Mr. Chair, to locate those people
because we wanted to be able to have testimony with affidavits that went back to the time that
was recognized as the legitimate time by L&I. So this case was an attorney moving party. So we were
somewhat surprised that it was put back onto the calendar list. But we're requesting
a brief um to to go back to attorney moving party briefly so that we can present these affidavits
and we believe ellen i will grant um the use permit uh by right thank you very much so mi
2023 001 945 7128 yokum street cases continue to turn a moving party thank you very much
Thank you so much.
Number two, MI 2023-0036.
I'm sorry to interrupt you.
Joseph Vaccaro has his hand up.
Mr. Vaccaro, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hey, Mr. Vaccaro.
Can you hear me?
I can, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for this phonographer?
Yes, good morning. My name is Joseph Vaccaro, and I'm V-A-C-C-A-R-O.
Where are firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
Could you tell me what case you're interested in?
20 Jackson Street?
One minute.
Okay, so we have no exhibits. That's their first listing.
That's one of the reasons that this matter needs to be relisted.
And I'm in the process of also being retained by the applicant.
So by the next time, we should be ready to proceed.
Thank you.
So is the Whitman Council representatives on the line?
anyone from whitman council if you're in the virtual audience please raise your hand
i see no hands share thank you so mi20 24 002 966 20 jackson street that case is continued
thank you mr vaccaro thank you have a good day mr burwood right number two mi20 23 003 681
147 West Luray Street, BF Homes, LLC, listed applicant, Bromley French is the listed owner.
Bromley French, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
well thank you so uh mi 2023 003 681 147 west de ray street um this is the third listing we
still have no exhibits i vote to dismiss johns my vote is to dismiss cheryl gaston my vote is to
dismiss. Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
My vote is to dismiss.
My vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. So, number 10, MI 2024-003-179-815 Crispin Street. We have an email requesting
a withdrawal. We do not have a signed letter. This is the first listing.
Jose Bernard, there you know, is the listed owner.
Jose Bernadino is the listen owner.
Is it Met Ballot?
Ismet Bala and Bukhary Dosky are the listed owners.
Is anyone in the audience here?
So, MI 2024-003-179-815 Crispin Street.
This case is continued.
Mark must be heard. Thank you. And then we're going to go to our first list, what will be number, number, number, our first case, number six, MI 2024-002-967-2081 East Ann Street. Tyler Hunt is the owner applicant.
Tyler Hunt, please raise your virtual hand.
He's coming back and there's a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Hello?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, did we want to go to the ad?
I know.
I'm going to hear this and I'll go right back to the ad.
Okay, thank you.
Sure, I got it.
Mr. Hunt?
Good morning.
could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer yes good morning counsel
my name is tyler hunt t-y-l-e-r h-u-n-t you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes um could you please turn your video on yes sir
thank you this application is for use as a multifamily household living
three dwelling units in an existing structure. The proposed use multiple family household living
is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. We have a letter of unanimous support from Somerset
Neighbors and non-opposition from Council Member Squiller. Our Vice Chair has a few questions for
you, sir. Yes, sir. Good morning, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits
that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Good morning. Yes, I
thank you sir please proceed and share your screen
second
see the green button on the bottom uh yep i'm doing it right now
all right can you guys see yeah we can sir all right
um yeah so today i'm just here for the property located at 2081 east and street uh oops
Yeah, so I'm here for 2081 East Ann Street.
And just a quick background about the property.
I purchased the property in 2021 as my primary residence.
It's a three-unit property.
I lived in the third floor unit.
The property is currently zoned as a single-family use at the moment.
It was originally built as a three-unit multifamily, but it got rezoned, I believe, back in 2017.
The application that was submitted is just for a change of use.
There's no work being done to the property.
I'm not making any modifications or changes to the property.
Everything is going to stay as is.
I just want to change the use.
It is currently rented.
low-income housing at the moment. I do have an active renter's
license. And since I've purchased the property, I've never
had any violations from Illinois or anything like that.
So here are some exterior pictures
of the property. It's a large property that sits right on the corner
of Andrews and Ann Street.
The point's not moving for us.
What was that?
Your power.
The sideshow.
You got to move on.
We're not seeing the sideshow, sir.
All right.
Oh, wait a second.
Can you see it now?
Here you go.
Here you go.
Yeah, so this is an outside picture of the property.
Like I said, it's located on the corner.
It's a large property.
It sits right on the corner of Amber and Ann Street.
So here's a rear view of the property. It has a yard in the back for the first floor tenant. And this is the interior entrance as soon as you walk inside of the property. I keep the property fairly clean. I have my maintenance guys go over there at least twice a week to make sure everything is clean over there.
So here's a rear view of the property.
It has a yard in the back for the first floor.
here's a picture of the first studio
it's a studio unit, just has a bathroom
a kitchen and small closet space
currently rented out $750 a month to a mother and her child right now
so this is the space
so this is unit number two
it's a two bedroom apartment, the current rent for this one is $1,100 a month
currently rented by a grandmother and her three children
or grandchildren. This is before pictures of when
the unit was getting, you know, turned over so she
could move in. But this is also like a large unit.
Upstairs, bedroom.
Another pictures of the bedrooms.
uh kitchen um and the bathroom so i did recently
is that the second floor yes it's the second unit property up
the kitchen's actually on the first floor though
um as you guys can see i redid the kitchen over just switched over to countertops um
did redid the floors and that was pretty much it
here was like a small video of the finishing product
again this unit is a bi-level unit currently rented for 1100 a month
when did you purchase the property um so i purchased this in 2021 and i lived there
was it separated was it situated as a triplex then yes i bought it as is i haven't made any
changes at all.
The only thing I did
was to this unit was I painted
just redid the kitchen a little bit
and that was it.
What's on the third floor?
Is that the
studio?
No, so the studio's on the first floor
and the third floor
is actually a three-bedroom unit right here um so the third floor is also a bi-level um so
this unit starts on the second floor but then the third floor is like their bedrooms and bathroom
what's what's on the second floor besides yeah the second floor is this two bedroom
unit that i just showed you a video of and a bite and a bi-level to the upstairs right correct yes
um so this unit is currently rented out as well um to a family uh a mother and her husband
um and their two kids um the rent for this one is 1300 a month um and this is a three bedroom
uh one bathroom unit
tell us about the the rco meeting uh yeah so i presented um at the rco meeting um a lot of
of the neighbors showed up and they appreciated, you know, what I'm trying to do for that
neighborhood. Again, I used to live in the area, so I know how it is in Kensington. And
all I'm trying to do is, you know, about the community, you know, changing one bite
property at a time. But yeah, everybody showed their support at the community. As you guys
read there was no oppositions um and you know i'm pretty involved in the community so you know
everyone's aware of the work that i do and you know not trying to you know get over anybody or
anything i'm just trying to do things the right way questions from the board yep um in this last
picture just shows that everybody has like their own trash can so you know the trash isn't cluttered
outside or anything like that um again i had my maintenance guys go through every week just to
make sure you know the sidewalk looks neat and clean thank you questions from the board so there's
the trash kept in the yard uh no so there's three trash cans out in front of the yard so tennis you
know just come outside bring their trash out and put it in their designated trash so until trash
and put it in her designated tracking so until trash day they their trash is kept in the units yes
day their trash is kept in the units
the questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and good morning david fecto
f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank you please proceed thank you sir uh chairman and
board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential single family
zoning at this location. The zoning archive shows that the Department of Licenses and
Inspections issued a zoning permit in 2020 for three dwelling units. So this application is a
legalization of a previously approved use. The City Planning Commission recommends that the
grant their proposed use variants for three dwelling units. Thank you. MI 2024-002-967-2081
East Ann Street. I vote yes. Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Earl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes.
Iowyn, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, sir.
We're going to move on to our
Aduins. MI 2023-007-280-1384
Narragansett Street. I vote no.
Mike Jones, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no.
Iowa, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you.
And number two, MI 2024, 003-175-6709 Essington Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, October 9th, 2024 at 9.30 a.m.
We're going to move on to number three, MI-2023-0003-683, 5021 Woodland Avenue.
Devin Upta is the attorney.
There's a letter of unanimous support from Southwest Philadelphia District Services.
King Sessing Area Civic Association was also present.
Devin, up those coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Devin?
Good morning, Chair.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please put your video on?
Good morning.
Do you state your name, please, to spell for the court sonographer?
Gavin Okta, UQDAH, Council 450, 21 Woodland Avenue.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your clients and the relationship to this property?
yes Mr. Oduñe he's the owner of the property with his wife he's also in the audience I believe
okay thank you our vice chair has a few questions good morning council do you agree to wait to read
another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes thank you council please proceed and share the screen
are you able to see my screen d21 willton avenue and uh southwest philly
Okay, it's, you're up.
Is that, okay.
Good morning.
This property is 5021 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19143.
I'm counsel for the property owner.
I'm going to go through the presentation.
Be first in Woodland.
Here, you're looking at basically where the property is located.
It's a corner property.
uh the property is currently zoned as rsa 5. however if you look uh the properties around them
the property is currently zoned as RSA 5.
also are have different zoning so um i'll show you some pictures of surrounding properties as
other uh commercial properties and multi-family properties on the block and on the same block and
across the street and the next block over
this is a recording of the deed from walter bard and lynn bard to my client mr dunya and his wife
this is a property that is next to the property um as you can see it has recently been renovated
and turned into a multi-family property.
Across the street from my property,
across the street from my client's property
is commercial space and a church to the left.
On a block over, there's also multi-family properties
that have been renovated.
You're starting to break up a little bit.
and you look like your video is frozen.
This is the property owner's current property now.
They're seeking to really have it in terms of multifamily property.
That's your property?
Is that better?
Yeah, a little bit.
Yeah, that's your property.
This is the property I'm representing, yes.
so here are pictures of the inside of the property
my client is seeking to do a complete rehab of the property
so the drawings of the property the property owner is seeking to have
three units on a property it'll be three three floors each property will have
two bedrooms. They're pretty much modeled the same. It'll be two bedrooms and one bathroom.
The property in the past was actually zoned for a multifamily property. So it was priorly
in the past, it was zoned as a multifamily property. And it looks like what probably
probably happened with talking with the RCO is that it wasn't maintained at some point and
their zoning went back to single family.
To the prior, the prior zonings for it, it was a rooming house also.
uh currently the property has has a vacant like a vacant lot license
this is the zoning notice for the property
this is the the um the public meeting notice that went out to the the um affected neighbors
and proof of mailing
currently the property is up to date on all taxes in fact as a credit balance
we were able to have the rco meeting with southwest philadelphia district services
um all parties in intent there were nine eight people in attendance all parties voted in favor
of of the change
this is a posting of the current the today's uh today's hearing on the property
that's the internal presentation uh can you tell me what what what else is on the block
what's next to the property? So to the very right, these are all multifamily properties.
So the property is located next to a corner property. So these are all multifamily properties.
And then to the right, to the very right of this property, that property is a multifamily. And to
the left the one that's listed for sale here uh scroll up to it
this property is also a multifamily property and this is directly to the left of the property
this property is also a multi-family property
okay all right questions from the board
i have no questions questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have diane settles with their hand up diane settles please unmute yourself and wait
for the chair morning could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
good morning my name is diane last name is settles um i-a-n-e s-e-t-t-l-e-s
you swear or affirm the tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do your honor please proceed um good morning i was
excuse me i'm a part of king sesson area civic association we were also in attendance um at that
meeting at that meeting um we were having conversations about the project first i would
like to say that um to the left of the property that the lawyer just spoke about
yes there are three buildings that are owned by he didn't show that there are three buildings that
are owned by mount zion baptist church as their community center and and two over at 50-03 and
50-05 i believe they are apartments at this meeting our concern was and also just to um
Let you know, I did send in a letter from King Sesson Area Civic Association that I had asked being included as an addendum.
Although we did agree, we did have discussions at that meeting regarding the type of people that this owner would be soliciting to.
And the reason why we had raised those questions was because of the bare renovations that he was doing to this property.
Our concern was because it didn't have, as we know nowadays, you have so many amenities which attracts a certain clientele of people and people with certain kinds of income.
And that was our concern, which we had expressed. And it is also expressed in this letter that I sent to the zoning board.
So also just to let you know that this property is surrounded by homeowners with blocks and blocks in this area.
I've lived in this community my entire life. I grew up on the street that that this block that this apartment is next to, which is the 1300 block of South.
divinity street so our concerns was because they are homeowners on this block you know what kind
of clientele it was going to be so i was hoping that this letter i didn't hear it being mentioned
that this letter was added to the addendum because when mr ross of southwest district services
sent in the letter of support he did not um include in the community benefits agreement
that was discussed and agreed to by their attorney by the email for the BB College School, which is a block away.
Thank you very much for your comments.
But Southwest Philadelphia District Service is a unanimous support, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
And are you in support other than some of the comments you made?
yes we are
but I wanted to
excuse me chair I'm sorry
but I wanted to be sure about
the community benefits agreement
thank you very much we appreciate it
excuse me Mr. Chair
Ms. Settles we didn't receive
a copy of
your RCO's letter so if
you wish to send that in
you can send it by close of business
tomorrow
and we can add it to the record in this case community benefits agreements or private agreements
between community groups and applicants and so they do not need to be sent to the zoning board
and they're really not something the board considers because it's not it's not something
that is you know enforceable or overseen by the city is that why excuse me is that why mr voss
may not have listed it on his
letter of support.
Probably. Because the attorney did agree to it. I had sent everything to the same exact email address that Mr. Ross had sent his to as the direction on the system about it.
Probably. Because the attorney
did agree to what
I had said.
Like if you wanted to add, you wanted to send documentation, but I can resend it. I just would need to verify what the address is.
All right. Well, we will put the emails that that the letter needs to go to in the chat.
Can I ask Mr. Devin a question?
As in regard to the CBA agreement that he did agree to.
Yeah, but but we don't do this. I understand, sir. I understand, chair.
That's OK. But I just want because he is on here.
I don't want, you can't ask them a question about the CBA.
But thank you for your time and we appreciate your comments.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Were there any provisals in the letter?
I say from the coordinating RCO, there were not.
I did not see the letter from King Sessing RCO.
did the owner say that they were going to do a cba i mean can we ask that i mean
could you help us with that council yes yes sir um so just just to give clarity they the
the rco acts that we participate in like a coat drive and uh things like that we did agree that
we would do whatever was necessary to help keep the neighborhood clean and and care for the
neighbor and be good neighbors did you did you agree to come to submit to a do a uh a formal
community benefits agreement i think that was the question no you did not okay thank you
council was there any uh provisos that were given to you no thank you um questions or comments from
the virtual warnings anyone else i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman
and good morning david vecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from rsa 5 residential single
family to rm1 residential multifamily the proposed zoning would allow three dwelling units by right
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed use variants for three dwelling units.
MI 2023-003-683-5021 Woodland Avenue, I vote yes, maximum three dwelling units.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
I win, my vote is yes, with proviso.
thank you thank you counsel number four mi2023 005 926 3223 west burke street pasquale
colavita is the attorney um tenetta graham uh from the board has recused herself for this case
Mr. Colavita is coming back in as a
panelist now, Chair
Good morning
Could you please
state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Absolutely, Pasquale
Colavita, P-A-S-Q-U-A-L-E
C-O-L-A-V-I-T-A
Attorney for
HASA Construction, LLC
and its member
Jorita Hassa
J-O-R-I-D-A-H-A-S-A
she is one of the
two members of the LLC and she's
present. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? I do.
And there's a letter of unanimous support
from the Strawberry Mansion CDC
based on revised plans.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
or stipulate to its accuracy?
We agree, and we do so stipulate.
All right. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
I'm going to try to do this in a more expedited fashion due to the simplicity of the case.
Again, this was a RSA 5 district. We received a refusal due to the overlay. It was a request for a new construction on an empty lot for a three-story building and two-family dwelling.
Again, this was a RSA 5.
The initial plans indicated that there would be a rooftop deck.
After our third meeting with Strawberry Mansion Community Development Court, we came to provide concessions with the build.
The biggest concern was the way that the front was going to be constructed.
We made changes to that.
And with that, as indicated earlier, at Exhibit 13, we received a letter of support, a unanimous letter of support from Strawberry Mansion.
So Exhibits 1 through 13 are listed here in the Table of Contents.
As I indicated within my initial comments, the notice of refusal is attached as Exhibit 2.
I'm not going to go through every single one of them.
What I'll do is I'll show you the revised plans with the proviso, the renderings, and the photographs,
and just indicate that the prior use of this property was that of a three-family dwelling.
and there were just I gave four other examples that are right next to it with two families and
three family dwellings also and I'll also show you some photographs of the neighboring properties
as to show how this property fits with with those within so this is the initial plan as you can see
it had a bump out and a rooftop deck. The new plans have no bump out, no rooftop deck,
and has, I want to call it, I can't remember what the architect indicated, a stable roof,
I think is what it was referred to. And one of the concerns of the neighbors was obviously trash
location where it was going to be placed. It's going to be stored inside. There is no
uh front storage of of the trash and if i scroll down here is the revised proviso
plan remove the rooftop deck remove the front bay otherwise
the calvito mr calvita
awesome
Council, we lost you for quite a while there.
You just disappeared.
Can you tell me where it was so I can go back?
I think you got to go back a little bit.
Did you see the architectural plans?
we i'll tell you when we last let you weren't sure what the roof was oh it was i think they
call it a stable roof um so this is a okay so that um i'll scroll back up so
as you can see one of the concerns of the community group
we're losing you again sir
is stored inside council council we look we look we lost you again i don't know what's going on
um i got i seem to have full access okay so um trash storage is inside
the do you still have me we're we're good i'll let you know okay remove as the proviso indicates
remove the rooftop deck and the front bay the rendering this is what the property should look
like at um completion notification to the neighbors was done for the third time
i'm not going to go through each of the exhibits unless you want them for uh previous use this is
I'm losing you again.
Mr. Colavito, would you like trying to go out and come back in?
the older properties.
The older properties.
Mr. Calvito,
Mr. Calvito, do me a favor.
do me a favor. Go out and come back
in. We're going to see if that works.
Because we lost you again.
Chair, while Mr. Calvito is going
out and coming back in, we have a hand up
from Joseph Consul.
Is he related to this case, to your knowledge?
a few other cases coming up.
Oh, okay. He just put his hand down.
No worries. Thank you.
Mr. Calvino, are you back?
Let's try again. Try to start where you left off.
Hopefully you saw all of the photographs of the neighborhood.
We did.
Okay. And then I'm basically done. I mean, here's our tax clearance.
Could you do me a favor? Could you show me what the inside looks like where you went from three to two?
There is no inside. It's an empty lot.
Yeah, but you have drawings, is what I'm saying, right?
Oh, okay. Yes.
Yeah, show us the drawings of what the inside looks like and how the two apartments fit there.
Sure. It's first floor, basement, second floor, third floor.
So, let me – oops, that was it.
Unit A is basement, first floor, and unit B is second floor, third floor.
the basement has bedrooms in it yes okay
all right questions from the board yes chair um how high is the basement um from the floor to the
do not see them on our plans
there's no there's no elevation or section or anything
that shows the heights
and and i would you know ask jurita hasa
but uh i her husband unfortunately is probably more fit to respond to that question he's
actually the contractor on it we would obviously have they would obviously comply with all building
requirements and standards for a basement, but I can't imagine it's going to be less
than seven feet.
He's got an empty lot, so he's going to wind up having to do a foundation in order to get
this done.
We lost you again.
yeah the connection must be pretty bad you may have to turn the screen off
sir we lost you again we lost you again i was saying as you can see the the first floor
is actually um i mean the basement half of it is above ground
because the first floor starts one two three four five six six seven it'll be seven uh risers up
so those are usually what eight eight inches i think 56 inches minimum
above ground so not all of the basement is is below ground
yeah i don't is there a an exit straight from the basement or you have to
because on your basement plan you show an egress well you cannot have an egress well
underneath of that porch that covered porch then the front at the other end right
you can't that means shows the egress well you can't have an egress well and have no room to get
out so i don't know something's going i i have a feeling that's an error in the plan only because
we've this is the third um revision of this plan and i think that because as you can see on
The front elevation, it's blocked off.
the front elevation it's blocked off i know
I know, but you've got bedrooms in the basement, and bedrooms must have an egress well.
But you
And it looks like they...
Listen to what I'm saying.
I understand.
On your plan, you've got bedrooms in the basement.
Each bedroom must have an egress well.
You cannot have an egress well underneath of a porch.
You can't do it.
and and and so you see what i mean they wouldn't need some revised plans chair right
the basement wouldn't be less than seven feet but it wouldn't legally be allowed to have less
than seven feet because per l and i you cannot have an occupied basement if it is under seven
feet ceiling heights so so uh council i think what we need to do is we're gonna have to continue
you this you're gonna have to come back with revised plans that you know it's a shame your
builder's not here but we we can't vote on this um yeah i i we're gonna have to do it hillary how
do we want to handle do we need do we need to meet with the community group again because i mean
everything else is i'm not i'm not saying that no hillary i mean if we'd like to schedule
a resumption hearing when the
architect or builder is available to discuss the
plans, we can do that. Right. And I don't want
David taking a position until we see the new
plans. Okay. That's fine,
Mr. Chair. So will we then wait
to have public comment until... I think
so yeah okay i i apologize but i i i didn't hear anything i guess there's so so so here here here's
what we're going to do we're going to come back with a resumptive hearing you'll bring in plans
the different plans and how this is going to be presented at that time we'll open it up to the
public for comments we'll also also have comments from planning commission okay uh mr chair i make
one request? I just jump in one second. There's someone with the name Pascual Calavita with their
hand raised, so I don't know if that's somebody, part of the design team or the development team
for this project. That may be my client. I don't know why it's on the only name, but I'll go with
it. I'm guessing that it's probably Yorida Hassa. Yorida, sorry. How are you?
you could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer urida hasa j-o-r-i-d-a-h-a-s-a
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes so we're having a hard time with the plans uh like uh mr posquale said uh i don't know much
of it because my husband is uh doing all this but i did hear about the the rise of the ceiling on the
on the basement and here on the the plants i do see that it says nine feet nine yeah nine foot i'm
sorry and oh we understand thank you sorry thank you but with the issue is we we have to figure out
i just wanted to add another comment about the egress well for the windows that one of the
members mentioned for for the bedroom and it does show here on the plans that is on both sides
for the egress window well, if I'm not wrong.
Yeah, but we're looking at the front, right?
It's on the other side, too.
If you can scroll up a little bit.
The issue is that you have an egress well from the basement in the front,
and then right above where someone would try to get out is a covered deck.
The code does not allow you to do that.
May I suggest something? Can we open it up to public discussion now? I submit a new set of plans, and it's voted on by the board on the papers in lieu of having to come back and redo this.
Well, you're still going to come back.
I mean, one way or the other, you got to come back.
So when you come back, you come back.
We'll open it up to the – what we're going to do is, you know,
it'll be basically closed other than looking at the plans,
examining the plans.
The board will take a look at it.
We'll open it up to the public and planning.
You know, if the plans are proper when they come back,
it's a short period of time, okay?
sure period of time, okay? Okay. All right. And it needs to be reposted?
All right.
And it needs –
It will be because we don't have a date available at this time. Okay. Thank you, sir. You're welcome.
Number seven, MI 2024-003-021-129 League Street.
Roger Perry is the attorney.
Mr. Perry is coming back in as a panelist.
Morning, Mr. Perry.
Thank you.
here i am good morning mr perry you already been sworn just for the record state your name
roger perry r-o-g-e-r-p-e-r-r-y representing the owner of 129 league street could you identify
who your client is please uh yes uh they own it's an interesting case the owner of uh unit one is
129 league street developers llc uh representing them as an attorney uh matt zapolchek is the uh
member of the llc and um we do have a letter of support from queen village neighbors and a letter
of non-opposition from council member school letter thank you our vice chair has a few questions for
you, sir. Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate
to its accuracy? Yes, I do. I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing. Yes, we have. Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen. Mr. Perry, I just had a quick question. Because this is
This is two condo units with two separate owners and the refusals for the entire lot.
Are you representing both owners today?
Yes, by way of background.
It's unit one and unit two, two condominium units.
This was legalized in 2022.
22, I'm sorry, in 2002, it was legalized as two residential units with an exception to
unit number one, which was Alden Bly's architecture office.
The approval, and I have the documents here, but the approval was a reversionary interest
that when Alden Bly moved out of the architectural office, it would revert to a second residential
The first, Unit 2 on the second floor, has been residential since 2002 and has always been legal.
But I do represent both parties.
That's owned actually by a partner in my office, Alex Perry, owns that.
We had many, several discussions with the plan examiner and said, well, it automatically reverts to residential under the 2002 zoning grant.
And he said, well, it's listed as commercial on the first floor, so I only want them to confirm at the zoning board level that there are now two residential units.
The second floor has always been legal.
The first floor is the one that we're really dealing with today.
Understood.
Understood.
Thank you so much.
Can I share my screen?
Please.
Let's see what we got here.
This should be 129 League Street.
Can everybody see that?
Yes, sir.
129 League Street, Units 1 and 2.
We attach both beads.
I represent for Unit 1, 129 League Street Development, LLC.
I also represent Mr. Perry at Unit 2 and so forth, which has always been residential.
Let me show you the – well, just going through.
Here's the refusal.
It noted both, although we did talk to the plan examiner, he says that their concern, change of use to two-family household living is preceded to RSA 5.
It's always been a legal residential unit at the second.
Let me scroll down to the, let's see if I have the, I'll show you the photographs where we're, photographs for what was the architecture.
This is the property here with the garage door posted, mailings, approval, as you know, by Queen Village. Queen Village was actually the recognized community organization in 2002 as well.
recognized community organization in 2002 as well when they approved it.
This is the architectural office as it was represented before we, well, just now.
This is what's being converted.
The first floor has an entire garden at the rear.
It's a large unit, over 1,100 square feet.
Let's see what we got here.
Lands.
Okay, so this is what happened in 2002, and it was, let me see if I got, it was approved
for two residential, two units, I'm sorry, residential on the second floor and Alden
office with an access garage on the front. And here it is here. Let's see if I can...
Okay, so this was 2002 and it was granted with
two units. Tom Kelly was the chairman at the time.
restriction on the deed that the current first floor commercial revert to residential and that's
what we're here for today we're seeking that we have the first floor of the two unit architect's
office on the first floor and apartment on the second floor the apartment on the second floor
has been continuously in use since 2002 architect's office mr bly has retired and that was purchased
by my client and is being converted to a residential use.
This is the approval letter and so forth.
Let me see if I can put up the drawing.
Okay, let's see.
Okay, so this is the schematic for the first floor unit.
The two-bedroom unit, large unit, has a private garden in back.
So, the architect's office is being removed, and the unit will be converted to a second condominium unit. It's called Unit 1. The condominium is already in exit. It just has Unit 1 and Unit 2. It'll be changed from architect's office. This was the approval letter from Queen Village.
and i'm trying to see what else you know that's it essentially we're just asking that the
reversionary provision of the 2002 grant be submitted to the zoning board of adjustment
and that the zoning board of adjustment approve it as a two-unit apartment building with an
apartment on the second floor here is approved the office was alden blize so it's this office
that's being changed to a residential unit.
Let me see if there's anything else in the notice.
Certificate of postings, photos, plans for the premises.
There's a tax clearance certificate.
I think it's attached.
Taxes were clear.
See it somewhere.
Anyway, they submitted it.
Anyway, the taxes are clear for both units.
Other than that, these were the plans that were submitted in 2002.
There we are. I knew it was here somewhere.
Questions from the board. Thank you.
Yes. How long has the office been, you know, not in use?
Not in use?
when he closed on this. This is February
of 2024. We immediately filed for zoning
and we took these pictures so you can see that it was
set up as an office to the point of sale.
And now we're just waiting for approval to convert it to
residential apartment and the owner
will completely fit it out according to appropriate plans.
this is the rear garden which is there and is uh controlled by uh unit one as part of the
condominium documents and these were the architect's office okay so is he february 24th okay so is he
going to keep ownership of this and rent it out or oh it was sold oh okay okay it was sold to max
bill check as the 129 Lee Street. So it's a new owner under the deed.
uh nine lead street so it's a new owner under the deed uh and it's either going to be uh rented or
his daughter is going to live there one of the two all right but he's basically going to
that the the property he's applying for the zoning to max for the new owner it's going to be an
investment property he bought it as an llc gotcha all right okay thank you good questions from the
board. Questions or comments from our survey, Hillary Anderson. Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chairman, and good morning. David
Vecto with the City Planning Commission. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the RSA 5 residential single-family zoning at this location. This
property has a documented history as one dwelling unit and an office. The appellant seeks to convert
the office into a dwelling unit. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the
proposed use variance for two dwelling units. MI 2024-003-021-129 Lake Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Sonata Graham, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Counsel, could you please stay on?
MI 2024-003-133-4622 Distance Street.
Just state your name for the record, please.
My name is Roger Perry.
i think max of hilltrak may be here i'm not sure okay um there's a recommendation of opposition
from the city council district six cacone civic association was also present at that
um our vice chair has a few questions for you sir oh i'm sorry okay we're doing distance straight
okay yeah yeah sorry all right good counsel uh do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
or stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed in all the required documents and
exhibits that's needed five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed
and share your screen counsel could you identify who your client is please yeah certainly let me
switch over here uh my client on distant street is 7232 glenlock street llc uh another investment
owner under LLC. Can you see my screen? I can. Okay. 4622 Distance Street. I represent the owner.
The deeded property was from October 18, 2023.
This request is a variance to renovate a, here's the deed.
You'll see, you know, scroll down to the photographs,
give you an idea of what's going on here.
mailings we had notice uh ticcone was no longer operating as a uh registered so uh
stan zelinski of the councilmatic office held the uh the meeting for us and recommended that
it was posted this property here it's a very large property uh has a side yard it has a large
backyard the rear area and so forth um okay so um 4618 and this is 4622 4618 and 4620 are both
duplexes are immediately adjacent across the street it's also multi-family use from 4622
another multi this is directly across from the 46 this is in the 4600 block also a multi
family use the current property is vacant it's in you know essentially semi-gutted condition
this is the condition of the the property at this time the current owner bought it with the
idea of being able
to renovate it completely,
but because it's essentially
a large-sized property, he's
asked to put in a duplex
I have a text from the back.
I hear the plans.
with a unit A on the first floor and unit B as a second, and there's a hop on third floor.
With a
So the idea is to renovate this into a duplex and so forth for two-family use.
It would allow two bedrooms on the first floor and up to three bedrooms on the second and third floor.
Because of the nature of this particular block, you'll see here it is here, immediately adjacent properties are duplex.
Across the street is duplex.
So he feels that in terms of the large size of this property, it was an old house, very large, that it would be more accommodating to have a rental unit as two, as opposed to trying to completely renovate this as a single family.
It does have very large open area for two families in the rear in terms of yard space.
That's the duplex.
That's another duplex.
This is immediately adjacent.
This is 4620, also a legal duplex.
And as I noted, it has a very large yard, 4620, so it would be more than adequate space for two families to utilize.
also allows for trash storage there or in the basement and so forth so what we're asking is
an accommodation even though this is in a single family district we're asking that the owner be
allowed to renovate this into two units similar to the adjacent property and similar to the property
across the street which are also multi-family that's these here thank you mr perry mr perry
What happened at the RCO meeting?
The RCO meeting, the county no longer operated as an RCO, so the city council office held the meeting and so forth.
You'll see there was a split vote if he filed it.
I don't know if I have it.
It says here 16 opposed.
No, I think it was six.
Zero for support and seven non-opposed.
Okay, seven non-opposed.
Okay. Out of the seven non-opposed, they said that they would support it because of the renovation and so forth. I don't know, you know, exactly why, you know, why the people, the people who spoke up just said that, you know, they would prefer that it be single family, but there's only a couple people and three people spoke it up and said they supported, but they were listed as, you know, non-opposition and a final note from city council's office and so forth.
I think this property is conducive if it's going to be renovated to two units, just like these units and so forth, because it is a very large property and because it does have a lot of open space.
And it would be difficult to try to sell a very large single family or even rent it where the adjacent properties and all the properties across the street are multifamily such as these.
This is across the street and this is across the street.
You know, I understand, you know, I'm sympathetic with the fact that people would like to restore, you know, single family uses, but in a particular area, it may be problematical. So the particular developer owner here is an individual, and he's very serious about getting it renovated in new condition and so forth. But in order to be feasible, he would really like to have two rental units.
Questions from the board?
do we have any idea of prior uses for this property is anything other than a single family
uh well it was it was vacant for years i'm not sure i'm trying to look and see what the zoning
was no i think there was an addition that was added there's a large addition on the back of
the house uh on the photo on that uh but other than the addition i don't know that it's been
yeah this was an addition that was added on at the rear of the house so the first floor where
there would be two bedrooms has a build out already so that would be a fairly large unit
and then there's a half third floor on the second and third floor you see them here you know third
floor second floor and then a half third floor would allow you know two bedrooms at least on
each of the two units and I don't know whether there's anything other than you know the build
out thank you questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney um uh just a quick question mr perry is there any
parking at this property no it's all street parking okay all right i just wanted to note
for the record that because the property's owned rsa3 technically two accessory off-street parking
spaces would be required but it looks like that was a missed refusal so I
But it looks like that was a missed refusal.
So I just wanted to note that.
just wanted to note
Okay, I don't think it was a refusal, but I don't think.
So I was just noting that for the record.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-3.
residential single-family zoning at this location. There is no unique physical
condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from
being used in conformance with the zoning code. However, the proposed two
dwelling units matches the character of this block face. So the City Planning
Commission recommends the board grant the proposed use variants for two
dwelling units, and if an amended refusal is issued, we'd also recommend support
for the parking variance as well.
Can I ask a quick question?
So the issue of the parking was missed.
What does that mean?
So I was noting it for the record.
It is my understanding in talking with counsel for L&I
that if a refusal is missed
and the application is otherwise, you know,
proved by the zoning board,
then that refusal is included um as well but i just was noting it for the record so that it was
you know explicitly noted and clear that excuse me that if we were um approving this application
we'd be approving the variance for the parking as well okay thank you that's what i wanted
MI 2024-003-133-4622 Dishon Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Joe Gaston, my vote is yes.
Sonata Graham, my vote is yes.
Ayah Wynn, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Number 11, we've already continued.
Okay, so number 12, MI 2024-003-242-405 South 17th Street.
Brandon Sabrin is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from the Center City Residents Association, and council president has not taken a position on this.
Council Saverin.
He's coming back in as a panel chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I really apologize. There was a big delay when I was promoted to
panelists there. Okay. All right. Could you please state your name and spell for the courts
in Hartford? Yes. My name is Brandon Saverin. Let me turn on my video here. Spell B-R-A-N-D-O-N
And then S is in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R, A, N as in Nancy.
Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My clients are a married couple that owns this property.
Their names are Heather and Joseph DeGranse.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to a tax receipt?
yes i do mr vice chair have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i did thank you council please
proceed and share your screen okay thank you okay chair okay thank you um okay um the refusal should
now be shown let me know if you uh can't see it for any reason um so uh good morning members
of the board um brandon there's nothing up there's there's nothing up like screen
really okay give me one moment let me try and remedy that hold on
Can you open your documents first?
Can you see this?
Hold on.
One minute.
One minute.
No, it's gone to a blank screen.
Let me try one more thing here.
Can you see that now?
should be my table of contents uh we see a hand like it that's that
yeah that's what there's nothing there there's nothing there okay um why don't we why don't we
do this why don't we move on to the next one and i have two more and then i'll call you at the very
end okay okay okay thank you very much i apologize absolutely okay number 14 mi 2024
4-003-270-3220 Germantown Avenue. David Schafkowitz is the attorney. There's a letter
of unanimous support from Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team RCO. David Schafkowitz is
coming back in as a panelist now chair good morning council could you please state your
name and spell for the court sonographer good morning mr chair uh first name is david last
name shafkowitz is s-h-a-f as in frank k-o-w-i-t-z right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. But do you identify your client and
relationship to the property? My client is Business Advance LLC, which is the owner of
the property. Andre Ainsworth is the sole member of that company, and he is with us today also.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
We do. I'm able to start your presentation.
I'm going to see if I can make this work.
There we go.
Can everybody see?
Well, good morning, everybody, and thank you for having me.
My name is David Schaff, which, as I had mentioned,
I'm here on behalf of Business Advance LLC and Andre Hainsworth
with regard to the parcel property known as 3220 Germantown Ave.,
which is currently a vacant lot in the area depicted on this plan.
If you may, it's on Germantown Avenue.
um surrounded by uh west hilton street and west allegheny um property is approximately 1337 square
feet it's located in the city cmx 2 zoning district and is within the nice town tioga rco
which as you had mentioned had reviewed the application and expressed its unanimous support
the property as noted is currently vacant the applicant is proposing a three-story structure
It will be a multi-use building consisting of four units, residential and one commercial unit.
Specifically, and I'll see if I can get to my next exhibit for everybody.
Sorry.
The applicant is proposing a residential unit in the basement floor, which would be a two-bedroom.
First floor would be the commercial use.
Second and third floor would contain three units total, with the third floor having two one-bedroom units, third floor one two-bedroom unit.
Do that one more time.
Go over that one more time.
So the first floor is a residential unit?
A basement's a residential unit?
Basement, residential, first floor, commercial.
Second floor, two one-bedroom units, and third floor, one two-bedroom unit.
um this particular applicant or the owner of this property has a relationship with um visiting
nurses program as well as pha in terms of how it intends to use the units um two of the units will
be made available to um visiting nurses program for nurses using any of the area hospitals um
which i understand is pretty common for uh this area for philadelphia obviously and then this
would allow the other two units, two one-bedroom units, to be offered through PHA as affordable
units. The first floor, right now we don't have a particular tenant, but it's, as the RCO suggested,
they would like it to be office, daycare, something that can benefit the community,
which Mr. Hainsworth would be willing to do. The building that's proposed is relatively
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. I'm trying to get one of my exhibits up if I
Let me see if I can just having my share thing blocking my.
my share thing blocking my, uh, sorry. Nope. No happened to it. Anyway, what I would want to
show the board here is a photograph of, um, what is the property next door? Um, this is a property
that is exactly the same in terms of design as the property being proposed by Mr. Hainsworth
next door. It is a three-story structure, first basement unit, first floor commercial,
second and third floor residential.
It's our intent to mirror this particular structure
for the vacant lot next door.
The surrounding neighborhood is filled with a variety
of commercial uses and residential uses
and some multifamily.
As noted, the applicant did attend the RCO,
had a lively discussion about the project
and the types of users that we intend
for this particular use and i think they were listed in the rco's recommendation with certain
provisos which the applicant has no objection to um i also have mr haynesworth here if he if the
board was inclined to ask any particular questions about the design or the layout or the housing
he's intending to provide in accordance with um what's being presented um but in some of the
questions that we heard in the previous applications mr chair um it would be nine
feet or greater ceilings in the basement. We do have two egress windows for the basement and
unit, both for both bedrooms as depicted on the plan. And luckily our door stair location,
which would be the front door location, will not be blocking those windows. So as you can see in
this particular photograph of the existing building, our doors would actually be on the
opposite side and the um egress window would be right here so there'd be no blocking of our
egress windows um but having said that if the um board has any particular questions of me
i'm happy to if the board has any particular questions mr heinsworth uh he's available
why don't you bring your client on to adopt your testimony sure andre are you with us
Andre Hainsworth please raise your hand Andre Hainsworth please unmute yourself and wait
for the chair hello good morning hi good morning could you please state your name and spell
for the quarter stenographer. My name is Andre Hainsworth, A-N-D-R-E, Andre, last name Hainsworth,
H-A-Y-N-E-S-W-O-R-T-H. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth. Yes. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hainsworth, are you here on behalf
of Business Advance LLC as its sole member? Yes. And Business Advance LLC is the owner of the
property which acquired in may of 2024 yes um were you present during the presentation i made
with regard to the project yes was the information i provided true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge yes and with that would you adopt what i had testified to the board about as your own
testimony yes and if you could take two minutes because i know the board has a busy agenda uh
Just introduce yourself and and about any anything in addition you want to add about the project in the area.
Good morning, everybody. My name is Andre.
I am I recently became a block captain in the neighborhood and very vocal point of the neighborhood as I host multiple cleanups.
also partnered up with a church
in Germantown Avenue
to pretty much have
a bunch of younger teens,
boys and girls, to offer them
free gym memberships
that the church has added
across their gym.
And also,
I became
close to
a lot of the
council members
put out
a bunch of legal businesses and things of that nature that's around the neighborhood that
provide local housing and also an office business because I noticed one of the things that's missing
in the neighborhood is a place where people to print paper, get any type of documents for
shipping, et cetera. And also, again, local low income housing with a little bit of luxury to it.
thank you um council before i give it to uh the board for questions could you put the drawings back
up sure questions from the board uh yes uh more a comment probably than a question uh it's clear
more a comment probably than a question uh it's clear that the um the first floor is based on the
drawings is probably eight inches above grade um and which means that the basement dwelling unit
will literally be 100 submerged below grade that is a real concern for me
Light and air
Quality of space
Is a huge concern
I realize you have the two
Means you have an egress well in the rear
And egress well in the front
But the entire unit
Will be underground
Literally underground
That is a huge concern
For me
I echo that sentiment
My question is for the
business on the commercial level is where's the storage is there storage for the commercial
uh no it won't be no uh storage it'll be closets uh like many closets they can have
but it won't be anything to storage and also a backyard use
so but there is no indicator of what type of business that you're you're uh looking to have
there yeah just uh just an office space uh really uh just somewhere they can sell office supplies and
access to print and paper, things of that nature.
And I guess my last question is, just in terms of, you know, the use of the building with
the four units plus the commercial, I'm trying to think, I know that's a commercial strip,
just the, you know, the impact of all this activity going on in this one building.
The building next to it, you said, is that your building as well?
Other questions from the board?
Andrew, just walk me through this as I look at the plan.
So the basement is a separate apartment, and then the first and the second floor are the combined commercial unit, and then the third floor.
I think it was the first floor is the commercial, right?
Am I correct?
And second and third are apartments.
Yeah, so the lower level is a two-bedroom dwelling, and above that will be the commercial floor, which will have its own interests for the commercial.
And the next level up will be a two-bedroom apartment, and the top floor will be a two-bedroom apartment.
Got it. So this is really a four-unit building with a commercial unit?
Correct.
okay and then is there a reason if i'm looking at the the second floor for the two one bedroom units
um are they both full kitchens because one of them is labeled as a kitchen and one of them is
labeled as a kitchenette i just want i mean it is a lot smaller like not a lot but it is smaller
than the kitchen but what's the what's the thought process around the difference between those two
units? So the same thing with the property next door, it'd be mirrored as a full kitchen
with all the appliances and everything that's needed. A very comfortable space also with an
added bar on the layout. I wish I can show you a video. I do have a video of the other property.
But yeah, it's a full kitchen for it. And that'll be for the nurses that'll be there.
That's how I'll be able to make it a low-income housing for the other units
because I have a relationship with the nurses where they'll be staying for a higher rent.
And like I said, a lot of the units will be the lower rent.
And then which ones are you anticipating are going to be the affordable housing units?
The two-bedroom apartments.
The one in the basement and the one on the third floor?
Correct.
So the second floor, the two one-bedroom units are really specific to the nurses.
Correct.
And then what's your plan long term should at some point in time this agreement with the nurses end?
Unless the hospital shut down, you know, it goes on.
There's no end of date.
There's no end of date. And how long have you been operating your other unit with nurses?
About a year and a half now.
A year and a half. OK.
My concern is that you've now got a second floor apartment that should you ever sell the building or should travel nurses be less popular than they were?
They've been more popular since COVID.
You have two units that don't really convert really well to functional full time living one bedroom apartments without some changes.
And so I think that from a plan, like from a from a building use and plan perspective.
From a building use and plan perspective, my concern is future flexibility if approved.
You have a lot of density and a lot of different uses in this building that would make it really hard in the future to convert.
Well, I definitely don't plan to sell at all, but if so, we could definitely...
Nobody does, you know?
Nobody does.
That's how real estate works.
i definitely understand so oh can i respond to the problem is that okay go ahead so i was just
saying as far as that uh converting the units uh well currently the units are all full kitchen they
all have separate bedroom full kitchen and a bathroom so uh being as though that you know it
has all the uh equipment that it needs to be a little bit of space uh there will be no
uncomfortability is actually it'll be set up like almost like a loft uh type of unit so it'll be
more than comfortable for uh a single parent or because even the nurses that come now they
normally come with either a pet or a dog or the child and it's more than enough space uh for them
to live there because of the full kitchen full bathroom um and again a nice size bedroom um
That's, you know, they can fit a queen size bed. And so that's one of the units, because your other unit is really more like a studio or an efficiency.
It's efficiency. Yeah. Yeah. So and again, it'll be a full kitchen on the other one as well.
Full bare form and also the bedroom. And the unit that we're looking at right now that currently doesn't have one drawn.
Say it again. I'm sorry. In the you saying on the second floor unit right now in the front, that that is a full one bedroom,
because right now that is shown and drawn as an efficiency yes it's a it's a full one bedroom
where's the other room going to go bedroom right you said you i'm sorry you said the other room
in the front of the building you have an efficient apartment there's a living sleeping area and then
there's the kitchen and then there's the bathroom and then if you go into the hallway and you go
into the other unit there's a kitchenette as listed on the plan there's an open space and
And then there's a living, a living, sleeping space.
What I see right now is a studio, a one bedroom apartment, which you are designating for the nurses, a retail space and two, two bedroom apartments, which you are designating as affordable.
OK, I just wanted to confirm all these.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I think this is probably a question for Mr. Hainsworth. Do you currently have a contract with PHA to provide affordable units at this property?
Yes, for the existing building next door. It's actually a PHA residence on a bottom floor, lower level. And on the top floor, I have a partnership with the homeless shelter. And it's a resident there with her.
but for this particular property have you made arrangements with pha to offer affordable units
yes at this time you have a question behind you actually yeah my the reason for my question is
whether board member shaheed should recuse himself in this matter he's not here he's not here oh he
you say you have a contract with PHA what type of do you have a HAP contract with PHA do you have
a project-based voucher contract with PHA or you just you completed their section 8 course and you
are allowed to right to section 8 so I so I currently have a voucher that I have a PHA I
currently have a pha resident inside the the neighboring property so you also you have a
you have a voucher or your tenant has a voucher yeah they're different different things
i apologize the tenant has a voucher right right so they are they that still makes this a private
building that is allowed to rent to section 8 tenant this is not a project that would have a
contract with pha it just means that you are approved pre-approved by pha to accept vouchers
which is very different than having a like formal contract you can end that at any time
you can end that next month if you wanted to so i mean it is like of course it's a good thing like
we need more section 8 landlords in philly but that is different than having a contract with
We need more Section 8 landlords in Philly, but that is different than having a contract with PHA.
Ms. Wynn, I think Mr. Hainsworth would agree.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Andre.
Counsel, please proceed.
Sorry, Mr. Chair.
What I was going to say is that I would think Mr. Hainsworth would agree as a proviso, Ms. Wynn, to this application that he would do what is necessary to ensure that the two units for the basement and the third floor would be affordable, either through a contract with PHA or as a condition of approval, so to speak.
So PHA doesn't typically do contracts like that. So it's actually a question for Hillary. It's like, what, if that is what we're trying to do, I don't know that that can be restricted in a proviso. I think it could, like right now it's sort of a goal. The goal is to have these be affordable, but there's no long-term affordability restriction that's sort of restricting the units to that use.
they could flip any any point if it's just section eight i feel like that has been the like the case
for the use has been that like we need these actually that's the case for the hardship right
now right and and you're right and i think the other thing that we could consider you know if
was inclined is is as i do with um you know we do similar applications with the impact group and we
those types of lots are deed restricted for affordable housing so that's also another
possibility for that because I think Mr. Hainsworth is committed to that for purposes of
those units and the way this is designed and wants it to mirror what he's done next door
and because he's a member of this community he believes it's obviously as important as everybody
else that these opportunities be provided so that's how is the trash going to be collected
with all of this activity in the building Andre do we still have you I don't know if I still have
Mr. Hainsworth, but I know his connection was a little off. But in the rear, we do have a rear
yard. So we were going to designate an area for individual trash containers and then out front
on trash days. That's also the use for the commercial trash too, right? Or the commercial
storage as well? It'll be, we're going to designate an area for all the units to be able to use that.
You know, as we were saying, we don't really anticipate that the commercial use will be
something that would generate that type of stuff
because it's going to be more office oriented
we will make sure we can address
a sufficient area in the rear
to allow everybody
but there's no way for everybody to get to the rear
that's the problem
you're landlocked
I don't know if that's the case
I'm here now
you got some building next door
and you're parking
there's no breeze
the question came up on the trash
yes so it's actually uh it's actually going to be a a private uh trash company that's going to
it's going to be a dumpster in the back of the building and on the hilton street exit like it's
uh the intersection of block is germantown and hilton on the hilton street is a pathway to go
in the alleyway that the trash company will come and empty out the trash it will not be the trash
will not be located in the front of the building it'll be a private dumpster in the back of the
building, there'll be access to both buildings.
So how do the tenants and the units get to the trash?
So they go, they go to the Hilton, uh, the Hilton act is a, like I said,
the intersection of Germantown Hilton, it's a, it's a walkway path, uh,
that goes on the back of the, the back of the building.
And that's where they would insert the trash.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands share any commission
morning chairman to the board my name is michael gall i'm still at the city planning commission
m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-a-l-l you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed thank you the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location
from CMX2, commercial mixed use, to ICMX, industrial and commercial mixed use. The appellant has
demonstrated that the impacts of a multifamily mixed use proposal would not be detrimental or
out of character to the neighboring community and would be in character with the dense multifamily
and mixed use nature of the Germantown Avenue commercial corridor. But the inclusion of four
units represents an overbuilt to this location given its zoning and location. There is no unique
physical condition or circumstance, which would prevent the property from being used in conformance
with the zoning code, which already allows two units and a commercial space by right.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed dimensional variances
before the law of this.
Council, as you can imagine, we've had quite a few different comments about this.
I'm going to hold the vote on this till next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m.
At 9.30 a.m., we'll talk about this in an executive session, and then you'll be able to hear the vote next week, okay?
We'll talk about this in executive session.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Number 15, MI 2024-003-285, 2167 to 69 North A Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
This is a city-owned property.
Michael Johns has recused himself from this property, this vote.
Hello.
Mr. Consul, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
That's Joseph Consul, J-O-S-E-P-H, last name Consul, C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Where are firms that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy?
Yes. Please start your proposal, sir.
Okay. Here's my screen.
Okay. Good morning. Or yeah, still morning.
Joe Consul here for Chivetta Property Group, limited liability company.
Under an agreement dated May 13th, 2024, Chivetta Property Group,
And the representative from Chivetta is going to be Brennan Tomasetti with us today.
But in May of this year, Chivetta entered into an actual agreement with the Philadelphia Land Bank to develop a number of properties.
I haven't counted this list as single family homes, three bedroom, two bath homes under the Turn the Key program.
So it's workforce housing.
The property that we're here to discuss today is 2167 through 2169 North 8th Street.
It's zoned CMX2.
It's about 2,400 square feet.
That's what the lot looks like now.
It's zoned CMX2.
There's no businesses around it, and there doesn't seem to be any appetite for commercial
on the first floor of this property.
that's just the the atlas showing the size of of the lot so you know by right it would be i don't
know five units plus uh commercial space on the first floor maybe even six units uh we're asking
for two single family residential properties so my clients are seeking to subdivide this lot into
two lots and on those two lots putting one single family home each on those lots and so we've got
a refusal because uh while the um subdivision is approved by right the use is is not approved by
right and so we have a requirement for variance to eliminate the commercial space on the first floor
We have, and we submitted in our packet, the subdivision plan as prepared and filed, showing the two proposed lots.
It is according to the property, and we'll have these two lots with backyards.
We went in front of APM, pardon me, and they took no position.
It was not a, there's seven folks attended.
three community members, and the votes were one, one, and one. Similar concerns from other APM
cases, affordability, again, this is workforce housing, the likelihood of rising property taxes,
I don't know how to address that again. These are turn-the-key program houses that will sell
for a maximum of $280,000. Again, a similar concern that they've had before. What happens
if the owner passes away before the 15-year restriction? The Workforce Housing Program
has all kinds of contingency plans for how it works. The property passes on to another owner
with that same deed restriction on it until those 15 years are up. And properties as rental units,
again workforce housing during the key program uh is very um keen to prevent those properties being
rented out and being profited on and those are flagged in the rental system as being inappropriate
for uh rental licenses so they took no position here's our proof of mailing
OUR LETTER TO THE NEIGHBORS, POSTERS, BAD BOY, AND THEN OUR TAX CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE.
So we're requesting that the board approve the subdivision without commercial space on
SO, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD APPROVE.
the first floor and to allow for two single family homes to be built as a result of the
subdivision. With that, I'll call my client, Brennan Tomasetti, if you could raise your
virtual hand.
Brennan Tomasetti, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello, Brennan Tomasetti here.
Could you please spell your name for the core stenographer?
Sure, Brennan, B-R-E-N-N-A-N Tomasetti, T-O-M-A-S-E-T-T-I.
Or affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Brennan.
And did you hear my testimony just now regarding 2167-369 North 8th Street?
I did, Joe.
Thank you.
Do you adopt it as your own?
All right.
Thank you.
Nothing further.
Counsel, do you have drawings or photos of what you think the houses are going to look like?
I did not get sent them by Modo Architecture.
I'm sure that I could get them fairly quickly to the extent the board wants to see them
prior to prior to voting or holding the vote but questions from the questions from the
board hard to have questions when you're not sure what this is gonna look like okay well
the request is two single family homes with no commercial space.
Yeah. Yeah. They're, I don't know if you can still hear me,
but they're fairly standard Philly row homes,
depending on the lot size, but it's a three bedroom,
two bath product anywhere between 1100 square feet to 1600 square feet and
brick front. I'm trying to think what else I can share.
i mean i i mr council i think uh um we'd have to at least see what we think it's going to look like
before we can go forward yeah that's fine is there a subdivision plan of the lots itself
oh yes yeah what yeah the subdivision plan was included i can i can share that again
there it is this was the plan that generated uh the refusal
can you zoom in a little bit so that the just the drawings are shown
that's sufficient that yes okay we've got it we go down a little bit we do have the
the frontage i don't see that front oh okay yeah i don't think a shoe that showed that the first
time. Great. Oh, I
apologize, Chair.
You did not.
Can you zoom back up? Wait, just to the
proposal, and I'm trying to see.
So the two new lots
are going to be subdivided, and each
one is going to be roughly
just under 1,200
square feet. Correct.
And then they have a, what's the depth?
It's a 71
foot depth on the deed.
It's looking like
75, but with a four-foot easement. Is the alley
a city legal alley or an easement?
I believe that's a city alley
back there, a four-foot alley.
D-dimension, yeah, that would be an easement.
Pardon me. And then was there any conversation at the community meeting about the removal
of the trees? There was not.
countries no and you've already gotten approval from the city we have okay
okay any other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
Thank you again, Chair Michael Gall with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CMX II commercial mixed-use zoning at this
location. The proposed single-family dwellings on lots A and B of the subdivision will be built
under the City's Turn the Key program, which provides the deed-restricted affordable housing,
and the comprehensive plan recommends focusing commercial development onto
to viable commercial corridors. Since this is not in a commercial corridor, and since
the proposal will result in two guaranteed affordable dwelling units, the city planning
the sitting planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed use variance
commission recommends that the board grant the proposed use for the commercial ground
for the commercial from the commercial ground floor requirement thank you and by 2024
zero zero three two eight five twenty one sixty seven to sixty nine north a street i vote yes
cheryl gaston i vote yes senator graham my vote is yes hey my vote is yes
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Brandon, right?
Brandon Saverin, please.
MI 2024-003-242, 405 South 17th Street.
Brandon Saverin is the attorney.
mr saverin is coming back in as a panelist back morning council i remember i did swear you in
yes could you please start yes let me everyone cross your fingers but i really
i'm really hoping that you can see this table of contents can you we do we we do all right
Okay. Well, good morning, members of the board. So the case I'm here to present is for 405 South 17th Street. On my screen is the table of contents for the 18 exhibits that I submitted last week. In the interest of time, I will display some but not all of them. So with your permission, Mr. Chairman, despite that, I ask that all of them be moved into the record.
okay that's fine thank you okay so I'll start with the refusal here
I'm here to request the renewal of a variance that this board granted in 2022
for visitor accommodation so essentially this is you could say like a micro hotel or a whole
house Airbnb. And I'm going to show you plenty of photos in a moment. It has been a whole house
Airbnb since 2016. So some of the board members have already seen this property potentially
because of the case two years ago. At that point, it was granted a two-year variance,
which I believe was the common practice of the board for visitor accommodation requests at that
time. I don't think that the two-year limitation stemmed from any particular concerns about this
property specifically that the board had. So on your screen now is the deed map from Atlas. And
what you'll see is that the property is so tiny that it's actually hard to make out. This is one
of the smallest properties of any kind in the city of Philadelphia. It's 234 square feet, the lot,
And because of that, and I'll show you a photo here, our building is a historical slender finger
of a building that has one bedroom, one bathroom, no yard, and no full kitchen. It's, as I mentioned,
currently licensed by L&I as a one suite hotel. And I'll show you our hotel license in a moment.
It's somewhere that can be enjoyable to stay for a few days. But as I've heard mentioned
in other cases today, this is not suitable as someone's home, for better or worse. And that
is the basis of our hardship. It lacks the features that are necessary in a modern apartment
or home, and it's unable to gain them because of its physical restrictions. So as I mentioned,
it has not been used as a long-term residence since at least 2015 across the tenure of three
different owners and its immediate neighbors, to go back up to the parcel map, there are two other
properties, 403 and 401, which are similar to ours. And otherwise, I think these are very unique
and really smaller than anything else found in Center City or elsewhere. Those two neighbors,
per the best of our knowledge, are also not used as long-term residences, as I'll discuss.
So they share the same hardship.
Going to this on your screen right now is the RCO's letter from 2022.
So at that time, they sent a letter of non-opposition and have offered no explanation as to what about the property changed or became troublesome since then.
At that 2022 moment, Council President Johnson also wrote a letter.
2022 moment, Council President Johnson also wrote a letter of non-opposition.
I gave Council President Johnson's office the opportunity to review these exhibits in advance
of today, and they have chosen to take no position. So they are not joining in the RCO's opposition.
I'll note that at the RCO meeting, which I attended, no member of the public expressed
opposition to this variance renewal, at least while I was present. And we have given you letters
of support from near neighbors that I'll show you in a moment. The RCO's letter this time provides
no vote count or basis for their opposition. It simply says we oppose with no other detail.
That would have been critically helpful information here, given the position change.
In a recent case that went from this board to the Commonwealth Court this year,
The court held that a prior variance for the same use on the same property is a very strong factor favoring renewal or a new variance, even when the RCO opposes the renewal.
In the exhibits, I included the zoning code's dimensional regulations that affect the property, even though we're not requesting a dimensional variance because there's no change proposed to the property.
Of the zoning districts that have minimum lot areas, the smallest permitted lot would be 700 square feet in RSA 6.
So this property is three times smaller than the smallest lot, which would be permitted for creation in a residential district.
So just to drive the point home, and it's extremely rare to find properties of this size, and the zoning code really does not even consider what to do with them.
In addition, the property is on the historic register. Sorry for the page orientation here, but we are the last row in this page of the register as are our two neighbors at 401 and 403.
so the replacement of furniture or appliances in this building requires the removal of sections
of the floor which I've never even heard of before because the property's three floors are
only connected by this tight spiral staircase and I'll show you some additional photos in a moment
but this is the entirety of the first floor so we're talking about a 150 square foot
uh room and and the first two floors have like a 39 square foot sort of um back room so what
you're seeing here is the living room and a mini kitchen i call it a mini kitchen because it
doesn't have an oven it has no window and it actually has no means of a direct ventilation
so it's not really really a kitchen but you know it's sort of a kitchenette and this is the entire
her first floor again. More photos to come, I promise. Just want to sort of keep moving here.
So my clients, the property owners, are Heather and Joseph DeGrands. I just want to tell you
about them briefly. They are a married couple who live in West Philadelphia. Heather is an
entrepreneur by nature. She owns and operates the Knockbox Cafe at 45th and Pine and has for many
years. In the spring of 2022, she purchased this property from her friend, who had already been
operating it as an Airbnb since 2016, with no known negative feedback from neighbors.
The prior owner before Karen used this as a pied-a-terre. So when members of that family
would visit Philadelphia, it sort of functioned like their own private hotel. So again, the current
owner, the previous owner, and the owner before that, none of those folks were using this as a
long-term residence. Heather purchased the property and believed that she had a hardship case that
warranted a variance so that the property could become an official licensed hotel. She was right,
and with my help, this board granted Heather a variance in 2022, and I'll just show you some of
the permitting and licensing documents that stemmed from that. Here at Exhibit 3 is the hotel rental
license, which is still current. And then going down to exhibit four, we have the zoning permit
from 2022 with the ZBA calendar number and some like a record of the ZBA case with my name on it
here. So Heather only allows two adults to stay in the property at a time and no children. And
she and the property have rave reviews on Airbnb.com, which is where this is listed and where
those limitations are posted. So just real briefly, this is a recent screenshot of the
properties profile. You see it has a 4.97 rating, which is pretty astounding as someone who
occasionally uses these. You can see five-star reviews from like the last few weeks just to
tell you, you know, it's an active use for this purpose. And then sort of down here where it
And then sort of down here where it begins to discuss what they call the house rules, you see it says two guests maximum.
begins to discuss what they call the house rules, you see it says
So if you attempt to make a reservation for more than two adults, it just won't go through.
But furthermore, the next safety net is Heather meets every guest in person when they arrive to hand them the keys and make sure that they're comfortable in this unique building.
So Heather is not an absentee landlord.
She really enjoys the interpersonal nature of meeting everybody when they arrive, and she runs this property professionally as a business, and the constant management of its historic needs is a labor of love for her.
So this is an add-on from her cafe business acumen, and she does a great job with it.
um when i when heather applied for the variance in 2022 we gathered letters of support from 16
residents within a one block radius uh for this hearing we we did a more limited scope we just
went to uh those nearest neighbors at 401 and 403 again and we got them to re-sign letters we
frankly felt that going back to other folks would just annoy them at this point because it had been
under two years, but what we did do is the required mailing and the posting and all that
stuff. So here are both the new and then separated out the older letters. So there's 18 letters in
total. Again, I am not aware of anyone either at this RCO meeting or who lives in the adjacency
of the property who has a problem with this property. So if I were to go back to the parcel
math, which I won't do. We talked about 401 and 403. And I just wanted to show you some proof
that those are, to the best of our knowledge, not used as long-term residences either. So on your
screen right now is a food preparation license for 401, which is in service as a cafe. In 2022,
they pulled this license. At that same time, they flipped what was a rental license to inactive
status. So it appears that basically the property was converted from a residence to a commercial
use at that point. So that is no longer a long-term residence. And then 403, this is also
in use as a short-term rental like ours is. And before that, 403 was vacant, I think for the
better part of a decade, as evidenced by this vacant property license record. And what we know
is that while it sat vacant, it deteriorated. So 403 garnered an unsafe structure violation in
2022. And at that point, the current owner of that neighbor of ours came in, fixed the building
and made it a short-term rental. So 403 before it was a short-term rental was nothing and was
a nuisance to the neighborhood. So now just to finish up with floor plans and photos. So
here at exhibit 14 are floor plans. So this is the floor plan of that first floor, which you've seen.
So I won't touch on that too much. Go to the second floor and then I'll have photos of these
floors. Same size. Main room is 150 square feet. We use the sort of mini room on this floor as the
only bathroom rather than, you know, a kitchenette or a closet. And then going up to the third floor,
there is no back room so the third floor is the tiniest at 150 square feet and that is the bedroom
now because the third floor is the bedroom what that means is that one has to walk
those tight spiral steps two floors up to get to the bedroom and then one floor back down to go to
the bathroom the bed occupies just by nature the requirement of the room so it's very difficult to
walk around this bedroom. And placing the bed on the second floor would be unsafe because by its
sort of obstruction, it would block passage from the third floor down to the first floor. I don't
know if that's difficult to envision, but if you imagine a bed put here on the second floor,
floor plate sideways, it would really block these stairs. So that's why the bed has to be on the
third floor, despite the absence of a bathroom up there. And now just to show you some photos
of those other floors. Here's the first floor again, just from a different angle, the spiral
stairs. And this is what the stairs look like all up and down the house that are very, it require a
lot of sort of attention to walk carefully. And Heather really sort of drives that home when she
meets the guests. And this is why we don't take children in this property. This is the second
floor the closed door is the bathroom which you'll see in a moment but again other than the bathroom
this is the entire second floor from a different angle here's the bathroom and this is the third
And this is the third floor with the bedroom. So again, the second floor, but the way it's laid out and where the stairs sort of enter the room down there, the bed would block the stairs. So it's best to be up here.
floor with the bedroom. So again, the second floor, but the way it's
Okay. And then in closing, just to touch on some legal points here. So my full explanation of our legal entitlement to a renewal of our variance is offered in our written application for appeal at Exhibit 1.
But I wanted to point your attention to this Commonwealth Court case that I mentioned because it's brand new and it's very relevant to this matter.
So in one minute, I'll try and summarize it. This case was called 3401 Sky Properties. It stemmed from a 2019 matter before the ZDA in which an applicant attempted to legalize a series of existing multifamily buildings, which were granted variances in 2016, but lapsed due to the slowness with which construction proceeded.
So for a different reason, but like us, that applicant had to come back for a second use
variance for the same thing. So the ZBA denied the second variance in this case, and the court
didn't like that. The court held that this board's prior grant of a variance weighed strongly in
favor of the grant of another variance. It didn't guarantee it, but it weighed strongly in favor
of granting a second variance, given that there had been no significant change since the first
variance to the property or to its surroundings. And the court wrote, quote, that continuation of
a longstanding use is incontrovertibly the minimum relief necessary to afford relief as it is a
request to keep the status quo, end quote. And that's exactly what we're trying to do.
like the applicant in this other case for trying to keep the status quo over the objection of the
RCO, just like they had objection from the RCO. So to wrap up, nobody has contended, to my
knowledge, not even the RCO, that our property has changed, that the neighborhood has changed,
or that we've ever harmed anyone. The only change has been seemingly the politics or perhaps the
composition of CCRA zoning committee and personalities or politics or general policy
are not rightfully relevant to a zoning variance case. We're here to consider the needs of an
individual property. And I'll finally, again, note that the council president offered a letter
of non-opposition in 2022, and he is not adopting CCRA's newfound opposition this time around.
Happy to take any questions. Why don't you bring your client on?
Have your testimony adopted.
Heather, could you please raise your virtual hand?
Heather DeGrasse, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello?
Hello?
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Heather, H-E-A-T-H-E-R, last name DeGrands, D-E-G-R-A-N-D-S.
Where are firms? Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Heather, first of all, thank you for your patience through my tech problem.
So once I got that fixed, did you hear the full extent of my testimony in your case this morning?
Yes, I did.
Was my testimony true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, it was.
And would you therefore adopt it as if it had been your own testimony?
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
chair we have wade albert with their hand up wade albert please unmute yourself and wait for the
chair morning mr albert could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
sure my name is wade w-a-d-e last name is a-l-b-e-r-t right you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do mr chair please proceed sir
Thank you. So I am counsel for the Center City Residents Association, and I want to make two points regarding our position on opposing this application.
The first is to explain the reason for why we have changed our position since this matter last came before the ZPA.
As we have heard, CCRA gets many requests.
As we have heard, CCRA gets many requests for visitor accommodation uses throughout our neighborhood, and we have taken a position, actually adopted a policy that went into place about a year ago, where we essentially will oppose all requests unless we believe that the applicant has demonstrated a satisfactory hardship.
And the reason for that is there's several. One is that we support our hotel and hospitality industry in our community, and we believe that Airbnbs and short-term rentals like these take away from that business.
Number two, that the more Airbnbs in our neighborhood, I would say that it decreases housing stock, which increases the costs for housing throughout our community and through the city at large.
And number three, that we adopted this policy particularly because we didn't consider the factor of whether an applicant may seem like a nice person or operate a good Airbnb as opposed to someone who may not be the best owner or may be an absentee owner.
And with that in mind, the applicant, when they presented, we found compelling that when asked a direct question about attempts that were made to potentially use this property or to find her a long-term renter, the owner said that she had made no efforts whatsoever.
So we applied our policy and we voted to oppose this project.
So I just wanted to try that clarification.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Albert, for calling.
We appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, could I offer a very brief rebuttal?
Why don't I do this? Why don't I see if there's anyone else in the virtual audience first?
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Go ahead, Mr. Saver.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Okay. So let's talk about the, I suppose, problem that Mr. Albert or his client had in terms of not renting the property out long term.
So I attached at Exhibit 18D, the L&I sort of flowchart FAQ about short-term and long-term rental licensing.
And my read of those regulations is that one cannot, in a one-bedroom property such as this, both short-term and long-term rent a property.
So to say, Heather, did you try to long-term rent this property, even though we believe it's inappropriate?
It doesn't seem to be allowed because that requires a different license. And we're not aware of an ability to have both types of licenses on the same bedroom at the same time.
So since this has been licensed since 2022 as a short term rental, we've been operating pursuant to the law under that license. It is potentially unlawful to use it for long term rental under that license.
So basically, my client was just following L&I's own rules and should not be faulted for that. Case law says that you don't have to attempt a different use in order to show a hardship. And I can offer citations to cases after this if desired.
But the sort of lack of history over a decade of using this property as a long term dwelling and all of the physical factors that I've shown you today, that is more than enough under a court review to justify a hardship.
Again, you do not have to attempt to use the property differently to demonstrate a hardship.
And finally, I'll just say that, you know, again, it would have been nice to have that knowledge from Mr. Albert in advance of today.
But now that we have a general policy about supporting larger hotel operators or universal mandates against smaller hotels,
Those are not appropriate in a variance case, or we're supposed to be looking at this property specifically. And I think when we look at this property specifically, and its lack of use for a very long time as a long-term dwelling, and its bizarre physical attributes, it is best suited remaining a short-term rental. Thank you.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
good morning again chair michael gall with the Philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx1 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location
there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would
prevent it from being from being used in conformance with the zoning code
this building typology is commonly used as permanent permanent residential property across the city
this building typology is commonly used as permanent permanent residential property across
the city city planning commission recommends that the board does deny the proposed use
variance for visitor accommodations thank you and and i'll i'll just say i i i i'm
you've you've you've had your thank you okay so mi2024 003 242 405 south 17 street i vote yes
with proviso. Temporary variance expires 12-1-27. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Iowan, my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you, counsel. Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called this morning?
chair we have someone by the name of t barry with their hand up
t barry please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good morning could you please state your name and spell for the set up
good morning chair um my name is tanya t-o-n-y-a last name is barry um you actually did mention
hold on hold on one minute do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do, sir. Please proceed. What is what case? The case was 6427 North 13th Street. You said
it was a continuance. I did not understand quite what that meant. I've never attended one of your
meetings. Okay. All right. So the attorney for that has called in and said that they were not
prepared to go today and they needed a continuance. And that's why we continued it.
It'll come back up again the next time it's called.
Chair, her hand disappeared.
Okay. Thank you. No other hands?
No, Chair.
Thanks, everyone. See everybody at 2 PM.
I've been struggling.
one okay so and i'm now is it tiny here yet
and michael she'll she'll be coming on michael's here
okay yep i will be coming on momentarily i could we i'm ready
are we recording yes the recording has started you can proceed as you wish chair
good afternoon everyone excuse me i'm sorry i'm sorry my it was a delay in my in my own
system and there was a couple attendees joining
okay because usually yeah we had to restart our zoom over here now you can proceed as you
wish i'm sorry for the confusion good afternoon everyone my name is bill bergman is it is it
recording it's just not showing for me that it's recording here red light recording oh there it is
it got moved over there okay it's not as obvious now thank you okay all right all right good
afternoon everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this afternoon's meetings
Thanks. With me is our Vice Chair, Ismael Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
I think Taya Nguyen should be on very shortly.
Also present is our Attorney, Hillary Emerson,
and our Deputy Director for Planning and Zoning,
Kathleen Grady. Here's our virtual format. Proceedings are being recorded. With your
participation, you agree to be recorded. Video will be available by contacting
ZBA Executive Director at phila.gov. Our court sonographer requests that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise
your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property question. Finally, the question box on
the screen is not for testimony. All testimony and questions should be directed to our Deputy
Director Kathleen Grady. Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon. Number three,
MI 2024-000-593-29 East Mount Airy Avenue.
000-593-29 East Mount Airy Avenue, T-A-27907, that case is continued.
Number six, MI 2024-004-490-1318 West Clearfield, number T-C-419484, that case is continued.
Number nine, MI 2024-004-686-4652 East Thompson Street.
That case is continued.
And number 10, MI 2024-004-726-6049 Market Street.
That case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Javette Fenton. I'll be your co-host this afternoon.
We have Vern Anastasio with their hand up.
Mr. Anastasio, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Is this your first appearance today?
It actually is, yeah.
Can you please state your name and spell for the cortisogamy?
Sure. It's Vern Anastasio, V-E-R-N, last name A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you 401-03 West Queen Lane?
Yes, sir.
Could you please give us an update?
I would just like a continuance.
The RCO was sort of late in getting back to us.
We have, in fact, scheduled something, but it is at a date after today.
So as such, I'd like a continuance, please.
And if possible, a short one.
MI 2024-004-738-401-03 West Queen Lane.
Cases continue.
Thank you for calling.
Any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
number one mi 2024 004 449 1401 66 avenue the vote in this matter has been rescheduled
to wednesday october 9th 2024 at 2 p.m
Number two, MI 2024-004-446-6602 North 7th Street.
I vote no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Aya Wynne, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Tana Graham, my vote is no.
Number three, MI 2024-004-290-21-Wolf Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, October 9th, 2024, at 2 p.m.
Number four, MI 2024, 002-321-1252 South 15th Street, I vote no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Teneda Graham, my vote is no.
A1, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no to reconsideration or rehearing.
Number five, MI 2024-002-072, 927 North 43rd Street, I vote no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Michael Johns, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing. I think I got that wrong.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Tannetta Graham, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Iowen, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
6 MI 2023-006215, 610 South Front Street.
610 South Front Street, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
My vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is still no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
ishmael shahi my vote is yes to reconsideration rehearing
number seven mi2023-005-886-2749 tremont street my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing
Michael Johns, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Eoin, my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no to reconsideration or rehearing.
Thank you. We're going to go to our regular list.
First one we're going to hear is number four.
MI 2024-002-621.
1428 Hope Street. Jason Myers is the owner applicant.
There's a letter of support from the South Kensington Community Partners.
Jason Myers, please raise your virtual hand.
Jason Myers is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Meyers?
Yeah, can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Jason Myers, J-A-S-O-N, M as in Mary, Y-E-R-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
This application is for use as a two-family household living in an existing structure.
The proposed use, two-family household living, is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
South Kensington Partners have sent a letter of support.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, sir.
Please proceed and we can share your screen.
can you see it we see your documents why don't you start so let me know um well how would you
like to proceed i have the requested documentation at the top here the denial letter uh tax certificate
uh my rco letter support uh my deed and the latest uh zoning notice posted on my building
why don't you tell us what you want to do here and what you're trying to do what you're
and then show us the photos that you think are important.
Yeah, it's very easy.
My property is a duplex.
It's always been a duplex built in 1920.
It's zoned as a single family.
I'm just trying to correct it to its actual usage
so I can get a rental license processed.
I can show you this is the front unit.
This is the alley.
It's wood doors and alley that goes into the back unit.
Here's the back of the building.
And then I have a bunch of pictures of the interiors.
But they're separate units.
They have separate utilities, separate meters.
The only thing that's shared is the water, which I pay.
How long have you owned it?
Three years last August.
And it was a duplex when you took it over?
Yes, it's been a duplex.
I assume it was built as a duplex in 1920.
All the utilities are separated, right?
They are, yes, except for the water.
Tell me what happened when you went to the RCO.
Same kind of deal.
I showed them the pictures and they voted in favor of it.
I'm not changing the usage.
I'm not asking for variance.
I'm not asking for any changes to be made.
I just want it recorded as what it was built as so I can get a rental license.
Questions from the board?
I have no questions.
i have no questions questions or comments from our attorney i have a question okay it says here
that there were two yeses but there were 17 people at the meeting the meeting yeah i mean
was there some reason why so few even voted
maybe those two are the only people that were relevant to my neighborhood i can't answer that
um uh board member gaston it it does um it's hard to see in the letter but i do remember
seeing seeing this previously i however they determine their eligibility for voting
of the 17 people that were there only two were eligible to vote on the matter that's why
because of their proximity to the property probably yes i'm not sure what their policy
is in terms of votes but i know some of them will limit voting to people within the within a certain
area um in relation to the property okay i i you know just just for your purposes um mr myers i'm
just interested in that we send out a number of notices and then there's a smaller subset that
actually comes to a meeting and door you know that actually vote uh for proposals how many how many
How many notifications did you send out, Jason?
Oh, I don't remember the list.
It was like 150 or something like that.
I also spoke directly with all of my direct neighbors that I share properties with.
I spoke to all of them personally.
I told them about the hearing.
I requested their participation.
Whether or not they showed up, that was on them.
But I spoke to them in person and invited them to come to give their opinion.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
um questions or comments from our attorney so bill i have one more question mr chair
yeah sure um and it's actually for hillary so hillary on atlas that shows that this property
was issued a zoning permit in 2011 for use of the two dwelling as part of opa um lot
consolidation and i'm just wondering like what caused the status to change if it was issued in
2011 so it may yes ellen i may have determined there was not a continuous use um so then it
reverted back to um the either the cart whatever if it's been i don't know if it's been single
family zoning forever but it um it reverted to whatever the current zoning was um so there
there there was no yeah there were there must have been some determination that there was not
a continuous use so okay and then my question for mr meyers you to the best of your knowledge know
if the previous owner was lived on site and only rented one unit and are you planning to
live on site and rent one or both of the units? I can't say for sure about the previous owner,
David Conte. I know he was living in New Jersey when I bought it from him. I was living in the
property. I got a new job. I moved to Texas. So that's why I went through the process of getting
a rental license so a property management company could effectively manage the property while I'm
living so far away. And that's why I ran into this part of that rental license application
says it has to be zoned properly so i looked up my zoning said it was single family
i know it's not so i started this process okay thank you your comments more attorney
not at this time mr chair question or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands share planning commission
thank you chair bergman sorry one second mr chair we got a hand that was just raised at the
at the end there okay sure no they went back down okay thank you there any sorry oh now it's back
up again is that anna howard dorsey chair she's been unmuted and allowed to speak
could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
A-N-N-A
Howard
H-O-W-A-R-D
hyphenate
D-O-R-S-E-E-Y
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes I do
Do you have information about
1428 Hope Street
What is it
What is the case do you want to talk about
1318 West Clapper Street
We're not there yet
We're still working on this case here
Thank you ma'am
Anyway we appreciate it
Anyone else in the virtual audience
I see no hands, Chair.
I see no hands there
Planning
Planning.
Thank you Chair Bergman
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
And good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
This appears to be a legalization of an existing two-unit building.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant their proposed use variants for two dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2024-002-621-1428 Hope Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Iowan, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
I have your vote, sir.
Thank you.
What are our next steps?
Will someone reach out to me?
Yeah, absolutely, sir.
Great.
Thanks.
Appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Sure, sure.
Number seven, MI 2024-004-496, 428 North 53rd Street.
Madeline Cartwright is the listed owner.
Madeline Cartwright, please raise your virtual hand.
Cherish, she's coming back in as a panelist now.
all right yes hi could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
Madeline Cartwright
C-A-R-T
W-R-I-G-H-T
We're affirmed
to tell the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Could you please turn on your video?
It's on?
Is it on now?
Not yet.
Dad, start on the video.
Is something covering your video screen?
Your camera?
No, the camera's green.
Okay, because we're seeing a black screen,
so it looks like something could be covering the camera.
now i said she says she sees a black screen
why is it working
our tech guy you have any ideas
no she made an accident come back ellen it's it's literally
showing no signal but it's not this quarter why don't you do this go go get get go back out then
come back in let's see what happens okay okay
he's been promoted to panelists again share thank you
now you see me right yes you have your video on oh no
all right so when i hit the screen on right it's still flat
it's nothing
camera i don't know why we don't we don't have anything here there's nothing done over the
camera did it all right did you click the start click start video or click the video icon on the
lower left hand corner of your zoom okay start video yeah all right it says not i've got a
line through it okay yeah then your video is off yep so it needs to not have a line and the line
is off so the line is off yeah okay are you able to share your screen miss cartwright yeah i think
so we can see your documents here it goes it's coming up
Mr. Chair, we can proceed. I believe she's already been sworn in.
mr chair we can proceed i believe she's already been sworn in
Okay. This application is for use as a single-family household living in a child care center in an existing structure.
The proposed use of child care center is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning.
Multiple principal uses on a lot are prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning.
The 44th Ward has sent a letter of support, and Councilperson Gauthier has wrote her support and made references that this was previously approved, and she would like that she had approved again.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, okay?
Good afternoon, Councilor. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed that? Oh, excuse me.
Have you emailed in all the required documents that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
You're talking to me now?
Yes, ma'am.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Did you email in all the required documents that's needed to proceed with this case?
Yes, I did.
Thank you.
You can now share your screen.
Share it now, right?
Yeah, so why don't you start your testimony and show us what you have.
Ms. Cartwright, I just want to note, if you have someone else there with you, you need to be the one doing the testifying, okay?
Okay, we just ask that the other person not speak because that confuses our court reporter about who's speaking.
Thank you.
Carter, tell us what you want to do.
Okay, what I want to do is have a daycare on the lower level.
That's the first floor?
Well, no, it's the lower level.
It's the first is the basement.
But the basement shows photos of that.
Is that the lower level there?
Yes, it is.
That's it.
And this is already operating, right?
Am I correct?
No, it's not operating.
This is the door to the front.
So that's where you're going and everything's in the basement there, right?
That's right.
And above that, tell me what's above that, a household living?
Yeah, that's an apartment.
How many apartments is the place?
There are two apartments.
And the first floor and the basement are going to be daycare.
So the daycare is in the basement and the first floor.
That's right.
And above that, you had an apartment.
I have an apartment, yes.
This was approved before, but you never, you never followed through.
Tell me what happened.
Yeah, it was approved before.
And I didn't proceed.
I didn't know there was a limit to the time you could start it.
And I was putting, making this daycare for my daughter, who's a graduate in early childhood.
And I didn't know it was, you know, you had to do it right away.
So I kind of slow did it because I wanted her to have more experience in the daycare.
So she got a job in daycare.
and as she had the job at daycare, I slowly finished this place, but I slowly did it because
I want her to have a lot. Now she's had four years experience in daycare. She's been promoted
to lead teacher in her, where she's working. And now I feel that she's capable of coming in here
and doing this business. Now I'm a retired school principal teacher and I'm going to be there with
her, but I wanted to make sure that she was capable. I felt she was capable to look after
children, which is such a responsible
position. Let me ask you this. Do you have
photos of the first floor where this is going to be, too?
Say it again.
Have photos of your
first floor, because you're saying the first floor is a
daycare, too? No, the first floor
right now is vacant.
A lady was living there, and she's
moving out, and
I really want to keep the first
floor like it is, but I'm going to do what I have
to do. But the
right now, she's not there, and
nobody's in the basement now.
i'm just making sure that everything is right in the basement and the first floor both are
going to be the daycare yeah well i want to open that to the daycare if we expand to bring in
after school children um and you don't have any photos of the first floor no not at the first
floor but that's where the day the first floor is going to be where the daycare is too am i correct
I plan on expanding to it later
but right now the daycare is in the basement
so that's the two
the photos you have now are the two different floors
point to me
because I don't see which one is
which one is the first
where the basement is
okay this is
the top one
the top one is the basement
And the bottom one is the first floor.
and the bottom one is the first floor
I think, can I jump in just for a second?
I'm thankful
Go ahead.
The plan that's on the right that has the shaded area, that's the basement plan?
And then if you move that and the plans that are behind that, the one on the top is, well, you know, you can, if you go back to the other plans.
The plan that's on the top is the first floor plan, and the plan on the bottom is the second floor plan.
That's right.
So the first floor is still.
This is the second floor.
This one, this bottom one is the second floor of the building right here.
Correct. Right. That's the second.
That's right.
Yes. And the one above that is the first floor because those are the steps to the porch, the front door.
I guess dining room, whatever,
or whatever kitchen that was there,
and then it looks like two bedrooms and a full bath.
That's right.
Questions from the board?
Say it again.
Can we blow up?
I'm talking to the board.
Can we make that bigger?
Can you make that full screen?
make this this picture with the two departments you want me to make it full screen
yes i'd like to see both pages but one at a time
there it is
you're not planning to make any changes to the second floor like the second floor plan
no we're saying that's how it would stay yes when you would do the first floor later well
i didn't plan to do too much to the first floor more except for uh if we expanded to have after
school children then i was going to have the this area here you know the top area there
just be for after school children
so are you art is the intent to turn the first floor into apartment until that happens well the
first floor already was i mean i mean to utilize the first floor as an apartment until that happens
or you're going to keep the first floor vacant no i want to try i want to let the first floor be at
apartment until we expand if we if we expand okay can i jump in for a minute miss carrie this is
hillary board council so the way your refusal is written you are changing this from a duplex
to a child care center plus one dwelling unit that's right okay that's the way the refusal
written so if you still want to use the first floor as an apartment right now um you that's
not what you're you're asking to do you're only asking for one dwelling unit okay now i want to
keep it one dwelling unit okay but then so what i'm saying is if you if you don't expand to the
first floor with the child care center you would have to come back to the zoning board and get a
variance to have two apartments again you're erasing permission to have two apartments with
with this application all right so i just want to make sure you're you're clear with that because
it sounds like you the expansions in the future you might want to still use the first floor as
an apartment and under this application you can't you only have you it's only for one apartment and
a child care center okay okay if that is not what you intend to do we should have the refusal change
so it reflects accurately what you want to do right now um so but the thing is if you only
approve the child care center for the basement if you expand to the first floor later that's
probably going to require another variance so you have to you basically have to decide what you want
to do if you want to keep the duplex now and put child just child care in the basement and then
come back and expand it later or that's what i would like to do okay so you would like to keep
the duplex for now and just have the child care in the basement yes okay so if we're going to do
that then we need a corrected refusal that says that so um that's something that i can assist with
um when we would just hold the vote in this case get the refusal corrected then the board will come
back and vote on it once we have what you want on the refusal all right okay yes but as a suggestion
Yes. But as a suggestion, I would like I think we need to see basement plans for the daycare.
I would like I think we need to see.
Yes. When you come back. OK, tell me what you mean.
You want to say like right now, the basement plan is shaded. It's it's it's an existing plan.
And I think we want to see how you intend the first that basement to be used.
I think there's a lot of questions about operating a daycare, even if it's an in-home daycare.
existing row house that aren't currently being answered by the photos or by the plans that you
just showed okay so you want me to have with the daycare pictures i showed you sure put more
pictures up here can you go back to your the other plan the basement plan okay
okay this is the basement plan and this shows the outline you know the the plan for the basement
now i i finished the work move over this put it over here bring this up
all right now i i changed it you know i did all the work down there that needs to be done
keep moving it this is this is the uh sink area can they see it can you see that
yep yes okay that's that's a sink area for for the kids to wash their hands keep going
now this is and i put two bathrooms in i put a toilet for adults move on the front back further
and i put another toilet in for uh that's the entrance keep going
okay now this is the this is the room this is the main room of the basement
right here where you see the gray part where the light switch is on the outside
that's a that's a bathroom uh you know a powder room for the children it has a toilet for the
children in there so the adult bathroom is one place the children's is another give me another
picture down. That's the front of the building. This is the daycare entrance. That's the entrance
to the first floor. That, of course, is the second floor. We'll keep on showing more daycare pictures.
You saw that one.
So essentially, the basement is one large open space.
Yeah, one large open space with two bathrooms.
One bathroom in the front is for the adults.
The bathroom in the back is for the children.
Is there a yard for the daycare?
No, it's a little tiny yard.
But I own the building two doors down, and I have a 40-foot yard there.
And I intended to have that as usage, too.
but it's just two doors there's a big yard i have a building there and i have a big yard there
that's 40 by 30 you still didn't show me i don't know that we can i mean we got to concentrate on
this building here we can't talk about yeah building down the street too and what age how
many children at what age children are they capable of self-preservation do we have steps
to get down into this basement or two steps this this is a board member cheryl gaston
it's two steps get the whole front
get the whole front
okay here it is this is the door to the to the daycare itself there are two steps here one two
okay what age children are we talking about for the daycare how many kids preschool maybe 10
preschool means what three four five okay um and then you okay and how many children are you
talking about i figured 10. okay and is there a drop-off area here or how how is this going to work
you mean other than the street i mean the parents how are you going to look how are you going to get
the kids into the building so how are how are the children going to get there are their parents going
to drive them and do you have you planned for a drop-off area pickup area how is this going to
how is this going to work well by uh there's a driveway of the building on the left
On the other side of that, there's a driveway. On the right, there's a driveway. But I don't have a specific drop-off place.
on that other side that there's a driveway on the right there's a drive
I'm actually familiar with this location. And 53rd Street has two lanes going the same way.
So theoretically, somebody could pull to the side and drop kids off while traffic can still go by.
so it's it they won't necessarily block the street you know what i mean okay
like also just a note for a home daycare license in pennsylvania there's a max of six kids that
can be in the in the space um i guess my question is like how do you foresee your staff working
down here because it's a big open room with the two bathrooms i feel like is there a kitchen
facility like how are they operating the business out of the basement okay i thought that would be
it would be partitioned off with with maybe bookcases or gate for the for the uh partition
off in the back there's a sink and uh a microwave no no other sink and a refrigerator for
food if the youngsters
had bought lunch.
And is this
domestic equipment or
is it commercial equipment?
Well, the only equipment
in there now is a sink and a
microwave.
I mean, you said you had a refrigerator
too. Well,
the refrigerator
is going to be whatever
is required. You know what I mean?
I didn't I didn't buy a refrigerator. And even with the microwave, I wasn't sure of what was required.
So whatever is required is what I will put in there.
All right.
Well, we're not going to vote on this today, right?
No, we're going to come back with plans that we understand just a little bit better.
right and then we're gonna you're gonna change it too am i correct hillary well so can i get
clarification what is it what is it on the plans that the board members wish to see because she
did have plans and she did have photos so i i'm just a little bit unclear what what's being
requested i think it just wasn't really clear how it was going to be how the business was going to
be operated i feel like because this is a use permit there's a lot of questions i have about
how like where certain things for the daycare are going to happen that I think make it hard
to make a zoning decision as it relates to this mid-block residential unit without really
knowing like how it's going to be used in the basement yeah I think I think it might be helpful
if even if it's notes like I think it might be helpful if the applicant looked at the state
requirements for daycare and had whoever their architect is or who's ever doing this layout
to describe number of children because there's a certain square footage per child for the
architect yeah the architect made it out told me between uh he said up to 12 children no what i'm
saying is that information on the documents i guess it's yes it's on the document okay i guess
Well, it's hard to see. It's on this document here. So what's what's indoor play area? What's, you know, what's what's the staff ratio you're going to have? I think those are the things that people want to want to hear.
See this one that he has. Okay. So, okay. So you have it listed. It's just hard to see. Okay.
Okay. Child area number one. Okay. I only got a 42 inch partition. Okay. So it's, I guess, I guess, um, it's, it's just hard to read maybe clearer or something, you know, bring this down, make it better.
Remember Johns, I can, I can, uh, recirculate the plans, um, while we are getting a corrected refusal, if that would be helpful.
yeah that might that might yes please and i think that might mitigate the need for
a resumption hearing we can just hold for a corrected refusal
okay okay um chair i have one question um on the facade of the property after you go down
the first two steps is there a water drain there yes okay i just didn't see anything all right
cool that's what i have and uh the means of ingress and egress you do have two means of
ingress and egress yeah i have like escape plan for these children yeah i have uh
like escape plan for these children yeah i have uh i need right in the back i have a wide door
of 36 inches i had the the uh there's an alleyway going to that driveway i was telling you about
there was a tree there i had that all the tree roots removed i put us uh i had a level sidewalk
put into the tuna three thousand dollars but i had this uh widen to be five feet i made sure it was
level. No, all the routes are gone. Everything is straight and clean here going to the driveway
in the back. I mean, on the side. And there's panic bars on this rear door.
You say, I'm sorry. Part of, part of what you need to do in terms of, you know,
child care, where it's daycare, where the kids are capable of some form of self-preservation,
You still have to have sufficient means of ingress, egress.
You have to have like panic bars on this door so that people can get out.
You need emergency lighting.
You need the fire suppression system, alarm system.
I have that.
So you have all of that?
and for purposes of the you know when you come back
when you prepare your presentation you might want to tell us these things instead of us
having to try and pull it out of you know you may have everything that we are interested in knowing
but the the plan isn't easy easy for us to read and determine that and um you know we we we like
to have some details when we're talking about you know young children yes so so hillary so so i'm
clear when we come back we're going to be asking for a duplex and a daycare yes yes so so mr chair
i don't know that we necessarily need to come back because i think from what i'm hearing from
the board members the they just want to look more closely at the plans but it appears to have the
information that they were requesting already so i will circulate the plans while we work on
addressing the refusal um also i think the refusals for well i'll i'll work through the
refusal with l and i because there's a couple things that may need to be fixed based on the
information um that was received in this hearing and we're still going to go to the public now
we'll go to planning yes we will yes we will questions today questions or comments from the
virtual audience i've seen no hands to planning commission thank you chair bergman and good
afternoon david effecta with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential single family zoning at this
location. This property has a documented history as two dwelling units. The appellant has not shown
that the addition of a child care center is needed to afford the appellant economic use of the
property. The appellant also has not shown that a variance for a child care center defined in the
code as serving 13 or more children in a building that is not the primary residence of the provider
is the minimum variance needed to afford the appellant relief. So the City Planning Commission
recommends the board deny the proposed use variances for child care center and multiple
principal uses. So this will be a resumptive hearing? No, Mr. Chair, I don't think we need
a resumptive hearing. Yes, we'll just vote it when we get the corrected refusal. Yep,
and I will recirculate the exhibits to the board members. Thank you very much. We'll be in touch,
ma'am and thank you very much sure okay let's get back to so now we're going to go to number one
mi 2023 003 492 2219 to 23 north 2nd street meredith ferlinger is the attorney
meredith ferliger is coming back as a panelist now chair okay thank you
afternoon mr chairman could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
sure meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r of doorth paxton
Do we're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My client is JEM, 2219 North 2nd, LLC, the owner of the property, and that entity is
the owner of the property, and that entity is represented today by Jeffrey Marmer.
represented today by Jeffrey Marmer.
Stan, we have a letter of opposition from Norris Square and a letter of opposition from Councilman
Lozada. You said opposition or non-opposition from the Councilwoman?
It says letter of opposition. Got it. Thank you. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Council. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, you should see the exhibit list up on the screen right now.
Fabulous.
The proposal before you today concerns a new seven-unit multifamily dwelling in the NARR
Square section of North Philadelphia. The board has my exhibits, which contain 17 sets of documents.
These exhibits do not currently contain tax clearance. There was a really strange issue
with the city system in that this property doesn't even come up on the city system.
i had spoken with board council about this i'm not sure if she has any additional insight on her end
or if the board is going to end up having to hold this so that we can try and figure out what's going
on uh with the city system yeah miss earlier just to interject i i am not i am not sure what's going
on i personally tried this i and it's strange but you have provided a tax clearance previously
um that was you know from this year showing that there was no balance um so we can accept that
um because it you know was from this year and showing no balance so we're we're we're good to
go on this case fabulous thank you hillary the zoning map at exhibit seven bring that up for you
and zoom in shows that the property of 2219 north second street is roughly mid-block between west
Susquehanna Avenue to the south and West Dauphin Street to the north. And you can see I have the
property highlighted here in blue. The property is currently zoned RSA 5. However, not only was
it previously zoned CMX 2, but it was recommended to remain with CMX 2 zoning in the district plan
for this area. You'll notice on this map that the lot is roughly three times larger than the
standard lots on this block coming in at 3,286 square feet. Most of the lots adjoining this
property are roughly about 1,000 square feet. You may also take note that the zoning of this
block is split with RSA 5, some CMX 2 that remained, as well as a few special purpose
parks zoning areas. As the evidence will show today, this RSA 5 zoning is contrary
to the predominant commercial and multifamily residential use of this block,
stemming, of course, from the prior CMX2 zoning
that was more reflective of the current use of properties on this street.
In the aerials at Exhibit 8,
the board will begin to get an understanding of the unique character of this block,
which is largely comprised of a mix of multifamily residential structures
with some commercial and automotive industrial-type uses.
Starting from the west view that I have up on the screen, and I do have an arrow pointing at the lot, you'll notice that this is a large vacant lot, roughly mid-block.
Immediately to the right of the property in this view is a portion of a community garden that you can see also exists further down the block as well.
If we flip to the east-looking view, you'll see that the opposing side of the street has quite a few newly constructed buildings that sit among an auto repair garage, as well as several bars and restaurants.
I do have a map that shows all of these uses more clearly, and I will bring that up in a bit.
At Exhibit 16, zoom out a little bit, I will walk you through some photographs so you can get a sense of the property and the block a little bit better than the aerials would show.
The property in front of you today is currently a vacant lot, with the former commercial building on this lot having been demolished in 2022 due to its deteriorated and unsafe condition.
I'll switch momentarily to exhibit nine, where I have included the history of this particular lot and the building that used to sit on the lot.
This property and building previously were used exclusively.
This property and building previously were used exclusively for commercial purposes, including warehousing, storage, office, and most recently, the retail sale of brakes and brake supplies with a two-family dwelling above.
And the cursive writing is a little bit hard to see on this permit. This one was from 1965. But if I scroll down a little bit, you can see that a little bit better here from 1963, automotive, brake supplies, and two-family dwelling.
This history that I have included also shows that the three lots that comprise 2219, 21, and 23 North 2nd Street have always existed in their consolidated condition and even requested a variance for the commercial use back in the 1940s.
I'll show you that right here.
You can see that a variance was granted back in 1948 for the display and assembly of brake parts use of this lot.
Back then, the lot was zoned A, commercial, and you can see that on the refusal back in the 1940s.
While the available zoning history does not go farther back than the 40s, there is no evidence to suggest that this lot has ever had a history of any single family use.
If I flip back to the photographs, turning towards the northeast, the board will see in these photographs that the adjacent structures are a mix of residential and commercial uses.
And you can see the sign here right up the block for a restaurant.
You can see the garage next door or the rolling doors blocking the commercial use.
And then there are also some residential uses as well.
Flipping in the opposite direction here towards the southeast, the board will see the garden that's immediately next door that I pointed out in the aerials a little bit earlier.
My client has been in constant communication with the operators of this garden, including as recently as this morning, and as the evidence will clearly establish, he had their use in mind when designing a proposal for this lot.
You'll also notice in this photograph another restaurant just a few doors away.
We turn to the southeast, which is now across the street, and this is now looking up towards West Susquehanna Avenue.
you'll see the current quite intensive industrial use,
the automotive use that's directly across the street.
As I'll show you momentarily,
this auto repair lot that you see in this photograph
was recently permitted for the construction of 12 dwelling units.
Towards the northwest,
you'll notice quite a bit of new construction on this block
that has been built by variants, all for multifamily uses.
We have also, of course, included photographs of the zoning posters, which were timely posted.
This point, I will bring up the zoning site plan.
Our project architect is Logan Dry with KCA, and he is here today if the board has any questions for him.
Looking at the zoning site plan at Exhibit 5, my client is proposing to erect a new three-story building to contain seven dwelling units.
From a zoning compliance standpoint, the board should note that this building not only fully
complies with the dimensional restrictions of the code, but is in fact quite underbuilt for this
large lot. For example, this building will have 67.2% coverage, while 75% would have been permitted.
No side yard setback is required where this project includes a five foot or greater side
yard setback on each side of the structure. And you can see that very clearly here on the zoning
site plan. You can see the side yard setback that is on both sides of this building, which is really
kind of an unusual thing to see nowadays. In addition, the building is only three stories
and 33 feet, three inches high, where 38 feet would be allowed. As I pointed out, this building
provides a unique five foot passageway on either side of the building, which not only provides an
additional buffer from the garden next door, but it also allows for significantly more light and
air for the tenants of this building than you would normally have in an attached building.
In looking at the floor plans at exhibit six, I'll zoom in a little bit on that,
you'll see here that the cellar level is for mechanical and storage use only.
There are seven total residential units containing a mix of one- and two-bedroom units.
There are seven total residential units containing a mix of one and two bedroom
On the first floor, there are three one-bedroom units ranging from 540 square feet to 642 square feet.
You may also notice that the first floor units are designed to contain type B ADA adaptable units,
meaning that they can be easily converted to accommodate the needs of a disabled tenant.
All of the units in the building will have in-unit washers and dryers and ventilated trash storage areas.
On the second and third floor, the layout is identical.
Each of these floors contains two two-bedroom, two-bathroom units of 919 square feet.
Each of these upper-level units has a private exterior terrace facing North 2nd Street to better activate the street.
no roof deck is proposed for this building the number of units proposed is truly dictated by the
layout that this particular building design allows with a mix of unit types sizes and accessibility
in light of the significant open space around and in the back of this building a common shielded
trash storage area can be created commercial trash pickup will be required for seven units
We've also included an artistic rendering of this particular building.
You'll notice that the building was intentionally designed to resemble two adjoining structures instead of one larger building.
Regarding the refusal, because the property is currently zoned RSA 5, we are required to seek a variance for the multifamily use.
The applicant submits to several hardships in erecting new single-family homes on this lot for several reasons.
This particular application has the rare distinction of suffering hardships on nearly every basis warranting of this board granting relief.
First and most basic, as we showed, this lot is nearly triple the size of most of the lots on this block, totaling 3,286 square feet compared to other lots that are roughly 1,000 square feet.
As the permit history that I showed you at Exhibit 9 shows, this lot has existed in this consolidated condition since the 1940s and did not result from any action of this or even a recent former owner.
Additionally, as I alluded to earlier, this block is comprised of significantly diverse uses, most of which are not RSA 5 compliant or single family uses.
At Exhibit 17, you will see why this block exists in this condition.
When the Planning Commission prepared the district plan for this area, the suggested rezoning maps included showed that this block was recommended to remain with CMX zoning that would have allowed for the multifamily proposal today.
However, as you have now learned, at some point in time, and I was not able to find when this
occurred, this block was rezoned contrary to the stated goals of the district plan
and contrary to the uses that exist on this block.
At tab 10, I've included a map showing the use of most of the immediately adjacent structures
surrounding this property. This was created from public information that was pulled directly from
Atlas. Anything you see here marked with an R is a restaurant. Anything marked with a C
is another general type of commercial use. And on this side of the street, you will see
many duplexes, which are either standalone or are operated with some form of a commercial use.
You can see here, immediately next door is a duplex, two doors down is a restaurant, immediately on the other side of this property is also a duplex.
This side of the street, as you can see, also has a variety of garden uses.
There is not a solitary single-family use adjoining this property at 2219 North 2nd Street.
Across the street, multifamily uses include duplexes, multiple new triplexes, which you can see here,
and even a 12-family project approved where there currently exists the auto repair lot.
That 12-family approval is on a lot just slightly larger than this one.
That lot is 4,800 square feet.
So the 12 units that were approved for that lot would be a density of 400 square feet.
So the 12 units that were approved for that lot would be a density of 400 square feet of lot area
per unit. In comparison, the proposal before the board today for 2,219 North 2nd Street would
equate to 469 square feet of lot area per unit, so less dense than what was just approved across
the street. At the end of the block and right across Susquehanna, which you can sort of see
the beginning of in this photograph, a new 31 dwelling unit project was just completed.
As the board can see from this map, nearly every single property surrounding this one is either
multifamily or commercial. Many were granted by variance. The board can see that this block has
become quite a melting pot of variance-based uses. Of all the uses contained in this one block,
block, the only new residential uses have been multi-family structures, similar to the
one proposed today.
This combination of factors, including the unique size, historical use, and diverse makeup
of this block, establishes it would be a hardship to use this property in compliance with its
single-family zoning.
We also submit that the requested variance is the least minimum.
There are no dimensional refusals associated with this request.
By comparison, the proposed density is just a few square feet short of being entirely consistent with the allowances of the former CMX2 zoning,
and as I previously described, is consistent with the density of the multifamily uses of surrounding structures based on the lot size of this particular lot.
The first floor units were designed to meet type B ADA adaptability.
Given the diverse uses on this block, and further considering the commercial use history of the property,
it is the least deviation from the code to propose a use that is most consistent with the existing and changing character of this particular block of 2nd Street.
There is no evidence that new single-family development is viable on this street,
especially not considering the unique factors of this lot.
This proposal will not increase congestion.
Although parking is not a requirement, the applicant submits it would be extremely challenging
to provide parking for this development as a result of the property's location mid-block
with no other access point other than North 2nd Street.
The board may note that the RCO's opposition to this proposal was not predicated on an
opposition to multifamily or even the proposed density, as their letter makes clear, but instead
was based on the lack of parking, which is not required. While this lot is oversized for this
block, it is certainly not large enough to accommodate any parking. Furthermore, this block
of North 2nd Street, as you can see in this aerial view, is fortunate enough to have designated
parking lanes on both sides of the street, on either side of the two-lane drive aisle that is
one way headed towards Susquehanna. There are no residential uses on this block with any parking,
and the only automotive on this block are the automotive repair uses. Furthermore,
public transit abounds this neighborhood with a bus stop at nearly every corner.
The proposal will not impair light and air, as it is designed to be three stories and underbuilt from a height perspective, much like the other residential structures that have been built on this block.
The board has seen that this design includes significant open space for residents,
and by creating side yards around the building, it essentially creates a detached building which
will allow for these units to have far more windows than would be typical for a development
of this type. By comparison, at Exhibit 11, which I'll bring up here on the screen,
We'll start first with the plan.
We've included a basic representation of what a by-right building would look like on this lot based on the allowances of the zoning code.
The red line shows the by-right dimensions, and you can see that red line here in comparison to the black line that shows what is actually proposed.
you can see that a by right design of this lot would extend to the full width of the lot
which would be to the significant detriment of the residents of the building who would be
lacking in windows on the side as well as to the detriment of the surrounding lots
particularly the garden next door on the left you can see a visualization of a by right height
which would which could also include pilot houses that are not included with this
which could also include pilot houses that are not included with this instant design.
Unmistakably, a by-right single-family home of these dimensions would be entirely out of character with this block,
as would a smaller single-family home with a large yard.
Now, regarding the community and the councilwoman, we are aware of the letter of opposition that the community sent for this proposal quite a while ago.
However, as we noted earlier, the letter was clear that the opposition was not based on
the details of the project, but were instead based on general concerns surrounding multifamily
development that is lacking in on-site parking.
They also expressed concern over the impact to the adjacent garden.
But as we mentioned earlier, this proposal will have far less impact on the adjacent
garden than would a by-right design.
And my client has been in constant communication with the adjacent garden to ensure that anything that is built on this lot is done so with maximum respect to that garden to ensure it does not impact them.
Furthermore, my client has spent significant time connecting with neighbors who actually live on this street.
And we did include a petition and several letters of support in the packet as well.
And I can bring up the petition.
We do submit that the proposal and the requested variance is compliant full with the requirements of Code Section 3038E.2.
We have included a full analysis in the Memorandum of Law submitted to the board at Exhibit 12.
At this point, I'd like to bring up my client to answer a few quick questions, and then we're happy to take any questions from the board.
If the administrator could look for Jeffrey Marmer.
Jeffrey Marmer, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
or could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
hey good morning uh jeffrey marmer j-e-f-f-r-e-y
where are firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel thank you jeff can you just very briefly in a few sentences
explain to the board how it was that you even came to own this property
sure so brief synopsis uh jeffrey marmer uh my family is my family and now me is in the
commercial elevator business we are the oldest elevator company in philadelphia established in
1908 right there in north philadelphia on master street itself um the we have a long history with
davis break who was the last occupant um and owners patricia and bill knoll who owned the
building and operated the business. Over the years, we have used Davis Brake to reline older
elevator brakes. As much as the system doesn't exist super modernly anymore, Philadelphia is
still full of those types of elevator traction machines. As Bill Knoll, who was operating the
business and owned the building prior to us, was declining in health, we made an agreement to
purchased his business along with the building and our goal was to continue the use of the
break shop unfortunately right before settlement uh bill passed away from cancer so we were already
so deep into it and there was an employee in the business that was there um we did continue the
purchased with patricia which was bill's wife and unfortunately the employee disappeared with
the sale of the business so we ended up having we we tried to do the break business we ended up
liquidating whatever was there um the building was in distress the bill was in poor health and
the building deteriorated with it uh we tried multiple ideas of what to do with the building
but unfortunately um we began to get some i don't want to use bad not bad terms but we began to have
break-ins we began to have some problems um the roof began to leak and we decided and make it made
an executive decision between the two of us that it was time to get rid of the pro or get rid of
knock down the property in which in turn we were left with the vacant lot um once we had the vacant
lot there was some concern in the neighborhood that there was some activity constantly going
on in the lot i had some neighbors contact me as well as the garden directly next door
and we immediately put up a fence cleaned up the lot and have been monitoring it to
keep any issues off the lot itself that's how we came with the lot currently we do own the lot
free and clear we don't have any type of commercial use to put on the lot we were attempting to think
of some commercial use for the building since the use was still there and the business was active
um but there was simply we did not have a commercial
um but there was simply we did not have a commercial use and the building was in
desperate need of repair thank you jeff so so just very simply you didn't purchase this property
with the intent that it was ultimately going to be redeveloped that was not your initial intent
no that was not my initial intent at all thank you or just briefly before he adopts my testimony
Jeff's testimony has made it very clear that it was only the former owners on timely demise that led him to own this property that cannot be developed pursuant to its buy right use.
So this was not a situation that this board certainly sees occasionally where somebody purchases an RSA 5 lot and does so with the expectation that they're going to be able to secure relief from this board.
That was not the intent, nor was that the situation that ultimately led to the request today.
Jeff, have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was offered before the board today?
I have. And I just wanted to put notice out there as well that my neighbor directly to the left of the lot, she is here as well.
She wants to make comment. And Jose Garcia, who owns the car lot across the street, he tried to get into Zoom, but it's not letting him in.
he sent me a message earlier letting me know thank you and Jeff for all the testimony that
you said that you heard today do you adopt that testimony as if you had given it yourself
absolutely yes thank you board uh Logan Dry the architect is here if you have any questions about
the design questions from the board I have a question um so the the setback that's um in the
design um given that the garden um there was a concern from the rco and the community about the
garden was there any thought behind putting like landscaping that uh setback
sure i so because of the size of the lot miss graham that wasn't something that was required
to be shown on the plan itself um but jeff uh can i assume that it is your intent that you
would be landscaping sort of along the side of the property around near where the garden is so
merida could you zoom in just to show the actual setback there between the garden and okay so we
have was it five feet yep yeah so we have a five foot side yard there um from what i understand
in typical construction you would have to over dig to pour the to pour the sidewall and the footings
and that would disturb the garden whether or not the garden would permiss it there's no reason to
put a wall up against the community garden one the windows would look out to it everything else
of that matter um if there's room in the five foot i know there's an existing fence
and i know a nice aluminum fence if the garden would the fence is technically the gardens right
now um but yeah i i would love to commute you know i'd love to work with the garden to make
it look nice um there was no direct you know squares to put landscaping in but if there's
room for it i have nothing against it yeah it when the lot's under 5 000 square feet it's not
something that is required to be shown on the zoning plans but that that certainly does not
sound like it would be a problem and any more questions other questions for other questions
on the board yeah can you go back to the floor plans sure
something i can zoom in on for you more clearly so this the so the first floor uh units will be
made so that they can be adaptable that's yeah that's correct and you can see that as mentioned
here on the plans and there's no steps leading up into the realm including a vestibule which gives
anyone who may potentially be in a handicapped position time to open the door get into the
unit you know to be including if they're waiting for the bus or they're waiting for someone to
pick them up it gives them dry space as well the door swing is kind of a uh a conflict with that
unit number one but other than that can i see the second one i think that was a proposal it's more
of a like a storefront commercial door that would open to the outside okay which was the idea
you and then these are the second and third floor i think i see it but like all of the units
have their own meters and hot water heaters in unit right in the mechanical closet
so i don't know if they show them here the so the basement is the mechanical space
but as what i see everywhere else it looks like the meters are going to be on the side of the
building, but they will all be separately metered.
But they will all be separately metered.
There's some mechanical units in the unit, right?
There's some mechanical units in the unit, right.
Can we bring on the architect, Logan Dry, because he can answer that question definitively.
Logan Dry, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Logan Dry, L-O-G-A-N-D-R-Y.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Logan, so I think there's actually two questions that you can answer.
Number one, board member Wynn asked about whether there would be mechanicals within each unit.
So if you can address that, and then if we can also just go back and address board member John's point about the door swing interfering with unit one.
Yeah, I mean, so all the units have their own mechanical HVAC unit, hot water heater and laundry in the unit.
As far as like meters and stuff like that, all of that would be in the basement in the common mechanical area.
So like gas meters, electrical meters, anything else like that.
But each unit has its own base mechanicals in terms of the water heater, the HVAC unit, and the laundry.
And then as far as the door swing on the ground floor, you know, this is when we could flip it either way since the occupancy is less than 50.
We could swing it out, which might make a little bit more sense in avoiding that conflict with the unit one door.
Or, you know, we could slide the unit one door up a little bit.
But either way, we've got, you know, more space than what we typically have at the entrance of the building, which is kind of nice.
So, you know, we could flip-flop that without any issues.
I will say that they're decently laid out units, livable units.
And I appreciate the fact that, you know, you guys actually set it back so you get windows around the units.
These are going to be some very nice units.
Thank you.
I actually have a second question.
so just we're dealing with like just building logistics do all of the tenants have access to
the basement um and are they going to be allowed to store things in the basement is my like first
question because i see it says storage but i wasn't sure if that was like building storage
or tenant storage and then two what what's the thought around how garbage is going to be managed
in between trash pick-up days?
Should I answer that, Meredith?
Sure, go ahead.
Yeah, so the plan is if it's allowable usage in the basement,
it was for the tenant storage.
The building itself doesn't really have storage necessities,
just mechanicals, you know, generally in the basement.
And yes, it's supposed to be accessible to all tenants.
The trash, the idea was to have either a small rolling dumpster
or the large plastic tote supplied by the commercial trash company
that would be located in the back of the building, which would be locked.
So they wouldn't be facing towards the street,
and they would be contained in the back.
So when the trash company would come, assuming twice a week to pick up the trash,
they would just roll the container down the side.
That right side would be a concrete sidewalk.
So they would roll it down to the front and dump it.
So it would be out of the eyes of the garden,
out of the eyes of the um any front viewing public and actually one more question what are
we doing about mail mail um we didn't draw them they would be common mailboxes you know
for each tenant and is it going to be like in that lobby area i'm just thinking like
when i think of what causes issues for neighbors it's big bikes it's big packages and it's
pile of junk mail.
To be honest, I think in the lobby
area, inside would be the best
because no one wants their Amazon packages to be
left outside.
They tend to disappear.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our
attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual
audience?
i see no hands chair uh could you guys give us one second i know my neighbor uh marilyn cruz
or marlene cruz i'm sorry is on here could someone ask her to speak just put her hand up
would you like to hear from her chair please marlene cruz unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes marlene cruz m-a-r-l-e-n-e my last name cruz
M-A-R-L-E-N-E, my last name Cruz, C-R-U-Z.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
I just want to say that I am in approval of Jess' plan.
um i don't see like i see him being as considerate to the neighbors um i've looked at his plans
they look great to me he's being very considerate to me and i also believe that he's being very
considerate to the garden um in my opinion um i don't have any problems or any issues
with what he's planning to do i know they're um the issue around parking but the issue around
parking is always going to be there um we have a bar and a restaurant on the block so there's
always issues with parking no matter what um and i just want to say that i'm in approval of his
of his plan thank you thank you very much for taking the time to call us we appreciate it
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no further hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning in this location from RSA 5, residential single family, to CMX 2, commercial mixed use.
However, in 2021, the city amended this block to residential single-family at the request of the community.
This lot could be divided into three single-family lots, assuming other dimensional standards could be met.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed use variance for multiple dwelling units, but with a maximum of three dwelling units.
Mr. Chairman, respectfully, the application has shown that the proposed density here is more than appropriate, not only considering the prior CMX2 zoning or the suggested CMX2 zoning, but also in relation to the density of other similar proposals on this block, and especially given the layout that the board has reviewed today.
uh mi 2023 003 492 2219 and 23 north 2nd street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes tennessee grant my vote is yes i win my vote is yes
thank you
thank you enjoy your afternoon thank you number two thank you very much everyone have a great
thank you number two mi 2024 000 262 5142 y lucy daunty and grady or clementa amazon are the attorneys
involved
clementa amazon is coming back in as a panelist now chair
Good afternoon, gentlemen and members of the board.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the stenographer?
Of course. Clementa Amazon. That's spelled C-L-E-M-E-M-T-A. Last name is spelled A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Of course. My client is the LOMO Partners, S-D-L-O-M-O Partners LLC, and Lamonte Owens is the principal member of that entity.
Also, a letter of opposition from the West Philly Together Civic Association with comments that they would approve a duplex, but not the four units.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, okay?
Actually, before the vice chair asked the questions, I apologize for being untimely.
However, we are going to be requesting a continuance for this matter.
There's been an unexpected change in events, so we're not moving forward if the board would allow for a short continuance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2024-000262-5142, Wyalusing Avenue.
Case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Number five, MI 2024-004-240-1751 Tillman Street. Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
Rachel Pritzker is coming back in.
rachel pritzker is coming back in as a panelist chair
good afternoon counsel good evening good afternoon could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer sure it's rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
where or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Did you identify your client, their relationship to this property?
My client is Aaron Jones and Matt Feldman on behalf of GLF-QOZ Fund LLC, the owners of the property.
Point.
We have a letter of support from South Kensington Community Partners, and also the applicant has given us 14 form letters.
One letter didn't have an address, but most from the, and one from the 17 on the block of North Hancock.
our vice chair has a few questions for you thank you good afternoon council do you agree to weigh
the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that's needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of
this hearing yes thank you council please proceed and share your screen okay
can you see my screen we can okay so this is 1751 tillman street um it is zoned icmx
um says rsa5 but it's zoned icmx which is industrial commercial mixed use
The application before you is a proposal for the relocation of lot lines to include two parcels, A and B, 1751 Tillman and 1736 North Hancock, for the erection of an attached structure to include a residential roof deck, the second and fifth floors with three roof deck access structures above the fifth floor, three exterior balconies, size and location on plans, proposed use of vacant commercial on the ground floor and nine multifamily houses.
household living units. Given the parcel's base zoning classification as ICMX, industrial
commercial mixed use, we have one refusal for the multifamily use, which is not prohibited in ICMX.
I'm going to go through, show a photo of the property, tax clearance, the deeds,
It's both of the parcels.
Council, we're still on the argument.
That's what we see.
Oh, I'm scrolling.
I wonder if that...
We're on page four.
That's what's showing here.
Let's see.
You seeing the cover page?
Can you see that? Oh, it's the argument. Got it. I see what I'm looking at. Got it.
okay can you see the zoning map okay so as you can see this is sort of a very oddly shaped
parcel it actually includes this little bit here as well which was part of the lot line relocation
it was actually owned by the adjacent HOA that is in support of the project I believe that's some
of the letters that you received but this parcel is an ICMX parcel located mostly in a residential
area, around other multifamily and residential properties.
I'll just show the aerial.
As you can see, the property that was there was, I think, last there prior to 2007.
This property has been at least vacant since then.
It was recently demolished, just given its bad condition.
And the last use on record was in 1958 for an auto body shop.
the refusal that i mentioned is just due to the icmx zoning this is just the photos of the
property um although it's zoned icmx there's a lot of residential multifamily nearby um 1743
tillman street is a three unit building 1741 is a three unit building 1706 north second street
is 7 units, 1701 North 2nd is 88 units, and 1801-05 North 2nd Street is 20 units.
Just some aerial, sorry, some street photos of the property and the zoning posters.
Just some aerial, sorry, some street photos of the property and the zoning posters.
As mentioned, we had a meeting with South Cousin Community Partners.
We actually met with them, I think, two times, and we had unanimous support for the project.
We believe that granting of this variance will be in harmony with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code and Philadelphia's 2035 plan.
It will add new housing to an existing residential neighborhood without negatively affecting the existing residents.
Given the longstanding vacancy of the property since at least 2007, the existing ICMX zoning presents a hardship and is out of character for the block and the surrounding area and is unlikely to be feasible given the longstanding vacancy.
The comprehensive plan states the market for purely commercial industrial sites in the immediate lower north Philadelphia neighborhood is very limited.
This reality and the fact that the current zoning in Lower North Philadelphia does not always reflect some of these uses, it sort of adds to this additional hardship.
And it further states that a goal of the city should be to allow vacant industrial zone parcels off American Street, which it says, to transition to other uses, something like high-density residential or other residential uses.
Again, this project does still consider the ground floor commercial, so it's the minimum variance required.
We're just asking for use for residential for the nine residential units, but we are leaving a vacant commercial space on the property as well.
Again, this is the meeting summary. Five votes, yes. Five votes total for you, S1, no.
And we do have support from the directly adjacent near neighbors. This is the letter from the RCO.
Supporting the variants.
And these are letters of support from the adjacent neighbors, 1840 North Hancock Street, 1842 North Hancock.
There's property fronts on both Hancock and Tillman, so that's why you're seeing the Hancock addresses as well.
1846, 1815, and they go on as you have seen.
I'd like to bring on our architect, Mark Wallace.
to go through the plans for the board and then have my client adopt my testimony and happy to
answer any questions. Wallace. We see his hand.
Mark Wallace has been allowed to speak to you.
Hi. Mr. Wallace, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Mark Wallace, M-A-R-K-W-A-L-L-A-C-E, Core Design Architecture, 1829, Cardinal Lake Drive, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Where or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Does he have the ability to share his screen so he can present the plans?
oh forgive me i won't i won't promote him thank you
mark wallace has been promoted
mark are you able to share your screen and go through the plans for the board
hello everybody um can everyone see my screen
yet no not yet
I don't know why.
Good to see you.
Hello, everyone.
Sorry, I don't know why it's not letting me do it.
It just showed up.
all right does everyone see it now i apologize for the delay we do okay so excellent so so as
rachel said our only refusal here is use we are within the envelope um guidelines for icmx
um we have two frontages one along tillman street where we are five stories and one along hancock
street where we are three stories at the right of way and then we set back the fourth and fifth
floor at the upper floors. This was so that we could align with the adjacent neighbor and fit
in with the context of the block while allowing us to extend higher to achieve the density we were
looking for. Quick overview of the plans. Our main residential entrance is on the Hancock side.
Our commercial space is accessed off the Tillman side, along with the...
Our commercial space is accessed off the Tillman side, along with a second means of egress that is open to the sky along the property line.
Our cellar floor will be used just for storage and utilities.
We have our bike room down there.
We have our Pico vault and tenant storage.
There's no living space at the cellar whatsoever.
The lighter gray areas are slab on grades.
We're only in partial basement.
Coming back up to the main floor, the main residential entrance, again, is off Hancock.
When we come in, we have two units of floor on every floor.
On the first floor, we have a two-bedroom unit and the commercial unit, which is vacant at this time.
We do not have a tenant yet.
And then as we move up, we have a three-bedroom unit that fronts on the Tillman side and a one-bedroom unit that fronts on the Tillman side.
And we have a trash room on each floor that will be picked up commercially.
And as we go up to we get to the setback areas, the unit at the fourth floor becomes a two bedroom unit that has access to that that third three story portion as a roof deck private to their unit.
And then the unit above that at the fifth floor has two separate balconies to themselves.
And then the roof deck is common for the entire building, only for the residential use.
No commercial uses will be at the roof.
And that's basically all I have.
Any questions?
We did submit a proviso plan form as well.
I just want to make sure that Hillary, the board's attorney, is aware of that.
Questions from the board.
There's a question for you.
On the rendering that's on the right, with the tan building with the balconies, is that part of your development?
It's hard to tell.
No, it's just this narrow strip.
The lot is kind of a weird flag shape. So we're wider on the second or Hancock side than we are on the Tillman side.
We're only like 19 feet wide. And then we have that yard space that we egress out of.
You can see the gates right here. So that is our only frontage on Tillman.
And on the left hand rendering, is that the front side of the tan building or?
There are two separate buildings, but they look like they were developed at the same time.
okay okay and so you you kept consistency with the elevation um uh roof level height on that
at that street frontage i see and then set back the third and was that the fourth is it the fourth
and the fourth and fifth floors the fourth okay all right thank you the question is from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chairman and good afternoon david
vecta with the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the ICMX, Industrial and Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning at this location. During our
last zoning map changes in 2016 in South Kensington, ICMX was used as a placeholder
because the civics were unsure which zoning they preferred in this part of their neighborhood.
At that time, this block and adjacent blocks were a mix of residential and light industrial activity.
Since that time, this block has continued to transition into primarily multifamily use.
The proposed multifamily use matches the evolving character of this and adjacent blocks.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant our proposed use variants for multifamily use.
Chairman, do you mind if I have my client adopt my testimony?
Sure, go ahead.
Thank you.
Is there an Aaron Jones in the audience?
Aaron Jones, please raise your virtual hand.
Chair, the only person we have with their hand up is Matthew Feldman.
That's fine.
That's one of the other owners.
Could you please state your name and spell for the course photographer?
yeah my name is matthew feldman m-a-t-t-h-e-w f-e-l-d-m-a-n right you swear affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you uh matthew
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Matthew, you heard my testimony today.
you heard my
Perfect.
Do you believe it to be true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I heard it.
I believe it to be true and accurate, and I adopt it as my own.
Thank you.
Sorry about that, Chairman.
Thank you.
That's okay.
So MI 2024-004-240-1751, Tillman Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA on October 2nd, 2024.
Use registration for vacant commercial space required prior to occupancy.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Interesting and thoughtful design.
Thank you.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Anyone, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ismael Shahid, my vote is yes, we're proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, everyone.
Number eight, MI 2024-004-670-1312 North 22nd Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Ismael Shahid has recused himself from this vote.
Joseph Consul, come back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Hello.
Mr. Consul, you have already been sworn. Just state your name for the record, please.
Joseph Consul.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Patrick Campbell, the owner of the property.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal, and do you agree with its accuracy?
Please proceed.
Okay, hold on one second.
Let me share my story.
There's still a letter of support here from Brewery Town Shardsman Community Civic Association, 16 to 3, in favor.
All right. So this is a weird one. I'll give you the timeline. In February of 2020, Patrick
purchased his property, regular arm's length transaction with title insurance. He applied
for a demo permit that same month. It was approved by the city. He then had a zoning
permit for the build approved for a three-family dwelling. He then pulled the building permit
in December of 2020. In 2021, the first half of the year, all mechanical permits and the tax
abatement were approved by the city. In 2021, he built the property as a three-unit building.
So let's see if I can find.
So here's the plan that we're submitted.
And I'll scan down.
That's the one.
Scan down to the property that he built.
There it is.
It's this property here, the three-story with the bump out.
And so he built that property in 2021.
However, in September of 2021, the RDA, so the city itself, reached out to him and said
that unbeknownst to him, this lot was part of a condemnation process that the city was
going through, which was happening simultaneously to my client purchasing the property.
So in the background, while he was getting all these approvals to build this three-unit
property the city uh took the lot themselves combined it with another lot and um took it
through the process of condemnation well but it was already built it was already approved zoning
building everything it was inspected got the co everything but then suddenly he was told that he
no longer owned it from 2021 to 2022 into 2023 he went back and forth with the um with the city to
trying to figure out what to do, they initially were going to purchase it from him to be part of
this program because it was condemned for affordable housing, but they realized that it was worth too
much in its current state, so they weren't able to offer him the fair market value. So they
eventually said to him, you could have it back, but you have to go through the process of
subdividing it off of the lot that we um connected it to as part of the condemnation process
so that's really confusing but it leads us to the request today which is the subdivision
of this lot
This lot labeled 1313 North 22nd Street, and the refusal is that the resulting lot is only 1306 square feet, whereas 1440 square feet is required.
labeled 1313 North 22nd
Street
So, you know, outside of the extenuating circumstances that I just mentioned, this lot for a three-unit multifamily is only slightly smaller than would be required anyway.
um so again it was some kind of a mix-up uh that happened in the background he lost a lot
and now he's seeking to to get it back again through the the proper channels here uh and
we're hoping that uh based on our explanation our packet and the support of the community group that
were able to get the board's approval for him to retake ownership of this property which he will
once he gets the property back from the city and um can go on with the three unit building that
already exists and that we you know paid to build um council you want to bring your client on and
maybe he could yeah uh patrick campbell could you raise your virtual hand
Patrick Campbell, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, I'm here.
Could you please state your name and spell for the course.
Patrick Campbell, P.A.T.
R-I-C-K.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Good afternoon, Mr. Campbell.
Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your situation at 1313 North 22nd?
Yes, I did.
Did I explain that fairly accurately?
Do you have anything you want to add, or would you like to adopt my testimony as your own?
I'll adopt your testimony.
Thank you.
Thank you. Nothing further.
So, Mr. Counsel, to make it, he built a property thinking he owned a parcel, and part of the parcel was still owned by the city or PHA.
Well, during the purchase and build process, the city was consolidating a bunch of lots that were vacant in this area to set up a development agreement with someone like my client, Chivetta, that I've been in front of you all.
right right and so but his property was already built his property was already built correct the
city was unaware that about what was going on and it must have been that they had those wheels going
before he purchased it questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from RM1, residential multifamily, to RSA5, residential single family.
The appellant proposes to subdivide 1313 North 22nd Street from a larger assemblage at 1313 to 1321 North 22nd Street.
An existing structure stands on the proposed lot B, which will not comply with the dimensional requirements of the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant their proposed dimensional variance for minimum lot size.
However, we do want to note that the appellant, whether knowingly or unknowingly, built an encroachment of their patio into their neighbor's parcel on Seibert Street, so that will need to be resolved.
The counsel?
Patrick would have to speak to that. This is the first I've heard about Seibert Street and any kind of encroachment. Patrick, are you there still? Are you aware of that?
Patrick Campbell, please unmute yourself.
Okay, I'm unmuted, I believe.
So I'm unaware of a patio that exists that encroaches, but if there's any encroachment, I will certainly take care of it immediately.
I just, yeah, I'll take care of that if that's an issue.
MI 2024-004-670-1313 North 22nd Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
I await my vote is yes.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Consul.
Number 11, MI 2024-004-737-2472-74, Frankfurt Avenue.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
there's a recommendation of unanimous support from the east kenton neighbor association vote
was 10 to 0. they're also a letter of non-opposite from councilmember squiller
good afternoon mr chair council we blew i spoke with you once today just for the record mention
state your name? Yep, Vern Anastasio.
On behalf of my client, Ella Bergdahl
Oberhammer. Our place share has a few questions for you, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and show your screen.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, this is a special exception for a tattoo parlor, ostensibly Body Arts Studio.
And we have a 64-page exhibit packet, including, as you mentioned, overwhelming support from the RCO.
and what's not included in this packet
but was sent separately
is a letter of non-opposition
from Council Member Squilla's office.
There's the application
that generated the refusal
on the 21st of June.
Here's the letter of non-opposition,
full support,
unanimous support
from the community group.
here is the layout of the second floor it's this is located on the second floor of this
property so i'm going to be asking uh when the vote occurs if you could please identify the
space as the second floor only
you know waiting room there's a little kitchenette for staff there's a public restroom and then the
space where the tattooing takes place. This is the property question. You can see the first floor
is already occupied with a very vibrant business, very popular, and the second floor space is where
my client will operate. This is, again, a tattoo studio, second floor only, primarily by appointment,
seven to eight hours a day, six days a week, no late night hours. Maybe at some point,
if things go well, two or three artists. My client has been in this line of, in this industry for
a decade. There'll be, of course, commercial trash pickup, hazmat materials will be dealt
with per the code, the health code. Given there is no opposition, I ask that my client
raise a virtual hand to adopt my presentation as her own.
What's your client's name, Mr. Anastasia?
Ella Bergdahl Oberheimer.
Ms. Oberheimer, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for this stenographer?
Hi, yes, my name is Ella Bergdahl-Oberhammer, E-L-L-A-B-E-R-G as in dog, D, well, sorry, G as in girl, D as in dog, O-L-L hyphen, Oberhammer, O-B as in boy, E as in electric, R, and hammer, like the tool, H-A-M.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ella, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
It is, aside from one thing which I would like to correct, which is that I have been in the industry for eight years, not over a decade.
Fair enough.
That's close. I know, but I just want to thank you. Do you adopt my presentation as your own? Yes. Thank you. Nothing for you, Mr. Chair. Questions from the board.
That's close.
I know, but I just want to be honest.
Thank you.
I want to be on.
No, I'm glad.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
um just briefly in light of mr anastasio's comments that this is going to be on the second
floor um if the board is inclined to approve i suggest a proviso indicating the use is limited
to the second floor thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
okay planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon david vecta with
the City Planning Commission. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the CMX2 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location. The appellant has shown that
the proposed body art services will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond
what might be expected. The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant a
proposed special exception for body art services. MI 2024-004-737-2472-74, Frankfurt. I vote yes.
Proviso, use limited to second floor. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso. Sonata Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ryan Wynn, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
All right.
Number 13, MI 2024-004-761-610 West Norris Street.
Alan Nockmson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from APM.
Five in support, one opposed, one undecided.
Alan Nockamson is coming in as a panelist now, Chair.
Hi, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Do you identify your client, their relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Enam Abazi, the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
uh yes we have thank you california please proceed to share your screen thank you
all right so i'm here to present uh 610 uh west north street um pretty straightforward project
this is an rm1 property uh and you know we're a little bit short of the uh lot square footage
to make it a quadplex um you know we're at 2.99 units um you know so we're looking to add four
units and for this vacant lot um what we're proposing is not out of character to this block
and we'll show you that um from a unit count perspective and we do have some de minimis
dimensional variances, which mimic the property next door to us. So during our presentation,
we'll first review the notice of refusal, which is for this RM1 property, a letter of support from
APM, nearby comparable multifamily. So again, what we did was limit our search to this block
in particular to show that, again, not out of character to have these many units.
um aerial view of the property and the reason why i did that was to show you that the property next
door to us on our street um also runs afoul of the dimensional requirements of the philadelphia
zoning code all we're trying to do is mimic uh you know those uh the lots uh rear yard setback
as well as coverage of our next door neighbor then maps of the area photographs of the property in
the surrounding area, our plans and drawings, a copy of our meeting notice along with proof
of mailing of that meeting notice, our application for appeal that I filed on behalf of ENOM,
Filed on behalf of ENOM, the owner of the property, which is confirmed by way of that deed to the property, which is the next exhibit.
the owner of the property, which is confirmed.
And our certificate of tax clearance showing that he's paid all real estate taxes with respect to this property.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that ENOM virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him.
So, again, this is an R-I-1 property, so it's allowed for multifamily use.
It's 1,065.5 square feet, and we're looking to put a four-family dwelling here.
We have a use refusal because, again, under the RM1 zoning classification, four units are not allowed as of right.
Not out of character, though, because you'll see nearby properties which have a similar configuration in terms of unit count.
And then we have a few dimensional variances, occupied area, percentage of lot area, rear yard depth, and rear yard area.
Again, sounds like a lot, but next door to us, we just mimicked what's next door to us.
We're not affecting anyone else.
And you'll see also the property that's on the other side of us is a shorter property, where even if we complied with the zoning code strictly, we would still be, our building structure would still even be deeper than their lot.
So there's no harm, no foul here under the circumstances.
So we did meet with the APM group, and they supported the project. And in a good vote, five yes, one no, and one undecided. Sometimes it's hard. We present a lot in front of APM. That's actually a very well-attended meeting for APM.
So it's really hard for people to get out there. So they meet in person. I believe there may be a hybrid function, but usually we'll have people meet in person.
And, you know, for this group in this neighborhood, this is very well attended nearby property.
So this is our property, 610. 612, as you can see, goes back rather deep, but that's a four unit.
And then there's other like multi-units. There's a four here, a five here, a three here and a three here. So not out of character to have multifamily that exceeds the limits of the Philadelphia zoning code.
And then this is the nearby dwelling. So this is what we're mimicking our property from. This is 612 West Norris Street. This is a nearby four-family dwelling, which is next door to us. 615 West Norris Street is a five-family dwelling. 611 West Norris Street is also a four-family dwelling.
And then I also have the zoning permit for 611 Norris Street. As you can see, this board granted it by way of variance at the end of last year under MI-2023-003507.
And then the aerial view of our property. So again, all we're trying to do is mimic the lot coverage of our property next door to us at 612 West Norwich Street. But you can also see here 608 West Norwich Street. It's much, much shorter than ours.
So even if we met the lot coverage requirements and rear yard setback requirements, our building structure would probably still be still deeper than the entire lot here.
So there are unique circumstances that warrant the approval of a variance here.
And then, again, we're not trying to take an RSA 5 property and increase the density.
This is squarely an RM1 part of the neighborhood, and there's multiple instances of properties that exceed the allowable density requirements under the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
And then here you can see as well where we are in the neighborhood.
This is the beginning of a commercial corridor on Germantown Avenue.
So in order to hopefully help support that commercial corridor, we're looking to increase density here.
This has been a vacant lot for some time, I believe for at least the last 10 years.
Photographs of the property.
Here you can see this is our vacant lot.
Our orange notice poster for the vacant lot.
West Norris Street to the right of the property.
West Norris Street to the left of the property.
And then our plans and drawings.
We try to mimic the Philadelphia architecture for this project.
So you can see it's a flat brick facade, lintels, even has some stonework on the base level.
And there's also a cornice line as well.
and there's also a cornice line as well and again even the windows mimic the traditional
And again,
philadelphia look and feel of of the row home and then our floor plans you walk in you have
two two two units on this floor unit b and unit a they're all one bedrooms one baths
and you know these are bi-level units so you have a living room and the kitchen on the first floor
of each and you have bedrooms below. And then if you go up to second floor, same thing, bi-level
units where you have a common staircase in the middle. Oh, one thing I did miss was there's a
trash room on the first floor. So it's really important to my client to be responsible about
trash storage and maintenance and disposal. So he has an internal trash room. We have no problems
with a proviso, trash stored in trash room on first floor. But you go up a flight of steps,
you know, in the middle, there's two more units, one to the left, one to the right,
same configuration. You have a kitchen, a living room, washer and dryers in all the units. And
then you go up a flight of steps. And here you have a bedroom and a study for each. Each of
these units are approximately 900 square feet. He chose this configuration to provide a lot of
light and air for the units so you have the benefit of the windows in the back as well as
the front of each of these units. RCO meeting notice we met earlier last month, September 12th
at 6 p.m. We emailed that notice a few weeks beforehand as well to the coordinating RCO as
well as other relevant parties. What we emailed them was proof of notice, this notice being
mailed to the community, and there were 104 addresses that this notice was mailed to.
These are the list of the addresses. Proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on the ENOM's behalf, along with the notice of refusal,
and then the project information form. The deed to the property showing that he purchased this
property in his personal name. Another thing, you know, again, he's taking true ownership of this.
He's not hiding behind a corporate entity. He's personally purchasing this property. He personally
purchased this property. He wants to add a nice four-unit dwelling in a neighborhood that, you
know, has seen not the best architecture, quite honestly, over the years. And here's our
certificate of tax clearance, showing that he owes no real estate taxes to the city.
I'm going to stop sharing my screen.
I just want to have him be sworn in.
I'll have him adopt my testimony as his own, and then we can always go back to the drawings
and we can answer any questions the board may have.
So, Enam, can you virtually raise your hand?
Enam Abazi, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer yes yes i can yes it's
enam abazi e-n-a-m last name a-b-a-z-i affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes please proceed counsel oh yes enam you heard everything i had to state today about
your zoning matter yes and is it true and correct yes and do you have and do you adopt uh this as
your own testimony yes all right and then specifically i just want to rehash this like
you purposefully have put a trash room on the first floor to be a responsible landlord
in terms of trash storage and uh disposal right correct and i also live in the neighborhood
my whole life, so 30 years.
And you put the property in your personal name as well, right?
Correct.
Questions from the board.
I have a question.
You said that you wanted to mimic the building next door.
Does the building next door have window wells in the rear and the front?
Let me ask you.
I would think so if it has basement living.
So let me see.
Let me share my screen.
and when i meant to mimic i meant the dimensions of the building
oh honestly their building is i think a stucco
facade so i don't think we want to mimic so you don't know if it's four units in
that oh no there's four units oh there's four
units in there that i do not live in in that that you know of or you may not
know i'm not though you know um let me just see what we have here in
terms of the pictures um i thought there was a picture of
um i thought there was a picture of the picture of it where is it you showed us it's like right
There's a picture of it.
Where is it?
here i'm trying to see i thought i saw another picture of it but maybe i'm wrong let me see if
i can see from google uh street view hold on a second let me stop sharing my screen let me see
yeah this pictures in 2021 it does not look like there's a window well but i would defer
to enum enum do you know if there's a window well in the front or back of the neighboring property
at 612 West Norris Street.
I do see a window well next door to that.
Let me just share my screen.
So if you look here, I do see a window well here.
And that's next next door to us.
So that's 614.
Is that correct, Enam?
Okay, and that does look like it has a window well.
I do not see a window well in the front.
Do you know if there's a window well in the back?
I do not.
I do know it is four units, though.
It's four units, and it's a three-story structure like ours.
Like, we're only seeking 35 feet high.
We're not even seeking four stories.
So I would think that they have a very similar configuration of some sort where there is living in the basement.
But I don't want to say that that's correct because I don't know for sure.
and and what was the uh the dimensional hardship for for having the uh the not do by right
well so a couple things we want we want to mimic what is at 612 west north street and
by having that additional depth in our building um we're having rooming our units each of the
units are 900 square feet um we we like by having that additional depth too we have the configuration
of the lock of the of the units where each unit has nice light and air they either have the front
windows or the back windows so it makes a more functional floor plan as well rather than feeling
too dark so these are bi-level units and we thought that that would make it nicer for the
community or the occupants. Also, it allowed us to put a trash
room right smack in the middle of the first floor. So
trash is not going to be stored outside. It's going to be stored inside and
remain there until trash day. And can you show how many
windows are in the basement besides the two window wells
from the front and the rear? Those, I believe that's it because
we're landlocked. So 612 is
but you know that's only part of our the lower level is only part of those units those first
floor and lower level units but you know because you know this is 612 right so you can't obviously
have window wells on this party wall i mean windows in this party wall and this is currently
a vacant lot right now so we can't put any windows on our property on the on the party wall but the
The windows that we're talking about are on the first, second, and third floors.
So the upper units are the second and third floors, which will have windows in the front and the back on each of those floors, the bi-level floors.
And then unit number one and two, which is on the first floor and lower level, will have the benefit of the windows, nice windows on the first floor, in the front and the back.
And then they'll have the window wells, you know, in the front and back as well.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
other questions from the board yeah so just to be clear we're saying that the 20-inch
print was specifically to make units more livable and to allow for the trash room
yeah well because of design i think this is a very unique design you don't see that i'm
going to share my screen again let's hopefully i share the right thing but let's see
so if you look at the floor plans we try to make it a little bit more interesting here so you have
like so a lot of times you'll see floor plans that go straight from front to back right and
you kind of get lost in the middle here where there's like a dark zone here we wanted to create
units where there's a unit here there's a unit here there's a that's two units there's a unit
here and the unit here that's in that's four units so we have this common staircase in the middle
we were able to create a trash room and then we're making them like bi-level units it's almost like
internally like almost like small row homes like i live in fairmont i grew up in i originally when
I live in Fairmont. I grew up in, originally when I purchased in Fairmont, I lived on a street called Bucknell.
i purchased in fairmont
It was like an 800 square foot home. So it was a two story, kind of like what this is right here.
So it kind of creates these like mini little homes within here that everyone has a decent amount of light and air.
And again, most importantly, instead of storing the trash on the first floor, just for the rear, for the first floor unit,
and everyone else has to, you know, fend for themselves upstairs, everyone has access to
this trash room. We needed to extra depth to like be able to do this the right way. And again,
the property next door to us, it has the same depth. I don't know what the configuration is
inside of there, but I think our architect tried to leverage it to make it a little bit more
interesting and then in terms of the backyard only one unit has access to the rear yard and
only one unit has access to the roof i believe that is the case enum is that correct
correct and then it's not is there on-site laundry yes each of the units have its own
washer and dryer each one they're stacked yeah they're stacked yeah i mean each but each unit
has its own yeah i'm just i'm just confirming what i'm seeing because it's not labeled but
i was making sure that yeah i think i think it's like right here you can see yeah next to the hvac
unit yeah they're stacked yeah other questions from the board yes can you explain uh how you're
meeting the least minimum variance with four units as opposed to three units well that's a good
question um again what we're trying to do is mimic a lot of the the housing in the neighborhood where
you saw, let me see if I use this. Here we go. There are these comparable properties. So I
really try to compare apples to apples as much as possible. As you can see, 612 is four. And then we
have 611, which across the street is four. By having the fourth unit, again, I know this is
not a zoning related matter, but it, from a practical standpoint, it makes it a doable
project. Like, and it also keeps it affordable as well. So like I said, Enom lives in the
neighborhood, very familiar with the neighborhood. It's, it's, you know, it's, it's a neighborhood
that needs more affordable housing. And he's looking to have this, you know, as one unit
bedrooms, one bedroom units, excuse me, and make it more affordable and making it
actual build right now this property has been vacant for well over a decade and it's been
really tough uh for anyone to do anything so we're hoping that the board uh you know feel so
inclined to grant four units but we are just short of the three unit requirement and you know
the board has to i defer to the board in that respect i think it makes it a more interesting
design by having that fourth unit.
Any questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning unit.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
David Fechto with the City Planning Commission,
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1, residential
multifamily zoning at this location. Two dwelling units are allowed by right. However, the proposed
four units on this lot is in keeping. I'm sorry, the proposed four units on this lot are in keeping
with the documented unit density on this block face and the block face across the street. The
toward grant their proposed use variance for four dwelling units and the associated dimensional
variances. MI 2024-004-761-610 West Norris Street, I vote yes. Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Joe Gaston my vote is yes it's not a grand my vote is yes anyone my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you counsel thank you number 14 MI 2024 004 766 720 Redline Road
David Orfanides is the attorney there's a letter of support from Greater Busselton Civic
There's a letter of support from Greater Busselton Civic Association, 31 to 9 in favor, and a letter of non-opposition from Councilman O'Neill.
association
Mr. Orphanidis is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Orphanides, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Are you a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly. My client is J-B-N-C, the owner of the property.
Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Mr. Orphanese, one point. We have Redline Central Management Company as the owner now?
Yeah, so they are the general partner of the entity that owns it, owns the property.
I can provide that documentation.
Okay, good.
That's fine.
That's good.
I just wanted to make sure we weren't making a mistake.
I noticed that in the OPA and they are involved, but they are not the actual deeded owner.
And I have a copy of the deed in my package.
Thank you, sir.
Everybody can see my screen?
We can.
Okay, great.
Let me just move this out of the way.
All right. So the property in question is 720 Red Lion Road. As you mentioned, we do have letters of two position letters. One is from the Greater Busselton Civic League, which you will see in my exhibit package was designated or confirmed as a coordinating RCO for this property.
We had a community meeting on September 24th.
It was an in-person meeting.
As you can see, there were 60 people in attendance.
It was very well attended.
Up at the American Heritage Building community room at 2060 Red Lion Road.
And as the chairman indicated, we do have support from the Greater Boston Civic League with a proviso.
And I'll go through that in a little bit.
We also, as mentioned, have the letter of non-objection or non-opposition from Councilman O'Neill, again, with further provisos that were submitted, and I will go through that.
The subject property is one of two parcels that make up the Camelot Shopping Center that's located on the southwest, approximately southwest corner of Varee and Red Lion Road.
And you can see right here, I've clouded the portion of the shopping center that is 720 Red Lion Road.
The other portion that extends down to the corner of Varee and Red Lion is 730 to 46 Red Lion Road.
They're owned by different entities, but by this, the same people are involved in both entities.
There was a question why we weren't able to submit the whole shopping center as one, and the unity of use application wouldn't have worked in this circumstance.
So we're doing this one separately, and we're successful today.
We'll come back.
This application is motivated by the need to or desire to expand one of the tenants in 720.
The rest of the property, there isn't any change in the unit use, but we would like to come back in the future for the same type of revisors that we're going to have in this case.
And again, I'll go through that in a minute.
So you'll see here at this end, the end furthest away of the shopping center is 720.
There is an exit in front of our portion of the shopping center where cars can come in and out.
There is parking on our portion. And then there's parking, obviously, the remainder of the shopping center.
A little bit more of a close up of the property to the to the to the west of us, approximately to the west of us.
Even though it says Arts and Music Center, it's an adult daycare.
And you'll see if I back up a little bit. There is an existing shopping center directly across the street.
There's a gas station down at the corner on the northwest corner.
There's another shopping center, Caddy Corner, across on the northeast corner.
Here's another aerial view.
And here you can see the end of the shopping center that is before the board today.
And as we spin around, you can see different three-dimensional views.
There is a paved area behind the strip of...
There is a paved area behind the strip of stores or commercial units where there are trashes stored and picked up, and there's a separate drive to access that.
So right now, the shopping center is utilized as follows, and here's an overall site plan.
720 has a restaurant located all the way at the West End, a nail salon, and then a butcher store, grocery store.
And then you can see the other uses extending down the Varee on the abutting property, 730 to 46 Red Lion.
The application today, and that's before you, and it was, again, motivated by the desire to expand the use of the sit-down restaurant that was approved in, I believe it was in 2005.
yes, it was approved in 2005 into the abutting unit that's presently utilized as a nail salon.
All the other uses will remain. And the reason why we're here today is because this property
is presently zoned CMX1. And you can see here, there's a map. This property and the properties
down to the south-southwest on Berea are zoned CMX1. The shopping center across the street and
gas station or CMX1. Then we have CA1, Caddy Corner, the shopping center across the way.
When the sit-down restaurant was permitted back in 2005, this property, both properties, 720
and then 730 to 46, were zone C2. And in fact, back in 1982, when 730 to 46 was permitted,
And 1985, when 720 was permitted, the property was zoned C2 commercial. C2 commercial allows for uses such as sit-down restaurants, which is the use that we're looking to apply.
However, in 2022, there was a remapping of a lot of properties up in this northeast section of Philadelphia that you can see here. Let me just zoom this out for a second.
and you can see here that there were 23 cmx2 properties that were remapped and they were
largely remapped to cmx1 and here you can see arpo in the key map number 16 is included included
our property which was down here in this corner down over to here and here's a blow up and you
can see here the existing CMX2 and then going to CMX1. So the issue that we have is that my client
desires to change the, expand the use of the sit-down restaurant. And you can see here the
existing. And what he wants to do is now have both units utilize as a sit-down restaurant.
The existing restaurant just wants to reach the demising wall between the two units and add
additional seats, has a good business. And with reasonable hours, generally it's a lunch crowd
and they're generally closed by five or six o'clock, open seven days a week. There's no proposed
live music or entertainment. It's simply to expand the use of the restaurant. That's again,
what motivated this. However, this application, however, in order to avoid needing to come back
for certain additional CMX2 permitted uses in the future,
uses that were permitted when the shopping center
was first authorized and permitted.
And up until 2022, similar to what we did on another project
up in this neighborhood, 1170 to 90 Surrey Road,
where we applied for uses that were permitted
in the CMX2 zoning district for a property
that was commercial in nature,
was an apartment building complex
with a commercial on the ground floor of one of the buildings.
We ultimately went to the zoning board, and you can see we went before the same group, and we kind of had two options.
One was to say, give us CMX2 with these certain uses cut out, and the other one was to say, let us keep it as CMX1 or have it with CMX1 permitted uses with a couple additional.
And you can see here, this was a letter from Greater Busselton, and actually, that's the language that the zoning board utilized in their decision a little over, well, about a year ago, actually, where they granted the CMX1 uses, and here they'd be confirming the CMX1 uses, they lifted or granted a variance for the 2,000 square foot occupied area limit for CMX1 uses.
So commercial uses in CMX1 are permitted only to occupy 2,000 square feet per use.
So, again, this is a strip shopping center.
Having the restriction of not allowing a sit-down restaurant, not allowing a prepared food shop like a coffee shop or an ice cream store.
Not allowing a prepared food shop like a coffee shop or an ice cream store or a commissary and catering service and or allowing those but then restricting them to 2000 square feet is a hardship meets the criteria for the granting of the variance, both in this situation and even more so in the present situation where you have a commercial shopping center.
So this was the language that was discussed between me, the Greater Busselton Civic League, and Councilman O'Neill's office, and this is the language we came up with and then made it into the zoning board's notice of decision, and then again was copied right into the permit.
So this is the language. I basically cut and pasted that language, even though I requested CMX2 uses. I actually, if I went through and showed you my zoning permit application, I tried to do this with my application to kind of save everybody some hassle and aggravation of needing to do a proviso.
but LNI wasn't able to either get their head around it or weren't able to process it through
Eclipse and so I had to take a notice of refusal that was oops let me go to my notice of refusal
not the prior one here you can see my notice of refusal that other one was for Surrey Road
where I applied for the CMX2 uses and CMX2 signage and I got the refusals for both in the
provides a language that we utilized for Surrey Road, and then I presented to the community at
our community group meeting on the 24th. Again, it was a CMX1 uses with the variance for the
square footage limitation, adding the three additional uses that we did, the CMX2 permitted
uses that we did with Surrey Road, and then adding CMX2 signage. The reason I do the CMX2
signage is CMX1 has extremely limited signage rights. Here's CMX1. It doesn't allow freestanding
signs at all. It allows one square foot of wall signage on the short side, 0.5 square footage on
the long side. I mean, it's already obviously in non-conformance the way it is as a regular
shopping center, where CMX2 allows for typical type of commercial signage. So the application
and the proviso that we put to the community group allowed for, again, CMX1 uses with a couple
additional CMX2, including the one that we're actually at issue here, which is expanding the
sit-down restaurant, along with the CMX2 signage. And those are the provisos that are referenced
in the, if I scroll back up, in the Greater Busselton Civic League, you can see here they
reference the expansion of the existing restaurant. They say with no other change of use,
signs or off-street parking for the restaurant. Again, no live entertainment, no dancing,
no assembly and entertainment, nothing along those lines. And then they utilize the same language
that I just provided to you that I presented to the community. And then that language is
referencing councilman o'neill's uh and councilman o'neill's letter um you can see here let's go
so just a little little bit some visuals for you here's 720 here's the existing restaurant registron
here's the existing nail salon that we want to expand into breach the wall and then here's the
existing butcher shop grocery store. And then here's again the existing restaurant. Interior
photos, you can see this is what it looks like right now. There are about 40 seats in there right
now. The idea is either have a single opening or a larger opening, remove these banquettes and
these tables and chairs, and then have more seating on the other side. And again, this all
This all comes about because of the remapping of this property, which then changes certain uses, like the sit-down restaurant, from a permitted use to a non-conforming use under 14305 of the zoning code.
We did, again, we had the community meeting on September 24th.
We sent out our 14303 to a pretty limited list of addresses.
weren't a lot of properties because of the commercial nature surrounding the property.
Again, to answer your question, here is the deed for the current property. It's a general
partner. Here it references Red Lion Central Management, which is the general partner of
JB&C, which is a limited partnership. So that's, I think, how the OPA got the Red Lion Central
management co inc as the owner but again they're just a general partner we have our tax clearance
certificate here's a copy of the hearing notice for today's hearing and then the posting photos
Here's a copy of the hearing notice for today's hearing, and then the posting photos at the property, which you can see here.
So, again, we feel that there is a true hardship here.
It's clearly a commercial property.
It's a property that a use such as a sit-down restaurant would be what was appropriate, still is appropriate.
It's not going to impact the roadways.
There was no proposed change to the height or area of the existing structure, so no impact on air and light to surrounding properties, and that we otherwise meet the criteria for the granting of the variance under 14303, 8E, 0.1, and 0.2 for the use variances.
And with that, I'd ask that hopefully my client is still with us.
It's getting a little late in the day.
Try to make this as brief as possible.
If Jack Bienenfeld can raise his hand, I would have him adopt my statements that I made to the board.
Jack Bienenfeld, unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Jack Bienenfeld, B as in boy, I-E-N-E-N-F-E-L-D.
You're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Hey, Jack.
Welcome.
Did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
Yes, I did.
And are they correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they were.
And would you adopt them as your own?
I would.
And just to be clear, J.B. and C. is the owner of the property, correct?
Correct.
And then Red Lion is the general partner, as I indicated, and as shown in the deed, correct?
Correct.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair.
um uh mr vanities that the proviso that was suggested um i think it needs to be adapted
a little bit because the other situation didn't have cmx1 zoning it was already cmx1 zoning at
this property so i just just to clarify what what is what has been agreed to i guess by all the
parties is a variance for the 2 000 square foot occupied area requirement um allowing a sit-down
restaurant prepared food shop and commissary and catering services as well as accessory signage
cmx2 signage correct yeah sorry cmx2 signage okay because i don't think we need the cmx
i i wouldn't party like the uses because it's already done cmx1 you you are you are correct
But for purposes of going to the community, I did that because there were concerns about the way the wording of the application was and what have you.
So I'm fine with that not being that way because it is already zoned CMX1, but I was trying to keep it apples to apples for purposes of the presentation and to keep it simple.
But I don't think that what you've suggested would negatively impact what we're talking about.
So, although the refusal does say for all uses permitted in CMX2, so that's not what you're asking for now. It's just those three additional uses.
Yeah, I tried doing it this way with my application and they wouldn't take it. So I had to, I had to settle for that, which caused some concerns with some, some interested parties, but I had to explain to them that we were going to be doing the same thing we did on Surrey Road by, you know, obviously that was not a CMX1 property.
So this might be a little simpler, but by adding certain things to the CMX1 permitted uses and then removing the certain uses to the CMX1 permitted uses and then adding the CMX2 signage.
Okay. All right. Well, since the refusal specifically references CMX2 uses and we'll just use the same language, I just wanted to clarify that all the additional uses were the same that you were requesting.
the sit-down restaurant prepared food shop commissary and catering services those are the
additional cmx2 uses you're requesting okay we can work it out if you know yeah no i think i think
the proviso is fine as as is just the clear since the refusal specifically references all cmx2 uses
and that's not what is now that what has now been agreed to it's cmx1 which is what it is
plus those three additional uses and the only reason i put again is to keep apples to apples
but again to keep that proviso because it was intentionally these properties for reasons that
if you know alice is on udavich can speak to if anybody really wanted to know but because of
their wanting to be nothing to do with like a general cmx2 right here that's why i reiterated
Right. That's why I reiterated CMX1 because of the refusal was to really drive home. There's nothing about what's going to happen here. That's CMX2. Everything's CMX1 except for these additional uses. So we might want to still keep it in just even as a-
CMX1 because of the
review.
Yes. No, I think that's fine. Yeah. No, I think that's fine. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Hillary, I think we went full circle there. Are we going to use the CMX1?
Yes, yes.
We'll keep the CMX1 language in there, even though the property is known CMX1.
But we do need a variance for the square footage limitations in CMX1.
Any other three users?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
No, hold on a moment, Chair.
Alice should be on.
Alice Udovich just had her hand up, but she put it back down.
Ms. Udovich, can you raise your hand?
She didn't put her hand back up, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Vecto, City Planning Commission, Chairman and Board members.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from CMX1 commercial mixed use to CMX2 commercial mixed use.
This property has a documented history as a sit-down restaurant, which is allowed in the proposed zoning.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed uses as permitted in the CMX2 commercial zoning district
and sign types as permitted in the CMX-2 Commercial Zoning District.
MI 2024-004-766-720 Red Lion Road.
I vote yes with proviso.
This approval is for all uses permitted in the CMX-1 Zoning District
with a variance for 2,000 square feet foot occupied area limit.
The following additional uses are also approved, sit-down restaurant, prepared food shop, commissaries, and catering, along with accessory signage as permitted in the CMX2 zoning district.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Ayewan, my vote is yes with Provisos.
ishmael shaheed my vote is just with provisos thank you counsel thank you all right number 15
mi 2024 004 870 2051 walnuts joseph consul is the attorney um excuse me mr chair i just i just
wanted to interject briefly i think there were some people waiting for the clearfield street case
That case was continued at the start of this list because it has not undergone civic design review yet.
So if you're waiting for the Clearfield case, I apologize that you've been waiting, but that case has been continued by the board.
Thank you.
Mr. Consul.
And you're in.
Here you go, Mr. Consul.
Just for the record, state your name.
Joseph Consul.
All right.
There's a letter of non-opposition of the Center City Residence Association with enforceable provisos.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Florian Furque.
He is the owner of the Leesor Company, which is Taco Delphia.
our vice chair has just a few questions
good afternoon council do you agree to wait another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and required
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing uh yeah we did we had the tax
balance but we have a um tax clearance certificate that i believe came in today which
good and i'll see it up on the screen as well okay thank you please proceed um council okay
uh my client is florian firq he has one location of taco delphia which is on broad street
uh broad and lombard it's been successful for a number of years he's seeking to open another
location at 2051 walnut street it is going to be an eat-in with only 10 seats and take out
restaurant. Primarily, he does grab and go. You can think of it, you know, as like a Chipotle
You know, it's like a Chipotle sort of thing. You put your food together, bowl, you know, tacos, burritos, and you take it and go.
sort of thing. You put your food together, bowl, you know, tacos, burritos.
And so we have a referral for eating and drinking establishment, takeout restaurant.
And we're here to seek approval for the referral.
Proof of mailing. Letter to the neighbors. Postings.
This is the property. It's the corner of 20th and Walnut.
He's got an entrance on one side and then an entrance on the other side here regarding things like trash.
This building, because it's a larger building with a lot of units, is providing its commercial tenants with trash pickup as part of his lease.
And there's trash storage in the back of the building, which you can't see in this photo, but it's where all the tenant trash ends up.
And it's where all the commercial trash from this property will end up and will be taken out.
There's also a coffee shop further down the block here as part of the same building.
We went in front of CCRA.
We got their non-opposition.
They told us they don't issue support.
and so that's what it is. My client has a five-year lease with several options to renew
for five years after that, assuming all goes well. We have the plans that show the interior layout
and you know here's we've got like the 10 seats to just two tables of four and then two counter
seats, the kitchen layout, the bathroom layout and everything like that that's required for
the outfit of this property. We discussed with the RCO things like delivery times and this,
that, and the other, and they seem to be on board. They put some provisos in their letter.
All takeout food should be provided in bags displaying the restaurant's name. My client
does that already. All trash will be internally stored. We've agreed to that in the rear of the
building. And deliveries were made through the side entrance on 21st Street. I showed you all
the side entrance uh which is like further down in this picture here um besides that it's should
be a nice addition to to this block and i don't believe we have any opposition so i'll ask my
client florian for a cue to raise his hand if i could there it is from a different angle
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer florian please unmute yourself
Yeah, just did.
Why could you please state your name, sir, and spell for this?
My name is Florian Forgiu, F-L-O-R-I-A-N, and the last name is F-U-R-X-H-I-U.
You swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I swear.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good afternoon, Florian.
How are you?
Hey, John.
did you hear my testimony just now yes i did uh your second location of taco delphia proposed at
2051 walnut street yep do you agree with my testimony and do you adopt it as your own
i do thank you nothing further questions from questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Vecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CMX4 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts beyond what might normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant a proposed special exception for a takeout restaurant.
MI 2024-004-870-2051, Walnut Street.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.
I just wanted to mention, if the board is inclined to grant,
I would include a proviso that the use is limited to the first floor
because there are other uses in the building.
Yeah, you have it.
Okay, thank you.
It's there.
Thank you.
MI 2024-004-870-2051, Wilmington Street.
I vote yes with provisos.
Interior trash storage, all deliveries through the side door on North 21st Street, and use limited to first floor.
My vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tannetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Iowyn, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Iowyn, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Counsel, you have your votes.
Thank you, Lord.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I've seen no hands, Chair.
We're going to take a five-minute break, then we're going to come back and do the 3.30 list.
I think we only have two cases, so we'll be right back.
Thanks, everybody.
We have nine attendees, so you can start as you wish.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this meeting.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our deputy director, Kathleen Grady.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
Video will be available by contacting ZBA Executive Director at phila.gov.
For a court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for testimony.
All questions relative to that should be referred to with our Deputy Executive Director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's go look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number two, MI 2024-002-779-6907-211 Tarsdale Avenue.
That case is continued attorney moving party.
Number five, MI 2024-003-189-2230-232 East Venango Street, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
And number six, MI 2024-003-191-10800 Busselton Avenue, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Javette Benton. I'll be your co-host for this afternoon. I see no hands at this time.
All right, thank you. So, number one, MI2023-002-575-6531 North 7th Street.
Owner applicant is Ortelin Bowser and also Ortelin Zagarin. No exhibits, fourth listing.
we believe there may be a withdrawal here that we're waiting for a letter
is there anyone in the audience
chair we have verne anastasio with his hand up
anastasio
okay he put his hand down share i don't see any other hands so we're waiting for a letter but
this is our fourth listing we still do not have any exhibits so mi 2023 mr chair i just want to
know for the record um we received uh an email request for withdrawal not from the applicant
but someone else. We told them back in July that a written letter needed to be submitted from
the owner applicant that we have not received to date. So I'm going to request a dismissal for
this. So MI 2023-002-575-6531 North 7th Street, fourth listing, no exhibits. I vote to dismiss.
Michael Johns, my vote is to dismiss. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
And number four, MI 2024, 003-148-2838 Hansel Street.
This is the first listing.
Albert Bursareth is the listed owner.
It's pro say.
No exhibits.
Mr. Bosa-Doreth.
Mr. Bursareth.
I see no hands here.
MI 2024-003-143-2838 Cancel Street.
Cases continue. Mark must be heard.
And then I have
Number three
Carl Street
Catherine White
Is the listener
Applicant
We have an email
Received from someone
we need a letter requesting a withdrawal. Is your Catherine White in the audience?
Chair, we have a hand up, but the name is not Catherine White. The name is Yvette Young.
Let's see if they have anything to do with the case. Yvette Young,
please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes. Did you call 6531 North 7th Street?
Ma'am, that was an add-on on the 2 p.m. list. That was voted some time ago.
chair you can continue
do we see anybody with number four there are no hands about this time chair
so mi 2024 003 143 2838 cancel street cases to continue mark must be heard and then i also have
the catherine white do we see anything with catherine white for the withdrawal
2832 Carl Street
there's no one in the audience
by that names here
this is still the first listing
so MI 2024
003 041
2832 Carl Street
cases continued
Mark must be heard
start with number 8
MI 2024
Frankfort Avenue.
Anastasia is the attorney.
Mr. Anastasia is coming back in as a panelist here.
Good evening, Mr. Chair.
This is a reconsideration hearing. Could you identify your client?
Yes. Relationship to the property? Yes, Mr. Chair.
I represent Ms. Natalie Ramos, who is one of the owners of the property in question.
All the prior testimony from the prior hearings, we've adapted and we will have that.
I understand that you have some additional information you would want to provide or new information.
Yes, sir.
Why don't we start with that?
And my understanding, just so you know, we're not going to vote on this today because we won't have other people look at the film that we have the video from before.
Very well. I just what I'm going to show you in my exhibit packet, which is about 91 pages, I'm only going to show you those items that the board has not seen as of yet.
Thank you.
Yeah. Here's something that wasn't reviewed at the previous hearing. This is the property in question. As you can see, it's sort of on an island. Yes, it is zoned CMX2 as the refusal states.
But we contend that it's it's really should not be zoned that because this is all automobile related and vehicle related services and uses up and down the corridor.
As you can see across the street, there's a Sunoco gas station. Right down here is a huge mall with a shop right. Beyond that is the Union League, the country club with swimming pools, tennis courts, and an 18-hole golf course, all for several hundred folks and, of course, several hundred parking spots.
So all of this here, with the exception of this residential area here, is very vehicle oriented.
And as such, we do believe the personal vehicle service and repair use is consistent with these uses here.
I'm going to go to page 61 of the exhibit.
Page 61 of the exhibit is a letter from the owner that wasn't addressed at the previous hearing was the fact that my clients have been in business for many years and not at this particular location.
There's a letter.
And they have engaged throughout the years Emanuel Tire of Pennsylvania, which is a tire recycling company that comes and visits their site and will visit this site several times a week to remove the tires that are no longer in use and recycle them.
We have proof and evidence in the packet today that I'll move into evidence that shows that the existing service contract is already in place with Emanuel Tire Company, in addition to the Lorco Petroleum Services Company.
Any oil that is extracted from the personal vehicles would be removed on an every-other-day basis by Lorco Petroleum Services.
Both Emanuel Tire details of that company and details of the Lorco Petroleum Services are included in the packet as well.
I believe we even pulled from their website so you could see the long history and the certifications that both companies have in ensuring a clean environment for a facility like this.
I'm going to take you in the event that this wasn't presented before.
There's overwhelming support by the community for this use.
In fact, and you'll see in a moment, but I want to go back to this photo of the several dozen signatures of support and of the folks who attended the RCO meeting.
Several live right here, right across the street, in residential homes, across the street from this site, which is, they are clearly the most impacted.
In addition to overwhelming support from the community, RCO, I personally spoke with the Office of Council Member Mike Driscoll.
As such, he not only he did not give a letter of non-opposition, he gave a letter of full support for this use because CMX2, you know, it'll bring uses that cannot and will not serve the immediate neighbors.
You're looking at a Burger King. You're looking at a McDonald's. That's not what the council member, nor do the majority of the members of the community want.
offering a place where personal vehicle repair and service,
no painting, no materials going into the earth,
all responsibly being removed is exactly and precisely
what the community and the council member would want here.
So as you can see, this is a letter for support,
not just non-opposition.
So that's in addition, we have these letters of from the immediate neighbors.
As you can see, there's several dozen.
And then there's proof of engagement of the companies that I've already discussed with the tire recycling.
and the oil removal, environmental mitigation efforts.
These are all proof that they've been in business with these companies for quite a long time.
Here's the Petroleum Services Company, and they will continue to do that at this particular site.
pages 80 to 91 are the detailed information on these companies and their services
and they're fully accredited
this is the new information that was not excuse me made available to the zoning board
at the last hearing because we've addressed the environmental remediation issues, the
longstanding relationship my clients have with these tire recycling companies and oil
removal, and the frequency with which they deal with them, and because we've been able
to demonstrate that several of the immediate neighbors signed that petition with several
dozen signatures of support, in addition to the overwhelming support of the RCO and the
In addition to the overwhelming support of the RCO and the explicit support of the district council person, who ultimately is the judge and jury when it comes to uses in a particular council district, we respectfully request the board reconsider its position and vote to grant this variance.
explicit support.
If not permanently, then at the very least, at a temporary basis, to allow my clients to prove to the board and to L&I that they'll be good stewards of this property and the community.
Thank you.
Byron, would you want to have your client adapt your new testimony?
I do. She's right with me.
I've never done this one before, so hold on.
Okay, go ahead.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, good afternoon. My name is Natalie Ramos, N-A-T-A-L-Y, Ramos, R-A-M-O-S.
Or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Ramos, did you hear my presentation to the board this evening?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have nothing further.
I know the board has not seen the first hearing. Do you have any questions about what Mr. Anastasio just mentioned, just presented?
Hillary, do you have any additional questions?
I do not, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission, A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Are you here to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing commercial use, CMX2, at this location.
Proposed use is not likely to cause such mental impacts to surrounding properties due to the large lot size and lack of abutting residences.
Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for vehicle repair and vehicle equipment sales.
We're going to make available the original video to the board members that would need to see it, right, Hillary?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
And then we can vote and they will certify that they have watched the video of the original.
Because most of them were not by next by next Wednesday. Oh, yes, we can. Yes. Next ones. Absolutely.
That's great. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Number seven, MI 2024, 004, 340, 2708 Commerce Way. Alan Nocklinson is the attorney.
there's a recommendation of unanimous support from the parkwood civic association
42 and support zero against and there's a letter non-opposition from council member o'neill
he's coming back in as a panelist now chair
good afternoon mr chair alan knockamson knockamson could you um you've already been sworn could you
identify your client the relationship to the property oh yes it's a kinder college uh the
operator of the business on the first floor hopefully extended to the second floor of this
property our vice chair has a few questions sir good afternoon council do you agree to wait to
read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
oh yes we have thanks council please proceed and share your screen thank you
hi um i think this is a straightforward uh project first of all beautiful building
i would have to say um you wouldn't think that this is an i1 uh property but it is
And you'll see in the refusal that this is just an extension of a nonconforming use.
In 2011 or 2010, I believe, this board granted a use to allow the first floor to be used as a child care center.
And this is a two-story structure.
My clients are looking to expand that use because the expansion of this nonconforming use is more than 10% of what was previously approved.
of what was previously approved, we have to come back.
we have to come back. So originally it was 16,000
So originally it was 16,000 square feet on the first floor.
Now we're seeking a total of 28,000 square feet
for the entire building.
So during my presentation, we'll review the notice of refusal.
We have a letter of support
from Parkwood Area Civic Association.
We had 42 members of the community
unanimously support this project
and five of their board members of the coordinating RCO.
That typically does not happen. So I think it's definitely something that speaks volumes about, you know, the viability of this business and the reputation of this business as a child care center in the Northeast Philadelphia.
In addition to the letter of support we got from the coordinating RCO because of the overwhelming support from the community, Council Member O'Neill also sent a letter in non-opposition to the granting of this variance request.
My next exhibit's zoning permit showing that, you know, we are legal for the first floor and all we're looking to do is an extension of that use to the second floor.
Gave some literature about Kinder College, you know, in Exhibits 4 and 5.
Five is reviews.
My client, you know, that's online.
My client is a four-star Keystone certified facility.
That's the highest ranking you can get from the state.
So well-regarded, well-known, and, you know, again, obviously heavily regulated by the state.
So in addition to this process to get the potential use approved for the second floor of this building, every year my client has to have pass inspections and be recertified.
So, you know, as the board knows.
Then in terms of the certification process and what my client has in terms of credentials, that's my Exhibit 6, and you'll see a ton of certificates and such.
I also have Rita Zolion, who is the head of Kinder College, who can answer any questions you may have about the operations and the intended operations of the business.
Then we'll have an aerial view of the property.
We have, in addition to this rather large building that's on a 91,000-square-foot lot and on a building that's 28,000 square feet, there is parking of 67 parking spaces here, and you can see that from the aerial view.
We're not causing any impact to the community at all, and actually we're an asset, in my opinion.
Then maps of the area, photographs of the property.
I got photographs of the premises, like, you know, again, from the literature, you can see it's well maintained.
Our plans and drawings of the first floor as well as the upper floor.
Our RCO meeting notice, as you saw, is a very well attended meeting, unanimous support.
But we also have proof of mailing of that notice to the affected properties.
These are applications for appeal that we filed on behalf of the leasee.
I do have the deed to the property as well as the lease to the property.
I believe that the property owner, Felix Damarski, is also in the virtual audience, just to be here as an interested party, and our certificate of tax clearance showing that no taxes are due on the calendar property.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Rita virtually raise her hand, be sworn in, and then I'll have a few questions for her.
So notice the refusal here.
Again, this is an I-1 property.
It looks nothing like an I-1 property.
It's a very pretty property in Northeast Philadelphia.
It's basically on its own island with 67 parking spots.
As you can see for the applications, for an increase in the nonconforming use child care center from 16,000 square feet to 28,000 square feet, because the increase is 75%, which is more than 10% of the nonconforming use, another variance must be granted under the circumstances.
Even though it's an I-1 property, it really does not have a history of industrial use, and it doesn't look like an industrial property at all.
Letter of support, as you can see, five board members from the RCO, as well as 42 community members, unanimously support the granting of this variance.
And because of that, Council Member O'Neill also sent a letter in non-opposition to this project.
This is the zoning permit showing evidence of illegal use on the first floor.
You can also see from here, it doesn't show the calendar number and date, but if you looked at the notice of refusal, this was previously approved on the first floor, and now we're looking at the extension of the child care center to the second floor.
A little bit about KinderCare. This is the literature here. Currently, there's 150 students on the first floor, 25 teachers and aides. You have, let's see, two cooking staff on the premises. You have a director, a manager, and Rita as the head of the operations there.
A little bit about kinder care.
This is the literature here.
Currently, there's 150.
There is cooking on the premises, which is legal through a commercial kitchen.
They make meals for the kids for breakfast, lunch, and in some cases, dinner for after school operations.
The business runs during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Rita has been in this industry for over 20 years.
and they have extensive program of education as well as other things that you expect of a daycare
of this sort. The kids range in age from infants as young as eight weeks old to Rita told me that
they do have some aftercare capabilities for kids up to 12 years old as well.
And again, they are designated as a four-star Keystone certified facility because of their quality of services and due to inspections.
Just pictures of some of the meals that they serve and about their enrollment.
And these are reviews we just got off of Google, but very well regarded with their customers.
And then these are some of their certificates.
They have a food establishment and personal food safety certificate.
It's not comprehensive, but I want to give you as many as I can get from the client.
A safe certification.
This is some of their, again, if you look at their menu for the week, this is an example of one week of food.
They have a license.
This is their License Eligibility Report, their Environmental Assessment, their Food Facility Inspection Report, and then this is an aerial view of the property.
You can see here's the playground. It's rather large in the rear.
Ample parking of 67 parking spaces.
Most people come through this little entrance here.
There is another entrance with steps, but most people come here.
The drawings are hard to read.
They're more construction drawings than anything else.
But, you know, this is where the offices are.
The kids, the younger kids are in the left wing.
The older kids are on the right wing currently on the first floor.
And all my client's looking to do is basically do that on the upper floors where the younger kids on the second floor would be on the left wing.
The older kids would be on the right wing.
My understanding of the kitchen is out here and garbage is stored outside in the rear.
Maps of the area, again, it's more of like a corporate industrial center, but it's on its own island, so it's not disrupting anyone.
And because of the ample parking, it really has no disruption to the community and it's very helpful for the parents.
And then photographs of the property, again, a very handsome property.
these are the orange notice posters
that my client posted
in front of the property
this is commerce way to the right of the property
to the left of the property
premises photos
that my client has
which you'll probably find on their website
of their classrooms
of their outdoor area
again we're just trying to get
an extension of that use on the second floor.
And then our plans and drawings. This is the left wing on the ground floor. And as I indicated,
if you look here, this is kind of the hub of the office and reception area. These are the classrooms
for the younger kids. Again, everything's dictated and regulated by the state of how many teachers
and aides are required for each room. Each room has its own bathroom. This is the restrooms for
the staff, which they're ample. And then this is the left side. This side is more so for the older
kids. And this is on the first floor. And then again, this is what we're seeking an extension.
And really, it's the same thing. You got ample bathrooms. You have the kids' classrooms,
You have the kids' classrooms, the younger, younger kids' classrooms on the second floor are to the left.
So younger, younger kids classrooms on the first, on the second.
The older kids' classrooms are to the right.
We met with the community on September 18th at 7.30 p.m.
We emailed that notice that we sent out along with proof of mailing of that notice to the relevant parties.
even though there are only nine addresses
within the affected area
we almost had attendance of almost 50 individuals
who are in support of this
our application for appeal
along with the notice of refusal
and the project information form
lead to the property
just so you have everything of the current property owner
this property is owned by a company called Star Comfort
and then you can see there's a lease
between Kinder College and Star Comfort.
And then finally, the Certificate of Tax Clearance.
So I would ask that Rita virtually raise her hand
and be sworn in.
Felix, Damarski, please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Felix Demarski.
It's G-Y-M-A-R-S-K-Y.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
So, Mr. Chair, Felix is the owner of the property.
I was actually reaching Farida.
I mean, he can adopt a lot of the stuff.
i don't know he's gonna be able to adopt the testimony regarding the actual daycare why don't
why don't we get rita yeah i'm here oh okay they're together could you read it could you state
your name and spell for the stenographer sure uh good afternoon my name is rita's land r-i-t-a
the last name is z-o-u-l-o-i-a-n we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes i do please proceed counsel thank you uh rita you heard everything i had to state today
about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes do you adopt as your own testimony
yes is there anything i missed about the operations of of the child care center that you may want to
share with the board you don't have to i just wanted to make sure everything was correct thank
you so much all right thank you questions from the board yes i guess i'm uh trying to make sure
I am considering this correctly.
This is it's an increase in a nonconforming use.
Is that what we're really doing here?
So when was the nonconforming use established?
Do we know?
So if you look at this, the zoning on, let me just open this up.
But in 2010, the this board granted.
And this use, I just want to get back to the front, in 2010, it granted a daycare on the first floor, a big first floor, 16,000 square foot first floor.
The second floor was a non-daycare.
So my client's been very successful over the last, over the last decade.
I'm not, I'm not going there.
But if it was granted by the board, then it's not a nonconforming use.
I'm just reading what the refusal says.
Like, so it's we're extending a use that has been previously approved by the board by way of variance.
So that's what I'm trying to get at.
This is not what I'm seeing. What I have as far as my notes are that this is a nonconforming use and you're asking to expand it. And that would run you into, of course, excessive expansion because it would be far more than a 10% than the code allows.
And so at 75%, you'd need a variance for that. But what you're really doing is the initial 16,000 square feet was approved by the board by variance. And then you want to extend that variance even further. So that has to come to us. That's what we're doing here.
so i i would defer to the board in terms of interpretation of the code and would you know to
yeah to miss emerson but i think if we would have hypothetically like added say 10 right so we're
10%, right? So we're at 16,000 square feet. If we would have added 10% more to 17,600, I don't think we would have needed a variance. I think it's a poor choice of words in the refusal, but you can extend a variance of a use up to a certain degree as long as it's de minimis under the circumstances.
16 000 square feet if we would have added 10 percent
You can, if it's non-conforming, then yes. But if it's granted by the board, by variance, then no. You have to ask for permission to expand it no matter what.
So I'm just trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing here. And what I heard you say was you were asking for a variance for this additional 12,000 square feet, which I agree with. That's what I think you need. I'm just saying that I just want to make sure that when we do this, we're doing the right thing in terms of what we are granting to you. Okay. So that was my question.
Any other questions?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Oh, sorry, Chair.
I did have a question.
Is this that the daycare is now going to be utilizing 100% of the property?
So I would defer to Rita and Felix.
Can you answer Board Member Wynn's question?
I just want to confirm.
I believe that is the case.
Are you now using 100% of the building for the child care center, Rita?
No, we're not using the 100% of the building, no.
Okay, there is a portion of the building that is not for the daycare?
Do we know where it is?
Because when you showed the plans, you showed the whole building.
That's why I understood, too.
We have a third floor, too.
We're not using the third floor.
Okay, so just the second floor.
That was my mistake.
and i guess is there another tenant on the third floor no no it's empty third floor is empty yeah
and how many square feet is the third floor
six six six thousand square feet okay so that that's basically
the 25 is left that you're talking about here yes correct gotcha okay
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to follow up on what board member Gaston said.
It does appear that this is incorrectly categorized as a non-conforming use.
It was never conforming to begin with.
It was granted by variance.
So any expansion of the use does need to come through the zoning board.
So, I mean, the result is the same either way for the applicant.
you just want to clarify because miss gaston is right this is not this is not technically a
non-conforming use thank you thank you from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends the changing
and zoning at this location from light industrial i1 to medium industrial i2 under the recommended
designation this refusal will be consistent the proposed use is not likely to impact adjacent
properties the planning commission recommends that the board grant the request advance for
expanding non-conforming daycare use all right we want to mention this is the first and second floor
we can i mean it mentions the square footage increase which you normally don't see on the
refusal but it did it because it because the person reviewing it thought it was non-conforming
but we can do that if we would like to clarify
and we clarify too that we are granting a variance for that expansion right not
mi 2024 004 340 2708 commerce way i vote yes proviso occupies first and second floor
michael johns my vote is yes with provisor
cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso
tennetta graham my vote is yes with proviso
ayewen my vote is yes with proviso
thank you uh thank you alan you have your votes
you have a great night guys okay thank you um is there anyone in the
virtual audience whose case has not been called
I see no hands share
i see no hands share um thanks everybody we've got a lot of work done today so i appreciate
everybody hanging in there when we're getting done a reasonable time too so everybody
enjoy the night everybody thank you thank you all be safe
have a good night good night everybody good night