Thank you.
how do we look
well chair currently is stopped at 25 attendees you can proceed as you wish
thank you good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will
be chairing this morning's eba hearing with me as our vice chair ismail shaheed
President, Mr. Chairman
Our board member, Thomas Holloman
President, Mr. Chairman
And our board member, James Snell
President, Mr. Chairman
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney
and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett
Here's our virtual format
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded
The video will be available by contacting
Tanya Sunkett at phil .gov
For the benefit of our court sonographer
we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
To enter the period of statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is now for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at our schedule for today.
Number three, MI 2023 -003 -085, 3550 North 6th Street.
That case is continued.
Number four, MI 2023 -003 -8487, 90 Rochelle Avenue.
This case is continued attorney moving party.
Number five, I want to have an update for that.
So that's MI 2023, 005 -160 -319 Cherry Street.
David Orfanides is the attorney for the appellant.
Also involved is Meredith Verliger and Leonard Reuter from the city.
Mr. Chair, I don't believe Mr. Reuter is available yet, but Mary Costello is also here from the city, so I believe she can speak as well. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Meredith Ferliger here.
Good morning. Meredith, just for the record, state your name and spell, please, for the court sonographer.
Sure. Meredith, M -E -R -E -D -I -T -H, Ferliger, F -E -R -L -E -G -E -R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. Mr. Orphanides?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Sure. David Orphanides. Last name is spelled O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mary Costello?
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer, please?
It's Mary Costello, M -A -R -Y -C -O -S -T -E -L -L -O.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And I believe Attorney Reuter should be logging in momentarily as well.
Thank you.
Let's wait one more minute.
We see Leonard.
Not yet, Chair. He has an old name.
Well, we're going to start. So, Mr. Orphanides, are you ready for today's hearing?
Yes, we're ready to proceed.
Excuse me, Chair. We have a hand up under a user, Lisa Kennedy. I'm not sure if Mr.
we have a hand up under a user lisa kennedy i'm not sure if mr reuter might be underneath her
username why don't we just double check okay lisa kennedy you're free to speak
um the councilman said that i needed to log in to agreeance to the continuance because my rco
is on may 4th okay ma 'am we was uh okay we were speaking for this case um you can raise your hand
wants to chair uh announces your case yeah okay thank you so mr mr orphanese you're ready to
to proceed today am i correct
mr orphanetes
artist uh yes mr chairman are you are you are you ready to proceed today uh mr chairman we we
certainly were ready to proceed today but uh with all due respect to my colleague mr rufandides
he did not submit his exhibits five days in advance and submitted about 200 pages worth of
exhibits at 2 30 in the morning uh so we we are more than happy to proceed but uh mr chairman uh
we and i would imagine the city would take the same position have had no opportunity to review
200 pages uh this morning to to adequately prepare now i i'm confident that we could proceed
uh without that review but we would ask the board to uh prohibit mr orphanetes from relying on any
of the exhibits that he submitted at 2 30 in the morning if the board is going to proceed today
if i can orphanetes sure so um there was some uncertainty whether my client was going to be
present uh we were going to be able to proceed this at the proceeding today and that's the reason
why our exhibits weren't submitted last week.
We confirmed yesterday
and we got the exhibits submitted as soon.
And yes, it was late last night.
I'm not sure why my computer didn't send it earlier.
It might've been changing locations
throughout the course of the day.
There have been continuances in this case previously.
None of them were requested by the applicant.
They were for a variety of reasons
over which we had no control.
I did in my email to Hillary
that I thought had gone out earlier in the day
had mentioned, had referenced the virtual rules
for the board.
And while it does mention that if you fail to submit
within five days, the board may continue
and if warranted can dismiss the case.
I don't believe in this case it's warranted to dismiss
given that the prior continuances have not been
at the appellant's request and not that we weren't ready.
Again, it was other factors. And I understand what counsel is stating. I think, again, the reason for the number of pages is that I usually include full zoning copies of all the zoning archives, not just select permits. And so it's largely zoning archives.
But with that being said, I don't want them to be prejudiced in any respect.
I would like this to be fully put before the board.
And if the board feels it's necessary, I'd suggest that we continue the case one last time with the must -be -heard designation.
Ms. Costello?
Good morning, Chair.
I believe it's the city's position at this point to leave it within the purview of the board.
I mean, would we benefit from an opportunity to further review? Sure. But we'll leave that to the board to decide.
OK, we're going to go on with this today. I don't. Our quick review of what David submitted is just it's basically almost public knowledge.
So we're going to go on with this today. So we were going to call this last.
We don't have many cases, so we should probably be calling this maybe in 40 minutes, something like that. OK.
And excuse me, Chair, if I may, Mr. Reuter is available.
Leonard, just for the record, could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Leonard?
Sure. I'm sorry. Thank you.
sure i was still i had my mute on on my thing um leonard f reuter r -e -u -t -e -r senior attorney
city of philadelphia you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do so uh we're going to go on with this today leonard and it'll probably be in about 40 minutes
we don't have that many cases so we're going to hear this one last no that's okay and yeah and
i fully back up what uh what ms costello has said on the record thank you thank you very much all
All right. Mr. Chair, can I can I make one suggestion? You can. So when we when we hear the case, if there is.
So when we when we hear the case, if there is information that was not previously seen that either the city or Miss Ferligar would like to respond to, we could hold the record open for a limited period so that they could they could respond to that information.
Like you said, based on our review, the information was largely public record, plus the materials that had previously been submitted to initiate the appeal.
So I don't think any of it is new, but if there is anything that they would like to respond to, we could leave the record open for them to respond.
Thank you very much. That's perfect. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. So we're going to go to number seven, MI -2023 -006 -847 -2644 North 22nd Street.
David Denenberg is the attorney and also a representative from Councilman Young's office.
Chair, we have a participant by the name of Lisa Kennedy.
okay I believe she may be the applicant
Lisa Kennedy you've been able to speak
um I talked to the hi hi hold on could you state state your name and spell for the court
phonographer? Lisa Kennedy. Spell your name, please. L -I -S -A. L -I -S -A. Kennedy. K -E -N -N -E -D -Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Lisa? Yes. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?
Yes. Okay. Is this your property? Yes, 44. And are you willing to take a continuance today?
Yes. Okay. Well, just for a point of information, also, we don't have any exhibits on this.
So you're going to have to make sure that for the next listing, you have our exhibits. Okay.
Okay. Ms. Kennedy, just a couple of things. My RCO is May 4th. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Yes.
Ms. Kennedy, just a couple of things.
So we have the owner listed as construction, construction, LLC.
Are you related to that entity?
Yes, I'm the owner.
Okay, you're the owner.
And you are aware that you need an attorney to proceed because the property is owned by an LLC.
Is that correct?
originally had David
Denenberg and I do represent me for this
hearing next hearing I guess this hearing
this case okay so
David David Denenberg is still your
attorney he
withdrew this morning and I spoke
to him this morning and he said he sent
in the withdrew
to you guys
okay all right so you will
need to secure another attorney for
the next year
yeah I did David
Yes. Sorry, Tina. David Orphanides, he has his hand up. Should I allow him to speak?
Yes, I believe Ms. Kennedy just indicated that he was now going to be representing her on this case. Yes.
Good morning, everybody. I believe we were just retained this morning in this matter.
I have been in conversation with Ms. Kennedy about this project over, I guess, the last couple of weeks.
and as I just put my head out of my office to check
when I heard her voice and heard the case.
And yes, we have just been retained this morning
and we'll be working with Ms. Kennedy
to get her through the process
and get her back before the board.
And if we're ready to roll,
we'll be representing her in front of the zoning board
at the next hearing in this matter.
Thank you.
So MI 2023 -006 -847 -2644
of North 22nd Street. That case is continued. Are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no handshare. Thank you. So number one, MI 2022 -006 -003 -2055 Cemetery Avenue. Michael
Matione is the attorney. There is a letter of support from the Ward 40 Republican RCL with a
provisional.
Mr. Mattione is coming back in as a panelist.
good morning mr chairman good morning could you please not letting yeah it's not letting
my video come on for some reason so um we're will you be oh there it goes there you go yeah come on
there you go. Thank you. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Michael Mattioni, M -A -T -T -I -O -N -I. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client in relationship
to the property? Sure. It is William James, J -A -N -E -S, and he is the owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions, sir. Sure.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to attack
receipt? Good morning, and I do. It's a referral, yes. All right, thank you. Have you emailed in
all the required documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please
proceed and share your screen. Thank you. And again, I'm representing William James. He's the
owner of the property at 2055 Cemetery Avenue, and he is available today as well. And again,
we submitted our materials in advance, including the tax clearance, the referral, the support
letter from the 40th Ward Republicans, who are the coordinating RCO, and they did have
unanimous support in their, actually, email. A plot plan, photographs. Again, as shown in
the referral, we're seeking a special exception to allow this to continue as an auto repair
garage. And it's been that way since at least 1951. Mr. Janes had some, in Exhibit 6, I have
permits going back to 1951 showing that this has been in continuous use as an auto repair facility.
Mr. Jane's had some personal issues and his permit lapsed several years back and he has recovered and now he is seeking to get the special exception to allow him to operate.
great. Here's some photographs showing the interior of the facility and then exterior
of the facility. It's a clean site. He's got some antique cars because he restores them
for some of his customers. Again, just showing there's a fence along Cemetery Avenue to
to keep down vandalism, et cetera.
And this neighboring property is part of the same parcel.
It's a large parcel and it goes down Greenway Avenue.
You see along Greenway Avenue, which is dead ends down there,
but that's his parcel as well going down Greenway Avenue.
And there's the back of his parcel again,
with a fence to try and keep down vandalism, et cetera, and some additional photos just showing
the surrounding area, and it's largely a row house of the typical residential community with
the commercial business. It's been there for a long time on the one corner.
Again, we had the support, unanimous support of the 40th Ward Republicans who are the coordinating
RCO. They did attach a few provisos that we have a fence along Greenway Avenue, which I just showed
that we have another fence like I just showed along Cemetery Avenue. Hours of operation 7 a .m.
to 6 30 p .m. Monday to Friday, Saturday 8 a .m. He meant 8 a .m. to 5 p .m. That we maintain the
outdoor safety lighting from dusk until dawn. We participate in the security camera program
with the city and its storage of the vehicles just be for customers and we're not acting as
some kind of a parking lot. So we agree to all of those provisos. Again, it's a special exception
out of variance and it's been here a long time and the actual use should be, this should be
granted as long as the actual use doesn't cause more adverse impact that is expected from the
use. There's never been any adverse concern from the community. Again, we had the unanimous support
of the RCO. We provide a necessary service in the community, and all of the provisors are
acceptable to the applicant. We don't overcrowd the land. We've been there forever. As you can
see, it's also a large open area. We don't create any excessive congestion. There's no new
There's no new construction, so we're not causing any impairment of light and air to surrounding properties.
construction so we're not causing any impairment of light and air
to survive.
It's no change in this longstanding use.
It just happened to have their permits lapsed a few years back.
It doesn't harm the neighbors.
They actually benefit.
They have a place where they can get their car serviced, get their state inspections.
It's in the area.
It's consistent with the ICMX use.
In actuality, the shop operates 8 .30 a .m. to 4 .30 p .m.
They have two employees.
We believe that we do meet the requirements to be granted the special exception.
What I'd like to do is call on Mr. James, Bill James, to speak, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, sure.
Counsel, real quick question.
Should the board vote for this?
One of the issues we had with Hillary this morning we talked about was that maybe in the proviso, it should mention that the single family household living remains?
All right.
That is correct.
so let's call him Bill Jaynes
Mr. James
Chair I see no hands
he told me he was on this morning
I spoke to him he said he was on
so I don't know
he's got it under some other
name you know is there
another hand raised because sometimes it's not under their name
there are no hands
raised at the moment okay counsel you're an officer of the court yes that's fine questions
from the board no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary
emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair i see no hands planning commission thank you chair bergman and good morning david fecto
f -e -c -t -e -a -u with the city planning commission do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do please proceed thank you sir chairman and board
members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the industrial and commercial mixed
use of zoning at this location. In 2014, the city changed the zoning of this property from
I -2 General Industrial to ICMX. This property has a documented history as vehicle repair and
maintenance. The appellant has shown that the proposed use will have no more detrimental
impacts to the neighborhood than might be expected. The City Planning Commission recommends that the
board grant the special exception for personal vehicle repair and maintenance, but with a
condition that the parking lot screening be provided along Cemetery Avenue and Greenway
Avenue that meets the standards of section 14803 of the zoning code. Thank you. MI 2022 -006 -003,
2055 Cemetery Avenue. I vote yes. With proviso, hours of operation Monday through Friday,
7 a to 6 30 p .m saturday 8 a to 5 p .m sunday closed and also that single family household
living use remain remains thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso james now my vote is yes with
proviso jishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso thank you council thank you mr chairman
Thank you. Number two, MI 2023, 001 -775 -3213 Clifford Street. Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There was a meeting on March 28th, 2024. We do not have an RCO letter in our hands at this point.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a penalist.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir.
Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O.
I'm here representing Mr. Damaris Walker in this case.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate the integrity?
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have
thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen thank you
All right, Mr. Chair, I'm sharing my screen. I hope you can see it.
we can okay uh there's a very long documented history of this property being a three -family
We can.
Okay. There's a very long documented history of this.
dwelling i submit the zoning archives as part of my 103 page exhibit binder
that shows that this property has been a three -family dwelling for quite some time several
several decades. In my exhibits, I have the zoning refusal of photos of the property
and the floor plan. We do have a letter of RCO notification that was mailed and the proof of
mailing. Also, the poster and the proof of posting. Again, the substantial records showing a documented
long history of three -family use, the deed, the tax clearance, and some zoning maps and overheads.
My client just recently purchased the property, and when he did, he believed he was getting a three -family dwelling.
It has been a notable three -family dwelling in the neighborhood.
All the residents know that it's a three -family dwelling, and it presented itself as a three -family dwelling.
And, of course, on the block, there are other multifamily dwellings as well.
Here are some street views.
here's the breezeway where trash is stored and from which trash can be taken
so you can see there's the three mailboxes three doorbells three electric meters
and it's a relatively new rehab as far as the materials are concerned
So my client just naturally assumed that this was, in fact, a legal three -family dwelling upon purchase.
For him to now tear out two of the units and convert this somehow to a single -family home, it would lay the property to waste.
It just would be an impossible sort of situation.
So he would like to be able to adequately rent it out with a rental license in order to control who lives here and, you know, and their behavior.
He'll only be able to do that with a certificate of occupancy and a rental license.
And for those reasons, we are seeking the variance.
He understands that with the three family dwelling, he'll be subject to the International Building Code.
And, of course, is willing to do that prior to occupancy.
With that, I'm going to call Mr.
Counsel, are you looking for three apartments?
One second.
I'm sorry, the application is for a two -family dwelling.
That's what I'm saying, but it already has an existing three?
It has two.
Oh, okay. All right. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Yeah. But the, and I misspoke on that, the history of the property.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. All right. Thank you, sir.
You're quite welcome. And with that, I have Mr. Walker, please raise his virtual hand.
Morning, Mr. Walker.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Perhaps he was unable to log on this morning.
All right.
So, Counsel, you're an officer of the court.
We'll take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
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 Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning of this location.
This house was built before the original 1933 zoning code, so a duplex is a pre -code use.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed use variance for two dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2023 -001 -775 -3213, Clifford Street, I vote yes. Maximum two units.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you. Counsel, could you please stay on? Sure. So, number six, MI 2023 -005 -622 -137 West Seymour Street. There's a letter of opposition from the FAFE CDC and a letter of opposition from Solo Germantown. Just for the record, Counsel, could you state your name?
Thank you. Counsel, could you please stay on?
So number six.
Yep, Vern Anastasio, and I represent Mr. Ibrahim Campbell in this one.
and our vice chair has a few questions thank you good morning counsel do you agree to weigh the
reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed and needed and required to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you please proceed thank you mr chair this
is the pre -existing three -family dwelling from 1960. It's a corner lot. And when the building
was built in 1960, it was built as a three -family dwelling. And by 1975, the three -family dwelling
fell into disrepair and it became a uh a vacant lot it's been vacant ever since 1975.
i'm having some i just had an error do you see anything on the screen now it's everything is
blank i mean there there's like one two and three but they're blank yeah i don't i don't know why
that's happened. Mr. Chair, I may need to reboot. Okay. I have one more. Why don't I do this? Let
me go to the next case and then I'll come back. I appreciate it. Thank you. Sorry for the
inconvenience. No. 8. MI 2024 -000799 -775 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard. Leonard Altieri
Alteri is the attorney.
There's a letter of non -opposition from Council Member Squilla, and there's a letter of support from the Queen Village neighbors with a proviso.
Mr. Alteri.
Mr. Alteri is coming back in as a panelist.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Leonard Altieri, L -E -O -N -A -R -D.
Last name is Altieri, A -L -T -I -E -R -I.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client is Philadelphia Storage Solutions.
They are the owner of the property at 775 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy i do i've emailed
them all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing i have thank you council please proceed and share your screen thank you
very much you see the screen mr chairman we do we do all right perfect so again for the record
my name is leonard altieri i'm an attorney at the law firm of claire harrison representing the owner
of the property at 775 south christopher columbus boulevard we are here this morning uh for the
installation of a sign above the second floor windowsill. Again, the property is located at
775 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard, also known as Pier 40, which is being shown on the
screen. My client is the now owner of the property, which will be operating at CubeSmart
self -storage. We will be taking this Pier 40 self -storage sign, removing it, and replacing it
with assigning the exact location.
Again, that is why we are here.
The property is located in the CMX3 zoning district
and is subject to multiple overlay districts.
As part of the application,
we did meet the Queen Village Neighbors Association
on March 13th, 2024,
which has issued a letter of support
for the sign with the understanding
that the sign will not be illuminated
between the hours of 11 p .m. and 6 a .m.,
which is shown on the notes that had been submitted, shown on the plans that had been submitted to this board.
Again, this is the existing Pier 40 self -storage sign.
We are just replacing that with the shown CubeSmart self -storage.
Again, will not be illuminated between the hours of 11 p .m. and 6 a .m.
Again, will not be illuminated between the hours of 11 p .m. and 6 a .m.
And again, that is consistent to the letter of support, which was issued by the Queen Village Neighbors Association.
That is essentially it. Mr. Chairman, it's pretty straightforward, self -explanatory.
I do have our sign manufacturer on the line, Michelle Forse, if she wants to be called on for me to have my testimony adopted by her, unless there's any questions from the board.
Why don't we do that? Why don't we bring everyone to adopt your testimony?
michelle flores has been allowed to speak good morning could you state your name please and
spell for the court stenographer sure good morning my name is michelle flores first name is m -i -c -h -e -l -l -e
last name is flores f -o -r -y -s and i am with parvin klaus sign company the manufacturer for the
project do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth i do please
proceed counsel thank you very much good morning michelle how are you good morning good morning
michelle were you on the call when i went through the presentation yes i was and did you hear
everything that i presented to the board i did and to your knowledge information and belief is
everything true and accurate that is correct and had i called on you to testify would you have
given the same testimony yes i would until you adopt my testimony as your own i do thank you
much mr chairman i have no further questions questions from the board no chair no chair
i'm heading off to a career questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just to clarify um mr altieri you said you represented the owner you said but they were
the self storage company however the owner and the deed that was submitted is pier 40 property owner
LLC? That is correct, Ms. Emerson. So, that was an internal file name, so I apologize for that,
but we do, in fact, represent Pier 40 Property Owner LLC. I forgot to correct that.
Okay, no problem. Just wanted to verify. Thank you.
Why should there are comments from the virtual audience?
I have a hand up by the name of Peter Spinner. He's been allowed to vote.
Okay. Yep.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Peter?
Chair, he's been unmuted. I'm not sure if he's having a technical issue.
Peter?
Well, he's the Queen Village Zoning Committee.
And we do have the we do have their letter. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands here. Hi, planning commission. Thank you, sir. David Fechter with the city
planning commission, chairman and board members. The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed use of zoning at this location. In 2013, the city changed the zoning
of this property from I -2 medium industrial to CMX -3 commercial mixed use. The proposal to
replace an existing sign at the same location on the building will not injure the use of adjacent
properties. The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed sign variants.
Thank you. MI 2024, 000799, 775 South, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, number TA205746. I vote yes, with proviso. Hours of elimination, 6A to 11P.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
It's Mel Shaheed. My vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Number six, MI 2023 -005 -622 -137 West Seymour Street, Vern Anastasio.
Vern Anastasio is coming back in as a penalist.
Good morning. So you're I think you're ready to go now. Am I correct?
I certainly hope so. Please proceed. Thank you.
137 West Seymour Street, as I was stating earlier at the beginning of my presentation,
this is a corner property on a block with lots of vacant lots. And in 1960, when the building was
built, it was built as a three family dwelling, one dwelling, one unit on each floor. Sometime
Sometime around 1975, and all of this, by the way, is in the zoning history that I've submitted today.
around 1975, and all of this, by the way, is in the
Sometimes around 1975, the building was demolished.
It has been a vacant lot since 1975.
And we also submitted aerial shots going all the way back that showing that this has been a vacant lot for that long without the investment or the improvement that my client is suggesting that we do today.
I first want to mention that we did in fact meet with the community three times. We had three separate RCO meetings. At the first two times, no one from the immediate neighbors showed up. At the third and final meeting, one immediate neighbor did in fact show up.
And that immediate neighbor, as it shows here on this page two of the RCO letter, voted to support the application because after 45 years, she believed it would be nice to have a multifamily return to the site there to bring some much needed density to the area.
The two committee members, of course, voted to oppose.
Those committee members don't live anywhere near this particular property.
so that's the nature of the letter that you've received also we want to make sure that it's
very clear that the committee members talked about the building setback
and the building facade and the building size and i want to make sure that it's clear because
i don't believe after three meetings we were able to make it clear to the membership
Excuse me for one second while I
Here's the block in question
As you can see
There's the vacant lot
Let me get into some of the plans
There is no height variance that we're seeking.
It's only 38 feet.
There are no setback variances or anything of the like.
The only variance that we seek is for the use and we'll be able to show you.
I think I lost the image.
We saw it.
I did see it.
Yeah, me too.
I think there's some kind of technical issue with this today with my computer, and I do apologize.
The plans that I submitted to you, the setback is identical to all the other homes on the block.
It's identical to the adjacent property.
The cornices are identical to all other homes on the block. Cornices are identical to the adjacent property. And the height is identical to all other properties on the block, including the adjacent property.
so the size the setback and the height of the property are exactly the same as every other
property on the block uh the only variance we seek here is a three -family dwelling i want to
ask if uh architect ian toner happens to be in the audience like nothing's happening when i hit
that. And if I go to put the arrow there, it's not enough.
Is Mr. Toner in the audience, Mr. Chair?
Toner. Yes, Mr. Toner has been allowed to talk.
Thank you. I'm wondering if Mr. Toner might have the plans to pull up if I stop sharing.
Yeah, I'm bringing them up now. Okay, Mr. Toner, just for their, well, he's just going to show the
plans you're going to speak, right, Vern? That's correct. Okay, good. I'm going to stop sharing so
that he can share the plans. And I apologize for the technical difficulty today. I'm not quite sure
what's going on. But all of this, 70 pages of this exhibit has already been submitted and I
move it into evidence. Again, it shows the vote of the immediate neighbor supporting this. It shows
the very long history of three family use since 1960 and it shows the documented vacancy on this
site since 1975 and mr toner is going to pull up the plan so that we can then show you and demonstrate
We can then show you and demonstrate that the scale, scope, height, and setback of the property are identical to the adjacent home and all other properties on the block.
that the scale, scope,
Are you able to hear me?
Are you prepared to share your screen?
Yeah, I think I need to be made a presenter in order to do that.
and I need to get sworn in, I think.
Can we make him that?
Is he promoted subpoena list?
Vern, he's not going to testify, am I correct?
Well, do you mind swearing him in just in case?
Yeah, state your name and spell for the court sonography.
Ian Toner from Toner Architects.
Spell your name just a little.
I -A -N -T -O -N -E -R.
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed
thank you mr chair thank you mr toner for coming to my rescue with these plans uh please share
your screen so we can uh walk them through the plans no problem can everybody see this yes great
okay so um do you want me to just walk through verne or do you have please that'll be fine thank
you okay so um the lot's a little bit of an odd shape you can see the property line it's a little
wider at the back than it is in the front um we are setting back to align with the neighbors
here we have a front porch that is dimension to match the neighbors and then the bulk of the
building follows we have a a projection on the side um and so we um we have one unit on the
first floor, which extends to the basement. We have one unit on the second floor and one on the
third. They're all, these upper ones are two bedrooms, flats. This is two bedrooms and a den
in the basement. And then there's a storage room in the front of the basement. I'm sorry,
not storage, but utilities. So for the, you know, the meters and water heaters and that sort of
And I do have Vern, I could share the rendering if that's helpful.
Yes, it is. Thank you.
So this is the view from the front. This is our building here.
And our intention is that we match the proportions and materials as closely as possible as the neighbors.
The neighbors are these pairs of twins, and so we're filling in this missing twin to its lonely neighbor next door.
And the setback is identical to everybody else on the block. Is that right?
That's correct. And one thing I did want to say, we do have a we do have, I think, two other refusals besides use, just to make sure everyone's clear, one for parking and one for lot coverage.
so we are slightly over on lock coverage but we are matching the footprint of the building next
door to us so while we are a little bit over we are matching the the depth and the front setback
of the neighboring building and the parking is it's still further in the rear of the property
as well impacting no no traffic or living that's right i mean we the code says we're supposed to
have one space per unit, but we are providing just one space to reduce the length of the curb cut
and just have a little bit less of an impact on the neighboring properties and leave a little
bit of space in the rear for trash storage and that sort of thing. And in your survey, Mr. Toner,
of the 100 block of West Seymour, there are in fact at least half a dozen vacant lots just on
this side of the street itself, is there not? I believe there are. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Chair,
we have evidence of those vacant lots all submitted in the 70 -page exhibit. So let me ask
this. The adjoining property, the property you'll be adjoining to, is that multiple unit? That is a
single -family home. There are multi -units on the block, though. How many are on the block? Do you
have any idea? About less than five. Okay. Thank you. And again, this is a corner property with
access for parking. So, and with a long history of multifamily on this site, it certainly makes
sense. And again, we're dealing, it's not like we're dealing with a structure that we can rehab,
right? What the code would require my client to do here is build from the ground up a brand new
single -family home, which in this particular area would be cost prohibitive.
which in this particular area would be cost prohibitive,
not only for him, but for anyone who wanted to purchase the property.
So for those reasons,
why don't you bring your owner on and adopt your testimony?
For those reasons, I'm going to ask Mr. Campbell to come in.
Mr. Campbell?
He's been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Ibrahim Campbell, first name I -B -R -A -H -E -I -M, last name Campbell, C -A -M -P -E -L -L.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Campbell, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
Yes, I did.
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it was.
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Based on your understanding of this block, are there at least six vacant lots on this side of the street itself?
And is there a large institutional use directly across the street in addition to multifamily?
And would building a single family residence at this vacant lot be cost prohibitive both to you and to any potential purchaser?
That is correct.
Okay. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I have a hand up by the name of Pamela Bracey.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Pamela, P -A -M -E -L -A, Bracey, B as in boy, R -A -C -E -Y.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am a near neighbor. I live around the corner. This is on the corner of Knox and Seymour, and I'm around the corner on another street. I'm very close by.
Please proceed.
I did attend the three meetings that Mr. Anastasio spoke of. Looking at the city's records pertaining to that particular block, all of the houses are listed as single families.
uh there's a school across the street we did ask that this property be made single family
we were told no we asked if it could be set back some from the sidewalk because it's
encroaching very much of the sidewalk if we could have some greenery there we didn't get that we
were told that we they were going to put a bilko door at the front of the property we asked that
that not be placed there. We asked that the entrance to the building be in the back of the
property. We also asked that not have any living space in the basement. And we were informed
that there would be an office and a bathroom that would be connected to the first floor.
We did listen. We felt as though this property was just too massive for the corner. We did ask
the owner to build a single family. He said, as he so stated, and the lawyer stated that it would
be prohibitive. But we feel as though this would just be very intrusive to the community. Yes,
this property was taken down in 1976 and it's been an empty lot, but up until recently this
property was taken care of as far as the grass being cut and things of that nature. I don't think
we really as a community, even though we did not have that many members of the community to come
out, to disregard the RCO, which can also represent individuals in the community, is being disingenuous.
I don't think we were listened to when we were given the presentation, and I don't think we're getting now what is best for the community.
So thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that we're crystal clear.
We have committed to greenery on the site for the RCO request.
The bill code door in the front is within the property line in the front.
and you won't, we actually added landscaping
to ensure that you can't even see the bill code door
to ensure that you can't even see the bill code door.
and it's only there so that you take
And it's only there so that utility companies could get to there without having to go through the property.
And as far as the living space in the basement, we're certainly not married to that.
This board, in its discretion, if they're so inclined, can grant the variance with the proviso of no basement living space.
So we're certainly willing to do any and all that we can.
And we do think that the size, the setback, and the scale are identical as Mr. Toner's testimony shows and the materials show with the rest of the block.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other 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 residential single -family zoning at this location.
This zoning dates to 1971.
The parking and dimensional variances match the character of this block face.
However, there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property
or prevent it from being used in conformance with the use requirement in the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the dimensional parking variances, but deny the proposed use variance.
I appreciate the planning commission's position. You know, it is zoned for a single family. It's just the reality of it is building a single family on this block would be untenable. And I think the evidence is in all the vacant lots on the block.
So MI 2023, 005 -622 -137 West Seymour Street.
I vote yes with proviso, no basement living.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
James Snell Shaheen, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Awesome. Thank you. And thanks for living through my technical difficulties, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
Number five, MI 2023, 005 -160 -319 Cherry Street. David Orfanides, Meredith Ferlinger, and Leonard Reuter.
they are all coming in as a panelist here
good morning again Mr. Chair
good morning
good morning
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Leonard?
Good morning, Leonard.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Everybody's been sworn, but just for the record, could you please, David, state your name?
Mr. Chair, just, sorry, just quickly, could we have Mary Costello elevated to a panelist as well?
She's coming on too?
Okay. Sure. Thank you. Mary Costello has been promoted to penalist.
Again, Mary.
Mary. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning again. So just for the record, David, state your
name uh sure david worth in 80s o -r -p -h -a -n -i -d -e -s right meredith meredith ferlinger f -e -r -l -e -g -e -r
leonard uh leonard f reuter r -e -u -t -e -r and mary mary costello m -a -r -y -c -o -s -t -e -l -l -o
thank you david please start sure uh may i share my screen you can
So, again, my name is David Orfanides. I'm with the law firm of Orfanides & Turner.
And I'm here representing Everett Abbott Ball. Everett lives at 111521 North Oriana Street,
Unit 2. You can see here on the screen, this is the building where my client lives. The subject
property 319 cherry street is located at the northwest corner of cherry street in north
toriana um there's i'm hoping this this whole case doesn't take
um there's i'm hoping this this whole case doesn't take very long um when there was a permit that was
posted at the property for development of 319 cherry as a six unit building um the lot itself
is there are two different dimensions you'll see on the plans between 15 feet one inch wide
15 feet, nine inches wide, and a little over 85 feet deep. That's a 1 ,270 or so square foot lot,
65 foot tall building. So six units, 65 foot tall, and a little over 15 foot wide lot.
The property, as you can see here at tab two, is zone CMX3. You can see in the provisions,
i have a number of provisions from the zoning code at tab 9 but essentially there is a 3 to 10
parking requirement in cmx3 and um what's also allowed is for cmx3 is for that parking to be
provide um remote at a remote location within a thousand feet um from the primary entrance
or from an entrance to the building to the parking area um the in this case um the permit had
indicated, well, the plans, the question is, there's no parking located on site. It's just
not big enough. And it appears that the parking is intended to be located at this parking lot
that I'm circling right here that says Hope City Parking. Now, there are a number of
permits in the zoning archives for this property, 319 Cherry Street, which I have in tab 6A,
Dating back 2018 -2021, this permit is 2023 -006457, dated 7 -27 -23.
That reference, they include letters regarding parking at the Old City Parking, which is, what is that?
That's 308 to 10 Ray Street, and I have their zoning archives as well, located at Tab 8.
um and essentially what we have here is that there was an application that was submitted
with without any documentation included with it that there had been an arrangement for off -site
parking again there was there was letters included um dating all the way back i think to 2017 and
those prior permits but none with this present permit my client is under the impression that
there's a development project that's happening on ray street by the owners of the parking
garage and that that parking garage may not be available and my client will testify to that i'm
i'm gonna object to to that i mean to the extent that that's i i understand that mr orphanetes is
just reciting facts that he or his client believes are true but that's clearly speculative um whether
or not there's a potential project planned for the location where the off -site parking allegedly
would be is pretty much irrelevant so mr orphanities i agree with that i agree to that well
well the the point is is that the zoning code requires that and i can go to the to the section
um and it's in my all this information is set forth in uh in my in my zoning board appeals
pretty detailed appeal but yeah 14802 and we're going to get into this is that it states regarding
the off -site parking that's available on CMX3, in the event that the off -site parking, this is
14802 .9, subsection D, in the event that the off -site parking is not under the same ownership
as the principal you serve, a written agreement between the record owner shall be submitted to
L &I with the zoning permit application. But let's go back to the speculative issue, right?
I agree with Leonard relative to the speculative issue. Okay. All right. Well, there's no evidence
that a letter was submitted in all the other instances of the other prior permits at this
property, there was a letter included in the zoning archives, and there was none included here.
In addition, and this is just, you know, again, this is just looking at the information that
is available online. And there were a number of issues with the permit that we saw there.
It's outlined in my appeal regarding the height of the fence at the front of the property,
whether it's in any sight lines, the information regarding what looked to be balconies or Juliet
balconies, both on the Oriana Street side and then the side facing Cherry Street, whether they're
in compliance with the street codes and the zoning code. But the main issue here, and I think those
could all be remedied with some type of revised plan or an additional submission, and the same
with some type of revised plan or an additional submission and the same might be true even with
might be true.
the parking situation and if you look at the plan here and i'm going to zoom in
and again i'm kind of getting into our case here this is going to be an opening but
you can see here that the plans are which are supposed to reference where the parking is
located do not reference this property references an abutting property that this developer also
owns and is presently developing an existing structure at 141 to 43 North 4th. And that's
not this property. It says these are the parking spaces for 141 to 43 North 4th, and there's
nothing to indicate where the parking spaces are allocated. And here it says again, 141 to 43
North 4th. There's nothing on the plans that are provided that show that there's any parking at
this garage. There's no letter. There's nothing on the plans. The plans indicate that the parking
that they're showing is for an abutting property, not for this property. And even the travel distance
diagram shows the travel distance leading from 141 to 43 North 4th Street, not from 319 Cherry
Street that you can see here. So again, a lot of this might be able to be corrected. I don't know.
But on its face, the drawings are defective and the permit is defective based upon just what the code states and the materials that the property owner submitted for their permit and that L &I issued.
I think it's maybe an oversight that can be corrected with a new permit.
I don't know.
But without the letter and without the proper reference on the zoning plans, this permit is defective.
Now, I can have my client to adopt my statements. He was also going to testify regarding the availability of the garage that's referenced in the prior permits. And again, you may say that's speculative, but my understanding is that he's talked to the property owner, and the property owner has told him this information.
Again, that would be hearsay. And then again, I understand that it's speculative. Aside from that, there needs to have been a letter or the code submitted an agreement, an agreement, it says an agreement, whether that's a letter agreement or a contract.
I think the city does generally accept the letters of intent as evidence of the availability of parking, of the off -site parking.
How long that parking is available is another whole issue.
But in the past, they have accepted the letters that just says that the required number of parking space is going to be available as evidence in the prior permits for 319 Cherry.
But again, there's no – and if there is such a letter, counsel for the property owner, you know, we'd love to see it.
But, again, the letters that exist presently with those prior permits at this point are six years old, and there's, again, no evidence that that letter or any other letter was submitted, and it states in the code, needs to be submitted with this application.
Do you want to bring your client on and adopt your testimony?
We would object to that on a couple of grounds. His client isn't in any position to adopt testimony about what the code requires or whether the plans for the application submitted comply with the code.
I mean that's his opinion if he wants to say that but he's not a code expert he's not a designer he's not an architect he's not an engineer so I understand this is primarily legal argument so I don't see the purpose of his I mean we will stipulate that the documents produced are what they are I believe Ms. Berliger has additional documents that are in fact in the record that she will provide to the board but I'm not sure
Or other than having his client testify that he agrees with the legal argument that Mr. Orfanides made, I don't know what factual testament.
We've seen nothing about the balconies, nothing about the fence.
So what is he adopting?
So, so I, David, do you want to respond to that?
Yeah, I mean, I mean, Mr. Abbott Ball is not an architect.
He's not an engineer.
He is a developer in the city of Philadelphia.
he has familiarity with he's been in front of this board with with other applications other
you know as the applicant um he is familiar with the zoning code uh and you know if mr reuter i
agree with mr reuter a lot of what i've stated in kind of in my opening and also be my closing
is legal argument um but to the extent that as far as he's aware that there's been no evidence
of that letter, of a current letter being submitted with the application
are being provided to him. He's had a lot of involvement with the developer
regarding other issues that have happened through the course
of the development of both properties.
um but and that's basically what he would testify to so so i i think i think i think
And that's basically what he would testify to.
So I think...
letter really said that he would accept that okay that's fine he won't testify okay all right so uh
leonard uh thank you uh first of all we would in terms of what the code requires the code requires
uh for this property that there be uh if they're not providing on -site parking which
i don't think there's any dispute there isn't any space for that they can provide off -site parking
um i would note that there was no city witness that was subpoenaed for this or anything the
documents that were submitted speak for themselves but i do understand that
ms ferlinger will be presenting some documents uh and because she would have a witness or she
would be able to verify the authenticity of those documents we'll defer to that but i will say for
the record that in fact there is a letter that was submitted with the permit application
specific to parking at off -site parking allowance for 319 Cherry Street to be had at the old city
parking site so I'm not sure where the it may be when the permit application was first submitted
it wasn't initially provided again it is required that you have the agreement
and in fact there is an agreement so and again Ms. Verlager I think has that document that
I can I can provide it myself, but I don't have a witness here to verify it.
She does. So we will let her do that.
As far as we again, we've seen no testimony about the allegation that the fence along property is invalid.
Again, if it's more than four feet high or it's less more than 50 percent opaque, then that would not be permitted.
But the fence, as shown on the plans, is clearly less than 50 percent opaque and therefore does not require a variance.
And in addition, if, in fact, the fence as constructed does violate the provisions of the code, then that would just be an enforcement issue.
We would issue a violation and say that you're not in compliance.
What has been approved is a fence that is less than 50 percent opaque.
If they, again, so if they build an opaque fence, that would be a violation.
As far as the balcony argument goes, I mean, I think the board can consider that waived since nothing's been presented about that.
However, a Juliet balcony typically, and as shown on the plans, is not a balcony.
It's called a balcony, but it's not.
A balcony is defined in the code as being an exterior protrusion that extends the floor area.
it's uh the review of the plans and a cursory look at the plans indicates that there is no extension
of the floor area there is no floor structure at all these are this is literally just a railing
an exterior railing um and that therefore it doesn't constitute a balcony at all and isn't
restricted by the provisions that are cited by mr orphanetes so uh and again i believe
miss ferliger and her client will be able to uh to verify all of that so that's really just by way
of opening argument um we'll defer to uh miss ferliger uh to present any addition any documents
from her end and mr mr mr chair if i might i know that hillary had mentioned the possibility
of leaving the record open for the submission of some additional materials mr reuter had referenced
that he well he doesn't we didn't subpoena somebody um again you know the zoning permits
every other zoning permit included a letter this one did not um the uh if he has information to
indicate that the city did in fact receive the letter with this application that it was included
somewhere on eclipse or something of that nature we would just ask that the record be left open
And then that Mr. Reuter would secure that letter documentation, whatever it is, letter agreement, saying a letter, but and provide that to the board and provide that to the other parties as well.
Because, again, you know, we're not seeing that right now.
And if anybody had the opportunity over the several months since this case was first listed to provide that, it's clear in our appeal what we're taking issue with.
And we would just ask that that be that documentation.
Why don't we do this? Why don't we let Meredith?
Before we make any comments, let's see where more Meredith wants to be with this, too.
OK, so Meredith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If the administrator could find and promote or unmute Scott Woodruff, as well as Tom McInerney.
excuse me miss earlier are you bringing witnesses in for your your opening statement
your opening statement? I am not, but I just figured just for efficiency purposes, it might
i am not but i just figured just for efficiency
be easier to... Why don't we start with your opening? Sure. So, Mr. Chairman, I thought it
would be helpful just to provide a little bit of background here because I do think that it's
relevant not just to the issues that Mr. Orfanides has raised, but just to overall context to this
development in the timeline. So this, and when I'm referring to this development, I'm referring
specifically to 319 Cherry Street. As Mr. Orfanides mentioned, there is also an adjacent
development occurring at 141 North 4th Street. So just by way of context, I represent the property
owner for 319 Cherry Street, which is 141 North 4th Street property, LLC.
141 North 4th Street LLC purchased this property back in 2021 from the prior owner and at the time
there was already a zoning permit in place authorizing the development of this of this
project at 319 Cherry Street. That permit 815 -778 was issued May 25th 2018
that permit was extended by way of zoning permit zp 2021 011443 that was issued september 23rd 2021
a building permit was also issued for this development which remains active even today
That building permit is CP 2021 -008 -937, and that building permit was issued March 31, 2022, and that building permit still remains active.
And that building permit fully authorizes the development that Mr. Orfanides described to you this morning.
Due to L &I's rules relative to the timing of making amendments to zoning permits, the property owner, as will be confirmed by the architect, the property owner ultimately determined that the building as originally designed needed to be essentially narrowed slightly.
And because the original zoning permit was long since expired, an application could not have been filed simply to amend that original permit.
Had that permit remained valid, this simply would have been filed as an amendment to the original permit and would have been issued by L &I as an amendment.
However, because that original permit was issued in 2018 and would have expired in 2021, despite the fact that there is an active building permit, L &I requires essentially what is the submission of a new application simply documenting what has been changed.
So when L &I issued this zoning permit, which is ZP 2023 -006457, that was issued July 27, 2023, it appears as though it is a new permit.
But for all intents and purposes, it is an amended permit that simply, as our architect will show, cuts off a little slice of the side of the building, which is merely intended to make this building more constructible so that no access is required to any adjacent properties.
So just by way of sort of reality, if the board were to grant this appeal, it doesn't ultimately have any form of effect on the now open building permit.
So this building permit will remain active. That building permit was not appealed. And this is simply intended to amend that original permit.
um i will i will bring up our architect and the property owner just to hit on a couple of points
um but as the board will see and i will bring up my own eclipse screen i'm happy to submit a
screenshot of that screen for the record if the board would like it but as i will show the the
The parking agreement at issue was submitted to L &I. It is clearly shown in the Eclipse screen that shows all the documents that were submitted.
And I think, unfortunately, this is just a matter of the reality of what documents ultimately hit Atlas after a permit is approved versus what just stays sort of in the ether of a permit application.
versus what just stays sort of in the ether of a permit application and is never made public.
And then the final point that I'll make about the parking before I bring up the architect and my client is that it's essentially moot.
the old city residential core overlay is now in place and that's codified at 145026N
which completely eliminates any parking requirement for this site so even even if and
again I will show that there was a parking agreement submitted but even if it had not been
this issue is entirely moot because of the intervening passage of the old city overlay
So, the applicant could today submit another application, completely eliminate the parking requirement, and that would have to be approved by L &I in accordance with that overlay. So, that particular issue is moot, regardless of whether or not an application was submitted.
Um, so I would ask, uh, let me start, I guess, let me just start with Tom McInerney because that will be, that will be, I have just one quick question for him just to confirm and then I'll bring up the architect, Scott.
Thomas McInerney has been free to speak.
Sir, could you please, sir, could you please state your name and spell for the course stenographer?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Are we moving into the main portion of the arguments now? Because if so, I think we need to go with Mr. Orphanides first, and then Mr. Reuter, and then Ms. Berliger.
All right.
So keep things in order.
Mr. Orphanides?
I'm sorry, what was that?
I just didn't hear what she said.
Could you say it again, Hillary, please?
It sounds like we're ready to move into the main argument.
So let's go back in order with Mr. Orfanides first, since your client is the one who filed the appeal.
And then we'll go to Mr. Reuter and Ms. Verlager.
Yeah, I mean, other than my client who was going to adopt any of the statements I made in the opening regarding what's on the plans, which speak for themselves, what's in the zoning code and what's in the zoning archives, maybe I'm going to have him adopt where he lives in respect to the property, and that would be the extent of our testimony.
So if Mr. Abbott Ball can be sworn in, I just want to have him test confirm his where he lives presently.
Given the board's position that any statements regarding the availability of the off street parking on Ray Street is not.
It's not something that the board is going to hear today.
Everett Edible has been allowed to speak.
Morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Everett Abbott Ball, E -V -E -R -E -T -T -A -B -I -T -B -O -L.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Sure. Everett, you heard my statements regarding where you resided. Is that correct? You reside at 115 to 21 North Oriana Unit 2?
And that is located on the same block face as one of the block faces of 319 Cherry, correct?
That is correct.
And you've been living through the development of the two properties in question for some time now, correct?
I have, yep.
Okay. And it was you who saw this permit posted at the property and questioned whether there was parking available off -site or at all for the development and then approached me about that, correct?
Correct.
And you heard the statements.
Well, I have up on my screen an aerial image.
Is this correct?
Shows the locations of your property to the subject property.
Is that accurate?
And you heard the statements I made regarding, do you review the plans for this project, correct?
I've seen two or three iterations of the plans for this project.
We were also in attendance when the developer, I think, sued the neighbor on Cherry Street for access to his parking lot in order to build this site, which was, I think, rejected.
So I know that there's another plan, which I think their attorney referenced, where they had to shrink the development of the property, but I haven't seen that one.
All right.
I have no further questions for my client.
Thank you.
um david yes i'm in leonard i'm sorry leonard i i i have no cross um merdith i have no cross
David?
David?
I'm in Leonard. I'm sorry, Leonard.
okay um leonard do you have any
more comments that hillary mentioned uh no as i said the city this is a primarily legal argument
i think we all agree that the documents show what they show all right so hillary would have
move to Maritha's client? Yes, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. David, if you wouldn't
mind stopping your share so that I can take it.
Thank you. There you go. Thank you.
Tom McInerney, if you can unmute
and allow the chair to swear you in.
Good morning, sir. Good morning.
Good morning. Could you say your name, please, as a spell for the court sonographer?
Yeah, Tom McInerney, T -O -M -M -C -I -N -E -R -N -E -Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Tom, you are a member of 141 North 4th Street Property, LLC, which is the owner of this property, correct?
Yes. Okay. And are you able to see my screen?
Yes. Okay. Is this the letter documenting the parking arrangement that you had with Old City Parking?
Okay. And would you agree that this agreement states that it shall extend for a term of two years and automatically renew upon conclusion? Essentially, indefinitely, it does not provide for any form of an expiration of this agreement. Would you agree that's an accurate representation of what this states?
Yeah, the last paragraph states that.
Okay, and so as of today and as of the time that this instant zoning permit application was submitted to L &I, this agreement was still very much in place, correct?
Yes, the initial two years was in place, I believe, as well as the extension, but I think it was even within the two -year period.
And you have not terminated and you've not received a notice of termination from ASI management?
Not to my knowledge.
Okay, thank you.
That's all I have for Tom McInerney.
David, do you have any questions?
Yeah, quick question.
Mr. McInerney, David Orfanides here.
Did you submit the zoning permit application?
And have you – so this letter was executed, it looks like, by ASI management on 20 – yeah, 21.
And when did you – do you know about when you executed it?
around that time um it doesn't show a date on the docusign but i mean the letter
um it's not dated either but i mean yeah i'm fairly confident that it was
around the same time that asi management signed it okay and have you had um since the time let's
State since 2021. Have you, Meredith had asked you whether, to your knowledge, ASI had terminated
this agreement. You answered no. Have you had any other conversations with ASI since October,
let's say October 1st, 2021, regarding the provision of off -site parking at this property?
You know, I believe I've talked to a woman named Aviva. I believe I've had a conversation or two
with her in the intervening time, I wouldn't be able to say definitively, but I believe
I have spoken with her over the phone.
And she's never indicated to you that the spaces are not available, correct?
I don't believe so, no.
That they intend to terminate?
I don't believe so.
That's my recollection.
I have no further questions.
Leonard, do you have any comments or questions?
Sure. Just a real quick question, sir.
I'm just drawing your attention to this letter that's up on the screen.
And I know this has already been touched upon, but again, the last paragraph indicates that the agreement is for two years, but is subject to automatic renewal at the end of that two -year period.
Do you agree that's what it says?
Correct.
Right. And since this agreement was executed, have you received any written notification from ASI that they intend to terminate this agreement?
Not to my recollection, no.
not to my recollection no okay no further questions
Okay. No further questions.
murders uh no further questions for mr mcinerney i would turn to scott woodruff at this point okay
if the administrator could locate scott woodruff and please unmute him that would just have been
allowed to speak well good morning hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer? Scott Woodruff, W -O -O -D -R -U -F -F. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you. Scott,
could you just identify who do you work for? Design Blends. And what is Design Blends'
involvement with this particular application? We have the architect of record for this project.
Okay, and Design Blends is a fairly well -experienced and well -known architecture firm in Philadelphia, correct?
Yes, we have a lot of experience doing projects within the city.
And did you or Design Blends file this instant zoning application to L &I?
Okay. I just want to confirm that I shared the way I hoped. Can the board see my Eclipse screen?
We can.
Okay, great. So, Scott, can you identify what I have up on the screen right now?
Yeah, so this is the zoning permit page within Eclipse for the subject property at 319 Cherry Street. Obviously stating the zoning permit has been issued, but this is just the first page, obviously, which is like the summary of the projects.
Okay, and this states that the application was filed on June 16, 2023, correct?
Correct.
Okay. So I'm going to click now to the tab that says reviews.
Scott, could you identify what is shown on this particular screen?
Sure. So right now you're showing the uploaded documents, which have been all of the documents that we would have uploaded to L &I for their review to verify the compliance of the project against the zoning code.
Could you identify, I'll just check it for simplicity purposes, but could you identify the name of the document that I have checked up on the screen?
Yes, the scans -no -reply at asimanagement .com, underscore a bunch of stuff. That is the document that we were just looking at.
Okay. And just to switch screens real quickly, could you confirm the name of the document that the board has just reviewed with the prior witness, which is the parking agreement? Could you confirm what that file name is?
It is the scans -noreply at asimanagement .com underscore 122104.
Thank you. So can you confirm then that a copy of this agreement was submitted to L &I when you filed this application?
Yes, I can.
Thank you. Uh, okay. Um, Scott, did you hear in my introduction, uh, where I provided some background on the timeline of this application?
I did, yes.
Could you, in your own words, just describe to the board why this application was filed and what was changed in this application as compared to the original application that was permitted in 2018?
Sure. So based on constructability and access to construct the building, it was determined that the building needed to be trunk, obviously in the width dimension, by eight inches.
This was in efforts to not have to impede on adjacent property for access to construct the building.
That was the only thing that changed in this zoning code, in the zoning submission,
essentially making the majority of the building a 15 -foot -1 dimension instead of a 15 -foot -9 dimension
uh with a small eight inch section that does attach that one portion of the building
um that change in itself changed the open area calculation as well um but that was the only change
changed the open area calculation as well. But that was the only change that was made
as it relates to the previously approved zoning to the newly approved zoning permit.
And would you agree that based on your review of L &I's regulations that no permits are required
for a code compliant fence? Correct. Yes.
And based on that guidance, did you provide any documentation about the fence on the zoning permit plans?
We provided no documentation on the plans. We did show an elevation of raw iron fence that was more than 50 percent opaque and less than four feet in height.
that would be compliant with design code.
There is not a note that dictates that.
can you confirm that
when the building permit was obtained,
did you secure all required prerequisite approvals
from any related city agencies, including but not limited to the Streets Department.
Correct. We did.
That's all I have for this witness.
I will reserve the right to redirect, depending on any cross.
Mr. Orphanides.
Sure. Hello, Mr. Woodruff. How are you today?
So, Meredith, I'm wondering if I could share, show my screen regarding the documents that were uploaded.
First of all, in terms of the application and the permit, and you had indicated that you had submitted it, that permit that's under a PLZP 2023 -006457, you submitted the application, correct?
Correct. Our firm submitted the application, correct.
Yeah. And did you submit it as an amendment or was it submitted as a new application?
New application.
Okay. So I know your counsel has indicated that it's essentially effectively an amendment, but it's not.
It's a new application. It's got a new permit number and there's nowhere on this application and this permit that references that it's an amendment, correct?
Correct. We're not permitted this. We weren't permitted to submit an amendment per L &I's regulations.
So as a new application, it gets as a not as if it were an amendment, you can incorporate prior the prior submissions, correct? Or they'd be considered. Is that correct?
Yes, we'd be clouding changes in an amendment scenario.
But in this situation, this is like starting this brand new application starting from scratch.
Yes, no, no amendment clouds referencing the previous.
Understood. And so as such, and I think now we've seen, and again, I don't have access to, as you know, if I'm not associated with the application, I don't have access to what your council or council just posted or what the city might have.
i had no way to know since it wasn't in the zoning archives that any letter whatsoever had been
submitted um but the um in terms of the of the terms of the plans you prepared the plans for
this application correct correct all right and you indicated back on the i'm just going to touch
on the fence again i i think you know without this again could have been addressed very simply
as far as what the you know what it was but the plans that were submitted depicted a fence but
did not depict it looks like it's a state fencing which I would agree with Mr. Reuter is generally
more than 50 percent of pay but the the height is not indicated anywhere on the plan so we would
have no way to know the height from the plans unless we printed them to scale and then scaled
it off correct correct unless you scaled it which the drawings are scale drawings right and it's
you know hoping that they were scanned in the right way okay but that that's actually you know
that's never that something that could always be easily fixed it could have been addressed
communicated to us you could have somehow submitted something to document that
um you could have somehow submitted something to document that but the main concern is the
parking so your firm and I think it's your your seal your seal is on the plans correct
correct okay now in terms of the in terms of the parking um and the letter that was referenced
um you know again I you know this may have been something that could be corrected but
For my client, it was something of a concern. The letter references 12 parking spaces. The letter that we now see was apparently submitted with this application, which is the same one that was submitted with prior applications that we have to assume is still in effect.
But your plans don't reference that the parking that's shown on the plans is for 319 Chariot references that it's parking for 141 to 43 North 4th Street, correct?
Correct, which, again, could be an oversight.
The letter both states 141 and 319 within that letter that we saw previously.
And the travel plan at detail two on Z003, is it correct that that also looks to show the travel distances from 141 to 43 and not from 319, correct?
Correct. It doesn't fully extend to 319, although obviously under the 1 ,000 -foot distance by quite a sum.
Okay. So as far as our assertion and our appeal that the plans do not accurately reflect that the off -site parking that's shown on the plans is for use of 319 Cherry, whether that was an oversight, an accident, you know, you just copy, somebody copied and pasted over the detail.
In fact, it's the same detail that's used for 141 to 43. Is that correct in those plans?
correct as the same garage is utilized for the parking for that property as is stated in the
parking letter and is it your do you do you believe that you could have this this could
have been corrected and we might have saved the board some time if if an amendment could have
been filed to make this correction or a new application could have been filed to make this
correction i believe that l and i reviewed the the drawing and found it in compliance based on
their assertion of the code if if the plans were revised to show that the parking spaces were for
319 cherry i believe that again there's the letter and the drawings again together i think
the assumption is made that those 12 spaces are both you know for the minimum parking requirement
at 319 Cherry and 141 4th Street and the diagram obviously showing I think Ellen and I put it
together that essentially it was an oversight stating only 141 to 43 North 4th Street and found
obviously the parking in compliance. Okay and but but the plans as they're shown are like you said
oversight or not are not correct? Again I think there's an oversight that we should have mentioned
319 cherry street within that specific uh text where we're talking about the dimension
and maybe fix the travel the travel path correct an additional 10 feet on that 193 would get us
the cherry street right or wherever i don't know where the nearest entrance is that's assuming it's
at that back corner so and and again and you said did you have communications with the lni examiner
about this that you had mentioned that you know that they made they made this connection that
this was really showing for 319 as well uh they made no mention specifically uh against those
text deviations now they didn't want to clarify that the dimensions of the parking spaces
uh located within the parking garage but that was the extent and again this this oversight could
have been corrected with either an amended application or a new application that correctly
reflected specified the spaces for 319 correct correct if they would have given additional
information that said we would like to see the words 319 cherry street accompanying the 141 to
43 North 4th Street on that text string.
We could have complied with that, given that the parking letter clearly states that the
12 spaces are for 141 to 43 and 319 Cherry Street.
But in light of this appeal, that issue, which is clearly stated and indicated.
that issue, which is clearly stated and indicated in our appeal, could have been eliminated or
addressed by either filing an amended application or a new application that properly reflects the
addresses in the many months that have intervened since our appeal in August, correct?
We have an approved zoning permit. Again, that's...
I have no further questions. That's fine.
Leonard?
no I don't I don't really have anything else I can do that
have any other witnesses I do not
Hillary one I want to take maybe we'll have some
quick closings is that okay that's fine Mr. Chair
David sure so again
I think there's no disputing that
we had no knowledge we raised the issue in our appeal that there's
no letter um we had no knowledge of that there was um that there was a letter in effect we didn't
know that the agreement that was referenced in the prior permits uh in the letters with the prior
permits was still in effect or not that when that a letter was submitted as required um with that
being said, on their face, the plans are defective. And again, in the six months, seven months,
eight months, seven months since we filed the appeal, it could have easily been addressed by
an amended application or a new application to correct it if, in fact, there were spaces that
were specifically delineated for 319 cherry um and it's unfortunate that that didn't happen in
this time and that we had to take time to clarify the record to for my client to make sure that
everything was in order um but he was exercising his rights um based upon the information that and
we were doing so on his behalf based upon the information that we had that was made available
to us. I still believe that an amended application or a new application to make the record plans,
the record documents accurate rather than relying on an assumption or, I mean, there wasn't a
conversation or communication regarding that the plans were okay. I think the L &I examiner,
again, it was an oversight by the examiner probably as well as by Mr. Woodruff's office,
But that doesn't mean that these these plans should not be made accurate because, you know, who knows what happens in the future.
And I would still insist that on its face, these plans are defective and that they should be the permit should be revoked and it should be corrected or amended.
The plans could be the permit can be amended.
100 well uh again uh the the city's position here again is that the the what we have is what
we had i mean the appeal was filed um based upon documents that the appellant had access to which
again we think on their face were were valid uh especially with respect to the question of whether
amended plans should have been submitted with respect to the parking the reality is that they
could eliminate the off -site parking altogether and it wouldn't matter I mean if you have a
if you get a zoning permit that says you can have a bar restaurant with entertainment and you decide
not to have the entertainment it's not a violation you just don't have to have the entertainment if
you get a permit that says we're going to have off -site parking and now you don't need the
off -site parking you don't need to provide the offset parking why would you submit an amended
plan i mean they could submit an amended plan that'd be nice if they wanted to but i don't see
what point there would have been in doing that uh as far again as as far as the fence goes again
we've heard very little about the fence uh as the applicant's architect uh indicated uh the fence
the elevations that were shown uh that were presented as part of the zoning plans were done
to scale uh the appellant is the one that brought the appeal it would have been their burden to
show that that fence was the wrong height or that was in fact more than 50 opaque and there's just
no indication of that at all in the record the plans speak for themselves and again if that
fence is built too high or is too opaque when it's constructed, that would be a violation.
Same with the Juliet balcony issue. If it is an extension of floor space, that would be a
violation. But, you know, if you sit out on your fire escape, that doesn't turn the fire escape
into an extension of your floor. It's, you know, you could sit on the railing of a Juliet balcony
You know, you could sit on the railing of a Juliet balcony if you want, probably wouldn't recommend that.
if you want, probably wouldn't recommend that.
But it's but the fact that it's a railing that extends out does not make that a per se extension of the floor area.
And again, we've heard nothing to indicate otherwise. So that's pretty much it for the city.
Mary, you stand with that. I do. OK, thank you. Meredith.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that Mr. Reuter's closing was quite well stated. I would just add that this board hears appeals against L &I fairly frequently, and even putting aside the fact that the issue relative to the parking is entirely moot at this point,
um l and i has discretion to review a set of plans and determine whether based on the information on
those plans the plans are in compliance with the zoning code and given the fact that the letter
submitted clearly shows that the parking was intended to be allocated both 141 north 4th street
and 319 cherry street whether or not there is a typo on a plan uh l and i had perfectly reasonable
discretion to determine that the plan here did comply with the requirements of the code as it
relates to off -site parking. And again, that issue at this point is really quite moot. And I would
fully agree with everything that Leonard stated relative to the fact that L &I does not routinely
require new permits if there is an intervening code change that would render a part of that
permit unnecessary. I mean, I cannot even imagine the reality if Elle and I were to impose
requirements like that. So we would state that the appellant has not met their burden here and
that this permit should absolutely stand as issued. Any questions from the board?
No, Chair.
no chair no chair okay um any questions from our attorney hillary emberson
um i just wanted to check with the parties um if they felt like based on the presentation
and information today if there was anything additional they wish to submit for the board
to consider before the board votes or if they would be comfortable with the board voting today
i'm comfortable with it i don't i mean i've once meredith pulled up her her um her uh eclipse
account i could see what len would have otherwise provided i didn't need any other information that
was the only thing i'd ask len to provide again this is just stuff that we didn't have information
on i agree everything that i presented was publicly available information so i'm comfortable
as well except for your eclipse accounts not publicly about fair leonard are you okay yeah
i'm fine with that okay so mi 2023 is zero zero five one six zero three nineteen cherry street
i vote appeal denied permit upheld thank you
jim james snell appeal nine
ish ish no shaheed appeal denied permanent appeal thank you all thanks thank you
is there anyone in the uh virtual audience whose the 9 30 case has not been called
i see no he's sure thanks everyone see everybody tomorrow at the
9 30. Thank you. Take care. Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Chair. Have a good one. Great job, everyone.
Bye, everyone.