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.