Thank you.
okay chair we have 47 attendees thank you good morning everyone my name is bill bergman i will
be chairing this morning's meeting with me as our vice chair ismail shaheed president mr chairman
or board member james snell president mr chairman and also leonard lebaron leonard palmer from the
Division of Development Services, will be serving as our alternate board member this morning.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phila.gov.
Our attorneys and witnesses should identify themselves before testifying to our court
reporter.
If you're participating by phone, please press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the box on the screen is not for questions and answers.
All comments should be referred to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at today's schedule.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just want to clarify one thing on the Q&A.
We don't want people testifying in the Q&A, but they can ask questions.
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay.
Number three.
Hold on a minute here.
Number three, MI 2023-002-227-7923 Charles Street.
This case is continued.
Number nine, MI 2023-003-996-5400 Valley Avenue.
That case is continued. Number 12. MI 2023 is 006-937-351 East Mount Pleasant. That case is
continued. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. It was my understanding that the attorney was going
to appear this morning and put in the official continuance request. Thank you. Mr. Crick.
Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host for today. Thank you.
Justin Crick has been unmuted and allowed to speak. Good morning, Mr. Crick. Could you please
state your name and spell for the court stenographer? Yes, Justin Crick, J-U-S-T-I-N.
Last name is K-R-I-K. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. I do. Please proceed, sir. Yes, members of the board, I represent the applicant
for 351 East Mount Pleasant Avenue, and we are just wanting to put on the record a request for
continuance to continue to work on the application and amend in accordance with some comments from
the RCO meeting. Thank you, Mr. Crick. So MI 2023-006-937-351 East Mount Pleasant Avenue,
that case is continued. Thank you very
much. And then number 17.
006954
Lancaster Avenue.
There's a request from
the RCO for a continuance.
Is David
Williams in the audience?
David Williams, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your head.
I see no one by that name, Chair.
How about Dream Chasers, LLC?
I see no one in the audience by that name, Chair.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006-954-4864 Lancaster Avenue.
MI 2023-006-954-48...
That case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
Any other requests for continuance?
Chair, we have a B to you.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, I'm just here to request continuance.
Good morning.
could you please state your name could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
oh sure it's michelle u-m-i-c-h-e-l-l-e-y-o-o sorry mina's my middle name
hold on hold on one minute um what case is that
hillary that is number two mr chair did you swear her in
uh i thought i did but i'll do it again please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes okay michelle you m-i-c-h-e-l-l-e-y-o-o right do you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do you're requesting a continuance yes okay um
So this is the third listing. We're going to continue one more time and we're marking this must be heard. OK.
OK. All right. Thank you. Miss you. I just had a question. You're the listed applicant.
The property owners are Edwin and Esther. You. What is your relationship to them?
I'm their property manager. You're their property manager. OK.
so are they the ones that are applying for the variance um well i i set up the application
um but but you don't own or rent the property is that correct no okay so they are the ones who will
need to appear um or an attorney on their behalf if they do not wish to appear themselves um to uh
to to ask the board for their variance okay you cannot do that for them as their property owner
because you are not an attorney I see okay thank you I will thank you all right so MI 2022 006
992 711 South 23rd Street cases continued mark must be heard any other question request for
continuances. Chair, we have a phone number ending at 3552. Caller, please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair. I could you state your name, please, and spell for the stenographer.
Yes, my name is Adrienne Fernandez. My last name is spelled F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
yes what case 31 30 north 24th street it was must be heard
yeah so um i'm i'm getting to that i haven't got to that yet that's
what's no exhibit second listing so i haven't got to that yet okay
Okay. Can I just request on behalf of Swampoodle RCO and also of a community action group RCO, we're asking if the board would consider another continuance because we think the applicant is having some problems and we have not heard from them, but we do have contact with them.
All right. Thank you. Thank you for your call.
okay let's go back no other continuances so number one and I chair um excuse me we have
other hands up okay we have Vern Anastasio they have been unmuted and allowed to speak
good morning Mr. Chair good morning counsel could you just state your name and spell for
this stenographer Vern Anastasio A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O on behalf of Mr. Kendall Singleton for
6809 Woodland Avenue. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? I do. Okay, so this is the sixth listing. I know, Mr. Chair, and the RCO had requested that
the council office intercede here and request the continuance because we have come to an agreement
and it's just a matter of putting it into writing.
So I know it's unusual.
I don't like to ask for more than a few continuances.
But assuming that Franz from Council Member Johnson's office
johnson's office is not behind me in line to request it i did want to put it out there
is not behind me in line to request it, I do.
as well all right thank you so am i 2021 mr share um i do see a hand from um mr pierre as well as
mr meladosian okay all right pierre has been unmuted and allowed to speak
good morning sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
mr pierre please unmute yourself
good morning everyone can you hear me good morning yes could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer yes that's france pierre that's f-r-a-n-t-z last name pierre p-i-e-r-r-e
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed sir yes thank you mr chairman uh so we do as a council president uh district
office we do uh confirm or affirm uh the continuous request by um uh vernon attorney
vernon and vernon anastasio my apologies and the coordinating rco for the appeal thank you very
much for taking the time to call us. We appreciate it. Mr. Melodosian, is he on? Yes, he's unmuted.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Chair Bergman. Craig, C-R-A-I-G, last name Melodosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed. And I wanted to make the point
that the RCOs, the Southwest Philadelphia Consortium of RCOs, is the group that's making
the request for the continuance after discussing with counsel. So I don't want you to be annoyed
with them trying to protract it. We're struggling to get an agreement and we think we're at that
point at this time. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sure. So MI 2021-004-387-6809
Woodland Avenue. Case is continued. Mark must be heard. Let me go to number six here.
uh so number six mi 2023 002857 1720 west ontario street this is the second listing we have no
exhibits. Chair, we have Darlene Threatt with their head up. They have been unmuted and allowed
to speak. Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Commissioner. Darlene Threatt, D-A-R-L-E-N-E, Threatt, T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-T-T,
45 East City Avenue
Do you swear or affirm
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do, Commissioner
Are you the attorney for this case
Commissioner, I am representing
Ms. Cadelio and
Florida's Rental Management
I had conversations with Ms. Cadelio
It was my understanding that all of the
Exhibits had been submitted into evidence
Alright
Hillary, do we have that
um we have not seen um the exhibits i mean unless they were submitted for prior hearing
but in that case we would still need updated exhibits um we did receive an email from miss
cadillo um indicating some sort of confusion with the hearing date um but we do not we do not have
what we need to proceed at this time oh commissioner i have prepared an independent
package, which contains all the exhibit. If allowable, I can shoot it over to you and we can
go into this list and I am ready to present today.
I think we're going to continue this. All these cases, we at least try to have some time to really
review it. So we're going to wind up and take this case. Okay. So number six, MI 2023, 002-857-1720
West Ontario Street. Cases continue. Mark, must be heard. At number eight,
MI 2023-002-864-3130 North 24th Street.
3130 North 24th Street.
Leslie Powell is the applicant.
Leslie Powell, if you're the virtual audience,
please raise your hand.
Chair, Mr. Anastasio has his hand up.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. My hand was up not for this case, but for yet another continuance request.
Okay, not 24th Street.
That's correct.
Okay, thank you. Let me handle this one first. Thank you.
So, Leslie Powell's hand is not up?
No, Chair. I see no one in the audience by that name.
Okay, so MI 2023, 002864, 3130 North 24th Street, cases continued. Mark must be heard.
Mr. Anastasia, do you have another continuous on this list?
Yes, sir. Just one more. 133 South 60th Street, Mr. Chair. We did, in fact, it's the first listing.
we did, in fact, meet with the RCO, there were some concerns that we'd like to address before
proceeding. Hillary, where's that? That's number 15, Mr. Chair. Exhibits have been submitted,
but Mr. Anastasio is now submitting a continuance request. Thank you very much.
Thank you. So MI 2023-006-947-133 South 60th Street. That case is continued. Mark, must be heard.
Thank you. Okay, thank you. So we're going to go to our list. We're going to start with number 18.
MI 2023-006-963-2463 North Colorado. Radon Hall is the owner applicant. This is a process.
Braden Hall is coming back and is a panelist now chair okay
good morning Mr. Hall good morning Commissioner all right could you please state your name and
spell for this stenographer? My name is Ray Downhall Sr. That's R-A-Y-D-O-N, last name H-A-L-L,
Sr. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. This application is for use as a personal care home in an existing structure.
The proposed use personal care home requires a special exception approval in the RSA 5 zoning
district. There is a letter of support from all in the family CDC with a proviso of only two
applicants. Our vice chair has just a few questions. Good morning, sir. Have you emailed
in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing? Yes, I have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Oh, there it is.
okay sir you could start talking now okay okay the purpose of opening my
personal care home is to provide a clean safe and care and caring residents for
individuals with high functional disabilities the clients will be 18
years and older, they will be either high functional individual with disabilities or
veterans that need assistance with activities of daily living and instrumental activities
of daily living.
The service will include assistance with ADLs such as cooking, cleaning, minimal transferring
in and out of bed, of chair, personal hygiene, securing and managing health care, and self-administering
medication, assistance with IADL, such as doing laundry, shopping, securing.
IADL, such as doing laundry, shopping, securing and using transportation, using a telephone, making and keeping appointments, care for personal possessions, engaging in social and leisure activities and obtaining and keeping clean seasonal clothing.
The home will include a recreational space for items such as books, magazines, puzzles, and crafts.
We will include activities such as board games, card games, and bingos.
We intend to have three to four employees.
The direct care staff will have a high school diploma, GED, or active register status on the PA nursing aid registry.
The home will also have an administrator who will be responsible for the administration and the management of the home.
This will help the community by bringing jobs opportunities to this area.
The personal care home will follow the guidelines according to the Pennsylvania Code Title 555, Chapter 2600.
personal care homes in the city of philadelphia personal care home guidebook guidance for
development and emergency operations planned in philadelphia each home will maintain a current
emergency operation plan to use in event of emergency for the residence has three bedrooms
and one bathroom the two larger bedrooms will be occupied by the residents the third bedroom
will be used for an office by administrator and direct care staff and here's the floor plan
you got photos of it
can you see it can you see it i see drawings do you have photos of the of the property oh yeah yes
Okay, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions are comments from our attorney, Hillary Anderson.
Just to clarify, Mr. Hall, how many, between the two bedrooms that you intend to use for residents, how many residents do you plan to have total at the property?
Do you plan to have two residents?
If the other room is big enough, we're going to try at least get three, three at the top.
Okay. The reason I asked, and I did see the letter from the RCO indicating they wanted to only see two residents.
So under the zoning code, single family household living can be up to three unrelated individuals.
So you only need zoning for a personal care home if you are going to have four or more people living at the property.
That's both individuals and if you had employees living there, which it doesn't sound like the employees would be living there as well.
So that's I just wanted to make sure that, you know, you you definitely needed the variance that you were requesting.
We probably won't have.
Well, we will have someone living there.
Yes, that's going to be careful.
That's going to be careful.
Only he can.
Can he testify?
Ma'am, ma'am, you cannot testify. You are not the applicant. Only he can testify. Thank you.
Okay, that was my wife. That was my wife. I'm sorry.
That's okay.
That's okay.
Right. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
thank you chair bergman and good morning david effecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning
commission oh do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do thank you for asking thank you sir uh so um board chairman and board members
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this
location. The zoning for this property was changed in 2014 and a community-supported
rezoning. The appellant has shown that the proposed personal care home will have no detrimental
The appellant has shown that the proposed personal care home will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant a proposed special exception for a personal care home.
MI 2023-006-963-2463 North Colorado Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Mr. Shamil Shaheed, my bullish, yes.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
Thank you all.
Have a blessed day.
Thank you.
We're going to go to number four, MI 2023-002-685-408-South 45th Street.
Adam Shapiro is the attorney for the owner.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Spruce Hill Community Association.
Mr. Shapiro.
Mr. Shapiro, please raise your virtual head.
He's coming back in his append list now, Chair.
Good morning.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is H. Adam Shapiro, S-H-A-P-I-R-O, and I'm here on behalf of the owners of 408 South 45th Street.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to leave the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
We do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Let me get over here.
And I do have my client is with us today.
Okay, here we go.
Fair screen.
Okay, are you able to see the exhibits?
We do, we do.
Okay, terrific.
So this is an application to legalize an existing longstanding use.
The property we're talking about today is 408 South 45th.
It's this twin property right here in West Philadelphia.
This property has actually been a five-unit residential building dating back to at least 1943.
at something along the way it looks like the the records at l and i were were updated i think there
was mistaken filing in the 80s that switched this over to a four unit building and my clients are
just looking to legalize it as the five unit it's always back now in this case we've got my client
And Horace, who's with us today, actually lives in the adjoining building at 406.
He's someone who's been in the neighborhood here for a while.
And I think you'll see when we get to the letter of support from Scrooge Hill that the neighbors who showed up at the community association meeting were unanimously in support of his request.
So, I'm just going to go through and show you some of the history here, just to substantiate
where we are.
So, our refusal, again, was because this is five units in a four-unit zoning and also
for parking, which obviously isn't going to be doable on a property such as this.
Our application for appeal, we have the project information form that was sent in, the deed, the property is owned by a family-owned LLC, tax clearance form.
So, these are the drawings here.
So, this is what we're talking about.
what we're talking about i'll just blow this up a bit so you can see what we have
I'll just blow this up a bit.
this these are the uh the drawings for the interior and again i'll point out that
none of this is new construction or any changes it's just uh dealing with what's already here so
So the ground for the first floor apartment is a two-bedroom unit that's longstanding there.
The plan for my client is that he actually wants his in-laws to move in next door, and they're going to have this first floor apartment.
And upstairs on the second floor, we've got two one-bedroom apartments,
corridor, the entrances to the front and to the rear unit.
And same thing here on the third floor over here.
We also have another one-bedroom front and one-bedroom rear unit.
so we have our photos with our orange zoning poster time and date stamped over a month ago
when this when these were taken close up pictures of it you can see here and just
without the framing, just so you can see it's clearly visible here from the street.
Letter of support that I think you mentioned has already been received, that they had no objection.
Neighbors were universal in their support of this application.
This is just our notices that were mailed out to all the RCOs in the area.
Certificate of mailings for all of those meetings.
Okay. So going back, this is really what we're talking about here. This is the zoning use
registration for this property from August 17th of 1943. And you can see at that point it was,
the application was to turn a vacant single family dwelling into a five unit building.
we had one apartment on the first floor
two on the second, two on the third
that's as it exists
that's how this property's been now
for over 80 years
this is just their
variance
from 1943
this is where we think something may have
gone wrong
there's a there's a rental license that was issued in 2004 for four units this was an owner
occupied building the the owner of the property uh dating back to at least the 80s lived in that
two-bedroom first floor unit and what it looks like is she went and she filed for four units of
rental license and that's where everything got switched over because she was renting
the four units above and wasn't paying for her owner occupied life unit.
Again we have it looks like there was a filing here from 1985 also and again we've got first
and this was the owner that my clients bought from.
it was first floor owner occupied second floor front efficiency apartment was how it was described
third floor two apartments and the request in 1985 was changing the second floor rear unit to
from vacant to another apartment so again we've got this the whole way through being
the same five units that it's been.
Mr. Shapiro, why don't you bring your client on
and adopt your testimony?
Oris, if we can have him unmuted.
He is unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Orist Pazuniak, first name O-R-E-S-T, last name Pazuniak, P as in Peter, A-Z-U-N as in Nancy, I-A-K.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning.
Can you just, for the record, tell the commission?
For the record, tell the commission, was the property marketed and sold to you as a five-unit building?
That is correct.
And in fact, in the package here, we have the leases that you were given.
These were the leases you were given, but from the prior owner?
That is correct.
And they were all existing as those at that point.
So we had third front, third rear, second front, second rear.
And again, the ground floor unit, the first floor unit, the owner was living in.
Is that right?
That is correct.
Yeah, Louis Labock was living on the first floor unit.
And you live, where do you live?
I live in the first floor unit of the adjacent building at 406 South 45th Street, Unit 1F.
Okay. And what's the plan for you with the ground floor of this building?
The plan is effectively parallel to that which is in 408 with a small difference in how a hallway is adjusted, but it is also a two-bedroom apartment with access to a rear yard.
okay um have you made any changes to the five units that are there
uh in which building in the 408 that we're talking about is this no at the 408 i've made
no changes okay i mr chair that i think that's the testimony that yeah why don't you just have
him adopt what your your total test okay sure would you uh did you have a chance to listen to
the presentation that i i just gave i did okay and do you agree and adopt with uh everything that
was said as accurate i agree with everything that adam shakira has provided thus far okay
thank you thank you questions or comments from the board no chair
no chair thank you uh questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
mr i just wanted to know um uh board member snell had to step out for a minute so um mr
uh leonard palmer is stepping in just want to note for the record okay um questions or comments from
the virtual audience i see no heads chair any commission thank you chair bergman and good
morning david effecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential two-family zoning at this location
the property has a documented history as five dwelling units providing accessory off-street
parking would be impractical due to the configuration of the building on the lot
and the lack of access to the rear of the property. The City Planning Commission
recommends the Board grant the proposed use and parking variances.
I-2023-002-685-408-South 45th Street. I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer my vote is yes thank you thank you sir counsel thank you okay all right
number five MI 2023 002 780 3122 to 26 West York Street Joseph Consul is the attorney
there's a letter of opposition from Strawberry Mansion Community Concern and a letter of
position from Council Member Young. Joseph Consul is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Consul. Could you state your name, please, and spell for this stenographer?
Yes, my name is Joseph Consul. That's J-O-S-E-B-H, C-O-N-S-O-L-A. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Did you identify your client and
relationship to the property? Yes, my client is C-E-L-I-Z Incorporated and Eusebio Liz L-I-Z is
the representative that will be on the call today. Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive 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 to
received this case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you please proceed and share
your screen okay my packet come up yes okay this is three one two two three three one
Okay, this is 3122 through 3126 York Street.
We are here because my client is seeking to subdivide 3122 to 3126 West York Street into three separate parcels.
And on each of those parcels, he's going to put one single family home.
I, after having done the research required here, I am fairly well convinced that these parcels should have never been one OPA number to begin with.
And so therefore, what we're asking for should not be seen as the subdivision of a single parcel, but the just re-legalization of parcels that were always separate.
And the way that I kind of get there is if you go back to the oldest available deed on record from 1987, there was five separate parcels transferred under one deed listed as 3-1-2-0 West York, 3-1-2-2 West York, 3-1-2-4 West York, 2-6, and 2-8 West York.
And that's the oldest deed that's available on record. There is a mortgage that accompanied that deed that also lists these addresses as all being separate addresses. There's the five addresses listed there under the premises.
Now, when you go forward in time, the five parcels, and finally, here's the legal data associated with that transfer from 1987 that lists five different parcel IDs and five different OPA numbers or city account numbers.
So at one point, they were all labeled separately. But when you move forward in time, these parcels traveled on one deed three or four times until it got to my client.
And when you look at the deed that my client took, premises A is still labeled as 3120 West York. Premises B contains 3122, 24, and 26, all on what's called one premises, which doesn't really make sense to me.
and then premises C now says 3128 West York Street. There's nothing in the archives that
would indicate that these three properties were consolidated into one property. I don't really
follow how it became one OPA number, but the takeaway is parcel A is a single OPA number,
3120. Premises B is now listed as 22 through 26 under one OPA number. And premises C is 3128
West York Street under one OPA number. That said, we are here because my client is seeking to make
three single family homes, each with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. This does not feel
like he, the properties around this property are all of similar width and similar occupied area to
what we're seeking here. So we do have a refusal for the minimum lot size being low and the
occupied area being low. The occupied area limited to 75%. We're asking for 82%. And the lot size,
770 square feet for each of the three parcels, again, is in line with the neighboring single
family homes and is not super small by the standards of the city. We submitted all of the
plans that show three identical builds for three identical single-family homes, three beds, two
baths. We believe this is a part of the city that could use these. This is not someone seeking to
cram in units. It's going to be three homes he sells to three families or whatever. It's not a
multifamily project, nothing like that. Here's the surveyor, reviewed it. And again, I don't
need to go through all of those plans, but they're all identical for each of the three
parcels. We submitted photos of what's going on there. Now, I know we have a letter of
opposition from everyone i guess strawberry mansion they
Everyone, I guess. Strawberry Mansion, their letter of opposition appears to be based on the fact that they are upset that my client shortened the width of this store, which is 3120 West York Street.
However, he did so down to the dimensions of the parcel as the parcel is written. So he, in anticipation of building 3122, he shortened 3120 because the previous owner had basically opened all these spaces up.
And so my client minimized this space to be in conformity with the actual parcel. So all of the store is actually within the confines of that specific deed.
And it appears that that's what the neighbors are upset about. Although that wasn't brought up to us at the RCO meeting, they were hesitant to hold it. I don't fully understand their opposition to three single family homes being put there.
it's not really made clear in the letter except just to say no demonstrated hardship.
But we believe hardship exists in that these are three parcels. They were never combined,
as far as I can tell, and he's attempting to build three single-family homes that are
of adequate size and are going to be good for the neighborhood.
With that, I'll call my client to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Consul, what's your client's name?
It should be Eusebio Liz, like with an E, E-U.
Eusebio Liz, please unmute yourself.
Can we see your hand?
Yes, Chair, they are muted.
All right.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes, good morning, Mr. Chair.
My name is Eusebio Liz, E-U-S-E-B-I-O, and L-I-Z, last name.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not to swear the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Liz.
Did you hear my testimony just now about your properties at 3122 through 3126 West York Street?
Yes, I did.
And I want to ask something to it.
Do you agree with what I said and adopt it as your own?
Is there anything you'd like to add?
There's a lady from the neighborhood complaining that we're short in the store.
But we lease the store.
We don't own the store.
We never own the store.
So I don't know.
When I lease the store, the owner will show it to the side that he wants.
I understand that.
He could have as many shelves as he wants.
If one wouldn't have two, he wouldn't have ten.
So it's nothing I could do.
I just list the store to an individual person.
It's not my store.
I can't do nothing about that.
So you're saying the layout of the store,
which appears to be one of the major complaints of the RCO,
as was not your doing, that's a tenant,
who's legally occupying the store as a commercial space?
All right.
Questions?
Go ahead, Mr. Counsel.
Please proceed.
We have nothing further.
All right.
questions from the board no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
i'm just i just want to note for the record mr chair there are inconsistent um records um
on atlas in terms of whether this property was formally consolidated or not it shows as
consolidated, at least as a tax parcel, but
there may never have been a deed of consolidation
filed, so I just wanted to note that, the record. In other words,
the consolidation may have been partially done, not completely done, but now
the request is for it to be undone. Questions or
comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Strawberry Mansion Community Center.
they've been they've been muted and allowed to speak good morning could you please state your
name and spell for the stenographer good morning can you hear me i can good morning chair and to
um the members of the zoning board my name is bonita cummings and um i am speaking on behalf
of 31 22 through 26 miss cummings just miss cummings just for the record spell your name
for the stenographer?
It's B-O-N-I-T-A
Cummings, C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Right.
right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth,
the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
i do please proceed um from what i just heard the i'm not sure who we're even dealing with
like is this a person that's a tenant or is this the actual owner of the bill but the arteria the
Ulta Exterior violation on 3120 is open.
And as we have indicated, for over 50 years, that property has been consolidated to one, what we see as the community,
one contiguous property that has allowed the benefit of being in a market.
What was done and done illegally with moving the exterior, the alter exterior position has put the community in a position where you have a building that is not now suitable for you to even spin around in an aisle of shopping.
So we're placed in this hardship position of lacking quality market conditions due to the violation of the refusal.
So we have a minimum area that we're not even privy to because of the decision that they're going to split these properties open.
The zoning laws and rules have changed.
So we've never had the problem of being in an uncomfortable or burdened, harmful situation in this market.
So the substandard conditions that we're now placed in is even an open violation with the Department of Licenses and Inspection for 3120,
Which this 3122-26 pushes everything forward. And whatever the measurements are, they were not for a supermarket necessarily without all of the other measured length and space in that property.
so i don't so we're we're not we're asking that they not violate the uh refusal the refusal is
a lot area required is 1440 square feet and the minimum lot width should be uh 16 feet and the
proposed is 14 feet and if this was followed at the minimum there would still be you know ample
and adequate ability for our elders, disabled, and others to go into a property where they are
treated with some dignity. This process right now is no dignity. You can't even move. I've sent
examples of how the store has reduced its aisles, how you can't turn around, how even the space that
the owners or the tenants are behind in servicing us, they can't even hardly get out of their
space. Not to mention the other nuisance conditions of this 3120 property where I've
showed in our photos that they won't allow the community to even use the handicap accessibility.
None of these conditions are going to change in how we're treated because somebody comes along and can subdivide and puts three houses there, which is still too small for two bathrooms and three bedrooms, one of which you can only access by going through a bedroom out into the yard area and coming out of a yard area, coming back through a bedroom.
the the design is a flaw within the way that these properties are even designed
so okay uh miss cummings we appreciate your time and your comments is there anyone else in the
virtual audience can i just spend 10 seconds just to put on the record um yeah mr console why don't
we do this why don't we see if there's anyone else in there then you can respond at one time okay
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Please proceed, Mr. Counsel.
I wanted to just reiterate what I had said, that Ms. Cummings, and we appreciate her thoughts there, but 3-1-2-0 is a separate property.
It's a separate OPA number.
my client moving the walls to accommodate the actual size of that property, regardless of what
happens to 3122 through 3126, it wouldn't somehow give the store back width. The store is a parcel
that is only, it's fitting the size of the parcel. So refusing this would not serve the purpose of
that the refusing this would not serve the purpose of widening the store back into the lot of three
widening.
one two two two that's all i want to say thank you questions uh or comments from the planning
commission thank you chair bergman and good morning dave defecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location. The zoning for this property dates to 2014 during a community
supported rezoning. The appellant has an auto garage that they would like to demolish, split
the lots, then build three separate single-family homes. The proposed lot sizes would be 770 square
feet, which is substantially similar to the average lot size on this block face. Lots on this block
range from 734 to 805 square feet. Every lot on this block has a width of 14 feet, so the
dimensional variance for a 14-foot lot width for each lot is supportable. However, the occupied
area could be ameliorated by redesigning the proposed structures on lots A and B. The City
Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed variances for lot area and lot width,
but deny the proposed variances for occupied area.
mi 2023 002 80 3122 to 26 west york street i vote no
there's no shaheed my vote is no
baron leonard palmer my vote is no thank you council number seven
MI-2023-002863-2528
North Jessup Street
Erica Miller is the attorney
for the owner
There's a recommendation of support
from the 37th Ward RCO
Erica Miller is coming back
in as a panelist now, Chair
good morning chair good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer yes my name is erica miller e-r-i-k-a-m-i-l-l-e-r right do you swear or
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client
the relationship to this property yes my client's zlata properties and the sole member is nazari
kovacek okay our vice chair has just a few questions for you good morning counselor do
you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy i do have you
emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed and show the screen
All right, as I mentioned, my name is Eric Miller. I'm here on behalf of lots of properties and our, my client is Missouri call the check. I'm going to the property is 2528 North Jessup street. I will mention at the.
Jump that my client is English is not his 1st language. We have set up a interpreter. So when he comes on, he can.
do we have an interpreter hillary i set it up oh so i i will and his name is no but wait wait
one minute is it is it the interpreter that we have no miss miss miller if if um an applicant
needs interpretation those requests need to come to us and we will set up an independent
interpreter um for you um so unfortunately we can't we cannot use your interpreter but because
you are representing the applicant we can you know accept your testimony on their behalf okay
thank you sounds good and i can only and he he does speak some english so if um that okay about
but apologies and thank you sure um nonetheless this property is located 25 28 north jessup
We received a refusal for Table 146021 Note A1, essentially saying that this lot is too small for a two-dwelling unit.
Essentially, the minimum of 360 square feet of lot area allows for the required dwelling unit for the first 1,440 square feet.
We have 709 square feet, which allows for one dwelling unit.
Essentially, this is actually very similar cases to the very first case we heard here today from Adam Shapiro.
My client was marketed and sold this property as a two unit dwelling.
My client was marketed and sold this.
Again, he doesn't speak English as his first language, so that might have been a factor in the sale.
I'm not entirely sure. However, he bought this property as a two dwelling unit, made some improvements to improve the, especially the second floor unit.
And then he has a tenant in the first floor unit. When he went to get his business license, he was denied and he received a violation for the second upstairs unit. And then here we are. He purchased this property in 2022 as, like I mentioned, a two-dwelling unit.
Two dwelling units are permitted in this RM1 district, however, for this size of property.
Council, why don't you move some photos or give us an idea of what it looks like.
That's great. Thank you.
And these are also the postings.
So here's the outside.
As you can see, there's two mailboxes.
It is separately metered.
And then this is the front entrance.
The first floor unit's entrance doorway is on the right here, and the second floor unit is straight ahead.
And we have photos of the second floor unit.
um like i mentioned the first floor unit is currently occupied that's the outside again
so um this is the second floor unit let me show you the front entrance sorry about that so as you
can see you walk up the steps once you enter that door from the the the shared hallway and you walk
upstairs into a landing area and then into this first bedroom here it as you can see my client
has done some improvements. He put in this new carpet. He did some painting
and added new flooring and updated the bathroom.
Each unit is the downstairs unit is one bedroom. The upstairs unit is two and they each have their
own bathroom and kitchen. Here's the bathroom. Here's the kitchen. As you can see, my client did
some lovely work. I think it looks great. Here's the kitchen. Here's the front bedroom and or
living space facing out towards Jessup Street. And again, this is the kitchen.
So the property itself creates its hardship. Obviously, it's an undersized lot and he bought
the property as two dwelling units financially. It's already fitted as a two-unit household. So
So without the variance, he would either have to convert it, which is a huge cost and a hardship for my client.
Like I mentioned, there is an internal entranceway for each one that is not that separates the two units.
It's separately metered.
Counsel, why don't you talk about the RCO meeting?
So we presented at the RCO meeting.
We got overwhelming support for this project, and like I mentioned, this is a very common use in this neighborhood as it is permitted in RM1.
If I can ask my client to come on, just so you can-
While you're an officer of the court, you've had conversations with your client.
You understand this, and we'll accept your testimony.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
For the record, Jim Snell is back on, and I've been on since the beginning of his case.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no heads, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning.
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
multifamily zoning at this location. The appellant's requested dimensional variance is within the
City Planning Commission's 10% threshold to be considered as a minor variance in keeping with
the spirit and purpose of the zoning code. The City Planning Commission recommends the board
grant a proposed dimensional variance for a minimum lot area. Thank you. MI 2023-002-863-2528
North Jessup Street, I vote yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Dr. Mel Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you.
Number 10, MI 2023-006-931-3604, Mellon Street. Meredith Ferlinger is the attorney.
There is a recommendation of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
Chair, Attorney Ferlinger is coming back in as a panelist now.
Chair, Attorney Ferlinger is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning, Chair.
Good morning, Counsel.
Could you please state your name for the record and spell for the stenographer?
Meredith Ferlinger, M-E-R-E-D-I-T-H-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?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Mascoff LLC, which is the LLC that owns this property, represented here today by Serge Mazlenikov.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, yes.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, and already done.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
As I mentioned, my client is Mascoff, LLC, the owner of the property, and I have representative from that LLC, Serge Mazlenikov, with me today.
The request before the board today concerns one property in Mantua, which is located at
3604 Mellon Street. As you know, this proposal receives support from Mantua Civic Association,
evidenced by the letter of support that's in your packet at Exhibit 15.
This is a fairly straightforward case, so I will be brief.
Let me first orient you to the location of this property.
The deed and tax clearance are included at Exhibits 2 and 3.
As you can see on the aerials shown at Exhibit 8,
the property sits between North 36th Street and North 37th Street in Mantua, West Philadelphia.
This is a modestly sized but very narrow property of only 14 feet wide,
and this is a better view from the south so that you can see the vacant property.
The aerials are slightly outdated, as you will see in the photographs, but you can glean from this aerial that the block contains a mix of existing structures of varying type and use, as well as some vacant lots.
Some of the structures reflected in this aerial have since been demolished.
Turning to the photographs at Exhibit 16, you'll see the existing vacant lot with the arrow pointing to it.
that is the subject of today's request at 3604 Mellon Street. You will notice the new construction
just two lots away, which will contain a three-family dwelling identical to the proposal
before the board today. For additional context, the next photo shows the block looking towards
North 37th Street. The opposing side of the street, as you can see, has largely been consumed
by overgrown vegetation. Flipping to the next photo, this is a view in the opposite direction
towards North 36th Street. In the next photograph, you will see a view of one of the particularly
relevant structures to today's request here in the foreground, which contains at least 10 units
with an unknown number of total residents. It seems that this structure is used for
some kind of group living or a group home or something of that nature.
And again, just another view of the block.
We did also include photos of the zoning posters, which were timely posted at Exhibit 16 as well.
If you refer to the zoning map at Exhibit 5, you'll see that the property is now zoned RSA 5,
having been one of the many blocks that was previously zoned RM1 prior to the 2017 Mantua
rezoning initiative. Immediately to the east of this property, you'll see the large CMX3 zone,
which contains a large PHA multifamily development that public records show contains around 160
total dwelling units. The proposal for 3604 Mellon Street is shown at the zoning plan at
tab 6. The proposal includes one new three-story structure, which will blend with the predominantly
three-story structures on this block. The building will contain three dwelling units.
We did include floor plans as well, and you'll see that the units range from 816 square feet all the way up to just over 1,500 square feet.
all the way up to just over 1500 square feet and we did also include an image of a nearby
structure which is generally similar in facade to what is proposed for this particular lot
the large units all contain two bedrooms garbage will be stored in each unit as well
as in the rear yard which does have access to a rear alley open space for residents is available
both in the large rear yard as well as via the roof deck.
And again, I'll just bring up the zoning plan for reference.
Regarding the refusal, the proposal today only received one refusal for the proposed
multifamily use.
No dimensional variances are requested, despite the narrow lot, and the proposed structure
does comply in full with the provisions of the zoning code.
In fact, this structure is smaller than the code would permit for this lot, further to the developer's goal of remaining consistent with the surrounding new structures.
The applicant submits to a hardship given both the history of this property as well as the transformed character of this neighborhood and the block, which is highly relevant to the applicant's entitlement to a variance.
Historically speaking, the lot at 3604 Mellon Street was used as a three-family dwelling.
Dating all the way back to the 1940s, which you can see on the permit, which I have up on the screen, and as included in the exhibit packet at tab 9.
The historical use of this lot is consistent with the proposal before the board today.
The lot has seemingly been vacant since the early 2000s, but was last used as a three-family dwelling.
Aside from the historical multifamily use, erecting a new single-family home on this lot would also represent a deviation from the predominantly multifamily dwellings that currently exist and have been recently constructed on this block.
As you can see at Exhibit 11, I've included permits showing that this block specifically contains a variety of multifamily dwellings of varying density in most of the structures on this block, including 3601, 3603, 3608, 3615 Mellon Street, as well as several of the addresses on the immediately intersecting streets.
And I included just a quick reference map for the board as well.
Several of these examples have much higher densities, such as the 10-unit at 3616 Mellon,
which I pointed out earlier in the photographs, as well as a newer construction with four units
at 3615 Mellon Street. The prior RM1 zoning of this instant lot would have actually permitted
four units. The board may also take note of the most recent new construction on this block,
which was just approved before the rezoning went into effect, containing a similar three-unit
dwelling, and that's shown with the yellow star at 3608 Mellon Street. More recently, the board
granted a variance at 3615 Mellon Street as well as at 650 North 36th Street due to the established
limited viability of constructing a new single-family home in this immediate area that
has become characteristically multifamily. The proposed three units will represent a natural
blend of the predominantly multifamily residential uses on this block and is further consistent with
the historical multifamily use that existed here. We submit the number of proposed units as the
lease minimum. For comparison's sake, if this property were still zoned RM1, the RM1 zoning
would have permitted up to four units. As mentioned previously, this lot historically contained three
dwelling units, which is consistent with the proposal presented today. The density is consistent
with the density of surrounding structures, which vary between two all the way up to 10 units.
The structure itself is smaller than the code would allow, and the proposed units are all
quite large. We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air. The structure was designed to align with the varied character
of other structures on this block. As always, a more detailed analysis is provided in the memo
of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 12, and I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in
more detail. With respect to the community, we met with Mantua earlier this month, and that
discussion and the context of this block resulted in the vote of support that is in your packet at
Exhibit 15. At this point, I will ask Serge, if he's in the audience, to raise your hand to
At this point, I will ask Serge, if he's in the audience, to raise your hand to adopt my testimony.
Your client has been obedient and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, board. My name is Serge Maslenikov, S-E-R-G-E-M-A-S-L-E-N-N-I-K-O-B.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Serge, have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was offered before the board today?
Yes, I did.
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Happy to take any questions.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
None at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see those heads, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning.
David Fechta 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 2017 and a community-supported rezoning.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property.
that were prevented from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
However, the proposed three dwelling units
matches the character of the homes on this block face.
So the City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant a proposed use variance for three dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006-931-3604, Mellon Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Mell-Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Okay. Number 11, MI 2023-006-934-4821 Germantown Avenue.
Bernanastasio is the attorney. There was a meeting on 4824 with the RCO. We do not have
a letter from the RCO, but we do have a letter from
Solo Germantown in non-opposition
recommending some provisos. Mr. Anastasio,
could you just state your name? You've already been sworn.
Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, on behalf of Mr.
Joseph Thomas, the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in 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. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
okay mr chair members of the board we're talking about um this property here as 4821 germantown
avenue uh there's a historic structure that faces germantown avenue i'm putting my cursor over it
right now that is uh occupied by residents we're talking about the rear structure which is also
historic. And it has been throughout its history, a performance art space. And that's what we're
looking for today to return that historic use to this structure. The basement level is all storage
and the ground level is this is the assembly area where you would have the audience sit and the
stage. And then the second floor of the building has office and storage on one side. And then of
course, the space is open to the stage on the other. And with that, I want to share with you
our application. So it's for integrated play theater in an existing structure.
This generated a referral, which, as you know, means that our proposed use is, in fact,
consistent with the code. And we just need to ensure that our use won't impact the community
any more than a similarly situated integrated play theater would. And after meeting with the
community, it was determined that we would not have a negative impact on the community. In fact,
We would be a positive place for young people to assemble and entertain and learn performing arts.
So here are some of the pictures.
So here are some of the pictures. Here's the structure in the rear. We have a 56-page evidence exhibit that we're submitting today. As you can see, the structure is very old.
We have a 50, and here's the structure in the rear.
This is the front of the front property where it's, in fact, occupied by residents.
Those immediate residents do, in fact, support this application for the appeal of the referral.
We have some photos as well that we can share with you.
Here's the assembly step space in the stage.
and we have additional plans as well i'm going to go down to some more relevant documents
we did meet with the community and we mailed out a two-page letter detailing
what we plan to do and inviting them to both the community meeting and today's hearing to 61
individual households. And as a result of that meeting, we have received a letter of support
for the use. And with that, I'd like to bring on Mr. Joseph Thomas to adopt my testimony and my
presentation.
Joseph Thomas
has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Counsel, before we go on,
did you attend the RCO meeting?
I did.
We don't have a letter yet.
Am I correct? We have one from
Solo Germantown, but we don't have one from
the coordinating
RCO. Is that right? I thought they
were all coordinating, but
it's my understanding that there was
unanimous support.
And then before we go on, have you seen the provisors?
I have.
And all of those were agreed to at the time.
Thank you.
I don't know how many are enforceable by this board, but regardless, we're willing to adhere to them.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is the client on?
Joseph Thomas.
Hi. Mr. Thomas, could you spell your name, please, for the stenographer?
Sure. J-O-S-E-P-H-T-H-O-M-A-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, sir.
Thank you. Mr. Thomas, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
thank you mr chair with that my client's testimony and the 56 page exhibit packet i move into
evidence thank you what uh questions from the board no chair
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just briefly um mr anastasio the refusal wasn't clear on this but the proposed
assembling entertainment use that is only for the rear structure is that correct
yeah it integrated theater uh and it is right yeah it's for the okay and then all other previously
approved uses of the property are going to remain there's nothing changing i think that's a safe way
to cover all our bases.
Okay, sounds good.
Mr. Chair, I would just suggest
in addition to the provide those mentioned,
that we specify the uses for the rear structure
with the other previously approved uses to remain.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Rosalind McKelvey.
They have been abuted and allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning.
My name is Rosalind McKelvey, R-O-S-A-L-I-N-D McKelvey, M as in Mary, C-K-E-L-V as in Victor, E-Y.
You should wear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Are you a neighbor?
I am the head of the RCO.
Thank you.
I had it in the four overlapping RCOs that all convened at the beginning.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
We proceeded, we had a very good meeting, a good turnout, and I sent on April 26th a second copy with, maybe we had the wrong address for RCO zoning, RCO notification, but I know Mr. Anastasio got it and the city councilwoman got it and all our RCOs have it.
OK, it was very good meeting. We had no negative feedback, positive feedback from the neighbors whose property on Logan Street, Germantown Avenue, those that meet up to it.
It was a very good meeting.
We had no negative.
Historic wise, we had support from an audience member that was attending that knows about the historical history.
So and also so I'm not sure why you don't have it. I just sent it again this morning.
OK, we're fine. We're fine. And as far as there was a question about a time limit and the other three RCOs felt that this is a historic property and we didn't need to have any provisos.
So we approved it with unanimously.
Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson. They have been abuted and allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Please name your name and spell it.
Yes, sir.
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, Room 508 City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, sir.
The Councilwoman is not opposed to granting this variance.
the property has been vacant for so long and this would be something that would bring new life to
that area uh we're not supporting any provisos on this um you know the only individual that was
requesting provisos is one rco which uh you know was it was opposed to every to in opposition to
all the other rcos that were present so uh we are uh not opposed to granting the variance with no
provisos. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the virtual audience? Chair, we have Pabla Bracey.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak. Good morning. Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer? Have I been unmuted? Yes. Could you state your name,
Yes, Pamela, P-A-M-E-L-A, Ray C-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'm a part of Solo Germantown Civic Association, and I'm not that far away from this property.
All right, Shay, please proceed.
I do agree that we did have a great meeting.
I disagree with the part about not having the proviso because we do have an event center just next door that neighbors have complained about.
It's a different kind of facility.
And I really thank Mr. Thompson for moving forward to rehab this building that was sitting there vacant for a very long time.
This was an early integrated theater here with the lady that was there for a number of years.
So we thank him for that. We thank him for the program that he recently had and brought young people in.
I think this would be a great facility to move forward.
But I do think that we need to think about placing, unfortunately, some some restraints or constraints of three to five years.
things do change. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Allison Weiss. They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good morning, Ms. Weiss. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Allison Weiss, A-double-L-I-S-O-N-W-E-I-S-S, Solo Germantown Civic Association.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed. Yes. We, again, thank Mr. Thomas. We initially helped Mr. Thomas to go through and acquire that building because it had been vacant. And we very much appreciate that he has restored this historic property on our historic Germantown Avenue, a national landmark.
um what the concern is and there were three ear neighbors that were unfortunately unable to attend
the meeting and their concern is of the future use because we know that this exception would
follow to the next owner who may not be as diligent and as community-minded as Mr. Thomas's
So therefore, they're very concerned. They have an event space just across the driveway.
event space just across the driveway and it has become a nightmare for them and we thought we had
provisos at that time which apparently are not enforceable so we would like to
see if there could not be these temporary provisos
just per chance that in the future
this property is sold and becomes
a different type of event space.
So we would appreciate that the provisos, which the attorney has said
they have no issue with.
I do object to that point, Mr. Chair, but
why don't we let her finish, Vernon, and I'm going to give you a chance.
Alice, do you have anything else?
no so we would appreciate the support and consideration consideration for the temporary
proviso okay thank you very much is there anyone else in the virtual audience chair we have calvin
williams they have been unmuted and allowed to speak mr chair i think i need to clarify
my client's position for what i what i what i thought about doing was trying to get through
it all to see if there's anything else you clarify clarify one time okay thank you all right
Please, sir, please proceed, sir, and state your name and spell for a stenographer.
My name is Calvin Williams, C-A-L-V-I-N-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Williams, are you a neighbor?
In essence, yes.
My daughter is in the 3200 block of Logan Street, living in the family house that's been there for 50 years.
Please proceed.
Yes, I wanted to say that I do support the effort and wanted to add that I remember as a teenager being inside of that facility at the Germantown Friends Theater Guild and trained as a little young teenager.
And if that is going to be repurposed to be back what it was then, it would be an asset to the community with that kind of proviso that someone mentioned a five year so that we can guarantee that it does not change its purpose and its focus.
Thank you very much. Thank you for calling. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no further here, Chair.
Mr. Anastasia, do you want to comment?
Yeah, again, my client was perfectly fine with the provisos as it relates to the operation.
But we are not seeking a temporary special exception.
And I think it was agreed upon by not only the city council office, but the majority of the RCOs, is that what we've applied for is an integrated play theater.
If you look at the application, it's very specific and it's specific for a reason.
It does not permit assembly and entertainment in a larger scale.
So those concerns are misplaced because all we can do here and all anyone could ever do here, not that my client is interested in selling the property that he just completely restored, is integrated play for youth as the last witness testified.
to bring that back. And it's a youth program in a part of a neighborhood that we all know
is suffering from terrible violence and gun violence and homicide, primarily because of
the issues and untreated trauma of young people. So what Mr. Thomas is trying to do here is treat
those kids. And to put constraints on that would just limit the amount of time that he could do
that for the children and for those reasons that's why the overwhelming majority of the folks in
attendance and the council office do not want to see a temporary uh special exception here thank
you planning commission thank you chair bergman and good morning david vector with the city
planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the commercial mixed use zoning at this location the appellant has shown that the proposed assembly
and entertainment will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might
be expected. The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant a proposed special
exception for assembly and entertainment. Thank you. MI 2023-006-934-4821 Germantown Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso. Use for rear building only with other previously approved uses on the
property to remain. James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 13, MI 2023, 006-941-3643, Richmond Street.
Alan Notkinson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Pro-PAC.
Vote was unanimous, 19.
in support. There's also a provider that we've been provided with a petition of support signed
by approximately 13 neighbors, along with six letters, form letters of support. And I see it's
not Mr. Dockmson, it's Mr. Goldberg. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
You are Alex Goldberg, A-L-E-X-G-O-L-D-B-E-R-G. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client, their
relationship to the property? Sure. My client is Felipe Sevilla. He's in the virtual audience and
he is the property owner of 3643 Richmond Street. Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reason of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. 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.
Please proceed and share your screen.
So, going full screen mode here.
This is an interesting case
because 3643 Richmond Street
has an active rental license for two units.
Under my client's ownership,
which began in 2023,
There was a rental license active from the early 2000s up until my client's ownership for two units.
When my client purchased the property, both of those units were occupied.
And he's now planning to move into one of the units with his growing family and wanted to do sort of a full scale renovation of the property.
And when he pulled the building permits, was told that the zoning was was out of date and he needed to go get a zoning permit for two units.
So that's unfortunately where we are.
I can't really explain why that's happened,
but you'll see in my presentation materials first,
the notice of repusal for the proposed two-family household living.
We met with the coordinating RCO, PROPAC.
It was a solid meeting.
They were in full support of us.
The vote was unanimous.
And here's a petition.
Again, Felipe is planning to live here with his family.
He spoke to the neighbors on all sides.
Positive feedback, curious, just like we were,
why we were in this situation,
but nonetheless, many of which were willing
to sign letters of support.
Here's that rental license I referenced,
which was issued in August of 2023.
Felipe purchased the property just a couple months earlier than that.
Again, prior to his ownership, there was an active rental license from, I believe, 04 to late 2022.
Here's a 3,600 block of Richmond Street.
So not only is this an existing duplex that we're seeking to legalize, also not out of character on this portion of Richmond Street.
here's the redfin listing so showing just how this property was advertised to him i know it's
small on the screen but you can see it was advertised as a fully occupied duplex
it's a corner property so we're fortunate to have two means of entry while also taking
advantage of that rear yard for trash storage that both tenants will have access to here's a
a zoning map of the property at the corner of East Pacific and Richmond Street, Google Maps
perspective as well. Here's the interior photograph. So you can see very much lived in units
of both units. There's also photos of multiple electric meters in the basement and multiple
hot water heaters, none of which were installed by my client. Here's the rear yard. Photos of the
front of the property from Richmond Street. Here's one entry. Here's the side entry at the
rear. Zoning notice posters on both sides of the corner, to the right on Richmond Street and to
the left, and then East Pacific Street is the intersecting street. Here's the architectural
plans and drawings. Pretty basic. Basement is unfinished. I imagine will just be used for
storage for Felipe and his family. The unit above
is a two-bedroom, one-bath. And again, that basement back there
And again, that basement back there that both units, in theory, will have access to to store trash cans, so they don't have to be stored in the units or on the curb.
that both units in theory will have
Here's the RCO meeting notice.
We met with ProPAC on April 1st, 6 p.m.
This is the notice of that meeting.
Bulk mailing certificates.
Our application for appeal.
So, here's the deed showing Felipe Sevilla owns the property in his individual name, and the tax clearance showing that we're up to date on our real estate taxes.
So, with that, I'd like to call Felipe to adopt my testimony.
Felipe Sevilla has been muted and allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Chair. My name is Felipe Sevilla, F-E-L-I-P-E-S-E-V-I-L-L-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Felipe. Did you hear my testimony today?
Yeah, Alex. Thank you very much for that.
And was it true and correct?
Yes, sir.
And you adopted it as if it were your own?
Thank you.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see the hands chair planning commission thank you chairman and good morning david effecta 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 property has a history as a
two unit building the city planning commission recommends the board grant a proposed use
variance for a second dwelling unit thank you mi 2023-006-941-3643 richmond street i vote yes
james snell i vote yes
thank you thank you council number 14 mi 2023 006 942 47 54 master street joseph consul is the
attorney there's a letter of support received from the new 42nd democratic ward with an with
with one enforceable proviso.
Morning, Mr. Consul.
You've already been sworn
just for the record.
State your name.
Joseph Consul.
And could you identify your client
and relationship to the property?
My client is Mr. Franklin Romero,
the owner of the property.
And our vice chair
has just a few questions, sir.
Morning, counsel.
Do you agree with the way
to read another refusal
or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed
than all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
All right. 4754 North Masher Street. The owner is Franklin Romero. He's owned this property
since 2001. We'd go back in the zoning archive. The last use permit on file was approved for a
three-unit building. This was in 1994. At no point from that point till today was the use ever
reduced, but also as a corollary, the property has been rented out since that time without any
rental licenses. So we've got an old approval, but we have no rental licenses that would have
kept that use active after some time had gone by. So one of the refusals that we're here for
is approval for the property as a three-unit structure. But what generated that was my client
hired a contracting group to build an addition to his property. Just as a side, there's the four
units, three units and a common meter. They hired a contractor to build an addition to the property
that originally was going to be for living space. After construction was completed,
it was brought to his attention by L&I that the contractor did not pull any of the correct
permits so my client went in and applied had an architect draft all the photos and plans
and we've included those all in the packet uh showing the addition and everything that
we would need to legalize it now at the point of submission this was
Now, at the point of submission, this was sought to be a parking space.
However, this space is no longer requested to be a parking space.
After discussion with the community, the community did not agree to lose a parking space under this addition, and my client agreed that it would not become a parking space.
Instead, be storage for tenant trash and that sort of a thing.
The community also was very adamant that this space would not be an additional living space. And again, this property has been three units and will only remain three units. So this space will not act as an additional living space, amongst other things.
It doesn't have the bathroom. It's missing a lot of things that would be required for it to be a living space.
But other than that, going back up to the top, the other refusals are parking, which we're going to dismiss that multifamily, which we hope the previous approved use will allow us to get that variance approved.
And then we've got occupied side yard and rear yard.
The way this property sits, as you can see in the photos, the side yard and the rear yard here is actually abutting these other properties here, moving that way.
The community didn't have a problem with that existing where it is.
the next door neighbor did not oppose the way that property sat and we're hopeful that the
the board sees fit to legalize this use obviously my client will once the alterations permits are
issued get it inspected and everything as that is currently in process along with this zoning permit
so again not seeking parking seeking legalization of the long-standing three units and my client
would be severely
it was
a severe hardship for him to have to tear down
this that he had paid
contractors to build
although it appears that they did not do it
correctly and
with that I'll ask
Mr. Romero to
raise his hand it should be Franklin Romero
Franklin Romero has been
unmuted and allowed to speak
Morning sir could you please
state your name and spell for the stenographer
Mr. Romero
Mr. Romero
please unmute yourself.
Can you hear me?
Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Franklin Romero.
Spell your name, please.
F-R-A-N-K-H-L-I-N
Romero R-O-M-E-R-O
You swear or affirm
to tell the truth,
the whole truth,
nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Romero.
Did you hear my presentation just now about your property on Masher Street?
Do you agree with what I said and do you adopt it as your own?
Nothing further.
Questions from the board?
No, Jim.
Barron?
no questions chair thank you questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
just briefly mr chair um so one um i would suggest a proviso based on the rco's concerns
stating a maximum of three dwelling units, indicating that that's to remain.
The refusal was a little bit confusing on the parking issue.
It wasn't listed in the description, but there is a refusal for parking.
Mr. Consul has stated that the applicant is no longer pursuing parking.
So for clarity, I would request a proviso that says no accessory off-street parking space.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see.
Don't hear, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning, David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
And good morning.
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission, Chairman and Board Member.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This property has a documented history as a multifamily dwelling.
The rear addition appears to have been built without the benefit of permits.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant a proposed use variance for three dwelling units,
but deny the proposed variances for off-street accessory parking, maximum occupied area, and minimum rear yard depth.
Thank you. MI 2023-006-942-4754 Masher Street. I vote yes with provisos. Maximum three dwelling units, no accessory off-street parking.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso thank you thank you council number 15 mi 2023
did we
133 south 60th we did we continue that hillary yes mr chair that was continued
at the request of applicants counsel. Thank you very much. And number 16, MI 2023-006-948-198
Spark Street. Jennifer Bazzillo is the attorney. There's an email from the RCO to the applicants
counsel indicating that 99% of the residents were in favor of this project. Additionally,
there was the applicant provided 11 form letters of support from neighbors, six from the 100 block
of West Sparks. Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer? Sure. It's Jennifer Bezidlow, J-E-N-N-I-F-E-R. Last name is B as in boy,
A as in apple, Z as in zebra, Y, D as in David, L as in Larry, O as in Oscar.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Ms. Wynn, and she is the owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to read the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
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 yes thank you please proceed so as i said i'm here today representing the property owner
miss win who purchased this property at sheriff's sale in 2020 i'm just going to walk through our
exhibits briefly here we have the refusal there's just one refusal it's for use of the property as
a two-family dwelling in an RSA 5 district. Here's the deed showing Ms. Wynn's ownership.
We have our tax compliance cert. We didn't, I did ask the RCO for a letter many times. I just
didn't get it back, but I did receive this email saying that the residents were in support, which
is backed up by our outreach to the community directly showing, and we do, one of the letters
of support is the adjacent property at 187 Spark Street and I believe I'm not sure which one it is
but the block captain is also in support of the project and we have been in communication with
her and she has all of the contact information for the owner. There's her letters of support
and the other supports are from the adjacent block so they are near neighbors as well.
Here we can see we have some prior zoning permits that showed that there was a commercial use and
single family home here at one point so we had two units um and then this is i'm going to come
back to this but this is showing the other um rsa5 zone properties that are not single family homes
along second street here's the list of them i'm going to come back um i'm in a separate packet
here which i also submitted uh is all of the permits for those properties that are not single
family homes. We have aerial views of the property and the larger neighborhood and then
photos. There's our posting on both sides of the property. And here is the additional unit.
That's the side of the building with the side entrance. We're going to come back to all of this
as well. And our floor plans showing one unit on the upper level, on the upper two levels. And
this additional unit on the lower. So let me just go back to the photos one second.
All right, so
So when they need Sparks, it's a RSA 5 zone property. It's located on the southeast corner of North 2nd Street and Sparks Street. The parcel is a little over 1,400 square feet, 1,422 square feet, and includes an existing three-story structure.
when they need sparks it's a rsa five zone property
it is on a hill so as you can see in these photos there is the two upper floors and then this ground
floor along the side and rear. Currently when my when my when my client purchased this property in
2020 at share of sale the entire building was vacant and in need of significant repair however
it was already in these two units with no connection between the two with the two floor
with a, on the upper floor being three bedroom, one unit and the lower floor being vacant commercial
space or formerly commercial space. Our proposal is to use both of these spaces as residential
dwelling units. The upper unit, like I said, is a three bedroom, one bath unit. And that has an
entrance off of Spark Street, and then the lower unit is going to be a one-bedroom, one-bath.
It's actually quite nicely renovated when you look at it. It has an in-unit washer and dryer,
its own separate entrance. The rooms are actually quite large. The bedroom is 10 by 14.
The living area is 15 plus 19, and it has good access to the street, so there's no
safety concerns. The bedroom has windows. The living room has windows. There's a door.
We aren't, and as you can see in these photos, they're not even small windows. They're regular
size windows that you would find. You can see in the photos, they're similar sizes to the ones that
are upstairs. So it's not below, it's not below, it's not a basement dwelling unit at all. It's
just that it happens to be built into the side of a steep hill. So let's go back here. I'm going
show you the floor plans again just so you can see the access that's available this is our lower
level unit as you can see we have the door and the windows in the living area and windows in
the bedroom as well for easy access and fire safety reasons um the let me just go back to the
zoning map this use is consistent not only with the history of this property being two units but
also with the surrounding area. If you look, all of these X marks, this blue box is our property
here. And if you look at the Xs, these are all properties that are zoned RSA 5, but are either
multifamily use or mixed use commercial. Most of these buildings, when you look at the archive for
them, here's a list of them. They're all within a couple blocks on 2nd Street. The reason they're
don't always say second street is that they're corner properties with addresses facing the side
street um these were buildings that when they were built were meant to have commercial properties
inside of them for a second dwelling unit uh so as you can see a lot of these are you know a grocery
in one unit or two they've been converted to two residential units um the property directly across
the street from my client's property is a beer distributor um i have a photo here so as you can
see there's a beer distributor on the first floor and a residential unit above and again that
property is also zoned RSA 5. So we have a lot of the neighborhood here being multi-use, mixed use
or multiple family use but in this RSA 5 zoning mostly because these were how the buildings were
constructed but the zoning doesn't reflect the construction. So let's see and you can also see
in this photo here um the property across the street here is also two residential units this
is the one that's across like facing the second unit it also has two units in it um so you know
similar similar uses in similar areas um hold on one second uh and like i said this is zoned rsa5
as are all these other properties that are used for um mixed use or two units so honestly a lot
of these properties they are designed to be more cmx2 buildings um or even cmx1 and then if it was
if the zoning aligned with the construction of the properties um this would be a use that uh
you know you would have two units here by right if it was cmx2 you would be allowed to have two
you know you would have two units here by right if it was cmx2 you would be allowed to have two
to be a resident.
residential units and a commercial and cmx1 you would still be looking at two units allowed by
right here um so you know it's not only in line with what's already there but it's in line with
the way that the building had been constructed you know back in the 50s you know a long time ago
So we did have an RCO meeting. It was very well attended, is what I'll say. We had lots of near neighbors and lots of people from the community at large. We were there. There was a large auditorium and we answered questions.
And in general, like you see in the email, largely the residents were in support.
We did an additional outreach to talk to the near neighbors who were also in support, including the adjacent neighbor.
There was, I will tell you, there was a couple of concerns, all of which our project actually is good for.
They were concerned that someone was going to open up another business here.
And they did not want a business.
They wanted to see people living in this space and connected that with there had been role gates installed.
and we agreed to remove them. I think they may have already been removed, but if not,
they will be removed. This is going to be a residential living space, which the neighbors
seem to be happy about. So in summary, what we have here is we're looking to use the property
for two residential dwelling units. It was already divided into two units and had formerly been used
as a commercial space at the low level. And we're looking to just have two residential units.
My client does live in Philadelphia, will be managing the property themselves, and is an experienced landlord.
And the block captain in the community seem to be in support of this use of providing some nice quality housing at not too expensive a price for people in the community.
Would you bring your client home, please, and adopt your testimony?
Ms. Wynn, can you raise your virtual hand and unmute yourself?
and if she isn't available charlie lee might be available chair we have a caller with the
phone number ending in zero six five zero hello yep hi could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer uh yes my name is win win uh h-u-y-e-n last name win n-t-u-y-e-n right do
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed
counsel miss when did you hear my testimony here today and believe it to be truthful and accurate
yes and would you adopt it as your own yes thank you thank you questions from the board
no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary embers
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning.
David Fecto 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 property has a documented history as one dwelling unit with a basement restaurant dating to the 1950s.
The basement shows signs of a residential conversion without the benefit of permits.
The comprehensive plan recommends accessory dwelling units in walkout basements in the Upper North Planning District.
The appellant has shown that two dwelling units is the minimum needed to afford relief.
And since the proposal is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant a proposed use variance for a second dwelling unit.
Thank you. MI 2023-006-948-190.
8th spark street i vote yes james snell my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you counsel thank you so much is there anyone in the virtual
audience whose uh 9 30 a.m case has not been called i see no hands chair oh wait a minute
chair sorry we have vern anastasio okay
hi mr chair yeah yeah burn i have one on my list 536 montrose street
thought i showed that later today maybe i'm wrong
my mr anastasio that case is on the 330 list yeah yeah all right for some reason i had it
at 9 30 my apologies okay thank you thank you for anyone else in the virtual audience
okay thanks everyone see everyone at 2 p.m
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's
good afternoon
meeting. With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, LeBaron Leonard Palmer from the Division of Development Services will be serving as
an alternate Board Member.
Good afternoon.
And Emily Persico from the Division of Development Services will also be serving as an alternate board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Also present is Hilary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting tanyasunken at phil.gov.
for attorneys and witnesses should identify themselves before testifying with our court
reporter. Three, if you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to
unmute. To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address
to the property question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for
comments or test many. All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya
Sunson. Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon. Number one, MI 2023-002-787-90
Red Lion Road. Sean Ward is the attorney. Mr. Ward.
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host.
Thank you.
Sean Ward has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, Mr. Ward.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I know this is a case that's been dragging on, however.
Mr. Ward, just for the record, state your name and spell for the court stenographer and I'll swear you.
My apologies.
I should have waited.
No, no.
Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N, last name W-A-R-D.
attorney for applicant do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
about the truth i most certainly do please proceed sir uh mr chair um this is a reconsideration
hearing however i had doctor appointments last thursday and i was hospitalized on friday
for a heart procedure and I was unable to get my reconsideration packet into Hillary in time
and I would ask that this case be continued one more time. I know there is some concern by
one of the interested parties. I did share an email with him earlier suggesting that we have
a site visit uh with him and the property owner applicant to discuss those issues uh however i am
just unable to go forward today due to um yeah extenuating circumstances mr ward we understand
and we hope you're getting better so mi 2023 002 787 90 red line red line road this case is
continued mark must be hurt thank you sir thank you thank you mr chair thank you for taking the
time to call us. All right. Number six. MI 2024-000-899-5231 Greenway Avenue, Rontique, Parica
is the listed applicant. Espan Trust is the listed owner. Anyone hear from there?
Chair, I see no word by that name.
Okay, so the applicant was Mr. Parika, and ESPAN Trust is the listed owner.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Feldman, Brett Feldman has his hand raised.
I don't know if he has anything to do with this case, because they need an attorney.
Okay, sure.
Mr. Feldman.
uh good afternoon brett feldman uh no i am not on this case sorry i was raising my hand for
continuance uh on another matter that i'm involved with so thank you we appreciate it i'll lower my
hand and then raise it again after okay um so we have no hands for this one at all okay excuse me
chair oh sorry um we did have a hand up from a phone number ending in 7409
7-4-0-9.
They've been allowed to speak.
they've been allowed to speak
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the stenographer?
Call her with the phone number ending in 7-4-0-9.
Please unmute yourself.
You're free to speak.
Hello?
Chair, they may be having technical difficulties.
The number has disappeared.
Okay, so MI2024-000899-5231 Greenway Avenue.
This case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
Number 11.
Mr. Chair, for that one, I just want to note for the record that an attorney is required in case someone is listening involved in this case because the property is owned by a trust.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, number 11, MI 2024-000-969-3801 Woodhaven Road, cases continued.
And number 13, MI 2024-001-079-3015 West York Street.
council member young's office has requested a continuance is peter kelson in the audience
chair peter kelson just raised his head he'll be unmuted and allowed to speak okay
good afternoon mr chairman good afternoon mr kelson could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer? Absolutely. Peter Kelsen, K-E-L-S-E-N, blank room LLP.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. This particular property that council members has asked for continuance,
he said the RCO has not spoken with the applicant. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind,
could you give me the address of that property? So we have, we have 3015 West York street and we
have your, we have your name next to it. Right. Mr. Yeah. If I may, I believe the confusion
comes from the fact that Mr. Klein, Jared Klein had been handling this matter prior to his departure
from our law firm. Okay. And, um, he would be counsel. I assume he continues to be counsel
of the record on that case thank you mr kelson my pleasure thank you is mr klein in in the audience
jared klein mr chair we also have a hand from a danielle harbison for that case all right yeah
sure sure the hand was raised for yeah when we announced this case so i i don't know if
this individual how this individual involved why don't we bring everyone
Daniel Harbison has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, my name is Daniel Harbison.
Can you hear me?
Good afternoon.
Could you spell your name, please, for the stenographer?
D-A-N-I-E-L-L-E-H-A-R-B-I-S-O-N.
Are you involved in 3015 West York Street?
We are not.
I'm here with Mark Rosenberg, who also tried to unmute at one point for the 90 Red Lion Road case that was just continued again.
Yes, yes.
that case has been continued the attorney just got out of the hospital yes we heard that so
this is the third time it's been continued is there anything else that we can do at this time
to get the case i i think i i mentioned that uh it was marked must be tried must be heard the next
time okay okay okay thank you but thank you um jared klein in the audience chair i do not see
his hand up so we're going to go mr knockam sorry mr knockamson has his hand raised he may be able
to speak on this case jared klein is with his firm mr chair members of the board
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do are you involved in the 30 is your firm involved with 30 15 west york i am not sure
but mr klein is a member of our firm so unfortunately he's at he's at a trial today
so i will investigate that so 30 15 york street you said 30 15 west york street i'm going to
continue with the council's office has requested a continuance as the RCO has not spoken with the
applicant yet. Okay. Thank you. All right. This is the first listing for this matter. Right. So
MI 2024-001-079-3015 West York Street cases continued.
30-15 West York Street cases continued.
And number three,
MI 2023-006-510-1232 East Kelowna Street.
It's Mr. Sokoloff in the audience.
Mr. Sokoloff, if you're in the audience,
please raise your virtual hand.
i see no handshare so mi 2023 006 510 1223 east colonna street there's no exhibits for this
second listing cases continued mark must be heard
and i think we're ready to start here
number two we're going to go to number two and i just reach here before you go to number two
mr feldman has his hand up well bring him on because he's he's number two oh okay thank you
thank you he he's quick to the draw here mi2023 003 775 3148 west berk street
brett feldman is the attorney he's coming back in as a panelist now chair
good afternoon mr chair mr fellman this is the one you were well i i i actually have two items
on the agenda um 3148 west burke street i believe is also on the agenda that's what i'm ready to go
with okay so that's that you beat me to it but um we have been asked uh again by the um the district
council person to request a continuance in that matter. Number two. Yes. All right. Okay. So
MI 2023-003-775-3148 West Berk Street. Cases continued. Mark must be heard.
Mr. Truman, if we can not be indicated that way, we haven't requested these continuance. I was,
I was ready to go today. Well, I'm doing it for both sides, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. But I just
want to put that on the record. I submitted it. Okay. We thank you. You have another case that's
going to be continued? No, I have another case that I would love to do right now, if possible.
I will get to you very shortly. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Number four,
MI 2024-000-797-208-10-Rex Avenue. Meredith Verliger is the attorney.
there's a letter there was an rco meeting we do not have an rco letter but the chestnut hill
community association has a letter of support
counsel you sorry mr chair just to clarify that that is the letter initially we did not have a
letter of support but they sent it in separately so that was that was an update so we do have the
our seal letter of support. Okay, good. All right. Counselor, you've already been sworn. Just state
your name for the record. Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R. Could you identify your client
in relationship to the property? Sure. My client is the Howell Group LLC, which is the equitable
owner under an agreement of sale. Vice Chair has a few questions. Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do i do have emailed
in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing yes yes thank you counsel please proceed are you also hearing an echo
we hear you twice sometimes when you talk okay if it if it continues let me know and i'll sure
Yep. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, my client this afternoon is the HAL Group LLC, and my representative from the HAL Group is Mike Stanton. As I mentioned, the HAL Group LLC is under agreement of sale, which we have included at Exhibit 3.
to address a few additional administrative matters first the board has my exhibit packet
which contains a total of 23 exhibits tax clearances at exhibit two and at exhibit three
the board has sections of the agreement of sale between my client the how group llc and the
current owners of the property at 208 through 10 racks avenue hewson and virginia baltzel
today's application is the very happy culmination of over six years of failed attempts by prior
developers to design an economically viable proposal for this historic gem that compromises
to meet the desires of community stakeholders and city approval agencies to quote the chestnut hill
and city approval agencies to quote the chestnut hill community association letter of support to
Community Association.
the board this is the third development proposal that the community has seen for this historic
property over the last several years and is the only one that has met with community support
prior to coming before this board the proposal was granted final approval by the philadelphia
Historical Commission on April 12, 2024. That approval letter is also in the packet at Exhibit
13. By way of brief overview, the proposal the Board will see today includes two new single
family homes, the conversion of the existing mansion into four condominium units, and the
addition to the back of the mansion for one additional condo unit. I'll start first with
an overview of the property. The property before the board today is located at 208 through 10
Rex Avenue. Currently, the property includes three separate lots that are proposed to be
consolidated into one large lot of 61,505 square feet. The lot consolidation plan is included and
shown up on the screen at exhibit 11a. So you see there are two lots along wrecks and there's one
small sliver that's in the rear that runs along the train tracks. The zoning map is also included
at exhibit 5 and shows that this property is zoned RSD3. Aerials are shown at exhibit 7
and this is just a general far away view and I'll zoom in a little bit.
the property at 208 rex avenue is a corner property at rex avenue and creffield street
in chestnut hill philadelphia the property currently houses a large historic mansion
with a circular driveway that you can see along rex avenue that also has openings on both rex and
creffield the property is surrounded by predominantly single-family homes with a
large apartment complex just to the south across the rail lines. And again, this is just another
view of the general aerial. In the photographs at Exhibit 8, the board will see the historic
Hearst-Dooring mansion, which was first constructed between 1857 and 1860. The mansion is over 8,000
square feet, and while it has retained its historic aesthetic, is in significant need of
renovation and revitalization. The next view of the site is from Crefield Street, where the board
will see the site is largely obscured by overgrown vegetation. The next couple of photos show the
circular driveway, which has been a notable feature of this site since 1876. Surrounding
this site are other beautiful Chestnut Hill single-family homes. At Exhibit 9, we've included
a few nighttime photographs which also reflect the proper posting of the site
prior to today's hearing and again just another view a couple more
these photographs identify the extent of the of the significant but historically respectful
modifications that are needed to the structure to restore it to its 1800s glory we've also included
a few existing photos of the interior.
Let me just bring those up.
There we go.
Okay, so again, these photographs at Exhibit 17 show a couple of additional close-up views of the mansion, and again, you can see the extent of the renovations that are proposed to be made to this structure in accordance with the approval of the Historical Commission.
And again, these are some of the interior photographs showing the current interior of a portion of the building.
for additional context as i walk through the proposal this application received three refusals
two of which are quite similar the application was refused because no more than one principal
structure is permitted on an rsd3 lot where three total separate structures are proposed
similarly the rsd3 zoning would prohibit what is classified as a multifamily use
even though the seven total residential uses are characteristically single-family in nature.
Finally, the application was refused because any site clearing and earth moving is prohibited
Finally, the application was refused because any site clearing and earthmoving is prohibited.
where the slope is greater than 25%.
As the evidence will show, there are several areas on the site that will violate this prohibition.
Exhibit 10 shows a variety of rendered views of the proposed development.
As you can see on the first rendered site plan, the historical semi-circular driveway
will be restored and improved, and will provide parking for eight vehicles. To the west side of
the site, two new single-family homes will be constructed, each with a garage space and one
additional parking space. The mansion will be converted into four units, and one additional
unit will be built at the rear. The addition will have two dedicated parking spaces. Overall,
for seven residential units uses 14 parking spaces are provided i'll briefly also walk you
through some artistic renderings of the proposal and again these are the two two single family
homes that were shown to the back you can see the addition that will be added and of course
this shows the proposed renovation to the mansion itself
the formal zoning plan is included in the packet at exhibit 11b
at exhibit 11c the board has a revised zoning plan that we are requesting the board stamp in
conjunction with the revised plan proviso form that was submitted and if i flip quickly you'll
actually be able to see what has been changed it's extremely small but if you look at the location of
this house in relation to the mansion it has now been shifted slightly south to better align with
certain historical landmarks on the mansion so a very small change regarding the four condominiums
to be constructed within the mansion as well as for the addition in the rear floor plans are shown
at Exhibit 19. Each of the units within the mansion will be a bi-level unit of roughly
2,500 to 3,000 square feet. The elevations at Exhibit 18 show the proposed rear addition
is designed as a natural extension of the existing building,
and as it pertains to the two single-family homes,
Each home will be roughly 3,500 square feet. Elevations and floor plans for the single-family
homes, if the board cares to see them, are at Exhibit 20 through 23. The entire site will be
converted into a planned community that will have a homeowners association to manage the site.
In addition, the units within the mansion will be further divided into individual condominium
for sale units. The Homeowners Association will manage all aspects of this site,
including trash collection, maintenance, snow removal, and all other aspects that would normally
be the responsibility of an HOA. Regarding landscaping, an existing features plan is
shown at Exhibit 11E. As the board saw in earlier photographs, this site benefits from significant
it mature foliage, and it was the developer's goal to retain as much mature tree coverage as
possible. Unbelievably, this site currently has 89 trees. Over 90% of the healthy trees on site
will be retained, and the seven dead, dying, or invasive trees will be removed. Of the healthy
trees to be removed, 50% of the required tree caliper will be replaced, with another 50% being
waived by the city planning commission with a payment in lieu by the developer a preliminary
landscape plan is included at exhibit 11f reflecting the current landscape design that
will certainly continue to be further refined during the entitlement process for reference
the developer engaged a landscaped architect and arborist to prepare the landscape plans before you
today and his summary cover letter is included at exhibit 12. should the board desire it we are
happy to submit the detailed report as well. However, none of the requests for relief today
pertain to landscaping. With respect to the refusals, in light of the evidence provided
concerning the details and history of this property, the applicant's hardship is already
well established. However, I will briefly summarize. Regarding the refusal for multiple
principal structures and the proposed multifamily use, these refusals stem primarily from the
necessity to preserve this property as a single operational unit instead of subdividing individual
lots. While subdividing might eliminate the multiple principal structures refusal, it would
it would diminish the overall necessity of preserving the property as a solitary unit,
diminish the overall necessity of preserving the property as a solitary unit.
particularly preserving the historic semicircular driveway that would have to be removed to
accommodate a true subdivision. In light of the proposed plan unit development, the three
structures will, in fact, be three independent legal unit ownerships, which is not something
the Philadelphia Zoning Code has the ability to account for. Preserving the property as a solitary
zoning unit also furthers the desires of the Historical Commission to minimize on-site paving
and preserve the visual integrity of the mansion. Furthermore, at least as it relates to the two new
single-family homes, these homes only constitute multi-family due to their situation on one zoning
lot. In fact, these single-family homes comply with the spirit of the RSD3 zoning district.
Regarding the mansion itself, the applicant submits to a hardship in maintaining a single-family use of the existing 8,000-square-foot mansion.
The city's records show that the mansion historically had at least two units at one time, and this proposal would only increase that by three, including the rear addition.
As the board saw in the photographs and extensive elevations provided, this historic mansion is in need of considerable investment to restore its historic character in accordance with the Historic Commission requirements.
Such an investment is made possible by the proposed density, which also meets the spirit of the single-family zoning district, given the proposed condominium ownership structure.
The density and site layout is driven directly from physical characteristics of the lot, such as existing heritage trees, fire department access requirements, and maintaining the historic integrity of the site.
The proposed unit count is the least minimum to ensure historically sensitive redevelopment and is the least dense proposal of the several prior failed developments I referenced earlier, which all included significantly more units and overall structure.
The applicant also received a refusal for construction within a steep slope.
First, in accordance with Section 147042 of the Code, the applicant commissioned the preparation of an earth-moving plan, which is included at Exhibit 11D, bearing the City Planning Commission stamp.
On this plan, the board will note the areas marked in red, which proposes construction in areas containing more than a 25% slope.
And you can see that here with the little lines with the little dots on them.
As a preliminary note, it is thought that some of these steep slope areas are man-made, resulting from the original construction of the home.
Given the location of the slopes, which are nearly central to this property, it would be nearly impossible to avoid the slopes while still also respecting the significant historic considerations that contributed to the design of the site.
For example, the rear addition is situated in such a way as to be almost entirely shielded by the existing mansion.
Even a slight deviation in location of the addition to remove it from the steep slope would violate the desires of many community stakeholders and would likely not be approved by the Historical Commission.
It is probable that any design of this site would ultimately impact the steep slope areas, and this particular design has been crafted to result in the least amount of disruption and will be done in accordance with engineering consultants and applicable standards to avoid impact to surrounding properties.
The applicant submits the proposal will not increase congestion, endanger the public, or impair light and air.
Only a total of seven residential dwellings are proposed for a lot of over 60,000 square feet.
By way of comparison, if this lot could be subdivided, the RSD3 zoning district would permit lots of 5,000 square feet each,
so roughly 12 residences, if other dimensional aspects of the code were able to be met.
Each of the seven residences will have two parking spaces.
The driveway curb cuts already exist and will be improved to comply with modern standards.
The proposed addition and the new single-family homes all individually meet the requirements of the zoning code, including for height.
The proposed development fits into the context of the predominantly single-family neighborhood, as well as the apartment complexes to the rear.
Finally, the proposal will not burden area infrastructure or facilities, nor will it create environmental damage or other impact.
The development will require the installation of a new stormwater management system that will improve the current conditions of a site that was first developed over 150 years.
that will improve the current conditions of a site that was first developed over 150 years ago
a more thorough analysis of this proposal's compliance with all requirements of section 14
303 8e of the code is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at exhibit
15 and i'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail
regarding the community and let me bring up their letter for reference
you know what um i may have that in another version i'll bring it up if the board would like
it this proposal stems from over two years worth of house collaboration with both the chestnut hill
community association and more locally the rex avenue neighbors association resulting in the
execution of a cba documenting a variety of house development commitments that cba will
eventually be recorded of record. And at this time, I would ask if the administrator could
look for Mike Stanton. Mike Stanton. He's been unmuted and allowed to speak. Mr. Stanton,
could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer? Yes, thank you. Good afternoon.
Mike Stanton, M-I-K-E, last name Stanton, S-T-A-N-T-O-N, with the Howe Group.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mike, can you please identify yourself in relation to the Howe Group?
Yes, I'm on our development team with the Howe Group and been leading this project for the last two years plus, working with the Chestnut Hill Community Association and the Rex Avenue Neighborhood Association.
and you have authority to speak on behalf of the howl group llc i do great and have you heard all
the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today i have and would you
agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own
yes wonderful we're happy to take any questions the board has questions from the board
no chair no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um mary just verifying there are uh two pages of revised plans i believe that is correct let
me just double check uh one yes that is correct all right thank you yes and hillary they'll be
stamped today yes they will mr chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have charles richardson with his head up okay they have been unmuted and allowed to speak
mr richardson just state your name you've already been sworn sir thank you mr chair
charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall councilwoman is not
opposed to granting the variance thank you very much for calling is there anyone else in the
diverse audience. Chair, I see the other heads at this time. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Dan Powers with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
D-A-N-P-O-W-E-R-S. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please proceed. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to
single-family detached zoning at this location the appellant proposes multiple dwelling units
and accessory off street parking on an almost 42 000 square foot lot the property is surrounded by
higher density residential zoning district and borders a commuter rail line there are also
multiple apartment complexes on evergreen avenue and the steep slope disturbance has been kept to
a minimum the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variances
Thank you. MI 2024-000-797-208-10 Rex Avenue. I vote yes with proviso. Revised plans, two pages, stamped 5124.
James Snell, yes. My vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024, 000817, 472-74 Roxborough Avenue.
William O'Brien is the attorney.
Mr. O'Brien, please.
There he is.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. O'Brien
There you go
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman
There you go, there it's said
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer
Yes, William O'Brien
W-I-L-L-I-A-M-O-B-R-I-E-N
You swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify
your client in a relationship to the property? Yes. Baker Street Partners
is my client. It's a limited liability company registered in
Pennsylvania. Over my right shoulder is Andrew Molson, who is
a managing member of the limited liability company. Our vice
chair has just a few questions, sir. Good afternoon, counsel. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Can you see my screen?
We can, sir.
Great. So this is the refusal, but let me give some context first.
This project in a different form came to the board a year ago.
At that time, it was a little bit differently configured. It was a little denser. There was compliant but higher building involved.
We worked with the neighborhood over the past few months and came to a less dense proposal, which has almost 78% of the lot as open space, still providing one-to-one parking.
And we do have the support of the Central Roxborough Civic Association, which is attached at page two of the package.
The refusals are on the screen now.
One is the use, multifamily use.
And then there are some dimensional issues.
Because there's a second building now, there's two buildings on the lot as a refusal.
and the front yard space for the new building is dedicated to parking.
I'm not sure it's really a front yard, but that's how the examiner saw it.
And then finally, the rear yard, the required is 20 feet and was proposed as eight.
I'd like to address just a couple of these dimensional issues.
The minimum lot area in the RSA 3 district is 2,250 square feet.
This lot is over 22,000 square feet. It's almost 10 times the size of the minimum lot area.
The development proposal tries to find a common sense solution to maintain the streetscape, restore and maintain the existing Victorian building, and provide continued canopy for the neighborhood.
But as I said, the zoning limits the occupied area to 50%.
We're going to have over 78% of this lot open.
Although the rear yard is 8 feet instead of 20, the pictures we'll show you in a second
shows an existing four-car garage, which is approximately 2 feet from the rear property
So the eight-foot rear property line will be about four times greater than the current condition.
Let me move on to the RCO support letter.
In bold letters, it is supported.
54 people attended, and there was a good deal of support.
And Mr. Carpenter, the president of the Civic, goes into greater detail in his letter, explaining the history and why they support this project.
Let me go through a couple of photographs that gives more context.
This is the existing Victorian structure facing Roxborough Avenue.
This is with that building behind me facing Kendrick Rec Center and in front of that, Roxborough Avenue.
This is from the rear of the property looking towards Roxborough Avenue, showing the existing condition with the driveway.
The four-car garage I mentioned is behind me.
This is the east property line on the Ridge Avenue side.
You can see the stone retaining wall.
stone retaining wall. It's a 19th century stone retaining wall that extends a good bit along the
it's a 19th century stone retaining wall that extends a good
east property line and the rear property line. That detail will continue. That will not be
disturbed. It will be restored and maintained. That's the four-car garage I mentioned, which
is approximately two feet from that retaining wall, that stone wall in the back. And this is,
if you can see it, but there's the structure. Here's the rear wall, and you can see how close
the structure is to the rear wall. I couldn't get in because there's a lot of overgrowth and
distressed plantings in that area. This is with my back towards Manioc Avenue,
facing Ridge Avenue. Manioc Avenue would be to the right. I'm sorry,
not be developed and i'll go to that in a second you bring to the zoning plan
there is a proviso plan there is one change and that was a relocation of the bicycle parking
and this is the proviso plan showing that change it was in the lobby of the proposed structure
Now it's been moved to a bicycle shed as allowed by Section 14604D.
So this is the existing structure.
The retaining wall will be moved to allow for an 18-foot-wide drive aisle.
The existing building now has two units.
It will be renovated to accommodate four units, 14-car parking, and then 10 units in the proposed new structure.
As I mentioned, there's about a 4,400 square foot area of the lot, which will not be developed.
There will be a fence along the property line, six foot high fence along the property line.
And there will be a gate here so that the residents can enjoy this yard, but it will not be part of the development.
And the revised proviso form indicates that that is the only change from the review, from the plan that was reviewed and produced the refusal, and that's the relocation of the parking, bicycle parking.
Mr. O'Brien, the last time you were here, what are the major changes?
Major changes?
The original, let me skip to the renderings.
This is the proposed current condition.
This structure is 20 feet, seven inches high, generally in the same location as the four-car parking garage.
The previous proposal was not a separate structure.
but was an addition on to the existing Victorian structure.
It was height compliant, but the height was 38 feet.
But if you measured from the peak of the roof to the ground, it was probably closer to 40 feet.
So the structure I just showed you, which is now a separate structure, is approximately half the height, half the bulk of that former structure.
A wide denial. We also work closely with the planning commission on a landscape plan. There will be a total of six trees removed to allow for this development, but 14 trees are being introduced.
This is the planting plan, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 trees, all indicated in this plan.
And Bakery Partners has agreed to work with the RCO to select from the approved plantings list trees that will best develop a good canopy and will also work to save as many of the trees that are on the lot.
There are 29 trees that the arborist indicated are compromised, but we will work to do what we can to restore as many of those to some form of health and make them last as long as possible.
We do a streets department approval.
And although the area is single family, as shown on pages 24 and 25, a total of 15 properties that surround this have been converted from single family to apartments.
So there's not less than 55 apartments that surround this site.
this site. The aerial rendering shows the existing structure, the proposed structure,
and this is the area that will not be developed.
uh chris karakoff is on uh the call he's the project architect
uh if chris would raise his hand he can go through uh the floor plans
i i think we understand it mr o'brien okay and i why don't you bring your client on
uh mr molson uh were you uh you were here listening to my testimony
Could you first state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Andrew Molson, M-U-L-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. O'Brien.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You were hearing your testimony?
Is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own?
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Questions from the board?
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
just a couple of quick clarifications mr o'brien um one is the the existing accessory
garage is that being demolished as part of yes okay all right thank you and then is there a lot
consolidation as a part of this i didn't see it anywhere and i understand your client owns
both lots but there are two lots here 474 472 to 74 and then the other one is also called 472
right it's the area that's saying landscape to the left it has two postal addresses but it's
one deeded lot uh the area that i described as not being developed uh this area in white
is part of the lot it's all the same lot okay i would just double check that with city records
because it's showing up as it may be treated as maybe as one deeded lot but as separate tax
parcels or something so it looks like there may be an incomplete consolidation so i would just
i would just check on on that just to make sure all everything's in order with that
i will so all right thank you thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have janice tejada larubio they have been unmuted and allowed to speak
why could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
um janice j-a-n-i-s last name is hyphenated it's t-j-a-d as in david e-r hyphen larubio l-a
R-U-B as in boy, I-O
Do you swear or affirm
and tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I'm an owner
Please proceed
Yes, neighbor
Sure, please proceed
So this
new building and parking lot
will be right up against my property
I'm the next property over in white
Yes, right there
um and i i have uh i have a couple concerns and my main concern is it's community i mean it is
it's true there are a lot of apartments coming up in roxburgh quickly new building came up on
the corner that's four stories but we are mostly largely single family even though i rent a unit
since i have a big house and no children anymore um but it's a quiet community there's
part of the concern is
for me is going to be the pollution
because my yard is
right next to this parking lot
and all that's going to happen
they can't control the air
and I know they're going to put
trees in but I'll be dead before those
trees take effect in the environment
I've lived here 44 years
and we have a
community you know we have neighbors we take
care of each other an apartment complex
is going to bring
renters that don't stay i'm not saying that renters are bad people for god's sakes i was a
renter too but everybody's not the same and and i think owners take better care of their properties
just because they're theirs my other concern really is the parking parking in anywhere in
philadelphia is crazy this has been a pretty good block even though it's turned into the indy 500
at rush hour. And we are four houses off the corner of Roxborough Mitchell. And the driveway
of Roxborough Mitchell. And the driveway here, which is, I believe is 10 feet. Don't quote me
here, which I believe is
on that. I think that's almost correct. We'll be widened to 18. It's going to be a huge driveway,
four houses off the corner of a city block, which bears a huge amount of traffic.
of traffic and the parking is already i mean you used to be able to come here before the
this apartment complex was put up on the corner by the same builder you could come here any day
of the week busy or no and you could find a parking space there are no parking spaces here
anymore the apartment complex that they're going to put up probably will not allow for enough parking
um at a at a parking space per apartment i mean today you have people that have you know two car
families if not three for however many people are living there what's going to happen with all this
parking where are these people going to go the driveway my concern about the driveway is the
danger of the traffic coming an 18-foot driveway with the traffic coming in and out of this driveway
is going to be uh substantial and my only other concerns are really environmental
they can't stop the air no matter what they do i mean listen they they've tried to work with us i
will say that um but that you can't shut the air down whether you're putting a fence in or not
and we had some issues too with with the with the civic center we didn't really get notified
until the day of and some of us the day after that they were having this meeting so they took
in a large part of the vote without a lot of us not really being there so that's all i have to say
well were you at the meeting did you attend the meeting meeting because we found a handful of us
found out quite by accident like a day or two before this did you raise your did you raise
your issues at the meeting um yes we did yes i'm not the only one who raised that issue no i asked
did you raise your issues at the meeting yes okay all right but you say they did work try to work
with you so the the we i had a private meeting with the builder okay regarding my specific
concerns that if they get these permits we have some other things going forward but we would
still prefer single family if we had a chip we had a vote you know we were able to bring enough
people to to vote and have circa back us up the civic center thank you very much for taking the
time is there anyone else in the virtual audience chair we have alissa butler they have been unmuted
and allowed to speak. Thank you so much. So my name is Alyssa Butler. Please proceed. A-L-Y-S-S-A-B-U-T-L-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Are you a
neighbor? Yes. Please proceed. So I live right around the corner. I also neighbor Kendrick
rec center, which has been, you know, an amazing resource for the community for children and
family. So I have a few different concerns, pretty similar to Janice. Mitchell and Roxborough is a
very busy intersection. It's also, it seems to be a meeting spot on Thursdays for the sanitation
department. So there's always a lot of sanitation trucks that are waiting there. They wait for all
of their staff and then they leave from there. Um, so I think that will be an issue as far as
adding to the parking. Um, another issue is that there is a church at the corner of Mitchell and
Penn and, um, Roxborough, um, which will also, you know, requires a lot of parking for their
members to go there. Um, and then the third issue is that, um, Kendrick rec center, which does have
a parking lot but there's also a pool at the corner of ridge and roxborough and a lot of our
community rely on the pool and um do use parking on that on roxborough ave from mitchell to ridge
um so as far as the the the traffic being there um there's a a bus stop at the corner of i'm sorry
uh children's like a school bus stop at the corner of mitchell and roxborough as well and
then there's kendrick repp right across the street so there's a lot of children in the area and um as
janice spoke the roxborough av has been you know known to be pretty busy and fast cars and with
you know, known to be pretty busy and fast cars. And with additional cars pulling out of a very
additional cars
long driveway, I just feel like it's adding to, you know, some safety concerns. Okay. Thank you
very much for calling. Did you attend the RCO meeting? I did not. All right. Thank you very
much. Anyone else in the first audience? Chair, we have Michael Albert. They have been unmuted
and allowed to speak
Sir Albert, please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer
My name is Michael Albert
M-I-C-H-A-E-L
Albert A-L-B-E-R-T
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth, nothing but the truth
Are you a neighbor?
I'm an owner
next door, the adjacent property
to the east
476 Roxborough Avenue
please proceed
okay so I'm
in opposition to the proposal
when we first
when this project first began they said a year ago
with their first proposal
when we met with them they originally said
that they could not come down from that proposal
it wasn't until they were shot down
by the ZBA then that they now came
with this new proposal with
fewer units
but the concerns are still the same
this is
uh you know a residentially zoned lot but they want to now have put it at a commercial building
that dissects residential houses now they already have a building which is the first residential
structure from the corner of ridge that is i believe 27 or 29 units and then has a large
driveway dissecting the block now there will be a few houses including mine and then another
traffic lane of multi, you know, uh, dissecting residential houses. Um, they also said that
they're going to be widening the driveway, but not widening the curb cut for the cars to come
in and out. So as it is now, it's barely could fit one car. And then, I mean, also you're going
to have, uh, the trap, the, the, the commercial trash dumpsters coming in and out of that driveway.
I don't believe they're going to fit in that curb cut. Amazon deliveries, all these things,
concerns safety concerns to the pedestrians on the block um i just think it's a lot to ask for
a usage variance and to not comply with the dimensional variances i understand there's a
garage in the back that that doesn't comply now but it's a single story garage this is a multi-story
now looking onto the backyards of garhard street if again they could come back to us with an even
smaller proposal that gets more separation away from the property lines and fewer cars coming up
and down that driveway. I think that they've reworked with it only until the ZBA shot them
down. Consider that again. All right. Did you go to the RCO meeting? I did. And did you put your
on short notice also? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else in a virtual audience?
Here I see the other heads. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. The comprehensive plan, this is Dan Powers with the Philadelphia
Stadium Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location. Commission staff are aware of other duplexes on this block
face, but no other properties with 14 dwelling units. The proposal conflicts with the comprehensive
plan is not in keeping with the character of the block, and the appellant has not shown that 14
units are the minimum needed to afford relief the condition of multiple principal structures
appears to be an existing condition as does the parking in the required side yard and smaller than
allowed rear yard depth the city planning commission recommends that the board grant
the request to legalize multiple principal buildings rear yard depth and parking in the
required side yard but limit the grant of multiple units at this property to no more than two
in keeping with the other multi-unit buildings on this block face
okay um
hillary do we have revised plans on this
yes we have one page of revised plans thank you mi 2024 000 817 472 to 74 roxford avenue
i vote yes with proviso revised plan one page stamped 5124
james snell my vote is yes yes proviso ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
thank you thank you counsel thank you thank you six we don't have number seven mi2024
000 900 2300 market street parcel a peter kelson is the attorney
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
Peter Keslin is coming back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Peter Kelsen, K-E-L-S-E-N.
I think I already swore you in once today, did I not?
And I will continue to tell the truth.
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
I can. The owner of the property is 2300 Market Street Owner, LLC, and 2300 Market REIT, as indicated by the deed shown as Exhibit 9 to our package, Mr. Chair.
And our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibit that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Yes, I did.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed.
Thank you.
I would ask if I could promote Mr. Martin Grigorski, please, as a panelist so he can run the video.
he's coming back in as a panelist great thank you and counsel you'll do the testifying right
he'll just run the machine yeah thank you in fact i'm going to start if if that's okay
give an overview because i know you have a big list so uh good afternoon again members of the
board. The site that we're talking about today is under construction. It is going to be used
as offices and for research and development. It is located, I'm going to need Mr. Grigorski in a
moment to flash the screen. Here we go. It is located on the south side of Market Street,
bounded by 23rd, and Ludlow to the rear.
The lot area is approximately 25,300 square feet.
You can note that from exhibit number two, if we could share that.
The property is zoned.
You get a view of the overall area.
The property is zoned CMX4.
The development itself is by right and, as I said, is proceeding under construction.
The request before the board today is to establish terraces within the property, as you can see on Exhibit 7.
They will require, from a use standpoint, a special exception because it's a non-residential building.
And in this district, accessory terraces or roof decks are not permitted without a special exception.
We are also asking the board to grant a de minimis variance to allow us to modify the setback from five feet per code to three feet at level five and two feet, six inches on level number four.
So we're talking two roof decks, roof terraces within the building itself.
The terraces will only be used by occupants of the building.
As I indicated, they are accessory only.
And the deviations from code, I repeat, are de minimis.
If we go to Exhibit 8 for the rendering, there we go.
The building, it's very interesting.
This originally consisted of three separate parcels and three separate structures.
The application that was approved and is being developed calls for the retention of the property that is closest to the 23rd Street frontage and market.
We're retaining that structure.
the property or the portion of the property moving immediately to the west we are retaining
the facade literally restoring the facade as you see it in this rendering um and that will be
replaced once construction is complete and finally the third building that was adjacent to
that was adjacent to our most westerly neighbor, that was demolished.
our most westerly
So we're constructing a total of 193,000 square feet of floor area.
There will be an overbuild, as you see, above the existing, if you will, structure,
as well as above, so to speak, the facade.
And we will contain approximately 10 stories in height to the top of the addition and about 165 feet of height.
The building will be Lee Gold, and it has received green building bonuses from the zoning unit and the planning commission.
The property has been reviewed by Civic Design Review. They've approved it. That is in the package that we provided to you. And you can see this CDR letter at exhibit number five.
The matter has also been reviewed by Center City Residents Association.
They have indicated they're non-opposition.
That letter of non-opposition is contained in the exhibit package at exhibit number four.
The proposed use is consistent with surrounding uses.
In fact, we previously came in for approval for similar terraces at the building, which is directly across 23rd Street, the Morgan Lewis headquarters.
And those special exceptions and variances were granted for the same reason, setback of the five feet, as well as the exception.
You will note that the building fronts on Market Street, 100-foot-plus wide street, and clearly, from a public health, safety, and welfare standpoint, these terraces will have no negative impact on the surrounding structures, community, and in fact will create a quality of life and a liveliness above the street level
to enhance this quadrant of Market Street.
We're asking for dimensional relief in terms of the variance.
And again, I would indicate that from a dimensional standpoint,
these are truly de minimis.
If the board has any questions,
a representative of the developer is here.
I'd like to promote Mr. Joe Traynor
so he can affirm my testimony
and also answer any questions that you may have.
Please proceed.
Joe Traynor has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, it's Joe Traynor, J-O-E-T-R-A-Y-N-O-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Traynor, can you tell us what your affiliation with the ownership entity is, please?
Yes, I'm with Breakthrough Properties.
We are the developer affiliated with 2300 Market Street Owner, LLC.
And you've heard the testimony and evidence that I presented today to the zoning board, did you not?
I have, yes.
And would you adopt that testimony and evidence as your own if you were to make it yourself?
I do, yes.
Very good.
I have no further questions of the week.
Questions from the board.
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 see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Dan Powers with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change to the commercial mixed-use zoning
at this location from cmx4 to cmx5 the appellant has shown that the non-residential roof deck will
have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected the dimensional
variance for the non-residential roof deck setback is minor and in keeping with the purpose and spirit
of the zoning code and will not injure the use of adjacent property the city planning commission
recommends that the board grant the proposed special exception and dimensional variance
Thank you. Hillary, we don't have any revised plans with this, do we?
No, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. MI 2024-000-900-2300 Market Street, Parcel A. I vote yes.
Parcel A, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, members of the board.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Number eight, MI 2024-000-902-1736 North 22nd Street.
Darlene Treat is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from St. Elizabeth's RCO, letter of authorization between PLB and Holloman LLC, letter of support from Councilman Young's office.
Good afternoon, Council.
Good afternoon, Commissioner.
Darling, read on behalf of the applicant.
Could you spell your name for the sonographer, please?
D-A-R-L-E-N-E, last name Threatt, T-H-R-E-A-T-T.
And Commissioner, I apologize.
I was being brought in as a panelist.
Did you say there was a letter of opposition?
No, no, letter of, no, all letter of support.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I said the one was authorization.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, your relationship to the property?
My client is Holloman LLC. I believe there's a Michelle Holloman on the line this afternoon.
Okay, thank you. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have
thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen
Commissioners, can you see my screen?
It's coming up right now.
It's up.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I represent Holloman LLC in this application before the board today.
I have submitted a package of information that contains 38 exhibits,
mainly the refusal appeal property information form tax information form deed letter from phdc
authorizing us to go before the zoning board of adjustment some plans pictures community letter
proof of mailing a letter of support from saint elizabeth's community association as well as a
letter of support from Councilman Young's office. Commissioners, this property is zoned as an RM1,
which provides for multifamily dwellings. When you want to have more than three
units, you have to provide a certain amount of side yard. In this particular instance,
we were required to provide 12 feet of side yard, but we were only able to provide
six feet of side yard. Therefore, we received a refusal, and I would qualify that as a de minimis
refusal. I would like to explain to the board that before bringing this application to the board,
I did meet with the owners of the building next to us, at least on two occasions, and I did
attempt to purchase an additional six feet of side yard. Unfortunately, I really wasn't able
to do it. So therefore, we had to put in this application for appeal so we can build these
six units. I would also like to say that these six units are four low-income units and two market
rate units. I'll just go through some of the pertinent information that I think the board
is interested in. The first exhibit that I'll discuss is the tax clearance. As you can see,
there are no tax indebtedness on this property
we have the deed and most importantly here's a letter from phdc allowing us to go forward with
building permits zoning permit and any other types of permit that we need for this property currently
commissioners today this property is a vacant lot and here on this vacant lot we will
Today, this property is a vacant lot, and here on this vacant lot, we would like to build a multifamily dwelling containing six units, four low-income units, and two market rate units.
This property would also have a roof deck, which every single apartment in this building would be able to access.
I'm going to flip down now to the actual plans.
Here is a picture of the front of the building and what we are proposing.
We are proposing a three-story dwelling.
Here's a rendering of the dwelling.
We will have a roof deck, which is set back about eight feet from the front of the building.
And here we have, for your view, the site plan.
Commissioners, here is a side elevation of the building.
I just wanted to show you this elevation because we will be entering our building from the side of the property here.
This is actually the front of the building. You would enter through the side here, and all residents, this staircase goes all the way up to the top to the roof deck, and all the residents will have access to the roof deck of this building.
Now, here is the floor plan for this particular dwelling.
We have six units here. The first unit is actually a bi-level unit, and it's a two-bedroom,
two-bathroom unit. The second unit is a one-bedroom apartment. The third unit is a one-bedroom
apartment. The fourth unit is the same. The fifth and sixth unit is the same. All one bedroom. Pretty
good size apartments. I have some additional pictures just to show you the makeup of the
neighborhood and to show you that what we're proposing here is not really different from any
of the other development that has really been done on the block here. Here's another picture
of our building. Let me just blow it up a little bit more for you.
This is actually our lot right here. To the left of us currently is an eight-unit building,
and to the right of us currently is a 10-unit building. So the development that we are seeking
here is in line with the development that's been done on the building, excuse me, on the block.
Also, I would like to add that most of these developments do not have the requisite side yard as required by an RM1.
This particular building here is 1744, and it's approximately 12 units.
these are other uh multi-families i'm on the block at 10 12 and i believe 12.
health here on the corner is actually a Philadelphia Housing Corp development the zoning records are
not clear but it is a several multi-units on the corner here across the street is a school I only
show that picture to indicate that that side of the street is not filled with residential housing
And that's where the parking will be in the evening time.
Put in an additional picture so you could just see the nature of the area that we're requesting to build on.
Commissioners, we did have an opportunity to meet with St. Elizabeth's RCO on March 27th, 2024.
The meeting was pretty well attended, and no one at the meeting had any opposition to any aspect of our project.
I did notice the neighborhood with 153 letters, and there's our proof of mailing.
We did receive a letter of support from St. Elizabeth's RCO.
We did discuss the project with the councilman's office, and we were able to get a lot of support from Councilman Jeffrey Young.
councilman jeffrey young um and with that um i'm willing to um answer any questions that the board
And with that, I'm willing to.
may have about this development why don't you bring your client on to adopt your testimony
miss holliman can you raise your hand please
will you see her hand
Ms. Holloman
yes she's free to speak
hi could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer
Michelle Holloman
M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E
H-O-L-L-O
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Ms. Holloman, are you a member of Holloman LLC?
Yes, I am.
And are you guys in the process of owning this property in the city of Philadelphia?
Yes, we are.
And have you heard my testimony as presented to the board today?
Yes, I have.
And if you were to testify today, would you adopt my testimony as true and correct?
Yes, I will.
That's all I have.
Commission, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. 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 at this time, Chair.
Any commission?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Dan Powers with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The appellant requests a six-foot wide side yard, while a 12-foot would be required if included.
Since side yards are optional in RM1, this dimensional variance is supportable.
The appellant has shown that the proposed reduction in the side yard width will not injure the use of adjacent property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed dimensional variance.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 000902, 1736 North 22nd Street.
I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much, commissioners.
All right, number nine, MI 2024, 000907, 4913 North Lawrence Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter and summary of opposition from the new 42nd Ward.
Three in support, five against.
There also is a signed petition of support that we have received.
Alan Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Great.
my counsel could you state your name for the record i think i swore you in once today
yes uh alan knockamson and could you identify your client in relationship to the property
yes my client is aisa gonzalez she's the owner of the property our vice chair has a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes we have thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen and wait one minute uh hillary
isn't this the case we talked about holding um yes mr chair we will thank you god bless
We will need to hear and hold this case for corrected or amended refusal.
I've discussed this with Mr. Nockmson.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I was going to mention that, too.
I spoke to Hillary a little before the hearing.
She mentioned that there needs to be maybe some fine-tuning of the refusal.
All right.
So we'll first review the refusal that's currently in existence, and then we'll review the correspondence
from the new 42nd Ward RCO.
While it's a letter stated of opposition,
you'll see from the vote that was taken,
it was evenly split with the actual RCO's executive board.
And there were apparently two members of the community
that were in attendance, and I'll go over that as well,
but they were not in support of the project.
We did circulate a petition of nearby neighbors.
of nearby neighbors i will point out that we have a petition of six people on this block who are in
I will point out that we have a petition
of this.
support of this project apparently the new 42nd ward rco also circulated a petition what i will
say is this they have only one individual who lives on that block and we provided a map with
our petition to kind of show like who's close by and who's not um relatively so we believe that
the people who are actually most affected are in support of this project then we'll have an aerial
view and we'll explain why we have that as well as maps of the area of interior photos of the
building structure and photographs of the surrounding area simple floor plans our rco
meeting notice again it wasn't very well attended meeting there were only two people in the community
that attended our application for appeal that we filed on mrs gonzalez's behalf our deed to the
property showing that she's the owner of the property and a certificate of tax clearance
i'll say this she is in the hospital right now um and undergoing testing um i'll ask her to
virtually raise her hand at the conclusion of my presentation um not sure like what her situation
is but um as an officer of the court i would ask that you take my testimony as truthful
So, notice of refusal.
So, this is an RSA 5 property.
I will say it looks, when you'll look at the pictures, this looks like nothing but like an RSA 5 property.
First of all, the size of the property is over 4,000 square feet.
But you'll see from what I'm talking about from pictures of its past and its present, this looks more of like an industrial property.
um and we're a block away from a commercial corridor which again kind of leads to what
we're looking to do but not only that the properties nearby us are also more industrial
or commercial in nature what we're trying to do is is to essentially legalize a personal
vehicle repair and maintenance um use so and that sounds like a lot and what ultimately my
client's trying to do that she's not she's just doing state inspections for vehicles if there's
any issues with the brakes or anything that would affect the ability to get a state sticker those
repairs would be done off-site so again i don't know what proviso the board could agree to but
you know or or to limit that use but that's what my client's trying to do she's just trying to do
you know, state inspections for motor vehicles. And you'll see from the letter that we received
from the coordinating RCO, there was some concern about emissions testing. My client's not doing
emissions testing. It's very limited use, and we'll go over the hours of operation as well.
But we have three refusals. First, this is an RSA-5 property, and personal vehicle repair use
is prohibited in this district. But you'll see from, you know, when I'm talking about the current
conditions of the property in the past conditions kind of speaks to like what we're seeking to do
uh the second refusal has to do with the height of the fence so you'll see there's two rolled up
gates um there's a long history of rolled up gates at least for uh the current building structure
and you'll see what i mean by that and the other gate that we put up uh was more to you know make
sure that the site is fully protected and there's reasoning and rationale for that. And then the
third refusal has to do with surface parking spaces and detached garages and carports are
prohibited in the required front side and rear yards. So you'll see too that what we're offering
in terms of this proposal is not out of character to its significant history
or to surrounding properties as well.
So we did meet with, you know, again, the community on April 4th, according to this
letter, and there were two people who, you know, who were part of the community who apparently
voted against this project.
I'll say this, I personally gave the community meeting presentation, you know, there was
some hesitation by at least one member of the community about the, you know, about our
use of the property and when we asked them you know why that he stated he didn't want to get
into it he had inside information and he wanted to share it and i was i was like just tell us
well you know again my client purchased a property you'll see it it looks like you know
not rsa5 and you know she you know if you have a legitimate reason just tell us and we'll you know
and it is what it is but he wouldn't tell us so i don't know what the reasoning is um but if you
look, the members of the RCO's executive board were evenly divided 3-3. They did give a letter
in explanation as to why the community was against it. Apparently, they're concerned about
You know, the community was against it. Apparently, they're concerned about environmental effects of the fumes from emissions testing. We're not doing emissions testing. We're just doing state inspections. We're not even doing repair work on on the property. Simple state inspections.
environmental effects.
We, you know, we, the hours of operation are stated in the letter that the RCO gave, and those are confirmed.
We're limited use of Monday through Fridays from 9 to 5, so if this board feels so inclined to grant this variance request, we would state, you know, we would agree to a proviso of Monday through Friday, 9 to 5, as the hours of operation.
And again, I think this should be a permanent variance if this is granted, but if this board wishes to see this operator operate for some time and get a sense for that, because I know there's always a concern with the community that the use runs with the land, my client would be willing to do a temporary variance.
We would ask for five years just because this is a very long, expensive process, especially for a small, you know, business owner like Ms. Gonzalez.
But, you know, that's what we would ask for.
We, you know, we mentioned in the community meeting, too, that we would do commercial trash pickup.
We think there's going to be limited trash, if any.
But like, you know, if there is trash, we would use commercial trash pickup services that are private in nature.
And we would ask that that would be the third proviso.
This is the petition that the RCO received, I guess, from maybe one of the neighbors.
And again, we reviewed this petition ourselves.
There's only one neighbor on this block who signed this petition.
And then, but in contrast, we, my client worked really hard.
She was a small business owner.
She wasn't represented by counsel.
She didn't know, like, there's a whole process in terms of being able to use a property in Philadelphia.
This would be financially devastating for her.
She put her hard-earned money into this property and in cleaning it up, too.
And so this is our property right here.
You can see that there are multiple properties on this block that signed our letter of support or our petition of support.
And then there are multiple properties on Ruscom, which is an adjoining property or intersecting property that's in support.
And there's a few people who are supportive of us on 4th Street as well.
And you can see here, there's like just from the map, there are, you know, there's a lot of commercial right over here as well use.
So this is our petition of support.
My client really focused on people who would be most directly impacted within essentially a one block radius.
and she did this herself and then the aerial view so this this is our property it's a double
wide lot you can see but you know from the aerial view like you can see that there's a side yard
which has you know parking in it and you'll see from the building that you know there's been a
building structure here forever but then you can see that it's not uncommon what what we're proposing
look over here these are also rsa5 properties they have like there's some type of parking here
of some type of commercial or industrial nature and here as well and here as well and here as well
and then obviously ford street's a little bit different but still same type of like use so
even though these some of these properties are rsa5 they don't speak anything like rsa5
and then again um you know being on fifth street that's more commercial in nature which you'll see
from the google maps photo there's a lot of commercial here but there's a auto tax place
right here on our block down the street so what my client's proposing is not out of character for
this portion of neighborhoods and then this is just interior photos of the property you can see
this is the rolled up gates that was recently placed on the property my client didn't know
that she needed permits and we explained the process to her and then this is the interior
she has stored some cars in here you know waiting for again once she can operate to do you know
state inspections and this is interior photographs from multiple angles and then these this is the
property and you know just again this is the side yard that you saw from the aerial view
and then this is the this is actually the building structure here and then this is what the property
looked in 2008 and as you can see there was the building structure as well as the side dirt but
there were rolled up gates the properties which are really bad state and there were
The property was a really bad state, and there were curb cuts here as well.
So nothing my client has done is out of character to the extensive documented history of this property as a non-RSA-5 use.
And then these are the orange notice posters.
And then this is North Lawrence Street to the right of the property and to the left of the property.
You can see some of this commercial use over here as well on this side of the street.
And then our plans and drawings.
Again, once my client understood what she needed to do, she not only hired me, but she hired an architect to do a site plan of some sort.
And we're going to clean that up a little bit.
But again, another proviso could be all testing with obvious state inspections will be done inside.
She has no intention to use this side yard for other than parking for vehicles to wait for the state inspections.
But there's ample parking here. So we're not causing any overcrowding of the public streets with this use.
Again, limited in nature from nine to five, Monday through Friday.
She'll have three employees on site. So it's not something that's going to be an overuse of the property.
We did meet with the community on April 4th at 6.45 p.m.
This is our proof of email of that notice to the coordinating RCO and other relevant parties.
We obviously mailed that notice, you know, a few weeks ahead of time from the community meeting.
111 addresses were notified of the community meeting.
These are listed to the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses,
or application for appeal on behalf of Ms. Gonzalez.
The deed to the property showing that she owns it.
But again, this would be financially devastating for her if she couldn't use the property the way she intended.
And she didn't do this on purpose.
You know, again, she's a novice to this.
She just looked at the property and thought, oh, this is a great place to put a place for state inspections.
And then finally, a certificate of tax clearance.
I would ask that I share my screen.
I would ask that Ms. Gonzalez, if she's in the virtual audience, to virtually raise her hand.
Axia Gonzalez has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. Aixa Flores Gonzalez.
Would you spell your name, please?
A-I-X-A.
Last name Flores, F-L-R-E-S.
Gonzales, G-O-N-C-A-L-E-C.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Ms. Gonzalez, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Yes, Chair.
So, Alan, you said the service will only be Monday through Friday, so there's no Saturday service going to inspection?
That's correct.
Ms. Gonzalez, can you confirm that?
Yes, only Monday through Friday.
No further questions, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Mr. Nockerson, I just wanted to clarify the, excuse me, the provisos that you had asked for
or not that you asked for but their client would be willing to accept one was commercial trash
pickup one was limiting the use to state inspections and then one was a temporary
variance for the use is that correct it would be a board feels so inclined given you know the
the discussion with the community and and there's not feel comfortable to issue a permanent
variance we we would ask and hope that the board considers a temporary variance of five years
Okay. All right. Thank you. I just want to make sure I had those since we'll have to hold this
and come back later. Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson. They have been admitted and allowed to speak.
Mr. Richardson, please proceed. You just state your name.
Mr. Chair, Charles Richardson, Office of Councilman, Bass Room 508 City Hall.
I'm very familiar with that block. I used to park on that block every day. I worked for a CDC
that is on Fifth Street. And I know that the people that live on that block are very vocal
with regard to opposition and things along those lines and parking. And those are the things that
we always had to deal with around there. The applicant bought the property in 2021.
The applicant bought the property in 2021. It doesn't create a hardship that she, you know, did not know. She looked at the property and thought that it was going to be something that would be great to put that. She didn't talk to the community about that at all.
it doesn't create a hardship
at this point.
And it also would have been great
if that petition that is being introduced
at the nth hour would have been circulated
because we would have been able to vet it.
But at this point, the councilwoman is going to join
with the RCO and oppose the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see the other hands, Chair.
So, Chair, can I just respond to the hardship argument?
Sure, yep.
If you look at the structure in its current state and in its previous state, it speaks nothing to RSA 5.
The amount of money my client would have to invest to essentially convert a more industrial commercial structure into residential would clearly outweigh any benefits she would be able to gain from it.
And that's essentially her hardship.
And that that from a legal standpoint, that is that is a real hardship.
Thank you. Hello. Do we want to plan and take a position?
It's a planning to take a position, certainly.
And that way, once we get the amended refusal back or the corrected refusal back, all we need is to vote on the matter.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Dan Powers with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This appears to be a request for legalization of work done without the benefit of permits.
The use appears to be a longstanding auto repair business.
The variance for parking in the required front, side, and rear yards is characteristic of this type of use.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variances for personal vehicle repair and for parking in the required front, side, and rear yards,
but to deny the variance for fence height and opacity.
Thank you.
Hillary, are we going to, we'll close this except, how do we want to word that?
Yes, we will close the record except for receipt of an updated refusal.
We are now closing the record except for an updated refusal.
Thank you, Mr. Nockamson.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
All right.
Number 10, MI 2024, 000925701 Cathedral Road, Brett Feldman is the attorney, letter of support from Councilman Jones, letter of unanimous non-opposition received from the Upper Roxburgh Civic Association.
Brett Feldman, please raise your virtual hand.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Feldman, you've already been sworn. Just state your name for the record.
Yes, again, Brett Feldman.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, I represent the applicant, property owner, Federal Realty.
um uh and or associates and our vice chair has a few questions
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the re refusal or stipulate towards accuracy
i do have you emailed in 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 show your screen. Great. Can everyone see my screen? We can. Okay. And I'd also like to
ask that Adam Hendricks, on behalf of the owner-applicant, be promoted. Marianne McCallick
from Bowler Engineer be promoted. And Amanda Albano from Bowler Engineer also be promoted.
Well, are you going to present or are you going to let them present? I'm going to present. I'm
going to present. I just wanted to make sure and keep it moving as fast as possible for the board's
benefit. So again, good afternoon, Brett Feldman. I represent the owner applicant. This is an
application for a new full service supermarket within an existing shopping center. This is the
Andorra Shopping Center. And I guess to be accurate, what we're seeking is there is a
Currently, there is a vacant, much smaller supermarket that left the shopping center a couple of months ago, and we are seeking approval for a new full service.
And we are seeking approval for a new full-service, state-of-the-art grocer in that tenant space area, as well as in some expanded areas within the shopping center in the rear.
So that is really kind of the crux of the case here.
We've passed up exhibits and slides 1 through 55, which I'd ask to be incorporated into the record.
Chief among those, we have our zoning refusal, which we'll get to.
but this is a fully code compliant application. It is a shopping center. We are seeking approvals for
a expanded grocery store supermarket, which is allowed in the district. We have a strong letter
of support from the district council person. As the chair said, a unanimous letter of non-opposition
from the RCO. And then we've got some renderings to give you a sense of what this is going to look
like. And then in slides 22 through 30, we've got a whole bunch of environmental URSA stormwater
management plans. You already heard a steep slope case, but that's the only relief we're seeking
today is regarding steep slope. I mentioned our three other witnesses that I'll be calling
shortly. So this is the refusal. Again, the application is fully code compliant for a
new grocer within the shopping center. The only relief that we need is for steep slope
in the rear, and I'll explain that. But essentially, we, in order to make this project
viable, in order to bring to the community a full-service grocer with all the modern bells
and whistles in a supermarket, fresh produce and fresh fruit and fish and all those areas,
we needed to go from currently the departed tenant was about 24,000 feet. And when we went
into the marketplace for a new full-service grocer to bring to this neighborhood, to bring to this
community, to bring to this council district, we were told very clearly in the market that we were
going to need at a minimum about 49,000 or 50,000 square foot. And that was still rather small
compared to most of the suburban locations that you see, the new suburban supermarkets.
Here's our letter of support from the council person.
We started this process with a council person, geez, probably over a year ago, and they've
been very helpful in navigating through the process.
This is our letter of unanimous non-opposition from the community group.
And here's, let's just get to the property.
This is the Endora Shopping Center, CA2 here.
It is surrounded on the three sides by Henry Avenue, Port Royal, and Cathedral.
this is what it looks like from the air and this is probably the best way to understand what we're
doing the shopping center is uh is in outlined in the blue the most the the directly impacted
part of the shopping center is in the red and if you look here there's the white that's where the
that's where the now vacant uh supermarket was located here in the white uh and then to the
right here there were some smaller um some smaller tenant spaces that we would be looking to um
expand into and then we need to expand into the rear along kind of this outline of the red
which gets us closer to the steep slope here in the rear where these where these trees are
so we needed to in order to have all the new um meet the landscaping requirements in order to
meet the stormwater management in order to have enough square footage for the grocery
in order to have the loading, the unloading, the truck turning
to meet the streets department requirements, the water department.
We needed to move back slightly into this steep slope area where the green is
and extend an existing retaining wall.
There's already a retaining wall back here.
So a lot of this expansion into the slopes already happened,
but we need to, in this particular area, expand the retaining wall back into here
in order to make this project viable for all those different reasons that I explained.
Here is the shopping center, just some of the work that we've done. This was what we call phase one.
This was an investment in order to upgrade the offerings. These were called the small shops.
We brought in some new tenants. We updated and modernized the facades, and this was done over the past couple of years.
And as we finish this phase, and this is what it looks like now, we got five below, we got TJ Maxx, we got Chipotle, new facades, modern, new signage.
But as we finish this first phase, it became very clear that to have a shopping center that served the neighborhood and didn't have people leaving the city, because we're right at the border, basically, leaving it to go into Plymouth meeting, we needed a full service supermarket here.
We had conversations with that existing tenant. This is where the supermarket was right here in this space here, about modernizing, about reinvesting, and about how to make it a first full-service supermarket.
and about how to make it a first full-service supermarket.
They weren't interested in staying and renewing their lease
and advised that they would be leaving,
which then took us into the marketplace to find a new grocer
that we could work with and redevelop this portion of the shopping center.
So that's what it kind of looks like now with an empty grocery.
um here is uh what the area the proposed grocer would be again demolishing the box that has
that did have the former uh market in there uh and then expanding demolishing some of these
there's four or five stores over here demolishing those as well uh and then that would give us
additional width along the front but that still didn't get us near that 50 000 um threshold so
we have worked with probably for what a year and a half now with bowler engineering um i know
bowler has testified in front of this board uh numerous times uh in order to how do we deal with
and how do we expand in the rear meet all the environmental requirements the water department
the steep slope requirements streets department requirements um and and that's what we did and
here's here's what it looks like in the rear here is here's the envelope now over here of the grocer
and then the slope here in the rear.
So we're going to be expanding this out.
When you expand that out and you widen along the front,
you get right around 49,000 square feet
plus the mezzanine that's in the supermarket.
But we do need to expand this retaining wall
that you see here on the top
and actually in the bottom too
into this area where the light green shading is shown
to make the truck turning
and the loading and the unloading work
for the grocer, for the supermarket, and as well as for
water department and streets and operational. This is what
we believe, this is the renderings
of what the new grocer would look like. 45,000
square feet, plus a mezzanine that would have a rooftop
cafe, indoor-outdoor, a new amenity for the
neighborhood where people could meet, people could congregate, which
operated by a very well-known international coffee purveyor, coffee operator.
That's what it would look like from the front.
This is what it would look like from the corner of looking into the shopping center.
You know, again, here is what we're looking to do.
National grocer, mezzanine, full-service market, and really complement some of the new tenants
to TJ Maxx and the Five Below.
So as part of the new stormwater management, we've got increased stormwater management
that we can talk about briefly in the rear.
We had to meet the city planning landscaping requirements.
We've got new landscaping throughout the center.
And it's really just an exciting shopping center.
Again, this is the view from the front.
And then let me just get you to the rear of the center here.
This is the view from the rear. That's showing this expanded retaining wall running along the rear where the supermarket would be, which was the absolute minimum impact into that steep slope to allow these turning radiuses and the loading and the unloading here.
But that's that's kind of how it would look when we're when we're when we're completed.
And then really, in summary, 50,000 square foot market up from the existing 25.
With a mezzanine with new trees and new shrubs, I'm going to now just briefly ask.
And if the board doesn't have any questions, briefly ask Adam Hendricks be promoted to a panelist.
He is the development manager for Federal Realty and Dora Associates.
He's coming back in as a panelist, Chair.
Great.
Okay, thank you.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
I'm Andrews with Federal Realty.
Yeah. Could you spell your name for the stenographer, please?
Absolutely. First name Adam, A-D-A-M. Last name Hendricks, H-E-N-D-R-I-C-K-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Great. Mr. Hendricks, can you again just reiterate your role and capacity with the owner-operator of the shopping center?
Absolutely. I represent the owner-operator of the shopping center, Andorra.
Absolutely. I represent the owner-operator of the shopping center, Andorra Associates Federal Realty, OPLP. I'm the development manager overseeing the continuing improvements at the shopping center.
And in that role, you have authorization to speak on behalf of the owner-operator?
And you've heard my testimony?
I have.
And do you find it true and accurate?
And would you adopt it as your own?
I will.
Great. And Adam, I know you've been living this project for two years. Is there anything further that anything big further that I missed as far as the necessity of the steep slope variance or the need for the zoning relief that we're seeking today?
I don't think anything was missed. I would just reiterate that. We've worked through the ongoing design of the proposed grocer with the councilman, with the RCO. Obviously, we're familiar with our tenants.
It became clear that once the previous grocer vacated on their own accord, that it would be in the best interest of the community to bring back another full service grocer.
As you indicated, when we went to market, it became very clear to us that we needed to provide at least a 45,000 to 50,000 square foot footprint in order for a full service grocer to be able to successfully operate at this shopping center.
From that point forward, we worked diligently with Bowler and put forth every effort to build a completely buy-write plan.
And after continued revisions, it was determined that the most minimum impact we could design did involve expanding the loading area into that steep slope area.
So we do believe this is the minimum amount of disturbance that we could design for while meeting the needs of the community.
If there had been a way to avoid the variance process, you would have sought that, correct?
Absolutely. And we did pursue that.
With all due respect to myself and zoning attorneys.
Of course.
Mr. Chair, does the board have any questions?
We're going to see right now.
Questions from the board? 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 at this time, Chair.
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I have our project engineer
who, in conjunction with
you know, the entire engineering team designed the stormwater management, the retain, you know,
the worked with the water department and streets on the design of stormwater management and the
turning radiuses. Do you want to get right? Do you you want him on to testify? Is that what you're
saying? Yeah, I just I just I just I just I know I don't want to hold it. Let's just bring them on.
let's just bring them on okay yes please can you um can can amanda albano be promoted to panelists
he's coming back in as a panelist now chair
hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
good afternoon hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
sure my name is amanda albano a-m-a-n-d-a last name albano a-l-b-a-n-o thank you do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed bren
Ms. Albano, just briefly, it's my understanding that you're a Pennsylvania licensed professional
engineer?
That's correct.
Correct.
And how many years have you worked as an engineer?
Over six years now.
And where do you currently work?
Bowler Engineering.
And in that capacity, you've worked on numerous projects, both within the city and the suburbs?
That's correct.
And what types of projects, just briefly?
industrial commercial and multi-family residential as well and quickly turning to
philadelphia um you have extensive experience along with your boa colleagues and obtaining
the necessary land use development approvals from the water department streets and city planning
correct that's correct and turning to this property uh and the unique development challenges
and the unique development challenges that I spoke about and Adam spoke about.
that i spoke about and uh adam spoke about am i correct that you're
Am I correct that you're very familiar with the Philadelphia zoning code steep slope code provisions as set forth at generally at Section 147042 and the steep slope variance criteria at Section 1430281?
Great.
I just want to bring these up real quick.
We have reams of documentation in the package as far as on the steep slope.
But, Ms. Albano, these are the code provisions for meeting the steep slope variants.
We've discussed them.
I know you're familiar with those.
I just wanted to go just briefly one by one.
Based off of the plans that you've submitted, the approvals that we've obtained from water
departments, are you comfortable in providing an opinion as to our satisfaction of these
criteria?
Great.
Right. So, number one, do you see, do you agree that as a result of this project, there will be no increase in stormwater runoff?
Yes, I agree. The area of the proposed grocer is currently not managed by stormwater infrastructure,
and we'll be adding a series of inlets and an underground stormwater management basin to reduce both the volume and the rate of runoff.
We'll also be adding additional landscaping, correct?
Correct.
Which will help with the stormwater runoff.
Second, the shifting of earth that there won't be as a result of this project, there won't be any shifting of the earth to adjacent buildings, either uphill or downslope. Is that correct?
That's correct. And the existing retaining wall is being extended and it will be designed to ensure that there's no earth movement after installation.
Great. And I think related, that there will not be an increase in the likelihood of the loss of property, I assume, on the slope moving down, some type of collapse.
Correct.
And that's also because of the stormwater management and the retaining wall and the landscaping, correct?
That's correct.
Great. And then finally, the code requires that the project will not create any significant environmental damage. Pollution, erosion, or siltation will not significantly increase the danger of flooding either during or after construction.
And the applicant will take measures to minimize environmental damage during the construction because you've been the one with your bowler team working on water purity and water quality and stormwater management and the retaining walls to address the steep slopes.
Do you agree that we meet that we satisfy this criteria?
Yes, as you said before, we have PWD conceptual approval, and we're currently working with both PWD technical and PIDDEP to obtain all the required permits for the property.
And that's moving into even a building permit phase, correct?
Correct, yes.
Great. Is there anything further that you'd like to add?
You don't have to.
Mr. Chairman, with that...
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Hillary, the comments you wrote in the note to me that with no stamps, where do we stand with that?
Mr. Chair, that's fine.
We were just making sure there was a steep slope plan as required, an earth moving plan as required.
Good. Thank you very much.
I think we have everything in there.
We'd ask that all the exhibits be put into the record.
With that, I would open again to any questions.
Thank you so much.
Questions from the board?
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 see no hands at this time chair planning commission
good afternoon mr chair dan powers with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the ca2 shopping center zoning at this location
The appellant has shown that the proposed steep slope disturbance is the minimum needed to afford relief.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the steep slope variance.
Thank you very much. MI 2024, 000925701 Cathedral Road. I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Do well.
Number 12, MI 2024-001-065-141 West Susquehanna Avenue. Rachel Pritzker is the attorney. There's a letter of unanimous support from Norris Square Community Action Network themselves.
chair i see someone with their hand up but it's not rachel pritzker i don't know if it's someone
yes i was just gonna say i'm missing that afford is gonna be presenting this case
thank you okay she'll be coming back in as a panelist
Thank you. Okay, she'll be coming back in as a panelist.
Hi, could you please, good afternoon, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sonetta Ford.
z as in zebra a n e t t a f o r d do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes i do could you identify your client in relationship to this property
yes my client is xl1 and they are the owner of the property all right and our vice chair has
just a few questions for you good afternoon council do you agree to waive 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 to proceed with this case five days in advance of this
hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
thank you
okay okay thank you good afternoon chairman and members of the board the property is 141
west susquehanna avenue the application proposes the erection of a vertical and rear addition
with a roof deck to an existing structure and for use of the ground floor commercial as personal
services and five multi-family household living units above the property is zoned cmx2 and is
approximately 1,635.2 square feet. The application generated one refusal because in the CMX 2
district, a minimum of 480 square feet of lot areas required per unit. And before I go into
the hardship, I would like to show you the property. I'll show you a photo of the property.
so this is the outside it's the corner property here on the end it's a nice lot
and you can see it here on the philadelphia atlas again it's a corner lot this is the
side view of that same property um turning to the hardship in the cmx2 district it only allows for
certain number of units. Compliance with the zoning code causes an unnecessary hardship
in that seemingly arbitrary square footage. It doesn't account that this is a corner property
that supports commercial usage on the ground level. The lot is only 16 feet wide, which
restricts the applicant to three units above the commercial space. The slight additional density
is the minimum necessary variance, and we are not requesting any dimensional relief.
The variance is in keeping with the character of the community, of the neighborhood.
The proposed project is in character with the surrounding area that proposes more than
three units.
And this is similar to what is being proposed by this application.
The properties that are in the area are 143 West Susquehanna.
This is adjacent to the property.
It has a zoning permit for six units.
Also, 151 West Susquehanna is a multi-unit building.
2201 Master Street, which is on this side street, is a six-unit corner property that is also zoned CMX2.
And 131 West Susquehanna is a six-unit building.
Additionally, the application as proposed furthers the purposes of the Planning Commission's 2035 Comprehensive Plan
for providing more housing to families in the area.
It further encourages that a full range of housing
is available to populations of all abilities and income levels.
In addition, because this is a commercial corridor,
the extra density is needed to support viable commercial use.
Given that this area has a lower medium income
and a higher poverty rate,
requiring compliance with the zoning code
would limit this site to three units over commercial,
present the units would be what is reasonable in the area and most
at this time
zoning code would impose an unnecessary hardship upon the subject property because the applicant
upon the subject property because the applicant and owner, whereas, I'm sorry, literal enforcement
and owner were
of the zoning code will impose an unnecessary hardship upon the subject property.
The applicant and owner, whereas the proposed construction will not adversely affect the
public health, safety, or welfare, or traffic in the area.
Therefore, the variance is requested.
At this time, I'd like to show the board the RCO letter of support.
We met with the RCO on April 10th.
I'd just like to show that letter.
They submitted a letter of support for this project.
Also, we received a letter of support from the city council member's office, which I'm showing here.
It was submitted, I believe, yesterday.
Now I would like to have, I would ask that the administrator could bring in Charles Kerr.
He's the architect for the project, to discuss the plans.
Charles Kerr has been admitted and allowed to speak.
Sir, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Charles Kerr, C-H-A-R-L-E-S, Kerr, K-E-R-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Kerr.
I'm going to just share my screen and show the outside if you could talk through this.
Yes, absolutely.
So the existing property is an existing corner lot on the corner of Susquehanna and Masher Street.
There is an existing one story building on the lot that occupies a little bit less than the allowable 80% coverage.
So the existing coverage is significantly less than what is allowed by the zoning code.
We are proposing to add two stories on top of the existing one story structure and construct a three story addition to the rear of the property,
allowing us the staying keeping in with the maximum allowable height and as well as the
allowable lot coverage of 80% coverage. I'm going to go to the next. This is the
first and second floor plan. So the the top plan is the basement level. The essentially the floor
plan is divided in half. The front half is the commercial space for the commercial area. The
back half of the basement is the second bedroom for unit one. Going down that page to detail number
two, which is the first floor plan, that is the entry level for this property. Again, the front
portion is the commercial space, which is the existing portion of the building we are keeping.
The back half is where the common stair is for the residents, as well as the rest of unit one.
And keeping in mind that any properties or any developments with four or more units requires at least one of the units be fully handicap accessible.
So in addition to the addition of the second floor, the addition on top of the existing building and the three-story addition to the rear, we are proposing a handicap ramp and stairs to enter into the first floor, making it fully handicap accessible.
The plan number three is the second floor, which comprises two one-bedroom units as well as the common stair.
and then if we switch to the next page which is the third floor again it's two more one bedroom
units showing the common stair and then the second detail on this page is the roof deck
which is designated for unit number four thank you mr carr um chairman i would ask that yuri
hey can i can i before he goes can i ask the question maybe i'll misunderstand it so i i see
the building itself if you build up on that isn't there a bay window coming out do you hit that
next door
show the picture of the project this one you see here this one here
the one on top the picture go up top the existing structure the existing structure
right here yeah so if you go up what happens to that bay window there
is the architect on or the engineer or
Mr. Kerr Mr. Kerr please unmute yourself
can you hear me now yeah I can
can you hear me now yeah i can and mike so if you build up on that what happens in that bay window
Thank you.
there so in in reality the bay window is over the property line so it's actually an illegal bay
number one but number two the the owner of this property owns the building next door okay all
right has already been removed for that development all right good thank you good thank you yes but
thank you very much okay thank you mr chairman um i'd like to ask that yuri tomashek he's the
owner of xl1 llc that he'd be admitted yuri tomashek has been unmuted and allowed to speak
all right sir could you please state your name is spelled for the court stenographer
Yes, my name is Yuri Tomlishek, spelled Y-V-R-I-Y, last name T-O-M-A-L-I-S-H-C-H-A-K.
I'm sorry for the background noise.
Yuri, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Tomlishek, have you heard my testimony today?
Yes, I did.
Do you believe it to be true and accurate?
Yes, I do.
And do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Nothing further at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I had let Ms. Pritzker know that we need to hold this one for a corrected refusal.
The refusal does not list the number of dwelling units on any part.
and the plans actually indicate that there's adequate lot area for five dwelling units which
is incorrect um so we need to have a corrected refusal before we can vote on this okay thank
you questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
good afternoon mr chair dan powers with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location
the appellant could earn up to five units by applying for the mixed income housing bonus
the city planning commission recommends that the board deny proposed dimensional variance
thank you uh we council we're going to hold the vote mr chairman could i respond
sure go ahead so just in response that um i just like to reiterate that the planning commission's
own comprehensive goals are to increase the housing in the area and this project is in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood we are offering one unit for an affordable rent
which has been discussed with the rco and i would just like the board to keep in mind that both the
the community RCO and the council's office is in support of this project.
Thank you.
Council, thank you very much for your comments.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 2 p.m. case has not been called?
Mr. Chair, can we just note for the record for the last case that the record is closed aside from receipt of a corrected refusal?
Thank you.
The record is closed on receipt of an amended refusal.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual?
We don't give up at this time, Chair.
Okay, so we're going to take a five-minute break, everyone, and we're going to come back and take care of the 3.30 list.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
We also have LeBaron Leonard Palmer and Emily Persico from the Division of Development Services, both serving as alternate board members.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Present here also is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkin at philip.gov.
Attorneys and witnesses should identify themselves before testifying for our court reporter.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
5-5-4-8. Leave your email address and the property in question. And finally, the question and answer
Leave your email address and the property in question.
on the question and answer comments on the box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be referred to our executive director, Tanya Sunken. Let's look at our schedule.
Number one, MI-2023-002-415-1941 East Tioga Street, that case is continued.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, there was a request for that case to be continued attorney moving party.
Yep, yep. So that case is continued attorney moving party.
Number two, MI 2023-006-896-138 West Sharnack Street. That case is continued.
Number three, MI 2023-006-923-3101 East Ontario Street. That case is continued.
And number four, MI-2023-006-927-925 North Lawrence Street.
That case has also been continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Good afternoon, Chair.
This is Yvette Bett, and I'll be your co-host for today.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Okay. And then I have number seven, MI 2023-007-016-1715 McKean Street. Carmen Vono is the applicant owner, and Anne-Marie Vono is the listed owner. This is a pro se. No exhibits. This is the first listing.
Do we see any of the Vonos there?
i see no one by the name chair okay thank you so mi 2023 007 016 1715 mcane street
this is the first listing cases continued must be heard we're going to go to our list
First, we're going to go to number five, MI2023-006-932-1240 Harrison Street.
Jennifer Bizzillo is the attorney.
There's a letter of unanimous opposition from Northwood Civic Association.
She's coming back as the panelist now, Chair.
Letter also of opposition from Council Member Lozada's office.
Council, you've already been sworn. Could you state your name for the record?
Sure. Jennifer Bazzidlo, B-A-Z-Y-D-L-O.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Rent Office Spot, LLC, and they are the current owner of the property.
our vice chair has just a few questions good afternoon council do you agree to waive 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 to proceed with this case five days in advance
of this hearing i did and i submitted a few um supplemental exhibits as well this morning but
they were not the required documents okay thank you please proceed council let me share my screen
Okay. Alright, so as I said, my name is Jennifer. I'm here today representing the current owners
of 1240 Harrison Street. I do have with me today the property manager, the properties
managed through Dan Housing, which will become important later on as I talk. So I'm just
going to walk through our exhibits real quick. We do have a copy of our refusal. It is for
to family living and for lack of accessory parking. Here's the deed showing that rent off a spot LLC
is the owner. We also have our proof of tax compliance. This is, as you mentioned, the letter
from the RCO, which was Northwood Civic Association. We'll come back to that as well.
um and that was our proof of mailing um here is the zoning map of the area uh this is a list of
non-single-family residential properties um within uh the 1200 1300 block of harrison street
The two that are other addresses are attached to Harrison Street, but they're addressed to a different address.
the two that are other addresses are attached to harrison street with their address to a different
In a separate exhibit, we have the permits for all of those uses.
Aerial views of the property.
And photos of the property.
And surrounding areas.
As well as the inside.
And these are floor plans.
And these are the plans, the building plans that were previously approved, which we'll
come back to later as well.
So for now, here we have, this is 1240 Harrison is an RSA 5 zone property, is near the intersection
of Harrison and Oakland and it is Catty Corner from Frankfurt High School. The parcel is 1,673
square feet and includes this existing three-story building. I know it looks like it is two stories
but it does have a small third story that's not necessarily visible from the street level.
You can kind of see it on the side. So we are proposing to use this property as two residential
dwelling units. They will each have their own entrances. This is the rear entrance to the lower
unit and the front entrance is over here to the upper unit. The upper unit is three bedrooms,
1.5 baths and it is on the front it is the first half of the first floor where there's a kitchen
and living area and then the second floor is the three bedrooms and bathrooms and the third floor
is just a little storage area it's kind of a partial floor the second unit is three beds one
bath it is the main living area is located in the rear of the first floor and then we have bedrooms
and bathrooms on the lower level. There are egress windows and it is all code compliant
for fire safety reasons, which I'll explain later why we know that. So the owner contracts with,
let me just show you the inside of these units. As you can see, they're nicely done units.
So the owner contracts with Dan Housing, which is a property management company that works with insurance companies to provide housing for local homeowners after their own properties may have been destroyed in fire or other catastrophic incidences, and they need long-term housing while their properties are repaired.
So the residents of these units are found through insurance, but it's not a transient situation.
If someone needs only like a month or two of housing, they are put up in a hotel most likely.
This is for long-term repairs.
So the average stay is a year to a year and a half, typical of what you might see as a long-term rental property.
The advantage being that these tenants are people that are from the area and are homeowners.
So they're not, you know, they tend to be more responsible than your average renter.
And we're not talking about, you know, short term leases.
We're talking about long term stays.
Sometimes people are there as long as two years if they if they run into issues with the repair of their own home.
um by providing this sort of home environment for um these homeowners during uh the repairs
uh dan housing is is able to keep these families nearby where they were before it keeps them with
their families it keeps them with their friends it keeps their kids by their school and it keeps the
other family members by their jobs typically if this sort of housing is not available in a local
area we could see these families having to move to like long-term stay hotels and often since
there's no hotels in this area often they are very very far away from this community and so they both
not only have they lost their home but now they have lost their community as well.
I do want to talk about the surrounding area. So as you can see it is an area that's zoned
largely for single-family use with the exception of this corner property here on the 1300 block
which is a 60-unit apartment building. This over here is Frankfurt High School.
And so why all of this is zoned for single-family use? We have a large amount of properties on these
blocks. I didn't even look off of Harrison. This is just on the surrounding blocks of Harrison.
I didn't even look off of Harrison. This is just on the surrounding blocks of Harrison that are not single-family uses.
On the 1200 and 1300 block of Harrison, there are 19 properties that are not single-family residences, even though they are zoned for single-family use.
Notably, the property that is the other half of this twin is already approved for two residential units.
So that is a duplex, and the other house adjacent to it that's not connected was also approved for an in-home daycare in addition to a residence.
The uses of these, as you can see, range from a lot of two-family housing, but there is a nine-resident unit, which is across Oakland Street.
and I'm just going to show you a property of that, a picture of that if you give me one second here.
So if you see here, I took this picture from in front of our house at 1240. This fence right
here is a duplex and this gray building is a nine unit building and then to the left in the picture
is where you see the large educational building. So you know we are surrounded by non-conforming
uses. The property on the corner across the street was last permanent for a single family
and doctor's office. So the current owner, so why we have an area and not pictures, sorry,
let me back up and not on this list. I did go back and look at the 1100 block of Harrison as well.
And there's an additional seven non-single family uses on that block, which is all zoned single
family housing. So as you can see, we have an area that's zoned single family, but not exclusively
used as single family. There's many multi-family housing on these blocks, and then there's also
mixed commercial and residential. The current owners purchased this property in May of 2022,
fully converted into a two-unit building, and believing that it was a fully permitted
structure. There was no open violations at the time they purchased it. And I think a lot of
what happened here is that there is a permit that was issued in 2021 to the previous owner
for construction. And here we have the approved plans for this project that was approved by the
city. And as you can see, there are clearly two units labeled in these plans. There is one unit
and it's laid out. It's basically as we are presenting it today, these plans were submitted
and approved by the city and issued a building permit. The city continued to come out. We started
the previous owner started construction. City came out and did numerous inspections. Everything was
fine uh continue with the project and then upon final inspection it was flagged as hey this was
needed a zoning variance beforehand um and so all of the work had been done already uh and now we
were in a situation where uh we had a duplex built to building plans that were approved by the city
but did not have the prior zoning authorization so that's the current state we are in right now
I do think that there was some confusion here between the contractor who had filed for these
permits and the communication between the prior owner and the current owner and the city I'm not
exactly sure what happened I have spoke to all of these people what I do know is that we have
approved plans that show are the same plans we are showing today. It's the same way that this
project was built. And we have that zoning, we have that approval stamp, sorry, over here from
the city to move ahead. And it was very far along in the project before anyone in the city stopped
it saying you needed a zoning permit. So along those lines, so that's why we know we've built
egress windows. We've done all the fire code things. This was built to be a duplex to city
standards. And we're just asking to use it the way that it has been constructed. We do think that
this is a minimum variance necessary. I will have Dan Housing come in and talk about the financial
ramifications of why it's really impractical to provide this sort of insurance housing in a
single-family unit, but also we're only asking for one additional unit than
what's allowed by right, and it is a common use on the surrounding blocks and in the surrounding
And it is a common use on the surrounding blocks and in the surrounding area.
There is a variance that is flagged for parking.
So I'm just going to go over to, let me zoom back out.
And then we're going to go to the aerial photos.
One second.
As you can see, this is our lot here.
There is no physical room for parking at this location,
Nor is there any room for parking along off-street parking in any of the RSA 3 zoned houses over here. And so all of these multifamily housing that already exist do not have off-street parking either. And there is no place to put one based on the physical dimensions of this property and the existing structure.
Um, we did, uh, we did meet with the Northwood Civic Association back in February.
I think, let me just get to the letter.
So, um, yes, we had, we had a meeting, um, we had sent out 109 notification letters.
There were seven members who were, I believe, the direct neighbors, and then there were 17 total members there from the community in general.
um the letter of opposition that was submitted uh if you look at the bottom here it says
the primary reason for the opposition is the need to preserve the long-standing
almost totally single-family household zoning of northwood in order to maintain the integrity of
the neighborhood i think we've demonstrated that that is not the case uh we do not have a
almost exclusively single-family household neighborhood we have a very mixed neighborhood
And most importantly, we have the adjacent twin with the same use as we are proposing here.
And there are other houses on the block that are three units or more, up to nine units in the immediate vicinity.
And that is in addition to across the street being the large high school that is also on a single family zoning parcel.
The other reason cited was the city code violations. And again, this was, as I explained, there was a permit issued for the work that was probably improperly issued, but it was issued and it was built according to the permit.
So I would argue that if we don't otherwise qualify under the standard metrics of variances, that this should be approved under the idea of either a variance by estoppel or a variance due to the vested rights of the property owner based on the issuance of this permit.
Like I said, Ellen, I approved the building plan showing these two residential units, issued the building permit, allowed construction to take place, approved many of the steps and only after much, much time and much money had been spent on this project, flagged it as an issue.
The owners had relied on this building permit to, you know, in expending this money, and a denial of the variance at this point would create an undue hardship, as we would have to undo all the improvements that had been made to use this as a two-family dwelling.
I would also say that there's no adverse impact on the community, as this is already a pretty pervasive use in the community and the addition of one unit in a mixed multifamily, mixed use, single family neighborhood is not going to have a significant impact, detrimental impact on the nature of the neighborhood, congestion, resources, anything like that.
And again, the people that will be living in these units are already from the area. They are from the community. They are displaced homeowners. So with that, again, counsel, counsel, explain to me number three.
so this is this is the rezoning the area was rezoned at some point
um in 2017 uh but that doesn't change the fact that we are adjacent to a two-unit building
and a commercial mixed-use building um you know i understand the rezoning but this is not a block
where we're preserving single family use.
This is a block that is very much a mix
of single and multifamily housing.
And so with that, I would like to call
And so with that, I would like to call Leo Rosinski from Dan Housing to kind of tell us more about the insurance, you know, this business, because I don't think we have this every day that this is the type of housing that we're looking to provide that's, you know, not typical rental, but also not a short term transient rental either.
So if Leo, if you could raise your hand so that they can unmute you or allow you to be unmuted.
Leo Rosensky has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, good afternoon. My name is Leo Rosensky. My name is spelled L-E-O.
My last name is spelled Rosensky, R-Y-Z-H-I-N-S-K-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
So, Leo, you work for Dan Housing, correct?
Yes, that is correct.
And you heard me explain a little bit about the type of housing you provide, but do you want to just add to that, maybe explain it in your own words as well?
Yes. So our primary function as den housing is to provide short to medium term housing for families that are displaced in predominantly in the city of Philadelphia, but also statewide and providing housing solutions for people that no longer have access to their home, despite being homeowners and having to have key strategic houses in all neighborhoods,
ranging from Mayfair to Toursdale all the way to West Philly,
it's very vital to accommodate as much families as possible
when a tragic event might happen by being displaced by a fire
or an inclement event, leading us to provide more solutions
of having more units available for more families
of different sizes and shapes in different key areas.
And you operate many of these houses throughout the city, correct? This isn't your first or only property, right?
No, our combined portfolio ranges from maybe, you know, just shooting out there to be 75, 80 properties of different sizes of three bedroom, four bedroom, all the way to efficiencies and studios all around the Philadelphia area.
And the size of the units that are rented out to or provided to these homeowners is based on the homes that they were previously in, correct?
Correct. Yes, it's going to look a little bit similar to their previous living situation, which predominantly looked like two bedroom to three bedroom row homes as well as just normal apartments.
Okay. And so can you explain, I guess, the reason that it's not an economically viable option to use this home as a single family for this insurance purpose? Can you explain that to the board? I understand it has to do with insurance approvals and amount of coverage rate and kind of length of stay. But if you could explain that, that would be great.
Right. So we wanted to designate 1240 Harrison. It is as much square footage to provide it as six bedrooms. If it's a previous iteration as a single family dwelling, it would have been a six-family dwelling, which economically for insurance companies and adjusters just isn't economically feasible and financially in their best interest to provide that.
But divvying it up into a two-unit dwelling would provide more economies of scale for multiple families to utilize the property as well as be advantageous to our job and dealings to accommodate as much families as we possibly can within the neighborhood or other adjacent neighborhoods.
And if you did have a building that was a higher rental rate, they would run out of funding from their insurance company possibly before their houses were repaired, correct?
Correct. We basically send over a stated rate. Everything is paid from their policy limit, which the actual thing that pays out for their stay while their house is being restored is called additional living expenses.
So something where that would be approved for a short term would run out much faster if it was stated for a single family dwelling or the six bedroom that we had discussed.
And if it was and if it does run out, then then these homeowners might not have their home to go back to and they might not have enough.
They don't have funding for another residence either. Correct.
Yeah, we basically try and find ways to accommodate them past that. And we have many other homes and opportunities, but they're not usually so closely located next to their lost location. So they're kind of having to have their lives jumbled after a tragic event, which makes.
So they're kind of having to have their lives jumbled after a tragic event, which makes life difficult for them as well as difficult for us because we're not able to continue renting to these families and helping them out.
And if there isn't local housing available, do these families sometimes wind up in a hotel or like long-term stay hotel instead and possibly in a different area of the city?
Predominantly, they're kind of outskirted to other areas.
They're, you know, exercising any options they have available to them, which in dire circumstances really isn't immediately available.
So it really becomes a push and shove situation where anything can go.
Our main policy is to accommodate them to the best of our ability to work with whatever parties are included, which means the insurance company themselves, the insurance adjusters associated with the case.
Um, because ultimately we are trying to get these families as well as policyholders back into their original dwelling, um, with as much, uh, undue stress as possible, despite the, the situation.
Okay. Um, and then, uh, obviously this is part of your, uh, management portfolio.
would you say that based on your your knowledge of need in this area is this type of housing
needed in this community and in this area or is there already plenty of emergency housing for
these sort of homeowners I mean you can say that the it's very compulsive compulsory that this
housing be instituted in area in key strategic areas I mean it's something where there's a limit
of it i mean how many hotels or short-term stays in northwood i would argue that there's not you
know any besides um what our um suggested solution is to offer so it is something that is of need and
is not a nuisance to the neighborhood if anything is um giving aiding to the the general character
of the neighborhood and as well as as helping out uh local people from the neighborhood as well
Great. And I think that's all my questions. So you also heard my testimony here today. Would you believe it to be truthful and accurate?
Yes, I do.
And would you adopt it as your own?
Absolutely. Yes, I do.
Thank you.
So just to be sure. So the property is owned by Office Spot LLC and Leo is with someone else?
he is with dan housing who manages the property so there's a contract between the owner and dan
housing right thank you to provide the services right all right questions from the board no chair
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
hillary sorry not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have calvin williams with his hand up they have been abuted and allowed to speak
hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
calvin williams c-a-l-v-i-n-w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes mr williams are you a neighbor uh no i am a
concerned citizen about this particular kind of development. All right, please proceed, sir.
Okay, we have a similar situation after a major fire on our block last year that displaced two
our treasured homeowners. We are also a single family zoned block that's been before you before,
And I am certainly aware of the need of being displaced folks after fires and insurance.
One of our neighbors are already using on our block a single family home that's for rent and serving the same purpose as their house is being redone.
I'm trying to figure out what is the difference between an Airbnb and what is being proposed here on a single family zoning neighborhood block.
And what is the hardship that it could not be converted back to a single family dwelling and serve the same purposes that is being proposed?
Thank you.
Thank you.
If I could just address the Airbnb, this is actually.
Council, what do we do?
Let's see if there's anybody else in the virtual audience first, okay?
And then I'll go back to you, okay?
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Proceed, Council.
This is in the short-term stay.
These are people whose home have been significantly damaged.
We're looking at, you know, staying for a year, maybe even more, while homes are repaired.
We're looking at, you know, staying for a year, maybe even more while homes are repaired.
And I think this board is well aware of how long it can take, even without dealing with the insurance claims to make major renovations on a property in Philadelphia.
And when you add in getting the insurance adjusters set, it could be even longer.
This isn't a short term rental.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
this is uh excuse me this is ron bednar city planning first name ron r-o-n last name bednar
b-e-d-n-a-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed sir uh this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
the approved remapping recommended no change the existing uh single family zoning at this location
The applicant's hardship is not supported
with evidence of any physical circumstances
or condition of the property
that would prevent it from being used
in conformity with the code.
Proposal represents an overuse.
Therefore, we recommend the request for variance
not be granted.
Thank you.
Counsel, I'm going to hold this one.
I'm going to take it back to the executive session
and talk to the other board members
about some of the issues involved in this case.
Understood.
I'll bring that back next.
Wednesday at 2 p.m. Does that sound right, Hillary? Yes, Mr. Chair. We'll vote on that next Wednesday
at 2 p.m. Thank you very much. The record is otherwise closed. It's definitely closed. Thank
you. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Number six, MI 2023-006-950-536 Montrose Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the Queen Village Neighbors Association.
Vern Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Counsel, we've had several conversations today.
Just for the record, state your name.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Vern Anastasio.
On behalf of Irene Foma, who is the property owner.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon.
Yes, I do.
I'll be able to email all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, we're talking about 536 Montrose Street. I want to start with
property history. As the entire property history is being moved into evidence today in my 80-page
exhibit package, it's quite clear that over the last several decades, this has been two
single family homes on one lot. And before that, it was actually a single family home and a
luncheonette. We find very similar situations in Queen Village where the main house on the deed,
as in this particular case, faces Montrose Street, the main street. And then there's a
breezeway on the side where there's a second house that's attached to the main on a breezeway. And
and that's what we have here, and it's been that way for generations. As a result of the long
history that's not only documented in my package, but in the letter from Queen Village Neighbors
Association, they offer unconditional support for the granting of this variance because of
the very long history and how just impracticable it would be to do anything other than to legalize
the pre-existing non-conforming use. I'm going to move into evidence, the refusal, the appeal,
the floor plan, which I'll go over shortly, photos of the property, the RCO notification letter and
the proof of mailing, the zoning poster and the proof of posting, the archives that I've already
referred to, the results letter, which is the letter of support, the deed, tax clearance, and
then the zoning map and overhead views in addition to what i am submitting today uh councilman
squilla's office has sent over to you copied me a letter of support as well for this appeal
and that should have been received uh several days ago uh after i spoke to them so with that
i also want to show you the refusal itself again it's for the legalization of a
pre-existing, non-conforming to family household living in an existing structure.
Living in an existing structure.
Here's the layout as it currently exists.
We've got the first floor.
We have two entrances, two separate buildings, just ostensibly, two separate units.
First, second, and third floors.
As you can see, here's Montrose Street.
Here's the alley.
and these are the two properties that are conjoined.
Here's another way to look at the properties as you can see them.
Already showed you the history, and now let's show you some photos.
This is the Montrose Street facing portion of the duplex,
And then down this breezeway, you get to the second one.
There's just some more photos.
And we have interior photos as well.
Not quite sure if you're interested in seeing them.
But I think more importantly, I want to make sure that you know that we did mail 156 individual households.
It's not only the RCO meeting, which was sparsely attended, but also for today's zoning hearing.
Of course, the interior is in good shape and well-appointed.
And we have a whole host of interior shots for your review.
Because of the decades-old use being what it is, because we have the unanimous support of the registered community organization and the district council person, and because it would be entirely impossible to turn this two-family dwelling into a single-family residence for the first time in about 60 years and still
make it worth anything. We respectfully request the granting of the variants. And with that,
I'd like to call Irene Homa to the stand, if she could please raise her virtual hand.
Irene Homa has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Irene, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
i-r-i-r-e-n-e homa h-l-m-a thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel thank you mr chair miss homa did you
hear my presentation to the board this afternoon yes is it true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge yes i just would like to also add this house has been built in 1790 and it was a two
family house from 1790 there you go so the 18th century and uh do you adopt my testimony as your
own yes thank you that's all i have nothing further mr chair thank you questions from the board
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 see it oh hey is chair planning commission so i run bed and rc planning property is indicated
for residential use on the city plan given the documented use history physical conditions of
the site. Recommend the request of variance. Thank you. MI 2023-006-950-536-Mancho Street. I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Have a
good evening. Okay. Number seven. Number eight. MI 2023-007-018-2346 East Allegheny Avenue. Joseph
Consul is the attorney. There's a letter of support from the Southport Richmond Civic Association.
Joseph Consul has come back in as a panelist now, Chair. Okay. And Mr. Chair, we also have a letter
non-opposition from council member squilla oh thank you uh mr council we've spoke a couple
times today just for the record state your name please joseph council could you identify your
client a relationship to the property yeah my client is miss evelyn cortez the owner of the
yeah my client is miss evelyn cortez the owner of the property our vice chair has just a few
property
questions sir well afternoon 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 to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed
and share your screen okay uh something done all right coming packet yep we're good all right
joe console 2346 east allegheny avenue this property is owned by evelyn cortez uh if you
look back in the zoning archive uh it's been um a bunch of uses related to uh medical uses
it's been a pediatrician's office it's been administrative offices for a hospital uh and
several other uh sort of corollary uses but uh what it's not been is residential um residentially
zoned so um i'll show you the here's what the current pictures look like um from last september
it was a pediatrics office see the sign there there's the side of the building
and there's if you're on allegheny looking at the building property is zoned rsa5 but does not and
has not functioned as a single family property we're here because my client is seeking to use
the property as a child care center she uh in november received a family daycare permit but
is seeking to increase the number of children that she has in the space
and that's where we're at with this variance
we went in front of the south port richmond civic association it was um a what i thought was a very
positive meeting um there didn't seem to be any any criticism or provisos everyone seemed to like
miss cortez and her plan for for the space it's for opposition but i'm not exactly sure what that
was about here's proof of mailing sent 150 pieces and the meeting was well attended at
it was an in-person meeting at their uh the boxing gym which is a cool spot to have an rco meeting
uh included is photos and plans
showing the the space it was uh pretty easy to port over this space from the doctor's offices
to um the uh potential child care space a lot of the rooms lent themselves well and didn't
require much intervention from my client we included the deed and the proof of tax compliance
in the packet as well as a copy of the floor plans showing the layout of the property the basements
just for storage and utilities and the space for the uh the daycare will be on the first the second
floor the number of children would be determined by a review from pennsylvania based on the square
footage of the property uh with that i'll call miss cortez uh evelyn if you're there could you
raise your virtual hand.
Evelyn Cortez has been
unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell
for the court stenographer?
My name is Evelyn Cortez.
E-V-E-L-Y-N
C-O-R-T-E-Z.
You swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed,
counsel good evening miss cortez did you hear my um presentation just now about your property on
allegheny yes i did do you adopt it as your own yes is there anything you'd like to add to the
board no okay nothing questions from the questions from the board no chair no chair questions or
comments from our attorney hillary emberson not at this time mr sheriff questions or comments
from the virtual audience.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is currently indicated
for residential use on the city plan
or adopted district plan,
however, recommended a change
to commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
Therefore, we recommend
the request of various programs.
Thank you.
MI 2023-007-018-2346-East Allegheny Avenue, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, board.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who's...
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called from the 3.30 list?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
First and foremost, Emily, thanks for coming here again.
We appreciate your help.
And thanks to everybody.
We had a, I thought it was a decent day and we got done a fairly decent time.
Thank you all.
Good job, Chair.
Thank you.
Thanks, Chair.
Thanks.
have a good night
good night everyone
good night everybody