are live.
looks like we got a full crowd chair thank you thank you tanya good morning everyone my name is
frank de chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with vice chair miss carol tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board members
Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney
Sharon Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our
virtual hearings, I will go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we'll begin
this morning's session by reading a list of cases to be continued. If you believe any announced
case is being continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond. After reading the
continuance list and receiving any feedback, we will then take any additional continuance or
withdrawal request. Then once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued, Vice Chair
Carroll Tenere will begin calling your remaining cases listed for this session. When a case is
called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other interested parties in the
matter identify themselves for the record. We will then hear the appellant's presentation,
followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties. Interested parties
and members of the public not represented by counsel will then be given an opportunity to
testify. We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's
conclusion, we will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in
executive session. Any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled Wednesday
morning session. Please note the following changes related to the virtual format.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google
267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. With that being said, we can begin. But before
Vice Chair Tenderi calls the first case, we'd like to announce that the following matters are being
continued. Calendar number 39298, 1216 West Lycoming Street. Calendar number 38261, 148
Hansberry, H -A -N -B -E -R -R -Y Street. Calendar number 38612, 2346 North 8th Street. Calendar
number 38620, 2618 North 17th Street. Calendar number 39545, 1327 North 4th Street. Calendar
calendar number 38265, 4154 North 7th Street, calendar number 39470, 4829 Longshore, calendar
Calendar number 394426729, Martin Mills Road.
number 3944267
Calendar number 399941046, Sydney Street.
And calendar number 3988730, Pelham Road, P -H -E -L -H -A -M.
uh is anyone if there's anyone out there who believes a case was called uh to be continued
in error please raise your hand at this time and also if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal
please raise your hand at this time also
mr chair do we have that withdrawal on paris street oh sorry i forgot to read that thank you
Calendar number 38634, 2825 Parrish Street is being withdrawn.
Thank you.
Chair, we have Sarah Alderfer.
Sarah, you can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance.
Ma 'am, please identify yourself, spell your name for the record,
give us your address, and then I'll swear you in.
Sarah Alderfer, S -A -R -A -H -A -L -D -E -R -F -E -R, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I'm requesting a continuance on 1437 Parrish Street.
I had written to the board in advance of today's hearing to request a continuance so that we
could meet with the coordinating RCO? 1437 Parrish Street. Is that on the 930 list?
store yes i believe so am i missing something uh sharon or tanya
i don't see it on our schedule not online i'm not finding it on the hearing list either
maybe it was continued in advance? I'm sorry, I missed it. Maybe what? I have it for 3 .30.
Can I get it? What time do you have it for, Sarah? I had it for 9 .30. Yeah, it's on the 3 .30
list to be continued. Okay. So we'll handle it. We'll take care of it at 3 .30. Okay, thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone believe the case is continued in error, or do you wish to ask for a continuance or withdrawal? Please raise your hand.
No hands up, Chair.
Thank you very much. Carol, please proceed.
MI -2020 -000843 -340 Federal Street.
The attorney is Alan Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson, you have been promoted to a panelist.
You can share your screen and testify as you wish.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Mr. Nockamson, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
My name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia,
PA, 19109.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed.
So I handed you a packet of eight exhibits.
The first exhibit is the deed to the property, showing that 340 Federal Street, LLC, is the owner of the property.
The second exhibit is the tax clearance certificate, showing that they're in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
The third exhibit is the notice of refusal.
This is an RSA -5 property, and we're proposing to put a three -family dwelling in here.
This, as you can see from the zoning permit of 1957, this property has been a multifamily structure for some time.
And actually in 1957, as you can see here, it was a three -unit, and for whatever reason, they downzoned it or downzoned it.
It was a three -unit, and for whatever reason, they down -zoned it or down -graded it to a two -family.
With that being said, my client, when he purchased the property, thought it was a three -unit.
It was advertised as such.
He only discovered that it was not a three -unit when he obtained or tried to obtain a housing inspection license for this property.
So as you can see the marketing materials, it was advertised as a three -unit.
here's our application for appeal to the zoning board of adjustment along with the project
information form and here is you know our you know where we are situated in the neighborhood
we're just off of the corner of fourth and federal streets you'll see where we are you'll
also see here there's a side alley that's how people access you know the you know from the
front of the property to the rear of the property and that's how people you know where they store
their trash in the rear and then they access the alley to to put the trash out every single week
you'll see that this is three mailboxes here like again my client hasn't changed anything
about the structure of this property so these three mailboxes existed when he purchased it
and then if you look at actually google maps that we pulled off of the web the web you know
in July 2007, there were also three mailboxes. There are three hot water heaters. There are
four meters, one for each unit and one for the common areas. None of this has been changed.
Here's properties to right of us. Here are properties to left of us. And here are just
the basic floor plans. Again, no basement living, no roof deck. We met with the Penn Sports Civic
Association, and they are in support of this project. We also received a letter from
councilman swiller who's also in non -opposition this project there's proof of our meeting with
the court coordinating rco as well as the community uh and then behind that we also have a letter of
support from the next door neighbor who would be most affected and that concludes my presentation
now i do have adrian say who is the principal of the llc that owns the property so i would
just ask that he be allowed to speak just to confirm my testimony
Sir, would you please identify yourself, spell your name for the record.
Sir, it appears that you have two devices.
You have to mute one.
Hi, Adrian.
all right i think this is a rather straightforward zoning matter i mean we have we have yeah we have
community support we have the support of the council person most importantly we have the
support of the next door neighbor on the property that's always had multifamily use and even though
this is an RSA 5 property.
Legally right now, it's a two unit.
It was advertised to us as a three unit
and has a history of being a three unit
as well. So I can include my presentation.
Thank you. Questions
from the board? No.
Anyone wish, anyone out there
wishes to testify in this case, please raise
your hand.
no hands up at this time thank you planning commission and please identify yourself
uh spell your name and i'll swear you in hello um gregory waltman that's g -r -e -g -o -r -y
I, last name Waldman, W -A -L -D, as in David, M -A -N, as in man.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
We're in the firm.
Yeah, thank you.
Please proceed.
Good morning, Chairman Chico and members of the board.
This property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
The applicant seeks to legalize an existing three -unit residential property.
The proposed use is not likely to adversely impact the character of the block,
which has a number of multifamily uses.
which has a number of multifamily uses.
Accordingly, we would not oppose the...
Accordingly, we would not oppose the granting of this.
Thank you.
MI -2020 -000843 -340 Federal Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
thank you have a great day you too calendar number three eight five eight six six thirty
four kerper street number two the owner is jujina
guyadine and i do not have a refusal
for this but i do know that well we probably all know the lawn hearse community association
opposes it. It's two use refusals, and this application appears to be for a multifamily
with three accessory parking spaces required, and none are provided.
You can read the refusal into the record if you'd like. It is, the application is for a
three -family dwelling in an existing structure. The use is refused for multifamily dwelling
prohibited in RSA 3 zoning district and three parking spaces required, none provided.
Thank you. Will the applicant please identify? Hello can you hear me? Yes please identify
by yourself, ma 'am. Spell your name. My name is Yugen Andreo, J -U -G -E -N -A -N -D -R -I -O, previously
gone by Guyadeen, G -U -Y -A -D -E -E -N. Your address? 634 Kerper Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
1 9 1 1 1 where to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir please proceed okay if you give me one minute please I'm going to
promote you to a panelist I couldn't find you for sure
Okay, you can now share your screen.
No, we do. We submitted our documentation.
with your description please you know give us a verbal description of what it is
okay and if you have any if you have any photos we do i i have submitted that to um the zba and
and sharon yeah but we're doing because we're doing it virtually if you're if you're able to
could you please share those any information you have share it with us please okay you can speak
Okay. My name is Mia Hyland, H -Y -L -A -N. I am a friend of Dr. Goyedin. I asked to assist her in the zoning and RCO process.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Excuse me, please. This is Sharon Saleta. The applicant has to present herself or be represented by an attorney who presents. Cannot have a third party presenting.
Of course. I apologize for that.
while um mia is bringing up the pictures i would like to go over the case i purchased a property
as a triplex was sold to me as a triplex and in the i have documented support on closing day
that it it was excuse me excuse me for interrupting we're getting some feedback someone has a radio
or something maybe two devices are on right it sounds like two devices one would have to be muted
is this a better yes okay i apologize for that thank you sure um so um i both i purchased this
property from andrew craig here we go again it's we're still getting feedback it may not be on your
end man it may be someone else um give me one second sir let me see no it's on her end yeah
everybody else is muted okay carol yeah just let's see where the problem
ma 'am you're you're muted now you're okay you hear me now let's try that
Okay, I apologize. You think by now we would have Zoom perfected, right?
okay i apologize you think by now we would have zoom perfected right
Never perfected. No problem. Thank you. Okay.
So as I was saying, I purchased this property. It was my first investment property that I purchased back in 2018.
I purchased it from Andrew Kramer, and it was sold to me as a triplex.
On the day of closing, I have documents to support that was given to me as a triplex.
I received three on Jeff closing, three payments for the rent for that month and everything was
going great. It was the same tenants that I purchased the property that still continued
to reside there for years. And it wasn't until recently that I was notified that the property
was not up to date on zoning. And that's when I started the procedure and I looked into it.
um the the basement has somebody has been living there for many years even prior to me um
purchasing the property she um she's a school teacher there is exit on the side of the property
from the basement there is um everything there's windows there is a bedroom there's everything
in the property and yeah and i i'm sorry but there there was mentioned that there's no parking
there is a two -car driveway and also street parking there's only i'm sorry to interrupt for
a minute is there any way you could share uh pictures or a plan or a drone or something yeah
um sure i apologize we have it here i'm just pulling it up right now thank you of course i
I wasn't aware that I had to show them. So it will take me a second to bring them up.
This is Sharon Saleta. If I could mention that generally when L &I issues a refusal for parking,
it means that even if there is a driveway on site, that no parking at that property has ever been legalized.
Okay, I can show you. Let me share my screen really quick. And I apologize for the mess. This was not a plan.
but what i'm saying is that it would have to that you would have had to have submitted a site plan
with the proposed parking shown and ellen i would have reviewed that so in in their view there is no
parking um so this is an existing property i did not do any work on it so the way it was built in
the 50s is what I have. Do you see my screen by the way? Yes. Okay so this is the front of the
property so it is an apartment and on the side there on the side right here there is a driveway
for two -car garage. It's existed since the property was built in the 50s. The units are located right
here and there's an identical adjacent unit next to it that also has a two -car garage that's been
there since the building was was purchased this is how i purchased that this is it's been like
this since the 50s and also there's front parking as we can see right here street parking so this
is the house this is the driveway where two car garages and this is the front of the house of
parking as well this is as you can see the car that's parked in the driveway it's two car garage
and this is the front of that as well but when you when you get in to enter the garage
is that a stack I'm sorry it's a driveway yeah but you then say the garage two -car garage I'm
sorry it's a car driveway I apologize that was my fault so is the two -car driveway one behind the
other stacking or do you get to the back and you're able to go side by side it's
one in front of the other backing okay please proceed and the entrance for the
first two units is right here and the entrance for the the third apartment is
right here and she has she's the only one that has access to it and she can
enter it through that way where the other two units enter through here and
historically has been serving this way this is how it was sold to me this is I
bought it I have not done any work to it this is how everyone has been living and
it was advertised this way I can show you I apologize again for the mess I was
not prepared to present the screen but I'm going to show you the way it was
advertised.
you purchase this through a realtor yes correct i purchased this through the
realtor through andrew kramer
and on the day of closing
Are you able to rotate that?
Got it.
Document 20.
Thank you.
Okay, here I go.
So this is the closing documents.
I apologize sir I there you go we found document 20 for you
um here is when it was listed as a triplex this is a listing detail that was online that was
from grip redfin .com it was advertised as a triplex
technology is just not working in our favor today
we're all we're all we're all going through the same stuff
I do this every day for work and you think by now everything will be easier.
I'm going to interrupt for one minute. There's some confusion in this appeal. We had email
exchanges back and forth on what the status is of the RCO meeting, whether it actually was held,
whether I believe you sent me an email, a photo of an email exchange with the RCO
and they were requesting an actual meeting okay we do we do have that
documentation okay okay do you do you need to know what page or see it
what the RCO meeting was held on November 19th of 2019 I apologize I
just pulled that up saw November 19th and thought we were talking about okay
now that we have a little bit more control of the screen here we can see that this is the listing
that was placed online to from which i went about to purchase a property and the listing is listed
as a three unit this was in redfin .com and the next to it if you can see this is on closing day
i received three payments for rent for the apartment and this is paperwork out of my
closing you can see first floor apartment one and apartment two and i was 20 in my late 20s this was
my first property and the realtor who sold it to me was a trustworthy person through uh through
like i i rematch i think it was century 21 or remax i i honestly um i thought everything was
fine this was sold to me from andrew kramer and this was on december 16 2016 i'm sorry
and this is the three payments that i received for the rent that month um not to interrupt you um
are there any questions from the board
no anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter please raise your hand now
Anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter, please raise your hand now.
And this is Sharon Saleta again, just to confirm on the RCO status, they did hold a meeting.
It was the Long Crest Community Association, and they voted 18 to 10 to oppose.
Is that correct?
Thank you.
Okay, Chair, we have Arthur Kramer.
Kramer.
Mr. Kramer, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Yes, this is Arthur Kramer.
Mr. Kramer, please spell your name.
A -R -T -H -U -R, Kramer, K -R -A -M -E -R.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I assume you are the realtor?
No, I'm the owner of 636 Kerper Street. I have a, I sent a letter to the Mr. Chairman, and I hope you have it. I would like to read the letter to you.
Please proceed.
dear mr chairman my name is arthur kramer i own and formerly resided at 636 carper street
currently excuse me you said you formerly resided there yes i did how long ago did you move
I moved
Where do you live now?
I currently reside at the Philadelphia Protestant
Home several blocks away from the
Faux Burfin's property. Do you still own
636? Yes, sir.
Mr. Kramer, did you formally own 636? Hold on, I'll ask the questions.
i'll ask the questions okay please proceed with your testimony all right uh well your your question
was uh did did i always own it my mother bought that property in the 1950s and my question was
do you still own it yes i i do i do own that property the single family no it's a it's a
duplex it was okay okay all right continue i am past zoning chair of the long coast crest
community association this case is for a permit for three family dwelling in an existing
structure the proposed dwelling unit is the below grade basement of a duplex built in 1950s
The sole entrance is on the right side, 10 steps down to a basement door opening into a common area used for laundry and storage.
Further back in the basement is the entrance door to the proposed third apartment unit.
There is only one entrance to the proposed unit and no direct exit to the outside in the proposed unit.
I believe this creates an unsafe condition for residents of this unit.
In addition, there have been 15 calls to the police at this property from July 2019 to July 2020.
This includes a fire call.
The first floor kitchen window remains bordered up after this fire.
Because this structure was constructed as a duplex, there is no hardship in continue to use of this building as a duplex.
This area should remain as a basement used for laundry and storage.
I oppose the granting of this variance at this time and I ask the board to deny the variance.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes ma 'am. Okay, I would like to speak in response to Mr.
Kramer. Arthur Kramer and Margaret Kramer sold my property, 64 Kerper Street, to Andrew Kramer,
which i believe is his nephew but i don't have people who are as far as lineage and that was in
2005. also of note in the page 28 of the document that i was provided there is a receipt
Also of note, in the page 28 of the document that I was provided, there is a receipt from
Masella Constructions LLC provided to me at closing detailing out the removal of the fire
door between 636 Kerper Street, which is currently owned by Mr. Arthur Kramer, and 636 Kerper
Street, which is a property I purchased, including cinder block and stucco wall.
Why did Mr. Kramer not oppose or question the work that his nephew, and I apologize if it wasn't his nephew, his nephew, Andrew Kramer, was doing when converting the property illegal?
So to my knowledge, if this is not being a triplex, it's 1952 since Arthur Kramer just stayed.
So it's either Arthur Kramer that did the work illegal or Andrew Kramer.
And I am just involved in this mess.
You have to stick to your property. Any violations that may have occurred at the other 636 is a matter that's not related to this.
No, the wall that he removed was between both of them, which Mr. Arthur Kramer had the knowledge of, and he was aware of the work that was happening in the basement.
I'm curious about what the basement looks like based on Mr. Kramer's testimony. Could you bring that up?
we can't see that you're going to need okay hold on i'll see if we can share this screen
yeah i'd like to see the issue i have the architect here that did the work that he can
speak to it and they can speak to that as well if you like let's see what you have and we may need
to we may need to speak to the architect while i'm pulling up the document just give me one second
And just to one more note, it was stated by Mr. Arthur Craver, there was 15 calls made by the police department.
That's all hearsay. That's hearsay.
One second, sir, while I share my screen.
And please let me know once you're able to see my screen.
please let me know if you're able to see my screen yes and you can bring that that's it perfect
thank you so this is the layout of the apartment these are the stairs that go down this is the
entryway and then you drop about four feet and there's seven stairs
so you you go from the stairs it's about seven stairs down to the to the walkway there is an
open area right here and then you go into the entrance of the uh the entrance of the apartment
is right here and this is a studio unit that has the walk -in closet it has a bathroom it has a
full kitchen. It has a bathroom and a window that's ventilated. There's a window right here
as well. And this is also another large closet or a tenant use it as a storage unit.
The staircase to this unit, do you enter it and exit it from outside or is it within the
interior of the building? From outside. So this is outside, right. This is outside of the building.
it's a private staircase entrance into that unit correct sir and there's a secondary exit stair
from the first uh if you're going to testify we need to get your name on the record please
sorry i apologize no problem yes this is luca please spell your name for the stenographer
L -U -K -A. Last name Lakurichi, L -A -K -U -R -I -Q -I. Do you swear in the firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do, sir. Please proceed. Yes, I'm the architect
that was called by Gennett to draw the layout of the first unit and inspect it as far as structure,
exits, width, and everything is up to code. And I really didn't see any problem with this unit,
and historically has been serving this way as many residences do in the area. Also, as the
previous owner owned it, but all of a sudden it became a problem for being a triplex. I mean,
everything works well. Parking is a problem in my field throughout the city, but I really don't know
what the answer is to that. Just for the record, there's only one tenant that has a car. Well,
Well, but that could, you can have, all tenants could have a car or two.
but that could you can have all tenants could have a car or two right that is an issue
Right.
That is an issue we have in the city and nothing we can really do about it.
Right. But as far as my tenants, I'm very close with all of them.
As far as parking, we have never had an issue in that neighborhood.
All right.
Okay. Any questions from the board?
Just a statement. I'm concerned about the windows.
Yes, so the window is in the kitchen area on the side of the building. Previously,
where is the walk -in closet now used to serve as a sleeping area. I actually proposed to remove that
and have one open space and used as a studio unit, but again I did not want to proceed with
any work unless the property was legalized. So as of now, the apartment is existing with
what you see, all the hatched areas are the partition walls,
all one hour rated fireproof.
And then the window is about, what is it?
30, 24, yes, about 31 inches wide in a kitchen area.
And there's also windows where the storage space is
with a three foot entry doorway, both doors.
okay thank you
um tom you're breaking up we didn't hear you i said thank you
thank you thank you for your time all right any other questions from the board
anyone else wishes to testify in this case please raise your hand
here i have hillary emerson hillary you can unmute yourself and speak to this case
um good morning mr chair members of the board can you hear me yes we can hillary good morning okay
good morning um hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker h -i -l -a -r -y -e -m -e -r -s -o -n
uh frank you're wearing a friend to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth
uh i do um the i i attended the meeting um that was referenced um back in november um and on you
know hearing the presentation and reviewing the information the councilwoman um is opposed to the
request for a triplex in this matter. We don't feel that there is a hardship and that this
represents an overuse of the property. It's a little bit unclear when it was converted,
but it seems clear from the floor plans and the layout that the basement was not
intended to be a unit. It looks like it was more intended to be storage.
um we have um concerns about um safety the fact that it's below below grade um the fact that the
windows um are small there's no window um in the sleeping area um the livable space is only 360
square feet um the um the egress is through a common area there's no direct access to the
outside with a door. The parking does not appear to be legalized, but there is parking, and the
picture is provided by the applicant next to the building, which is where the door exit is to the
basement. So for these reasons, we are opposed to the triplex proposed at the site. I do want to
note, too, I'm not clear. So the city seems to recognize that this has been two units, but it
says multifamily um is not permitted here and it's zoned single family so i don't know if this
is a case where um it would need to be um granted for for a maximum of two units in order to clarify
the zoning um but we're opposed to any more than two units which is what the city appears to
recognize based on rental licenses and opa descriptions at this site thank you anyone
else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission
good morning um this property is indicated for residential single -family
use on the comprehensive plan we believe a three -family dwelling will
adversely impact affect the block which is consistently
single -family in nature and the implementation of our adopted
comprehensive plan. However, we would not oppose the granting of a variance for
two units. Thank you. Calendar number 385.
Thank you. Calendar number 38586, 634 Kerper Street, number two, whatever that means. My vote is yes with a proviso, maximum two units.
My vote is yes with proviso.
My vote is yes with no proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
thank you thank you
calendar number you want me to go okay calendar number three nine four seven three
6736 north broad street the attorney is verne anastasio
Mr. Anastasio you have been promoted to a panelist. You may unmute yourself to speak
and share your screen as you need to. Thank you very much. Mr. Anastasio can you put your name
and address on the record please? Yes of course Madam Vice Chair Vern Anastasio 1315 Walnut Street
Suite 1006, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
I'm going to open up my document and then hit the share.
Share the screen.
i think everyone can see that yes yes great
we have the zba packet for uh 6736 north broad street uh calendar number 39473
this was initially hold on for one second
Okay. This was initially an application for a three -family dwelling.
However, after meeting with the RCO, which wanted less density, we now seek a two -family dwelling.
and let's go to
and here's the proposed layout the basement would remain unfinished
the first floor would be an ample two -bedroom apartment totaling 300 sorry 980 square feet
and that's not including the basement that's livable space 980 square feet
and the second and third floors would be large one three bedroom apartment
totaling 1120 square feet
the home was designed for multi -family judging by the utility connections for a second kitchen
on the second floor, which I will show you in the photos. The connections were removed by the prior
owner. The prior owner has reported to us that the house was rented to two tenants. And with that,
I'm going to show you photos.
This is Broad Street and half the block is zoned for mixed use CMX 2 .5.
The remaining 10 parcels are zoned for single family homes, but of those 10, four have no
zoning records, and four, show legal mixed use and or three family dwellings. It seems that since
the 1940s, with only one or two exceptions, all of these homes were used as either mixed use
or multi -family. Given the close proximity to the subway and the property's history,
we are asking for no more than a two -family dwelling based on the size.
Considering the census tract and the community, we can get two very large apartments at reasonable price points.
Again, one in excess of 900 square feet and one in excess of 1 ,100 square feet.
There are the photos.
There are the photos.
Here's the former utility connection for the second floor kitchen.
And continuing on at the photos, let me know if I'm going too fast.
and that's the basement which we will clean up but it's going to remain unfinished and
there'll be absolutely no living in the basement we met with the RCO they did not want the three
family dwelling and that's why we are presenting two very nice size livable approachable
apartments. There's the deed
and I'll show you the tax cert. They're full in compliance
through the end of September. And with that, I respectfully request that the board grant this
appeal with the proviso of no more than two units. Thank you.
Thank you.
I think I may have my client here, Isaac, who is the principal of TD Holdings, LLC.
If he is, if he could be acknowledged, I would appreciate it.
He would have to raise his hand.
Isaac, if you're there, could you please raise your hand?
doesn't seem like he's in attendance and with that I ends my case in chief again respectfully
requesting a variance for just a two -family not the three -family
thank you uh questions from the board no no no uh and anyone else uh anyone interested in this
case please raise your hand at this time here i have hillary emerson from the council person's
office hillary you can unmute yourself and speak to this case hillary you've already been sworn in
just uh give us your name for the record thank you all right good morning again um mr chair members
of the board hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker can you hear me okay
yes okay thank you i feel like i have to do a sound check before speaking on zoom um i'm here
this morning on 5736 North Broad Street. I did attend the community meeting where there was
discussion of a multifamily dwelling. At that meeting, a triplex was presented. After the
meeting, after the applicants left, the community made very clear in their vote that they were,
they did not want to see multifamily at this property. I specifically asked them that question
because I knew that it was a potential that there could be a suggestion of a duplex and they were
very clear that they only wanted single family at this property so I just wanted to let the board
know that because they were not aware that a duplex was is being proposed at today's hearing
I just want to note in our review of the case we did not note any history that this property was
multifamily the other half of this twin appears to be a single family dwelling as there is an
active rental license for one unit. There are other multifamily dwellings on this block, but
there are also other single -family dwellings. We don't feel that there's a hardship in this case
necessitating that this be a multifamily dwelling. I was a little bit concerned looking at
the photos and the layout because there doesn't appear to be separate entrances for two separate
units it appears to be um one house um from what from what i can tell um there may there may have
been plumbing for another kitchen in the past um but right now it appears to only be set up as a
single family um dwelling so like i said it looks based on the fact that it looks like there's only
one entrance um and there isn't a separate it doesn't seem to be separated into units um it
appears to be a single family dwelling. So we would be opposed to this being any more than a
single family dwelling at this time. Thank you. If I could address just a couple of those concerns,
please. There will be one entrance to the property. However, there's going to be a door
at the top to go to the second and third floors.
I know those plans are not the very best, but there would be separate entrances once
I know those plans are not the very best,
but there would be separate.
you enter the house.
Secondly, single -family homes are a rarity on this block.
Again, most of it is either mixed -use or multifamily, and the current owner has reported
to us that this was rented out as two.
Secondly, having the density on Broad Street actually fits hand in hand with what the Planning Commission and with what Council is trying to do with regards to transportation development.
Broad Street, of course, has the Broad Street line, and that's where we apparently want development, and that's where we want the density.
If this were on a smaller street in the neighborhood, surrounded by RSA 5s and RSA 3s, I would understand that position.
But the single -family homes, the few that are on the block, it's a rarity.
And given the property's condition, certainly given these economic times, and given the fact that a large majority of this block on Broad Street is not single -family homes,
I do think with two units coming in at just under and just above 1 ,000 square feet, that's an approachable unit. These are approachable units for folks in the community. And with that reason, I think the hardship is that, in fact, to redevelop this property to be what would be a minority use on the block is just not practicable at this time.
thank you anyone else wish to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you hillary i want to come back to you for a minute
make sure i'm clear on this at the rco meeting ever a discussion uh did they ever discuss the
the two -family as opposed to three? Yes. No, after, in the discussion following the applicant's
presentation, I specifically asked the community if they would support any multifamily at this
property, knowing that, you know, sometimes there can be a compromise at a duplex, and they said no
single -family. I thought I heard that. I wanted to make sure, but be clear on that. I just, for the
record and obviously no disrespect to to counsel um she just testified to hearsay
that's and i have to put that on the record in case there's an appeal
it's not hearsay it was spoken directly to me
okay um anyone else wish to testify in this matter please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission
This property is indicated for a single -family residential use on the comprehensive plan.
While a three -unit property would be out of character for this block,
we would not oppose the granting of a variance for two units.
elementor number 394736736 north broad street my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no
thank you jim and tom my vote is no
my vote is now
thank you
calendar number mi -2020 -000343
and calendar number 39201 6928 busselton avenue the attorney is zen jin
mr jinn you have been promoted to a panelist you can share your screen
and unmute yourself to speak.
Hi, Mr. Jin.
Can you put your name and address on the record?
Xin Jin, Z -H -E -N, J -I -N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
My name is spelled Z -H -E -N, last name J -I -N.
Do you swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth?
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I would only say that it's a referral, not a refusal, but I will stipulate to its accuracy.
Okay, great, you may proceed. Thank you.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Good morning. I am here on behalf of the tenant of the proposed property use, which is for a child care center.
I'm going to share with the zoning board the information on this property.
As you can see from the referral notice, this is a
CMX district, but the proposed use of a childcare center is a special exception approval in this
district. The proposal initially was a childcare center with after school program. Having met with
the community and having obtained feedback with concerns as to the total size of the space,
as well as how the number of kids will be managed my client actually decided to simply focus on the
child care aspect and at this point remove the after school program I'm going to go ahead and
jump to the photos and plans here because it'll be better to look at the plans and then the photos
to fully understand the proposal here. So this is an existing commercial space that
is basically rectangular in nature consisting of first floor and basement. The first floor
right now is being proposed to be relayed out to a reception area, preschool area, and
toddler area with restrooms. The basement will be an activity room where it used to be planned for
use for the after school program. It will now be incorporated with the daycare aspect and break room
storage, additional restroom. The basement itself does have a walkout that is being planned. So
So it'll be a walkout basement with a hallway directly into the rear yard area.
One of the concerns that was raised by the community initially was the availability of outdoor play space.
And unfortunately, this particular space only consists of a small rear yard.
So my clients have reached out initially to a school across the street, but they're unavailable to provide such space.
So the conclusion at this point is to work with state requirements, but seek a local park as potentially the outdoor play space.
This is not an uncommon strategy for daycares that does not have their own outdoor play space.
Another concern was raised as to the driveway in the back, the ability for cars to pass while parents are dropping off their children.
As you can see from the photo, the driveway is relatively wide and certainly capable of
allowing one vehicle to stop and drop off children while another vehicle passes through.
The space, and I'm showing the pictures of the existing space, does require quite a bit
of work.
As you can see, it is currently in a dilapidated shape in the basement.
The first floor is essentially a former commercial use of an office that is currently not really
This is just leftovers from when it was there.
So this will be renovated completely to the daycare use itself.
So while these pictures certainly show the place needs work, we told the community that
that additional work will be performed to make sure the space is safe and a clear and
clean space for any children that would come to the space.
My clients themselves did also go through the community as well and obtained petitions
and support as part of talking to neighbors.
This was requested by one of the community groups. So my client went out and went around the neighborhood to get support from residents as well as other businesses.
In addition, they did provide as well to the community a business plan. While it's not extremely detailed business plan, it does lay out why they feel they can serve this neighborhood with a small size daycare.
They do bring a multilingual team, which speaks both Asian languages as well as English.
And part of their business plan, of course, is to target those particular parents who require this kind of services.
From a special exception standpoint, I believe my client, their proposal does not...
I believe my client, their proposal does not and will not cause any health safety issues
that would be beyond what is normally expected of such a daycare operation.
As far as the detail of operation concerns that the community has raised because they
feel that because the space is currently run down, because of the size, that there will
be operational issues.
we do recognize that and I do want to point out that even if we were to obtain zoning special
exception approval from the board health department the state as well as the city will be further
involved before my clients can actually start to operate as a daycare center so those concerns will
be addressed as part of the ongoing process to complete this daycare before it's fully operational
But again, my clients, the operators themselves, while they don't currently operate a location,
they all have experience with daycare operation and will be directly involved in managing
the operation on a day -to -day basis.
And that is the reason we would ask the board to rule favorably in this special exception
request.
Please feel free to ask questions.
this concludes my case in chief. Anyone witnesses that you'd like to bring on?
I have Tiffany, Ms. Tiffany Chin should be here on behalf of the tenant corporation
who is the tenant and that is I believe Happy Panda LLC. Ms. Chin can you raise your hand
on the Zoom application, please.
Tiffany, you can unmute yourself.
I wait to be sworn in.
Hi, I'm Tiffany Chen.
Tiffany, would you please spell your name
for the stenographer?
T -I -F -F -A -N -Y -C -H -E -N.
We're in the firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Ms. Chen, can you give the board
your address for the record?
For the daycare or my home?
Yourself.
Up 2307 Vista, Vista Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19152.
Thank you.
You heard my testimony today.
Can you verify that my testimony is true and adopted as your own?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else wish to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time.
Thank you. I went out of order. Any questions from the board?
No. No. No. Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for commercial and residential mixed use on the comprehensive plan.
The use is appropriate for a commercial corridor.
accordingly we would not oppose the greeting of a special exception thank you
mi -2020 -000343 calendar number 39201 6928 busselton avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
may i be excused thank you yes mi -2020 -000862 6100 -02 ardly street
meg richter and ian papajohn are the owners
Meg and Ian, you have been promoted to panelists.
You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in, and you can share your screen as necessary.
This is an application for the erection of a one -story addition to an existing detached
accessory structure for use as tool storage accessory to an existing two
family detached garage this is not permitted because the maximum size of an
accessory structure allowed shall be no more than 130 square feet whereas the
proposed size of the accessory structure is 333 square feet and is prohibited in
in this residential district.
good morning this is ian papajohn
good morning uh can you place your address on the record too and spell your last name
uh 6100 ardley street p -a -p -p -a -j -o -h -n
okay and do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do okay I've just read the application and refusal you may proceed I'm going to
try to pull up the the documents we submitted to the the zoning board
Hopefully I can do it.
So, Ian, if you go to the documents that you want to show first, make sure they're open and then share the screen.
Okay, I have just – are you able to see what I have on the screen at this point?
Not yet.
Still not?
Not yet.
Okay so are you do you have the document open that you want to share I have the
document open okay so then you go down to the bottom and click the green button
that says share screen on zoom and did you click on a green button I'm doing
this on an ipad i don't have a oh okay yeah here it come it came up okay so let me now go to my
screen how about that yes sir yes okay so um we live in germantown um on an acre and a quarter
with an 8 ,000 square foot house
and a lot of plantings and lawns and driveway.
And we need, we have an existing shed
and we need a little more room to store the stuff
that we need to maintain the grounds and the house.
And we applied for a permit
and it was refused because of the overall size.
so we're going through this process
traditionally this house had a carriage house
and barn which is now a separate property
and is between two and three thousand
square feet
I'm going to pull up the site plan
so you can see well I'll show you some pictures of this is the front of the
house here's the site plan we are we have no visibility from the street we're
surrounded on two sides by the Aubrey Arboretum and then we are adjacent to
three other private properties, who have which signed a letter in support of us and the Arboretum
has signed a letter in support. This is a front view of the house, some of the grounds. This is
the wall you see from Ardley Street and you can see there's no visibility of our
house more of the property this is the back of the existing shed it's a posted
beam structure in keeping with the sort of era of the house and in keeping with
the barn that was part of this property originally
A letter by Aubrey Neighbors, the RCO, was the unanimous decision to support the project.
This is a letter from all the immediate neighbors supporting the project.
These are the mail receipts notifying all the adjacent neighbors of the coming hearing.
This is a picture of the proposed structure, half of which exists without siding, and we
were going to double it and side it. And this is a site plan of just our property and then showing
our property in relationship to Ardly Street. Walnut Lane and Sprague Street, which are on
this survey, were never opened as city streets and they are part of the Aubrey Arboretum.
and actually none of the streets except hardly here were ever opened by the city
and they are part of private property at this point
that's it unless anyone has any questions for me oh tax clearances
I believe that's it thank you
questions from the board no no anyone else wish to testify please raise your hand
here i have charles richardson from the council person's office charles good morning mr richardson
good morning mr chair charles richardson r -i -c -h -a -r -d -s -o -n from the office of
Councilwoman Cindy Bass. Just wanted to let everyone know that the Councilwoman has no
objection to the proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in this
case? If you haven't done so, please raise your hand. No hands at this time. Thank you. Planning
Commission property is indicated for residential single -family use on the
comprehensive plan the proposed improvement supports operations and
existing historic house as is and is consistent with the proposed zoning
accordingly we recommend that the request did variance is granted thank
you am i to excuse me mi -2020 -000862 6100 -02 ardler street my vote is yes my vote is yes my
vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you um any unfinished business uh tanya
and or Sharon?
No, Chair, not for me.
Not for me either.
Okay, see everyone back at 2 o 'clock.
Thanks.
See you guys later.
Bye -bye.
Take care.
Everyone, Tanya, we're going to give you
five or so minutes
before we start.
Thanks, we're good, Chair.
Oh, we're ready to go?
all right uh we're ready to go live
abby hi tanya hi could you uh make me a co -host please oh yeah thank you
Are we live, Abby?
Yes, we are.
Oh, okay.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere,
Board Secretary Confessor Plaza, and Board Members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Could everyone still hear me?
Yes, Chair.
I know my screen went blank. So, all right, I'll get back on that in a minute.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics that you can expect.
First, we'll begin this afternoon session by reading a list of cases to be continued.
If you believe any announced case is being continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond.
we will give you an opportunity to respond.
After listing the continuance list and receiving any feedback,
we will take an additional continuance request and or withdrawal request.
Then once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued,
Vice Chair Tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session.
When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants
or other interested parties in the matter identify themselves for the record.
We will then hear the appellant's presentation,
followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public not represented by counsel
will then be given an opportunity to testify.
We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
At the hearing's conclusion, we will either vote the matter immediately
or hold it for discussion in executive session.
Any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled Wednesday morning session.
Please note the following changes related to the virtual format.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
We ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand
by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance
statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property
at issue. And I'll repeat that again. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. With that said, we can
begin. But before Vice Chair calls our first case, we'd like to announce that the following matters
are being continued. MI -2020 -000175, 5965 Chester Avenue. MI -2020 -000148, 2301 Bly
Avenue. Calendar number 37210, 5521 Market Street. Calendar number 39520, 3929 Ridge Avenue.
MI -2020 -000847, 1409 North 29th Street.
Calendar number 39432, 2949 North Hancock Street.
MI -2020 -000673, 332 West Wildey Street or Wildey Street.
Calendar number 38856, 1614 Latona Street. If anyone believes that we have called a continuance, call for a continuous and error, please raise your hand. And also, if you wish to request a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand at this time.
um chair we have alan knockamson mr knockamson you can unmute yourself and speak to the
continuance spell your name but you're still on the oath from this morning sherry uh yes good
afternoon mr chair members of the board my name is alan knockamson of knockamson pc
123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 uh there are two matters uh i would
like to address i don't mr chair i don't believe you mentioned 920 french street i have that on
my calendar um as it can take what i don't have that on my list so what is the calendar number
um i don't know actually i just was hearing just to make sure all my stuff all my matters were
continued that needed to be continued 920 french street um let me see let me go on atlas and see
let me see let me go on atlas and see what where we are let's see 920 french
where we are, let's see
i have it under calendar number 40048 i don't believe that i think that's the old version of
how the CBA used to give calendar numbers?
Do you have that, Mr. Chair?
I don't have it on my list,
but we have no problem adding it to the list.
Yeah, I had that.
It looks like it was scheduled for August 18th.
When I'm looking at the calendar,
is that what you see?
Oh, what's it scheduled for last week?
Oh, I had it on my calendar for this week,
so I apologize.
No worries.
and then so that's well did we continue it last week yes i'll put it on the record again uh but
the other one the other case okay the other case mr chair is 59 65 chester avenue
um we would like to be the moving party with respect to that matter
and if i can mention that yeah that's not on our my list either
the first case that was read was 5965 i'm sorry yeah i'm sorry chester avenue
um if if it is listed as attorney continued attorney moving party you will be required
to contact the board within three months to renew your request or it will be scheduled.
So understood. Thank you. Okay, so let me clear the record. MI -2020 -000175 -5965
Chester Avenue, Attorney Moving Party. And is this correct? Is calendar number 40048?
to not to the nine excuse me nine two zero French Street is being continued
yes that's correct okay and please note to all that once continued the case says
will be scheduled and the dates will be available in a ZBA calendar the following
week. Thank you very much. Thank you. And just have a question. Anyone else seeking a continuance
or withdrawal? Please raise your hand. No more hands up. Thank you. Carol, you're going to call
to get Endicott Street first.
Did you get that?
Carol, you're muted.
I don't have Endicott.
All right, I'll read that one in.
We have to vote this one, all right?
This requires our vote.
Calendar number 39066.
15014 Endicott Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. Okay, we can proceed with the regular calendar, Carol. Okay. Calendar number
39325 4606 Woodland Avenue. The attorney is Zen Jin.
Still on their oath from this morning, so.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Name and address for the record, please.
Xenjin, Z -H -E -N -J -I -N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838 Philadelphia PA 19103.
here on behalf of the applicant um i'll go ahead and uh okay do you agree to wave the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do you're still under oath thank you may proceed
thank you um so my client is um aces estate lc who is the owner of this property uh we met with
Southwest Philadelphia District Services. I'm going to go ahead and start sharing the
information related to this case. We met with Southwest Philadelphia District Services for
this application. This is to use the residential portion of the building as a total of five
as a total of five units. They will be smaller units but they are going to be a lot more affordable
units. They will be smaller units by
and based on feedback from the community and Southwest District Services asked us to affirm
that we would in fact make sure that the housing units will be in a range that can be affordable for
people in the area which my client agreed to. We have received their support in this particular
application. Now the CMX2 zoning for this property permits multifamily above the commercial space,
which is a small 30 -foot deep commercial space that's essentially an office space.
And the main variance here is based on a dimensional size of the lot. As you can see,
five units will require a much greater number of lots size than what we have available. However,
However, this particular building, I'm going to go ahead and go down to the photographs.
I'm sorry, I jumped to the plans.
Let me scroll back up.
So this Woodland Avenue is a pretty busy corridor with a mix of uses, including commercial,
residential, and mixed commercial residential.
The particular building in question is this one right here in the photo that I'm showing.
This building is in need of a lot of work. It's been sitting vacant for some time.
And it was at one point used as a three family plus a commercial space. Then it was converted to
a variety of other uses over the years. However, it's been vacant for some time now.
Now, the investment into rehabbing this will be pretty substantial.
And one way that both this will work out for the community as far as providing lower price housing as well as working out for the owner is to allow the smaller units because they would work out to be beneficial to both in the way they're structured.
So from the plan standpoint, one of the reasons why my client looked at splitting these levels is because the existing stairwell, the stairwell is actually kind of in the middle.
What this does allow, though, is it allows every floor occupant to be able to separately access the yard.
This is the addition portion that was mentioned in the refusal. That does not trigger an
additional refusal as far as that dimension is concerned. The refusal that we are looking at is
purely the dimensional refusal based on lot size. So what happens with this stairwell is that the
entryway to the first floor is a hallway next to the commercial space that would lead to a shared
stairwell. It also allows us to make access to the side yard and therefore the rear yard for
trash storage pending final trash pickup. The units themselves will be one in the rear
and as you go up you'll be one front one back split. That is how the layout is done. And finally
the stairwell also fully leads up to a shared deck which will be usable by all units as well
as open space above the property. So the developer, the owner wanted to give every space both access
to the rear yard as well as access to the roof deck. This allows everyone to be able to have
some space to themselves or a shared open space as needed. So as a result, also I want to mention
there are no living space in the basement. It's purely for utilities and it would not be used
by any of the units in other than a shared storage space and utility space. So as far as managing
Trash storage and managing open space, this design does allow all units to have open space
and trash. So we would ask the board consideration in allowing this particular dimensional variance
for lot size to allow for the five what is essentially studio units to be in this property.
And again, Southwest, the RCO, which I'm sorry, I don't want to pronounce their name, so let me go back up to their letter.
Southwest Philadelphia District Services, the RCO for the area, again, is in support.
And during the voting, when we discussed it with all the attendees, again, none of the neighbors were in opposition either with this particular proposal.
I'll be happy to answer any questions from the board and any witnesses I believe
I'll be happy to answer any questions from the board.
Any witnesses?
my client should be here I it's it's Alex I'm sorry I don't have the last name
in front of me yes yes
Vaz yes yes hi hi all right please spell your name your full name address and give us your
address yes uh vodgan v a g is a zebra g like gary e like edward and like nancy and last name is
avakian a -v -a -k -y -a -n and the address is uh that i live is 1398 chinkwapin road southampton pa
one eight nine six six we're from to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth I do please proceed mr. James thank you
but as you have heard my testimony to the zoning board can you verify that
it's true and correct and adopted as your own yes I I agree to everything you
said this is the project that we have and it was very accurate that you
described. Thank you. Go back to that floor plan, please. Yes.
Counselor. Yes. Can you blow up the floor plan? Some want it
bigger or you know what it shows on yeah a little a little a little bigger bigger okay
uh i don't i don't see any layout like attention tom tom tom tom can't hear a word you're saying
Tom it's your gargles yes yeah we could we can't hear you can you hear me can
you hear me now yes better yeah can you hear me now yes I stopped your video
better okay I don't see the picture layout you mean like fixtures for the
space kitchen kitchen the kitchen rooms they have room as then can you maximize
your screen? Yes. Let me go ahead and do that. I'm looking at the bathroom, 27 square feet,
17 square feet, 17 square feet. That's about the size of a shower.
It's my understanding that they're 25 and 27 square feet based on this particular.
Well, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the number. I apologize. 25, 25. My mistake. I'm sorry.
I'm looking at the number, which says bathroom.
Yes, these are the studio units, relatively small in size.
35 square feet is a size for a bathroom. You have 26.
I'm sorry?
You have 25 square feet for a bathroom.
Yeah, 27, yeah.
7 by 5 should be 35 square feet.
I'm sorry I don't know this these square footage was listed by the by the plan
designer so I'm not sure if that is Vaz would you be able to answer those
questions relating to the square footage? Yeah so about six by five it's a
standard bathroom if you go slightly smaller between 25 and 30 square feet
Between 25 and 30 square feet, that's a decent amount of square footage.
that's a decent amount of square footage.
For the one -bedroom or studio, that's a great size bathroom.
The smallest bathroom you could do is 7 by 5.
I guess that's something we can discuss with an architect and increase it slightly to make it 7 by 5.
because currently it looks like the way the architect drew it is five by five
which is incorrect that's impossible yes so we're gonna have to change it by
seven by five so that will be 35 square foot 25
weeping area 80 square feet it's eight by ten correct there's so there is
something missing i mean we're not showing like as tom said you're not showing a layout of how
the kitchen will lay out there's a lot of uh speculation here uh and my other question uh
then is the storefront or the first floor remains
a storefront
uh yes sir we got a storefront and five apartments
yes sir uh if i may uh the architect told us that for the specific hearing
the very rough drafts uh would be needed because if we wanted to go into full specs of uh plumbing
electric kitchen and all that that's a different type of a joint a substantial more amount of
money they said first find out if that's feasible to do and then we can proceed with other drawings
inspections and so forth that that's kind of like doing it backwards we we need as much
specification uh before we vote on these things uh all right i don't anybody other board member
have questions no now is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter if so please
raise your hand no hands chair thank you planning commission good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of
the board david effecto f -e -c -t -e -a -u for the planning commission for your two o 'clock cases
yeah you're on the earth from this morning i believe uh i was not here this morning oh i'm
sorry so you swear and tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank
you mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for commercial mixed use
in the comprehensive plan this is a primarily commercial block undergoing revitalization
As long as the commercial space is still available for a business to operate in, we do not believe this proposal will adversely impact the block.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting this variance.
No position on the number of residential units?
No position.
Personally, I don't know about the rest.
I have a problem with the way this thing is being presented.
This plan is being presented.
You're almost asking for double.
at what's 1 ,500 square feet
is what you're proposing.
I think the requirement's 2 ,800
and I'm rounding the numbers off.
Yes, I believe the permitted units
by right should be about three units.
That would make more sense to me.
Anyway, just two cents.
The issue here is because the plants
are not really easy to...
there's nothing really to to to look at um or like to maybe have uh some more detailed plans
presented before it makes its final decision i i'll i would i'll agree to that i'll agree to that
but i still don't know if i don't know if i would be still supportive of five units no matter how
you do it so if if by example you came back with three you're going to have to give us more more
specification as how things lay out. Understood. I'll definitely speak with my client and the
architect regarding that. So Sharon, if we hold this, do we, the record remains open or how do
we handle that? Yes, Mr. Jin, how much time will you need to expect? Vaz, I would, because he deals
with the architect more directly in this matter would you be able to come back in three weeks
i would believe that's enough time yes and um tanya can we schedule a specific
And, Tanya, can we schedule a specific time for them to come back to present additional details on the layout of the apartments?
So, we have quite a few cases.
We have already been pushing for three weeks later.
So, go out further if we have to.
So, if we want to do a month, if that works with Mr. Jin's schedule, we can accommodate him that way.
but we have already pushed quite a few cases onto that docket.
Okay, on the following week,
is there a specific date and date and time
that we could now schedule it for announcing now?
We can do Wednesday, the 23rd of September at the same time.
Wednesday, the 23rd.
At two o 'clock.
If the zoning board would indulge me for one minute,
um that is fine on my calendar yes we will accept that date thank you so the record will remain
open for you to return on wednesday the 23rd at two o 'clock to present additional details regarding
the layout of the proposed units yes thank you thank you thank you sharon and tanya thank you
Calendar number 39638, 154 West Walnut Lane. Constance Kapp Winters is the owner.
This is an application for use as a three -family household.
Well, it's an application for three -family household units in an existing structure.
This proposed use is refused because multifamily household living is not permitted in the RSA -1 zoning district.
Ms. Winters, you can share your screen as necessary, and you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Ms. Winters, you can unmute yourself at this time.
can you hear me now hello yes yes i'm sorry i'm not uh very adept at this
uh join the crowd join the crowd can you put your name and address on the record please
my name is constance c winters um 154 west walnut lane philadelphia 19144 and do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth and nothing but the truth yes i do okay you may proceed well i um submitted i
had an architect submit all the required materials i didn't i don't have a presentation
like the lawyer just gave for the past case i wasn't aware that i was supposed to actually
show them do you have what was submitted before all of you
Can you hear me?
Yeah, we don't.
We, the board, do not have that material.
Staff has it, and I believe our council has it.
Well, I could give you a verbal description.
I didn't know that I was supposed to have documents that I actually don't know how to do it.
I'd have to hire somebody to do it.
All right. Before you go any further, Sharon and or Tanya, are you able to share any of the
information that was in the fault in their file?
I am emailing it to you right now. I'll also email it to Tanya. Tanya,
if I send you the file now, are you able to open it?
can you see me on your screen no no I don't know we can hear you but okay on
it um so connie yeah at the bottom of your screen what kind of device are you using
uh it's a map there you go there you go we see you oh okay thank you uh miss winters um do you
swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you
uh we're waiting to see if we can get take a look at your file would you like me to give a verbal
description well just just hang in there a minute if we get the file up then we can
walk you can walk us through it okay
Okay, I just emailed it to Tanya.
While we're waiting, Ms. Winters, maybe you can just give us a description of what the
rest of that block looks like in terms of single -family, multi -family.
Well, it's a west central Germantown or the Topohockan Historic District, and it has a
lot of very large homes. I've lived in this one since 1986. When we bought it, it was zoned four
units. And the reason I remember that so well is because I lived on Tulpa Hawkins Street and the
previous owner tried to downgrade the zoning to seven units and I objected. So it had originally
four units. One of them has been converted to the office where I am now and then there's still
two apartment units in a wing off the house that was built in 1885. The house was built in 1858
so most of the block is large Victorian houses that were built over say a 30 or 40 year period.
Is that a good enough description?
Well, yeah, yes and no.
Are there other multifamilies on that block that you're aware of?
Yes, there's, I live next door to a school or across the street from a school that was converted into five units.
And there are, there's a large apartment house in the middle of the next block.
There's another seven unit building in the next, in the middle of the next block.
you're here today really to legalize a multi -family yes
i mean i actually didn't know that it was zoned single family
seems ridiculous but i'm refinancing my house because i put a new slate roof on it
and i've done all the work to this house over the last 30 some years by refinancing but they
never required zoning so i just honestly i was unaware okay tanya if we can't get it up but
i think we can go forward
so any board members have any questions no
no no anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
Could I say one other thing?
Yes, please.
Well, the apartments are actually in a wing of the house.
The body of the house is owner -occupied and single -family and always will be.
So the three -family dwelling obviously includes your residence where you live?
Yes, which is two -thirds of the property.
okay we actually have your file coming up now
unless we can get to the floor plan or the
site plan that would be helpful
that's the basement
the living quarters in the basement correct no none
so what's coming up now shows um the first first floor apartment
in the wing that sticks out over the left hand side of the house if you're facing the house
the architect i think submitted a lot of pictures of the interior
Actually, the wing was built in 1885 for Grover Cleveland, who stayed here while he was president.
Well, he was president.
That's the second floor apartment.
The presidential suite.
Not for current president, please.
No, the...
Quite some time ago.
All right.
How did I know?
I was going to comment on the first
going for Cleveland, then I
couldn't help myself.
Those are all interior
shots of my living space.
Beautiful home.
Thank you.
It's a labor of love.
Sure it is. That's why you keep refinancing.
That's right.
Wow. Look at that house.
It has a brand new slate roof.
Oh, God.
30 years in the making.
do you want to sell the house because i'm always moving no never my children are going to inherit
it and live here that's good for you all right i think uh i think we've seen enough unless the
board has any other questions no i don't is there anyone who wishes to uh testify in this case if
so, please raise your hand. I have one other question. How do I let my bank know your decision
as soon as possible? You'll get Tanya. Tanya, speak to Tanya. She'll give you.
So what will happen is, depending on the decision, you will get a document through the email of the
board's decision and utilize that to take to L &I, who would work on your permit, and then you can
use the actual permit that you receive to take to your bank. Do I go, do I, how do I go? I'll provide
the number for you to contact our office or email, and then we can pass further. Okay. Okay, all right,
and no one else, anyone else to testify in this case? No chair, no hands is up chair.
Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for
residential use on the comprehensive plan. The existing home may actually be eligible for
accessory dwelling units because it is an historic property. Since this is a legalization,
we have no objection to granting this variance. Thank you. Calendar number 39638154 West Walnut
Wayne my vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you and we'll see you in 30 years when you
Thank you very much. So Ms. Winters. We'll still be here. So Ms. Winters I have chatted with you my email address all questions should come to me. All right thank you very much. You're welcome. Have a good day. Good luck to you. Thank you. Bye.
Bye -bye. Next case, MI -2020 -000851, 1300 Fairmount Avenue. The attorney is Michael Molloy.
Mr. Malloy, you have been promoted to a panelist where you can share your screen as necessary
and unmute yourself to speak.
Thank you very much.
Let me just ask you to put your name and address on the record.
Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. My name is Michael P. Malloy, Jr., and I'm with the law
firm of Obermeyer, Redmond, Maxwell, and Hipple, and we're at Center Square, 1500 Market, Suite
3400, Philadelphia PA 19102. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Then you may begin.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
And with me somewhere in the list of names here is Jeff Carson, and he's from City Signs,
and City Sign is your applicant today, and they're acting on behalf of the property owner,
which is 1300 Fairmount LLC.
And essentially, I'm going to just share my screen here for a second.
Let me find.
and essentially let me just adjust the this property is directly
hold on one second let me just move it okay so this is a this is a property that is now the current
Okay, so this is a property that is now the current Aldi supermarket, and although the address is 1300, fair amount, it's really closer to miraculously described at the corner of Broad and Ridge Avenue.
and it's directly next to what was formerly the Divine Lorraine Hotel, and the Aldi is an existing
building. They're moving towards finalizing construction, opening the building, and we're
here to talk today about the signage, and it's essentially the signage that fronts that broad
and ridge frontage on the west elevation of the new construction, which consists of the Aldi
building, the supermarket, some associated space inside that building, plus a new luxury residential
directly behind the east. We're dealing with five signs today, and those will basically advertise
the supermarket and some of the other tenants in the building. We were lucky to get Chesterbrook
Academy as one of the tenants already. Two of the signs consist of an Aldi logo.
One consists of a more of a marketing sign, which is says fresh, and that it basically identifies their commitment to providing fresh food, fresh groceries, fresh produce to the community at that location.
The signs are, and you can see on the on the shared screen, F, G, H, J and N.
All of those signs need relief because they're all above the second floor.
Signs F, G, and H need relief because their maximum square footage, which is the maximum
is 100 square feet, are 160, 243, and 120 respectively.
And so they exceed the maximum for signage.
The signs on a whole in the aggregate are 643 square feet, where only 438 is permitted
by the code.
The community, we attended community meetings, showed them the plan.
The community provided in the exhibit packet as Exhibit A, and I could show it to you, but letters of support and letters of support from Councilman Clark.
And I would just say the community and the councilman are both extremely supportive of the grocery store.
We think the signs, given the scope and scale of that block, the scope and scale of the uses next to that, the Divine Lorraine, the large residential, given the unusual configuration of the intersection,
Aldi is really asking for probably the most reasonable sign package to advertise the grocery store, which everyone is very supportive of.
and wants to see succeed. So I think it's a reasonable package. The community
letter states things like no impact to the community, residential, the nearest residential
is a block away, and it's going to improve the quality of life for the community. So with that,
I have Jeff Carson from CitySign. I can go through my other exhibits that show
the location you know we have existing conditions we have uh the letters of support um all in the
exhibit uh packet uh that is i i can maneuver and uh present to the board as as necessary
unless the board thinks otherwise i i don't think it's going to be necessary unless the board
disagrees with that uh seeing no objection then why don't we just move on and get your witness to
accept your testimony
and then we'll vote.
Terrific. Is Jeff around? Jeff Carson?
Maybe we can unmute him.
Jeff, you can unmute yourself.
Can you hear me now?
I apologize. Sorry about that.
Yes, please spell your full name
for the record. Spell it.
Yes, sir, Chairman. My name is Jeff, J -E -F -F, Carson, C -A -R -S -O -N.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes, sir. Thank you.
Jeff, you were present on the Zoom call for my testimony?
Yes, sir, the entire time, yes, sir.
And can you affirm that it was true, correct, and you would adopt it as your own if you were to testify?
Yes, I would.
I have no further questions for Mr. Carson.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else who wishes to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Anyone else who wishes to test?
I'm sorry.
Not planning committee.
Anyone from the board?
No hands at this time.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the comprehensive plan.
We do not believe the addition of illuminated signs will have an adverse impact.
However, we do recommend the signs above the second floor not be granted because they may impact the residential units in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
MI -2020 -000851.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate it.
Good luck.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a good afternoon.
You as well.
Thank you.
Next case is MI -2020 -00686, 1306 -14, 1316 -20, and 1322 -24 Callow Hill Street.
The attorney is Adam Labor.
And this case went through CDR, so the Planning Commission would generally be given the option
of reading their recommendation letter first, if they would like.
We can do that, if that's okay.
All right.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this application completed Civic Design Review
on July 14, 2020.
The design review committee noted that much of the ground floor is dedicated to parking cars. This results in a small retail space.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the need for retail in the future, the committee asked the design team to consider increasing space for retail and or other amenities at the expense of parking.
Lastly, the committee encouraged the design team to further enhance the streetscape elements for the benefit of both the project and the neighborhood.
The CDR committee also accepted the comments of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission staff,
which included a recommendation to relocate the bicycle storage room to a more visible
and convenient location on the first floor.
We do not believe that building a high -density mixed -use building and a block surrounded
by other high -density mixed -use buildings will have an adverse impact.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting this variance.
okay mr mr laver can you put your name and address on the record good afternoon mrs tenere
members of the board adam laver of blank rome one logan square on behalf of the applicant
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
yes mrs tenere i do and you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy I agree to waive and stipulate as to the accuracy of the
refusal and the referral thank you you may proceed thank you members of the
board can you see my shared screen yes thank you mr. chairman members of the
board, Adam Laver of Blank Rome on behalf of LLCP Callow Hill LLC and its principal, Michael Wax,
W -A -C -H, equitable owner of the subject property at 1306 -34 Callow Hill Street.
In addition to Michael, Christina Marconi of Bernardin Architects is available as well to
testify. The exhibit package, which has been electronically shared with Council
for the Board, as well as with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission,
includes support documentation at tab 5, where you'll find a letter of support
from the coordinating RCO, which is the Callahill Neighborhoods Association. I'd
like to note at the outset that this letter of support notes, quote, the CNA
board supports the project unanimously and we appreciate the density at this
long vacant lot in our neighborhood." End quote. The support documentation also
includes a letter from Councilman Squilla and a Civic Design Review
completion letter. The process was completed in one session. I've pulled up
an aerial view of the property.
The subject property is approximately 34 ,233 square feet
The subject property is approximately 34 ,233 square feet in size.
You can see that it is off of North Broad Street.
It's in a formerly industrial area close to the viaduct.
I'm also going to show you some photographs that I think will be helpful for placing the
property in context.
This is the property as seen from Callahill Street. It's currently a
surface parking lot. The property is bounded by Callahill to the north, the
Hanover Apartments, which is a Parkway Corporation development to the west,
Reds and Sun Auto Body to the east along 13th Street and Carleton Street, which
is the small street to the south. Let me just show you a couple more photographs.
Here is a montage and overview. I'll take you into a closer photograph, if I may.
One moment. So here you see the property and you can see that it's surrounded by
dense large structures and one more I had mentioned that just to the left or
the east of the Parkway lot that we're seeking to build on is this auto body
shop which creates its own challenges as I'm sure you can understand that would
remain that is not part of this site the parcel the development site is own CMX4
It's currently the public surface parking lot
which Parkway operates.
I should note that the use is non -conforming
and expressly prohibited in the district.
The developer and the design team have designed
the proposed building to respect the rich history
of the Callahill Industrial National Historic District,
it's on the National Register, the district that is,
and to enhance the existing site
and the efforts of the Cal Hill Neighborhood Association
throughout the area.
We've worked closely with Cal Hill neighbors
on the pedestrian experience around the site.
I'm just going to zoom in a little bit
on this zoning site plan for you.
The proposal calls to consolidate lot lines
to construct a new seven -story multifamily apartment building
with 181 residential units.
ground floor retail commercial along Callow Hill,
one interior loading space,
66 interior bicycle parking spaces,
and 55 off -street interior accessory parking spaces.
The parking is proposed to be accessed
off of Callow Hill Street,
where I'm indicating right here with the cursor,
through one single curb cut.
You will find the refusal referral at tab 8 in the information that I've submitted to Ms. Saleta.
I'd like to note that there is only one zoning refusal.
Variance relief is needed because the proposed floor area ratio is approximately 8 .5 % in excess of the permitted FAR.
8 .5%.
Additionally, a referral was generated for special exception approval, not
variance relief, but special exception approval to accommodate the proposed
off -street parking. And Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this off -street
parking that's proposed is comparable to the neighboring Parkway Corporation
Hanover Apartments, for example. The permitted floor area ratio in the zoning
district is 500%. The proposed development calls for 184 ,834 square feet. We are seeking an increase
in floor area ratio of approximately 8 .5%. I would submit that that's a relatively modest variance
that fits into the scope and scale of the block in the surrounding neighborhood as shown in the
photographs that I shared with you moments ago. To state the obvious, parking is a challenge
throughout the city. We hear that from our neighborhood groups. In an effort to provide
off -street parking, a zoning referral was generated because the zoning code are a special
exception approval for new accessory parking of this type. I'm pulling up a plan here just so you
can see the parking, which varies in terms of the grade. In fact, a good bit of the parking is below
a good bit of the parking is below grade. We are providing the required parking without taking
group. We are providing the
advantage of any bonuses that would allow us to reduce on -site parking, and with the variation
in grade along the site, the partial below -grade parking I think only speaks in support of the
special exception relief. I'd like to move for a moment to the proposed elevations which I'm
bringing up on the screen. There's no back of house with this development. You can see in the
quality of the materials here along both Callow Hill, which I have up in front of you. And by the
way, I'm sorry, Mr. Laver, I believe you have to maneuver in and out of the document because we
still see the same grayed out plan. Oh, dear. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
All right, I have the elevations up, and thank you, Ms. Dunkett, for bringing that to my attention.
Here we have the Cal Hill elevation. To the west of the site, you'll see the proposed parking,
one curb cut. Incidentally, on the right, ghosted, is the Hanover development, the separate development,
which has the same type of entrance, if you will. To the east is a defined residential area,
the lobby entrance to the property. If you drive by Cowell Hill Street on this block,
the cars speed by as they head towards the Vine Street Expressway and other points.
We really are intending, through the design and the revitalization of the site, working with the
community to change that to the best of our ability in the neighborhood. The
elevations before you call for an 84 and a half foot high structure, far less
than what you have across the street by the way. The reactivated Callahill
Street corridor. I'm going to move to Carleton Street which is the very small
Street just to the south simply to show you that the quality of the materials is
very similar to what we have at the front. Again, no back of house. Going back
for a moment to Cal Hill Street though, we are proposing an elegant metal
entrance marquee awning and I will move now to give you a sense of
as to the layout of the units, which I can get into more detail if you wish,
but I'm just pulling this up to begin with. Here you see the second floor, a landscaped residential
courtyard, large, very large private patios. Particularly in the pandemic situation,
we're appreciating more and more the importance of the outdoor private space,
which show in these plans. And you see the carefully chosen building materials
that are appropriate for the district. Moving then to the renderings.
Sorry. Here we have the rendering that I had shown at the beginning which you
hopefully understand better having gone through the presentation and I will show
you one additional view looking towards the east. The mix of apartments proposed
in this building includes studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms of generous
layout and size befitting the neighborhood and I believe respectfully
that this is part of the reason why CNA, the coordinating RCO, is supportive of the project
and why Councilman Squilla has weighed in to back up the community. The authorization of variance
relief and certificated relief will not alter the character of the neighborhood or district or be
detrimental to the public welfare. The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced
by the overwhelming support that I've mentioned.
Proposed variants will represent the minimum variance,
that 8 .5 % variance on FAR to afford relief.
And the grant of variance and special exception
will not substantially increase congestion
in the public streets, the danger of fire, et cetera.
Mr. Wax, the developer, is here at the appropriate time
to adopt and affirm and answer any questions
the board may have. Also, as I mentioned, the architectural team represented by Christina
Represented by Christina Marconi of Bernard and Architects is here to delve more deeply, should the board wish. Thank you.
Marconi of Bernard and Architects is here to delve more.
Thank you, Mr. Lee. You want to bring on your witness?
Yes. Mr. Michael Wax, would you please raise your virtual hand so that the administrator may let you into the virtual room?
I believe I just unmuted. Can you hear me?
Please identify yourself, sir. Spell your name for the record.
My name is Michael Wachs. Last name is spelled W -A -C -H -S.
Swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Laver.
Mr. Wachs, have you been present for the entirety of this virtual presentation?
Yes, I have.
Have you been able to clearly hear the testimony that I've offered this afternoon?
Yes, I have.
And would you adopt and affirm that testimony as your own?
Thank you, Mr. Wax.
Thank you.
Anyone else wishes to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands up at this time.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
no no we already we've already heard from the planning commission correct correct
okay mi -2020 -00686 1306 -14 1316 -20 and 1322 -24 cowell hill street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
good luck with this my vote is yes thank you mr. chairman members of the
board keep safe and well likewise thank you so thank you calendar number 388
7 5 11 55 daily street the property owner i hope i'm doing this right is fang ho the proposal
is the application is for a two -family dwelling in an existing structure
this use is refused because that is prohibited in this zoning district
which is rsa 5 cmx
you've been promoted to a panelist you can unmute yourself to be sworn in
and share your screen as necessary
Mr. Ho?
Yes. Can you hear me?
I'm sorry. Phong, yes.
So you have to wait to be sworn in.
Are you phong?
Okay. Yes, I am.
Okay. So you are Phong Ho.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, my name is Phong Ho.
as read it's 1155
Daly Street
Philadelphia
PA19148
and do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
yes ma 'am
thank you
before you go
before you begin let me spell her name for the stenographer
her first name is
P -H -U -O -N -G
last name
last name is H -O
Thank you, Chair.
Please proceed.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
Hello.
Yes, I would like.
Do you have any pictures or any documentation, any floor plans?
Ms. Ho, do you have any documentation, any plans, any photographs of the property?
Looked like she froze.
Okay, so Ms. Ho, I'm going to take your video off. It might help you to be a little more
clearer when you speak, okay?
Yes, I don't have to upload on here, but I sent all my email, and I hope you can follow me.
uh i think i heard this and i don't know how it will
I think I heard you say...
um give me a second let me see if i love just wait one minute please
have you met with the rco
can't hear you you have to unmute yourself
unmute yourself
yes I have
you have
and did you get a letter from the RCO
I got the letter
a while ago but I don't have it
what did the letter say
the letter say
he suggests that I
turned this building into
one single family
but I would like to have
We have two family, a double family from the first floor and the second floor.
Is this house, is this property in the middle of the block or at the end?
It's in the corner of the property, corner block of 12 and Daly Street.
it's in the corner sir
was the first floor a storefront um the floor first floor had not been used at uh
yeah it's supposed to be a storefront but it's not been used for a long time
and the second floor i have a resident who lives up there
I don't know how to put my blueprint up to you, but I guess I can sort it on the phone, can I?
Excuse me, Sharon, Saleta.
Yeah, I missed it.
Was the refusal read into the record?
Sorry, thank you.
And the refusal does indicate that it is at the northeast corner of 12th Street in a CMX 1 commercial district between an RSA 5 residential district.
Yes, it's right in the corner of 12th Street and Daly.
But do you have a letter from the RCO?
I think he sent it me a long time ago, like a couple months ago.
I did ask Ms. Ho to send me a copy of the letter, but she was unable to find it.
All right.
So before, let me just ask, is there anyone else here
who wants to testify on this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands are up, and I don't have a packet.
Sharon, did you get a packet for this?
I sent it to the email that, yes.
I did not.
I received five different emails with individual exhibits attached.
The first exhibit, I put the blueprint plans with all my license application for PO letter community.
Number six is refusal.
Seven is lease.
Number eight is D.
Number nine is business previous license.
Number 10 is certificate of tax lettering permit.
number 11 is certificate of tax clearance zoning board number 12 is exterior building photo 13
interior photo and number 14 is project information form
any questions from the board I'm going to ask this be held for a letter from the RCO but
which RCO is this which RCO did you meet with I think it's Loma Loma Loma Loma Mensing yes so
why don't we get everything on the record we'll ask the planning commission
good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for
residential use on the comprehensive plan. We do not believe the addition of
one unit will have an adverse impact on the block. Accordingly we have no
objection to granting this variance. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to suggest we hold this pending a letter from the RCO and Councilman Squillers' office.
I agree.
And Councilman Squillers' office.
Could we possibly set a date to come back? Tanya, was it the 23rd work for this one as well?
Yes, it would. And if I could ask that we can make sure we confirm all documents.
yes all right so uh miss miss ho uh miss sunkett will speak with you about that we're going to
continue we won't take a vote on this until the 23rd of september between now and then you need
to get a letter from the rco and a letter from councilman squilla's office oh uh how do i get
the letter. I don't really know how now. How did you come to meet with the RCO?
I sent it to the application and then he sent me back the letter.
So you would have to reach out to the same individuals that you met with
requesting a letter to present to the board on September 23rd to get a vote
from the board okay okay so and again to be clear you are returning we will
resume this hearing on September 23rd at 3 30 for you to report on your
progress in obtaining a letter from the RCO okay thank you thank you any
unfinished business on this on the two o 'clock list no all right um in the interest of this
quarter after three that's not for obviously needs a break um you want to come back at 3 30
you want to start it a little bit later it's up to you guys whatever you want to do
um court reporter
one more yeah would 20 15 20 minutes work for you
15 20 minute break work for you yeah perfect tanya thank you you're welcome
3 30 3 35 thank you thank you see you then yeah thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay good afternoon everyone it is 8 3 35 uh is everyone is there anyone not ready
Tanya, do you need a few more minutes?
I'm ready, Frank.
I'm ready.
Chair, I'm all ready.
Okay, ready to go.
Abby, we're live?
Yes, we are.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere,
Board Secretary Confessor Plaza and Board Members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
board secretary, confessor, plaza, and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunken and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we'll begin this afternoon's session
by reading a list of cases to be continued. If you believe any announced case is being
continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond. After reading the continuance list
and receiving any feedback, we will take any additional continuance and with and or withdrawal
request. Then once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued, Vice Chair Tenere will begin
calling the remaining cases listed for this session. When a case is called, we ask that
attorneys representing applicants or other interested parties in the matter
identify themselves for the record. We will then hear the appellant's
presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys representing
other parties. Interested parties and members of the public not represented by
counsel will then be given an opportunity to testify. We will finally
hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's
conclusion, we will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in an
executive session. Any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled Wednesday
morning session. Please note the following changes related to the virtual format. First,
we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by your
participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute. I will repeat, for anyone participating
by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548
and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that.
To enter an appearance statement,
call Google 267 -270 -5548
and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue.
With that said, we can begin.
But before Vice Chair Tenere calls our first case,
we'd like to announce the following matters
are being continued.
calendar number 39710 204 north 52nd street calendar number 39434 2116 north 20th street
calendar number 39437 219 manheim street calendar number 39825 1437 parish street
If there's anyone out there who believes we called a continuance case in error, please raise your hand.
And if you wish to request a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand also.
No hands up, Chair.
Thank you.
Carol, please call the first case.
Calendar number 39441 -212 Robbins Avenue.
The attorney is Vern Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio, are you there?
You can unmute yourself.
You've already been made a panelist.
Mr. Anastasio?
It's still muted, Vern.
I'm sorry about that.
Okay, Mr. Anastasio, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, Vern Anastasio, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, Suite 1006.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I most certainly do.
You may proceed.
Thank you very much. I'm going to share my binder of
212 Robbins Street.
Can you please confirm that you see the shared documents?
We do.
Very well.
This is a two -family dwelling at 212 Robbins Street.
And the application, I'm going to show you the shared driveway in the backyard.
Pardon me, Mr. Anastasio.
Can you maximize your screen, please?
Of course.
The square up in the top right, right.
The application is for the erection of an accessory detached one -story storage shed located in the rear yard of a two -family household living, size and location per the plan.
plan. I'll share with you the plan. Right here is the structure. There's a back door
with a patio. And then there's the proposed shed on the left hand of the screen. Here's
a elevation of the shed that's being proposed. As you can see here, there's plenty of walkway
space between the primary household and the storage
Here's a letter from Longcrest Community Association.
And they say very clearly, in the second paragraph,
a second sentence of the second paragraph,
several immediate neighbors of the project indicated approval.
there were other folks uh in the neighborhood that uh voted against it but all the immediate
neighbors and the ones who actually you know uh would be adversely impacted all support the project
there's the owner owner's policy and the title insurance
there's the deed
and the tax cert
my client is a
self -employed they would like to be able to put a shed on
on the property that would store some of their
you know just tools and the actual
application is for a shed that is a little larger than what is required by
by code, but it's all merely because they would like to be able to store everything that they
have with respect to their materials. The RCO supports the minimum rear yard depth
variance. The RCO also supports the minimum side yard width variance based on their letter.
they would like us to to uh bring our square footage down a bit but again all the immediate
neighbors those immediate neighbors who would be mostly most uh adversely impacted all supported
our uh our request for the uh for the uh appeal and that is reflected in the rco letter
and with that i would ask if miss guerrido is in attendance for her to raise her hand
I'm not sure if she is but if she is if she could please raise her hand. I don't see anyone. Okay, thank you.
You said that the RCO it is for something smaller.
Yeah, the letter, Longcrest letter that's in the file that I just shared with you said that the immediate neighbors supported it, full stop, all of it.
said that the immediate neighbors supported it, full stop, all of it.
But the RCO, the board members who don't necessarily live in the immediate area,
they do support the minimum rear yard depth variance,
and they also support the minimum side yard width variance.
They just would ask for square footage to be smaller than what we're proposing.
we're suggesting that you know the the highest and best use and my client get you know the you know
the best uh uh access to to the shed is if it was in fact uh 294 square feet it'll never be a living
space it's just a storage space and both all of the immediate neighbors as the rco letter indicates
supports that and they're the only ones who would be adversely impacted right right is
there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
we have hillary from the council person's office hillary you can unmute yourself and wait
hillary identify yourself you're still under oath from earlier today
hello can you hear me yes we can yes hi good afternoon mr chair members of the board
um hillary emerson um on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker hillary's h -i -l -a -r -y last name
Emerson, E -M -E -R -S -O -N. Regarding 212 Robin Street, the councilman is opposed to the shed
that is proposed in the backyard of this property. The applicant is asking for variances not only in
the size of the shed, but on rear yard and side yard depth and width, leaving only two feet of
rear yard depth and two feet of side yard depth. And while there is additional side yard next to
the house, that side yard, as you can see, is used for a driveway. So in effect, the majority of the
outdoor space and this property will be taken over by a shed that's more than two feet or two
times the square footage that's permitted by code and we'd be concerned that this really would not
make the building very attractive in the future and is not in character with the rest of the
neighborhood. We're also concerned that the applicant is trying to set up a business at
this location. This was presented at the RCO meeting and today as a residential shed,
but the husband of the applicant is a contractor, and at the RCO meeting, when asked directly by
myself if he stored his materials for business elsewhere, he indicated that he did not.
But when asked what other materials would be stored in the shed, he indicated that there
would be sheetrock and drywall, which is not typical for a residential shed where you might
typically store tools at a lawnmower and that sort of thing.
So we were concerned that there's really going to be a business set up here and not just
a residential storage shed.
um i note that um as anastasio noted the the community was opposed to the size of the shed
but not the setbacks um i don't know if the setback would be variance for the setbacks
would be necessary if the shed was smaller but um that's where they landed on it i also want to
note in the letter that um while the the rco says while several immediate neighbors of the project
indicated approval, those in the rear of the property opposed the proposal. So there were
some adjacent neighbors that did oppose and had some concerns. So in summary, the councilwoman
is opposed to the variances requested for this property. And I don't disagree with much of what
Councillor Emerson suggested. Ultimately, the RCO as a whole supported the variance for the
minimum rear yard depth. The RCO as a whole supported the minimum yard width. And the
and the immediate neighbors, as the letter suggests, which they're the only ones who
immediate neighbors, as the letter suggests, which they're
would have been adversely impacted, are totally fine with a larger shed. That shed is not going
to be commercial use. It's going to be for storage. Now, whether that storage is for residential
purposes or for sheetrock, I don't necessarily think that's germane. The use is just for
storage there will be no business operating out of that shed uh and uh the immediate neighbors
you know support that use so um and i'll agree on i'll agree on the materials i don't think make a
difference um what kind of materials you put in there but you keep you say you've said a couple
times verne that the immediate neighbors what about the neighbors to the rear you know would
you not consider them immediate the the immediate neighbors to the rear the neighbors to the rear
won't even see the shed chairman the only people that see the shed are the folks who live
on either side of this property it's not like we're going high higher than than what would
you have do you have a do you have a photograph showing the rear and how that it would be looking
at the rear of the the properties to the rear of that you know no i i don't have that uh but i
could certainly get that to you if you decided to hold this this vote because because we're not
height is not height is not one of the variances well but it's a structure and i don't know what
the neighborhood looks like it could be a six foot cyclone fence or a four foot that separates
this property from the rear of another property understood in that case they would be looking at
the structure uh and and we can i don't know again i i don't see anything that could that
i have a i have a rendering here which shows that the the uh the height is within completely within
compliance but if you'd like to hear and hold while i get the some sort of a of a view scape
I could happily do that. But this shed is bigger than it should be because of the width and the
depth, not because of the height. So the folks who are living behind this property would not
even know that that shed was there. But for this application -
That's where I'm not, I don't know, I'm not convinced of that. I'm not saying you're not
telling me the truth. I just don't see, if I'm looking out my rear yard and I have a six foot
fence what is the height of this at its highest point 12 6 12 so if i got a six foot fence i'm
going to see a structure six foot six foot six above the high point of that of the fence that
separates the two yards yeah but that's that's that's within the code there's no height there's
there's no height variance on this yeah i'm saying because it because you're more than doubling the
size from 130 to 294 that makes the structure that much larger i understand i guess my question is
no i'm sorry go you go ahead sir uh to hillary is what is the councilwoman's
office against any structure or is it because of the size of this structure
um mr chair it is it's the size of the structure um the the square footage um and i i think it
kind of goes it's just it kind of pairs the square footage and the um the side the uh sorry the the
minimum depth in the side in the rear yard because it essentially takes over the entire backyard so
there's no outdoor space or very little outdoor space at this property we don't have an objection
to a shed and I believe they can put a shed basically by right as long as it was in the
correct size and with the correct setbacks in the backyard and we don't have a problem with that
but it's just it's so big that we're concerned about you know there being adequate outdoor space
at the property and the future you know people you know future value the property this isn't
something that's easily you know removed um from the property what if someone else were to purchase
it and i think it devalues um the property to have most of its outdoor space taken by a large shed
was there any discussion at the meeting for some for a shed that was larger than 130 but less than
294 was that issue raised at all that's a that's a great question mr uh mr chairman uh there wasn't
but and before i fully answer that i want to make sure that we all understood we're on the same page
the community is okay with the rear yard depth the community is okay with the side
The community is okay with the rear yard depth.
The community is okay with the side yard depth.
And the immediate neighbors are okay with the shed as proposed at 294.
Now, the height, and I know that's a concern for you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned that.
Even at 130 square feet, we are still allowed to do 12 feet tall.
So that...
I get that.
The height's not an issue.
It certainly makes the width of it a lot smaller, right?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir. It certainly would. So we'd be stacking instead of spreading. Now, no, there has not been a discussion about somewhere between 130 and 294. Would I be willing to have that discussion with my client? Yes, of course. But that hasn't happened. And I'm not saying it couldn't happen if you decided to ask us to go back to the drawing board and come up with a happy medium.
maybe it can maybe it can't you know i try we try to figure out some common coming out common
agreements on these things with compromise rather i would i don't know i don't know what will be
acceptable i would i certainly would prefer a negotiated middle middle ground to uh to as to
a no all right okay verne is there anything buffer in between the shed and the neighbors
in the back is there something separating them so that they can't yeah most certainly
they're they have large yards in the rear they can't even see this structure you know because
of trees because of a wall because of blood all of that they have large backyards this is not
you know downtown this is uh these are large backyards 20 30 35 feet deep with uh walls and
trees and bushes and shrubs so uh and that's why the the immediate neighbors all of them and even
the rco letter uh suggest this they were all fine with it because it doesn't really impact them
well i agree it's fair maybe go back and revisit this yeah and and they just make sure the
councilwoman's office is part of that discussion i'd love to have hillary a part of the discussion
yep hillary you still there yes can you hear me yes we can sorry i get muted muted off and on um
Yeah, no, that, that would be fine. I do remember Mr. Anastasio raising at the RCO meeting that they'd be willing to look at a lower, a smaller shed and there just wasn't, there really was not a discussion about that at that time.
And we're certainly willing to entertain it and I think also discuss a buffer because there are houses, there's a common driveway in the back, like there's a little bit of land and then a common driveway in the back and then more houses.
So there would be a view and it may be appropriate to discuss, you know, a buffer, some not entirely clear what the applicants already have at their property in terms of fencing.
Thank you. All right.
So I'd like to hear from the Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
This is Dave Munson, M -U -N -S -O -N, representing the Planning Commission.
Did you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
we feel this proposal represents an overuse of the property accordingly we
oppose granting of the variance thank you as any other questions from the
board I apologize for not asking no no anyone else who wish that anyone else
wish to testify in this matter please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you Tonda we have a date and time I'll put it in the
in my comments
September 23rd of work
again okay all right this calendar number 39441
212 Robbins Avenue this hearing will be resumed on September the 23rd
at 3 30 p .m. at which time we will consider any feedback related to the
RCO's position and the councilwoman's position
thank you all have a good evening thank you too calendar number mi2020 -000 -793 -620
climber street the attorney is alan knockamson
good afternoon
Hi, Mr. Nockamson. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, my name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Yes, my name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you. You may proceed.
All right. I'm going to share my screen.
Go ahead.
all right so i'm here to present 620 climber street uh with me today is the owner of the
property edward massario he will uh verify the testimony that i'm about to give in addition
uh his architects uh agada uh rester and vincent mancini are also on the line i believe and if they
if the board has any questions from an architectural point of view they can answer those questions
Again, I'm here to present 620 Climber Street. This property is located between 6th and 7th
Streets in Catherine and Fitzwater in Philadelphia. I handed you a pack of materials which include
eight exhibits. The first is the deed to the property showing that Edward Massario owns the
property at 620 Climber Street. After that is a certificate of tax clearance showing that he's
in good standing with the city of Philadelphia. After that is a notice of refusal. This is an
RSA 5 property, and there are two refusals contained on this notice of refusal. The first
of which is the fact that we're proposing off -street parking. We're proposing a front -loading
garage. And you'll see from the pictures and the map I'll show subsequent to this, we're not taking
way, any on -tree parking. This is a street that has off -street parking across the street, and it's
common to have off -street parking in this part of the neighborhood in Philadelphia. So it's not out
of character to have a front -loading garage. And in essence, it actually is something that is
expected in this part of the neighborhood as well. The second refusal is the height. It's required,
this is Norris A5 property we're required to have 38 feet we're proposing 39 feet and 11 inches
from an architectural standpoint the way that we lessened the look of the height of the building
we and you'll see from the drawings or the rendering we created a mansard roof as well as
for the railing for the roof deck is all glass and you'll see from the letter from the Bella
Vista Neighbors Association, which there are in non -opposition to this matter, they actually
referenced the fact that these were positive attributes which gained their non -opposition
to this matter, as well as a letter of non -opposition from Councilman Squilla.
After this is our application appeal to the ZBA, and then after this is, you know, a zoning
map showing where we are in this, you know, in the city of Philadelphia.
Again, we're Fitzwater, 6th Street, 7th, Catherine's here, and here is Climber Street. It's one of these unique streets in South Philadelphia.
Yeah, one of those. And exactly, Mr. Chair. And, you know, here are photographs of the property. Oops, let me not go too quick. I think I'm going backwards. All right. And you'll see that there's, you know, on Climber Street there, especially across the street, there is parking on both sides of the street. So again, it's not uncommon, especially because there's no parking on the street.
so most people are now able to park off the street. And then here's a copy of the zoning
notice for today's hearing. And then here are the architectural plans. And again, the rendering
really speaks about the height. Because of the mansard roof, it actually diffuses the height
of the building. And then the glass railing up top also diffuses any question about the height
of the building. Again, this is a single -family house. Here's the garage, which is a wide garage.
Because the lot is so wide at 26 feet, eight inches, we were able to put a really wide garage.
So it's actually a functional garage where you see a lot of times where they try to squeeze in a small garage and you can barely squeeze in the car.
Here, it's a rather wide width.
So we believe that this will be used by someone who actually wants to park their car in the garage.
And here are floor plans.
And then, you know, most importantly, you know, we met with the Bella Vista Neighbors Association, and as you can see, they are not opposed.
And they did mention specifically about the height of the building, you know, about the mansard roof and the glass railing mitigates the appearance of an excessive height sought.
And it's in scale with what's around in the surrounding neighborhood as well.
And here's the vote.
No one was against this project.
And then here is the letter from Councilman Scuola, who's also in non -opposition to this project.
And then here is the letter from Councilman Scuola, who's also in on.
Mr. Massario, are you on the line?
Can you virtually raise your hand?
You have to unmute yourself, Mr.
Yeah, I'm here.
Ed, do you want to swear him in?
Yeah, please identify yourself.
Spell your name for the record.
Sure, it's Edward Massaro, M -A -S -S -A -R -O.
Your address?
Right now, I live at 1821 Catherine Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
All right, Ed, you heard everything I stated today.
yes and is it true and correct yes yeah we we uh met with the association actually had neighbors
even write to us and say they're excited about the way the house looks and appreciate taking a
car off the street there because you know the only thing i'll mention is with the width of the garage
it's only um still for one car parking because of the turning radius that's what the architects drew
So we only have one car and it's just a one car parking garage.
So noted. And everything you heard, everything I stated today is true and correct, right?
And you adopted it as your own testimony?
Okay. No further questions.
Anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter, please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you. Anyone, any questions from the board?
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon.
This property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
Climber Street is a narrow mid -block lane, and no other properties on Climber Street have front -loaded garages.
We feel that the creation of a curb cut and parking space is difficult due to the extremely narrow cartway
and the location of a utility pole directly in front of the house.
The applicant has not demonstrated a unique hardship, and accordingly, we oppose the granting of the variance.
Thank you very much.
M -I -2020 -000793, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
You too.
is that it carol we have that's it that's it it's a wrap any uh any unfinished business tanya
or sharon uh no chair but if i could just remind all who are in attendance who um need to know when
a continuance date is you would just look at the zba calendar the following week of the hearings
and you should have those dates there thanks thank you all right everyone thank you and
Everyone, stay safe.
Thank you.
Have a good night.
Bye, everyone.
Good night.