I'm just allowing the attendees to enter into the room.
looks like we have 31 attendees chair you can proceed as you wish thank you
good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's eba hearing
with me with me is our vice chair ismail shaheed present mr chairman our board member thomas
Holloman. Present, Mr. Chairman. Also, we have two auditor board members with us we'll be working
with this morning. First is Emily Persico. Present, Mr. Chairman. And also John Matlack
will be on later. They're both from Development Services. Also present is our attorney, Hillary
Emerson, and our executive director, Tanya Sunken. Here's our virtual format. Be advised
proceedings are being recorded. The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkit at phil .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify
themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify,
press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call
call 267 -270 -5548, leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at our schedule for this morning.
I have several withdrawals I want to call out.
Number one, MI 2022, 001 -365 -92 Delaware Avenue.
That case is withdrawn.
And number eight.
Be right with you.
Number eight.
MI 2022 -001 -359 -9216 North Delaware. That case is withdrawn. Number 10, MI 2022 -007 -286 -1716 -18
Addison Street. That case is withdrawn. And number 12, MI 2022 -001 -362 -9214 North Delaware
Avenue. That case is withdrawn. We do have a request for continuance. Did you call number
five is withdrawn? I'm sorry. It's okay. My fault. MI 2022 001 367 92 18 North Del
revenue. That case is also withdrawn. We have a request for continuance for number two and number
four and number six. I am recusing myself from those three cases. Our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid
will handle the continuance. Good morning. This is Ismail Shahid for the record. Moving on to the
contingencies for this morning uh mi -2023 -004928 2032 diamond street michelle ronhart is the
attorney of owner and the request will continue is received by the 32nd ward rco judith robertson
on 12 -13 -2023.
Also, we have another request
on the same case
from the Sharpay Mansion
Neighbor and Homeowners Association.
It's Drew Robinson
in the virtual audience.
Mr. Shaheen,
can you read the other two cases
into the record as well?
The continuance requests
were for all three cases
that are related thank you no problem also adding into that case is going to be mi -2023 -004930
3 0 2100 diamond street um is also uh i'm going to be a there's a request for
2100 diamond street um is also
continuance and also mi -2023 -0049 or 4929 2033 north 22nd street
there's juth robinson in the virtual audience
i forgot them to speak sir
Yes, good morning
Good morning, please state your name and spell it for the court reporter
Judith Robinson, J -U -D -I -T -H
R -O -B -I -N -S -O -N
You swear to tell the whole truth
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
Please proceed
uh we the citizens of the 32nd ward and the homeowners are respectfully requesting
a continuance of this meeting we only had one community meeting on friday october the 20th
at 6 p .m there has been no traffic study on this major 32 million dollar project
No traffic study, no parking study, and no environmental study. And this land is marked, zoned as RM1 for housing. So this is such a major project. We're begging you all, please give us an opportunity to have more community input.
In addition, the Art Commission has tabled this project because of the fact that they requested in a proviso that we have more community input and more meetings, and that never happened.
So we're just asking as a community, if we please could have more opportunity to have input on this project.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much, Ms. Robinson.
For your call.
is Lisa Jenkins
in a virtual audience
good morning this is Jason
and I will be your co -host for
today I do not
see that person in the audience but
a Miss but a Michelle
Reinhardt has their hand raised
do I allow them to speak
please
they've been allowed to speak
good morning please state your name and spell it for the court reporter
hello michelle michelle reinhardt are you able to speak
i apologize are you able to hear me now yes please state your name and spell it for the
court recording my name is michelle reinhart r -e -i -n -h -a -r -t i am the attorney and applicant
for this project and represent the city of philadelphia
just want to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed
We oppose the request for a continuance. This is a project that has been planned for a substantial period of time. There has been community input, as I believe public comment will go on to show.
Additionally, the RCO meeting, which Ms. Robinson referenced, was extremely well attended.
The RCO summary reflects that there were 54 people who attended, of which 52 people supported the plans as presented.
um additionally there was some mention of the art commission tabling uh consideration of this
that is uh not entirely accurate there is a continuance um and that is part of their
separate review that is dedicated to public art um which is separate than the use that is being
considered here um additionally there there has been a traffic study um and i i believe
there were a number of other planning um items that that uh were referenced um we would be able to
address those in the presentation directly however this this was um there has been
community engagement in this. So I believe that a continuance at this point in time would not serve
continuance at this point in time um would not serve either consideration for this project or
or substantially change the outcome in any way um but it certainly would not uh help the community
um to prevent them from being able to offer an opinion here and make comment as scheduled
I understand you all had it in the meeting. It was 52 to 2 in the vote in non -opposition.
Are you there, counsel?
There was a meeting that was held, right?
There was. There was.
And the vote, I believe, was 52 to 2 in non -opposition?
Correct.
all right uh we're gonna we're gonna proceed on with the case today thank you
all right
uh cherry when you want to turn it back over to yourself chair
okay thank you very much we'll that we'll take that in order but we're going to start with our
list today number seven mi 2022 004 excuse me mr chair sorry this is hillary can you um call for
other continuance requests because i believe there may be at least one other request on the
list today thank you is there any other requests for continuances
mr chair i have a i have harry cook with their hand raised i can allow them to speak at this time
Mr. Cook.
Okay, Mr. Chair, please
pardon me. I have Jacqueline
Wiggins with the hand raised. I've allowed
them to speak. Jacqueline
Wiggins is not involved in that case.
Should be
Harry Cook.
Okay, Mr. Cook has been on.
Mr. Cook, I'm on.
He was on, but he's on.
Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
I hear you now.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Cook, do you want to talk about MI 2023 -001 -046 -12066 Abbey Road?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Could you state your name for the record and I'll swear you in.
Thank you, sir.
Harry Cook, H -A -R -R -Y, C -O -O -K, Anastasio Law.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, sir.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we were brought into this case after the RCO process.
We were ready to move forward today.
However, it's come to our attention that even though two RCO meetings were attended, were held and well attended, clients who English is not a first language for and were pro se previously and relying on a realtor and an expediter are unable to produce the required notice certificates of mailing.
we would request a attorney moving party continuance so that we can have one final
shot at going back to the RCO be able to present a code compliant notice and also clarify the
relief that our clients are requesting the application is for a three -family but it's
actually for recognition of two family and the legalization of a garage that was converted to
living space. I think it would provide a good opportunity to reframe the matter with the
community. So Mr. Cook, you've had this in September, am I right? We got this in October
And we believe that there was already those materials on file.
All right. Mr. Cook, I'm going to continue it. But the next time next time it has to be tried.
Absolutely, Your Honor. Thank you. I appreciate your.
So MI 2023 001 046 12066 Abbey Road.
This case is continued attorney moving party, but must be tried.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Go back to number seven.
Let's see here.
MI -12.
MI2022 -004 -261 -2807 Nightingale Road.
Donna Caristo is the owner.
This is a pro se.
There's a recommendation of support from Normandy Civic Association.
i'm a crystal if you're in the virtual audience please raise your virtual hand and wait to be
sworn in they will be rejoining as a panelist soon sir okay
good morning
Could you unmute yourself, please?
Hello.
Hello.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Donna Caristo.
C -A -R -I -S -T -O.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you please turn your video on?
Oh, we don't have the video on.
Oh, God. I didn't do that.
There we go.
Okay. All right.
Okay. All right.
This application for the legalization of a conversion of a shed into an addition at the rear of an existing detached structure for change in use from a single family household, size and location as shown in the application.
No change in height or existing structure.
Hillary, before we start, let's talk a little bit.
You had an RCO meeting.
Yes. Yes, we did. And do you have a letter from them? Yes. Yes. Was there a vote taken? Yes. Yes.
Okay, this is Hillary. So the letter, the RCO letter that was submitted indicated that the RCO doesn't meet in the summer, so only the board met and voted on it. It didn't sound like there was a required public meeting that was held.
did you go to a meeting with the rco remember where you sent notices out for members of the
public to attend we didn't know that was possible we just thought that we had to go
talk to them and have them do uh let them know what was happening and then they were going to
do a vote that's what they told me um yeah no unfortunately the rco gave you incorrect
information you are supposed to they're supposed to schedule a meeting and i understand at the time
it was the summer um but they were not in the summer now um and they um once your once your
hearing was moved to december um you know a meeting should have been scheduled um in the fall
and you need to send um notices out yeah to do that so we need to do that yes you need to do
that unfortunately we cannot hear your case today all right but i just want to that's what we need
to do because we've been doing everything is asked that we just get scared because we got emails at
6 11 last night for something and we're like what what is this we don't know what to do um
yeah ma 'am yes i i i know ma 'am and i i apologize for the inconvenience um please call the office
we'll put the number in the chat and they can make sure that you complete this last step so
your case can be heard the next time all right thank you i really thank you for that oh thank
you thank you for what so mi 2022 004 261 2807 nightingale road cases continued
We've got a number 11 here.
Number 11, MI 2022 -007 -282 -4100 Orchard Road.
Sean Wayland is the attorney for the applicant.
Leonard Reuter is involved.
This is his complaint against, appeal against L &I.
Leonard Reuter is from the city.
And Sean Ward is representing the property owner.
Good morning, Chairman.
Sean Whalen here.
Good morning, Mr. Whalen.
Good morning, Leonard.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I believe Sean Ward should also be here.
Yeah, I called him out.
Oh, okay.
We were joining as a panelist soon, sir.
Mr. Whalen, could you spell your name, please, for the court stenographer?
Certainly. Sean Whalen, W -H -A -L -E -N, here from Vintage Law.
Certainly. Sean Whalen, W -H -A -L -E -N.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Reuter, could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Thank you. May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R -E -U -T -E -R. First name is L -E -O -N -A -R -D, senior attorney for the city of Philadelphia.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Ward?
Chair, we're trying to promote him.
I see him.
He just.
Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward.
Yeah, Chair, I was trying to explain that for some reason we're having a technical issue
with promoting him.
If you would just bear with us for a couple of seconds.
Take your time.
Take your time.
Yes, sir.
this is hillary he let me know he's waiting to to be promoted i know he had some issues getting on
initially this morning i see him here yeah i see him among the panelists all right
mr ward could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
yes good morning mr chair sean ward s -h -a -w -n last name ward w -a -r -d on behalf of ben
Manes, M -A -N -N -E -S. My address is 331 East Street Road, Trivos, PA, 19053.
So, Hillary, we want to start with Mr. Whalen, am I correct?
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Whalen.
Yes, good morning, Board. Again, Sean Whalen from Vintage Law. I'm here representing Councilman
Brian O 'Neill, who is the councilman for the district where this property is.
uh thankfully for as long and sorted as a history as this matter has and it's been going on for
several years uh we have the parties have been able to simplify this matter to a relatively
straightforward issue uh for the court today it's essentially a legal argument at this point
um i hope that as i state the facts uh none of them will be in dispute with either mr reuter or
Mr. Ward, but of course, they'll have the ability to speak up on their own behalf.
So I just shared a screen with you. Just quickly to give you some context,
this red balloon is 4100 Orchard Lane.
Excuse me. It is in the far northeast section of the city.
and here is a an image from atlas of the actual property itself as you can see it's a very large
corner lot this building here it's at the corner of orchard lane and ellicott road
this large building here is the existing single family house there is no change to that house
for its use. And what you're seeing here is the previously existing and since demolished
accessory detached garage. Again, this is just for the board's reference.
This is an RSD2 single -family house zoning district. This is a single -family house.
There's no refusal or anything before the board.
This is an appeal by the councilman against the issuance of permits to build this structure right here.
So what I'm showing you now is an aerial image.
On the left -hand side of the image is the existing home.
Orchard Lane is on the left.
Ellicott Road is down at the bottom of this image.
You can see a car parked here.
this is an existing driveway, and here is the fully built new garage. This garage was built
while all the permits were under appeal, but it is fully built, so we actually have the photos to
show what it is. So very quickly, just because it is somewhat relevant, again, the subject property
is 4100 Orchard Lane. There has at all times been an existing single -family house on this
large lot. There was previously, in approximately the same area but further towards the road,
a much smaller single -story detached garage. That garage was demolished and the new garage
was proposed. This is actually set forth mostly in a letter from Mr. Ward to the board of more
than a year ago, but there have been numerous instances of a permit issued, a notice of
Numerous instances of a permit issued, a notice of intention to revoke that permit by L &I, and then numerous amendments to the permit in order to arrive at what you see today, which is a detached garage that has been approved by L &I as an addition to the existing single family house.
intention to revoke that.
And this is the relatively straightforward matter in front of you. This is a matter of first impression, as I'm sure Mr. Reuter will assert also, to the best of everyone's knowledge in the city or outside, this is a matter of first impression where we have a single walkway.
So, this was built as a detached garage, fully separate structure. This is the existing porch to the single -family house. And then Mr. Maness connected the single -family home's porch to the detached garage by way of a covered walkway.
So, again, this is just an aerial to show you kind of relative size and location.
Sean, if I may interject momentarily, I apologize. I just wanted to be clear that the garage was not constructed and then attached. It was constructed at the same time as the connector.
Okay. So again, this is current site photos from earlier in the fall. This is the front of the house. Orchard Lane is here.
You can see this is from, I'm standing at the corner of Orchard Lane and Ellicott Road.
You have the single family home and you can see the two -story garage built there.
And this right here is the issue in front of the board today.
um in short i think there's no dispute that were this garage considered a detached structure
which we believe it is uh it it would receive a refusal for being uh too tall um i i think that
everyone agrees that and that's why actually this uh idea was constructed to have a single story
roof put over a walkway. And what you have,
let me see here it is, you can see this, this is the site plan. Let me just,
this is the approved site plan used by Mr. Maness. You can see the existing driveway,
existing single family house. Here's the garage, the two -story garage.
And then it was attached. This is actually part of the existing porch, not the home itself.
You have a four foot by 17 foot covered walkway.
Now, my apologies.
please. Again, whether or not this garage can be considered as an addition, or whether despite
even having this covered walkway, 17 -foot covered walkway, constitutes still a detached garage.
The councilman's position is not whether the garage should be allowed or not. It is that
the interpretation by L &I and the precedent set here creates an extremely dangerous precedent
for the board and the city in that it circumvents the code restrictions, which are a detached garage
is not intended to have a second story. And here you have a full second story with living space
on the second on the second floor of that garage but in addition it circumvents the role and the
position that the code sets forth for the community there should have been a variance here either for
the additional height requested and then which should have generated a refusal as a detached
garage and then this project would have proceeded in the ordinary course before the rco there would
have been community meetings and then this board would have uh you know had this in that manner
um if i could just uh interject uh and again i do think that we were largely in agreement with
the facts uh but i just want to say that i believe to the extent that it may have been
to the extent that it may have been implied it would be a mischaracterization to say that the
implied it would be a mischaracterization to say that the application
application uh included any dwelling space in that upper portion of this garage the the
the permit applicate and again what we are talking about here is not what the current use might be
in fact but what was the permit application and what was the permit issued for no permit was
issued for dwelling units in this structure if it's currently being used that way we would agree
that's a violation but that's not what that's not what's before the board today what's before the
board today is what did the application say and what was the permit that was issued there's no
dwelling unit that was approved for this this structure uh this garage structure so i just
wanted to clarify that thank you mr reuter and i believe i i i thought i was being clear about that
but yes let me clarify um for the board this is a single family house that use has not changed there
is no request for that use to change or issue of that use before the board. There was this garage
applied for and approved as an addition to the house instead of as a detached garage.
That's the sole issue in front of the board today. I did not mean to imply, nor do I know
one way or the other, that there is an actual dwelling unit in the upstairs. It is simply my
understanding that there is additional living space uh occupied space in that second story
again the mr reuter is correct the use of that second story is not before the board and is not
an issue that i am addressing today and and for the record if i may there is no dwelling units
contained within this structure there are no bedrooms there are no uh full baths there are
no cooking units. It is strictly an accessory garage with personal storage.
Understood and accepted, Mr. Ward. So again, board, you can just see this more zoomed in
shot. You can see how there's a new roof created over this four -foot walkway that sort of covers
what was previously open ground. And this is what L &I's interpretation has deemed an addition
of the garage. I think certainly this is a new interpretation of the word addition or concept
of addition. Notably, the word addition or what an addition is, is not defined in the zoning code.
um therefore since it's not a not a defined term its interpretation is not subject to the
ambiguity issues with with regard to the code uh and in fact there are no uh pennsylvania or new
jersey cases that uh the applicant could find addressing a similar situation so this is a very
novel issue of law uh and again a matter of first impression by lni in order to bring this
forward. So since there is no definition here, the board can look at dictionary definitions to
inform its position, just as any court could. The Merriam -Webster definition of addition is,
quote, a part added, in parentheses, as to a building or residential section.
Further, the Merriam -Webster definition of add is to, quote, join or unite so as to bring about
an increase or improvement. It is the councilman's position today that
there is no addition under any definition of that word by creating an entirely separate structure
that has its own structural supports, its own separate roof, it has its own gutters, its own
doors access uh it has its you know separate utility connections and simply there is a band -aid
after the fact of uh you know putting this single -story roof on in order to yes they are
connected but that does not that connection does not create an addition i'm going to object mr
chairman to the uh characterization that the one -story structure was added after the construction
of the garage, and that is incorrect. I hear your objection, but Mr. Whalen, please continue.
Thank you. And Chairman Bergman, I would simply say I was not speaking to construction. I was not
there, nor am I making any opinion as to when it was physically erected. The initial plan sets and
initial approvals for the garage did not include the uh that single story roof and as i
the, uh, that single story roof. And as I laid it out and I have all of the letters and plan sets,
uh, but I hope to spare the board from, from that, uh, you know, that, that pathway here this
morning. Um, they are all part of the record so the board can review them. Uh, there was an approval
of a, of a, uh, smaller, um, separate garage that was not attached in any way. There was a notice
of intention to revoke that permit as being improperly issued. And then there were subsequently
multiple amendments to the plans. So this roof line here that you're looking at, again, Mr. Ward,
his objection is understood. I do not know, nor am I opining as to when it was physically
constructed. I was only referencing it was added at a later time with regard to approvals
with the city. And in fact, you can see, so again, you see here, and there is a previous site plan,
which is this exact same site plan, just removing this proposed walkway
that was previously approved and interestingly the applicant has subsequently added solar panels
which of course we all applaud the use of solar panels but they had another site plan performed
in the production of this of the solar panels work and their own contractors didn't even think
that that connection was valid. It's not even shown on here. Just further indication that
there really is no addition here. I mean, I think it stretches any definition that you could
possibly come up with with regard to an addition to say that this structure, the separate structure
here is being added to or included into the single family house. So as I wrap up, again,
this interpretation is extremely dangerous on several fronts. One, there's no limitation
to how long this could be. This walkway, this covered walkway, if it did actually constitute
an addition of this garage, you could build a second full house here. And that wouldn't change
the use, but you would have a second full house. So you'd have two houses on the same lot
now added as an addition by way of a simple walkway. You could also continue this. This is
a very large lot. With this interpretation, the owner could add another walkway and additional
buildings. You could have, again, breaching the multiple principal uses in buildings and structures
on a single lot. You could also have, in other instances, the precedent set here,
this walkway instead of 17 feet could be 100 feet. And now suddenly you're attaching
huge structures across large buildings. So the danger here is not just to this property.
And again, the councilman's not taking a position today on the appropriateness or inappropriateness
of the garage itself.
The councilman's position is that this garage, under the code provisions, should go through
the normal variance process that is set forth and provides the standard process by which
the community has input into structures that are not approved and should not have been
approved in this manner um so with that uh board i would rest i think i've made clear and uh i would
just request you know an ability to respond later if need be okay thank you um mr reuter um sure um
i just want to be brief here and then probably hand it off to sean uh who uh if necessary would
probably be able to do a better uh recitation of the history of the project from his client's side
but i just want to address some of the legal arguments that mr whalen's just made um not in
any particular order but for instance the contention that the allowance of this garage i'll just call
it garage structure for purposes of this hearing that this garage structure through the i don't
what you want to call it, portico, I guess, that, well, if we did it in this case, then
That, well, if we did it in this case, then somebody could build another house here or they could build another factory or something like that.
somebody could build another house here, or they could build another.
And there's no end to that.
But that would be, of course, completely ignoring what the proposed use of the additional structure is.
In this case, it is a garage, an accessory garage, private garage is permitted under the code in RSD1.
So it is not true that the department's interpretation of this being an addition because of the connection through the portico somehow allows anything to be built or any, it really doesn't allow for anything other probably than a garage or some other permitted accessory structure.
And, of course, this is leaving aside whether or not the code might permit, you know, an accessory dwelling unit, because as you may, if this property were historic, for instance, and I don't believe it is, though it could be, an accessory dwelling unit in a garage actually might be permitted under the zoning code.
But again, we're talking about an accessory garage and whether that is, whether this is properly an addition. We agree with Mr. Whelan that the code doesn't define addition. In fact, for that matter, neither the International Building Code nor the International Existing Building Code define addition.
uh and the question is i and again i think mr whalen's right is that you go to a lay definition
which is something that's added to something so you have a structure there's no dispute
uh that the garage is a structure there's also i think no legitimate dispute that the portico
is a structure uh and a simple way to look at that is if you look at that portico and i'm maybe i'm
using that word incorrectly, but if you look at that, it's very simple. Does that or does that
not require a building permit? Clearly, it does require a building permit to erect that because
it is a structure, and structure is defined, and a structure is pretty much anything that's built
above ground. The code has a very broad definition of structure, so there's no question that it is
attached to the main house, and there's no question that it's attached to the garage.
So is it an addition?
The portico is an addition to the house, and the garage is an addition.
And again, because it's not defined, it's the city's position that we have to interpret the code in a light that's least restrictive to the property owner.
And it's our position under numerous case law, most particularly Turchi, but also a number of other cases in the Commonwealth, that the department, that the zoning board should defer to the Department of Licenses and Inspections on its interpretations of code language unless the zoning board finds that it is clearly erroneous.
So unless you find that a determination that this garage structure is not, unless you decide that the department's determination that this garage structure is an addition, unless you find that that is a clearly erroneous conclusion by the department of L &I, then it's our position that you have to defer to that determination and that interpretation by L &I.
And again, we don't think the board should be dissuaded from or distracted by, you know, claims of what the property is being used for.
Again, as I said before, we didn't want to dwell on it, but if the garage structure is being used improperly, that would be a violation and there's a process for doing it.
There's one other thing that I do want to raise, and I'm only raising it, not out of any disrespect whatsoever, but just so it's clear in the record.
we would ask mr whalen if he could indicate to one of two to answer two questions one
is councilman o 'neill here in his capacity as an individual or is he here in some representative
capacity because with respect to the latter we don't believe that there's any authority in the
law for the councilman to for the council member to appear uh as a representative of constituents
As an individual, we would need there to be some statement on the record as to how he is harmed by the determination of Allen I.
In other words, what is his standing in this case?
And again, we don't mean that in any way out of any disrespect to the council member,
but the council member as an individual certainly has to show that he is detrimentally harmed for the outcome of this.
has to show that he is detrimentally harmed by the outcome of this.
So, and that's it for now. I'll just pass it along to, to Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward.
Okay. At this time, can I ask that Sean Whalen stop sharing his screen so I can share mine?
Excellent. Thank you.
okay let me
all right Mr. Chair could you confirm my screen is shared I don't I see it's coming up I believe
I see it yep okay very good um let me let me let me just back up to
a couple of items
raised during Sean Whalen's
presentation.
Let me find it.
There it is.
Just for
clarity,
in the council... We're seeing a blank
screen, Sean, so you know.
Oh, I'm sorry. Hang on a second.
that come up now yeah
okay you should see that one though right yeah oh
all right let me
bear with me my computer went down this weekend and it was
repaired for hours upon hours and let me and as the chair knows I'm usually pretty good at this
all right let me I'll stop share and I'll try and share again
we see the letter okay all right uh and and with all due respect to the councilman i've
done a councilman for you know what brian 44 years now um um you know upon his filing of the
appeal i i attempted to run through the factual background to try and uh stem this matter and
to resolve it. However, I did file, you know, I submit a response to the councilman regarding
his concerns. Initially, in his appeal, he indicated that the permit was revoked. And
just for the record, I want to I want it to be clear that the notice of revocation was
issued June 6. And it would be revoked by July 6. However, we did file an appeal to
this board on or about June 23rd within the 30 -day appeal period. Following amendments to the permit
application, it was agreed through discussions with Leonard at the law department that because
the permit was amended and subsequently issued, the appeal from that notice of revocation was moot
And therefore, that was that appeal was withdrawn by the applicant.
So so just as a factual background, when the first garage was proposed, yeah, there was a notice of revocation because it exceeded the height because it was a detached garage.
So we filed an amendment to attach the garage to the primary residence there after it was discovered.
discovered due to a faulty measurement. As you know, or as you can see in Sean Whalen's photographs,
the property fronts on both Ellicott Road and Orchard Lane, Orchard Lane being the front of
the residence and Ellicott Road being the side street. There was a faulty measurement of the
setback from the Ellicott Road property line due to the fact that Ellicott Road, Orchard Lane,
This is in the Crestmont Farm section.
They're country lanes.
There are no sidewalks, curbs, and other improvements.
So the Second Amendment moved the structure back from the roadway to comply with the 35 -foot setback.
Again, that is not an issue before the board today.
There was a claim of something regarding nonconformity and grandfathering in the councilman's appeal.
We never claimed nonconformity, nor was it brought up during the review or approval, and therefore we submit that the permit was not issued based upon any claim of nonconformity.
We never claimed nonconformity, nor was it brought up during the review or approval.
I believe the only nonconformity, and Sean will, and you can agree with me if you choose, is that the subject residence does not conform now with the required front yard setback of the existing RSD -2 requirements.
So in addition, you know, we comply with the open area and the occupied area.
So just having said that, I just wanted to clarify with regard to let me go to.
Now, are you seeing my exhibit list or are we still on where we see your list now?
OK, excellent. So I prepared this exhibit list.
Let me blow this up so you can see. Included as A1 is the code section on nonconformities, but I don't think that is really the issue before the board today.
You know, it describes nonconformities can continue. There are different types of nonconformities.
And provided that you comply with the table of dimensional regulations, you know, any any any expansion or new permits can be issued if they comply.
I think what is important as A3 is the code section 14203 under definitions, number 323, it defines structure.
I also add the residential building permit and the approved plans, the inspection reports, and a certificate of compliance.
So under nonconformities, there are roughly six different types.
Non -conforming uses, parking, and signs are not really applicable in this instance.
You know, we discussed the structure.
The house, you know, is currently non -conforming because it doesn't have the front yard setback.
So, you know, we're talking basically about site improvements or, you know, and it's not even a non -conforming lot.
The lot complies.
So we have no claim of existing non -conformity.
The use is permitted.
The lot satisfies the requirements.
So when we come down to the definition, you know, the councilman claims that the structure is a detached structure, and I submit that that is misplaced.
The zoning code clearly defies structure, quote unquote, as under 14 -203, number 323, as and even a more strict definition under the historic preservation is a work made up of interdependent and interrelated parts in a definite pattern of organization structured by man and affects the real property, including a public interior portion of a structure.
And then it's, you know, it adds that for all other purposes, it's any type or form of construction above the ground.
When we look at our residential building permit, you know, both contained in the councilman's exhibit packet at Exhibit 9, I don't believe it includes the building plans, but I have those.
It clearly depicts, as approved, a one -story structure, which is clearly, as approved by the plants, secured to the ground via typical 20 -inch caissons, four foot, six inches deep, embedded into concrete footings.
And that one -story structure arises above the ground to a height in excess of nine feet.
Further in conformity with Section 305, you know, we comply with the lot area, the occupied area, the open area, the rear yard, front yard, and height.
Um, if this was a detached garage, yes, the height, um, you know, would have been an issue, but by attaching it to the primary structure of the residence, uh, with a one story structure, uh, I know a lot of, um, uh, weight or reference is being placed on addition, uh, you know, and, and it is acknowledged by the appellant that addition is not defined in the code.
because uh it's not relevant uh what is relevant is whether or not it is can i just sean can i ask
a question so you're saying the one story edition is the what i'll call the little roof in the
walkway uh yeah as sean uh wayland referred to it and and leonard the uh the portico okay
Yeah, as Sean Whalen referred to it and Leonard, the Portico.
Okay, so let me do this.
Let me go to the building plans.
All right, can we see the approved building plans?
We see it.
Okay, so I'm going to blow this up here.
On the left side of sheet S3, I believe it is.
Yeah, sheet S3.
You will see here is the detail for the installation of footings and caissons to support the columns, which support the roof structure, which is attached to the house and attached to the garage.
So the permit, as you can see, issued on 10 -14 of 2022, is for the erection of an addition to
include two interior parking spaces as per approved plans. Moving on, you know, again,
it's it's an addition and or alteration to a property uh it required several inspections
okay um in my packet we not only have the permit the plans but we have all the inspection reports
mr chair so uh beginning and and you'll see the numbers um you know the the last three digits
syndicate the inspection number so uh inspection number one let me reduce this um uh it was passed
um this was the um advising the owner that they must uh schedule an initial inspection
uh moving on there was an initial inspection by inspector edward devlin
And that passed. And it was noted in the inspection that the structure, which was under construction, must be moved back to comply with the setback.
OK, moving on, you know, inspection number three was waived by Tiffany Briggs, and that was for the under slab inspection.
again an inspection number four waived by tiffany briggs
indicating that completed the footing inspections already so that was not required
inspection number five by joe silberstein now retired um interior and exterior wall framing
okay uh inspection number six i met on site with the contractor footings were inspected
you know etc etc however fast okay uh inspection number seven again passed met on site with
contractor under slab inspected approved four inches of stone with vapor barrier okay to pour
Inspection number eight, Joe Silverstein, interior framing inspected, all work per plan and permit.
Next inspection was final.
Inspection number nine and ten were waived, I believe, by Tiffany Briggs.
So there is no actual inspection report available online through Eclipse.
However, inspection number 11 by Joe Silverstein, the installation was accepted.
No further review required.
It was passed.
Met on site with the contractor on February of this year.
Inspection passed.
It was accessory structure for final compliance.
And then finally, on April 13th of 2023, it is a certificate of approval issued by the department for the erection of an addition to include the two interior parking spaces.
So at this point, I think the.
But Mr. Ward, all those inspectors inspections are based on the premise that this is an addition, not a detached garage.
Am I right?
It is based upon that this was a one -story and two -story addition to existing primary residence as defined by the code and approved by the department.
And that it's not a detached garage?
It is not a detached garage because it is attached to the primary residence by a one -story structure.
Okay. Thank you.
The reliance on the term addition is misplaced, and we have to be confined to the definition as provided by the zoning code of the city of Philadelphia.
Thank you.
Do you want to have your testimony adopted by your client?
Do you want to have your testimony adopted by your client?
Yes, Chairman, if I could just respond very briefly to the points raised by Mr. Ward and Mr. Reuter.
Very briefly, all of the points, while eloquently stated, are red herrings before this board.
I'll go through it initially.
Mr. Reuter is correct.
Uses are irrelevant.
We're not addressing any uses.
We're not discussing any uses.
it doesn't matter whether this was approved as a garage or a shed or it's it's an approved use
accessory to the single family house there's no issue with that the issue is whether or not the
structure is an addition similarly mr ward raises the issue and defines structure for the board
these are structures absolutely and without a doubt that's another red herring there's no
dispute that these were new construction structures that were erected above ground.
They required permits.
The permits were received and that inspections were passed.
There's no issue before this board today about whether the erected structures were built
well or in accordance with all the code.
I'm going to assume, at least for the purposes of today, that they were, that all those inspectors
did what they were supposed to do when the city acted correctly and that that building is properly
structured and built. The issue is solely whether or not the structure as built and built despite
being under appeal constitutes an addition or a detached structure. And here the councilman's
position is that L &I's interpretation of this single story structure, this walkway, portico,
as it's been called, is clearly erroneous to state that that is constituting an addition of
this clearly separate structure to the existing house but again we make no issue the one story
roof that's added is a structure that could be added and i don't think there's any testimony
today separate and apart from um the garage itself it had mr ward showed drawings that it
has its own structural supports and you know i can't opine as to the structural stability of it
But, you know, it is a separate structure that could be built, whether or not the garage is there at all.
And lastly, the biggest red herring is Mr. Ward's allegation that addition, the word addition is not relevant and shouldn't come into play.
That is the only issue before this board is the relevance of the word addition and its definition.
the the analysis of that language is so pertinent because at the same time that Mr. Ward is
scrolling through all of the permits and issues or all of the permits issued rather he is showing
language that specifically says and defines what is permitted as an addition although at the same
time he's claiming that addition is not relevant um so i i think that's fairly clear the last point
that i would make uh while mr reuter um you know sort of begins to assert a standing argument that
is an argument before the courts that's not an argument before this board however the councilman
o 'neill is here today and has brought this matter as a duly designated representative of city council
So with that, Mr. Bergman, I think the councilman is on and can answer any questions that the chair may have.
Mr. O 'Neill.
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you state your name, please, for the record spelled for the court reporter?
Yes, Brian O 'Neill.
B -R -I -A -N, O -apostrophe, capital N -E -I -L -L, Councilman for the 10th District, which includes 4100 Orchard Street, Orchard Lane.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Whalen, proceed.
Thank you. Councilman, you're here as the duly designated representative of City Council, correct?
That's correct.
And did you hear all of the testimony that I presented today?
Yes, I did.
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes. And would you also adopt it as your own? Yes. Thank you. Is there anything further, not duplicative, but further that you believe relevant for the board's understanding of this matter today?
And would you also adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
No, I think I think the argument that you have made on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents is right up, you know, everything, everything it should be.
All right. Thank you very much. With that, board chair, unless you have any questions for the councilman, we would rest.
Mr. Ward, do you want to bring your client on?
Yes, I would. I have both Ben Maness in the audience as well as John Higgins, our code consultant. I would first ask Ben Maness to be able to speak.
Sir, could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
yes sir can you hear me uh i can go on as well i'm not sure if you can see me uh it's r -e -l
benjamin manis a -r -i -e -l first name benjamin common spelling manis michael adam nancy nancy
edward sam um resident owner 4100 orchard lane you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you. Ben, you've heard
my representations to the board today? Yes, sir. Are they true and correct at the best of your
knowledge, information, and belief? Yes, sir. Absolutely. And would you adopt them as your
own testimony? I do. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, very briefly, if I can have John Higgins.
Okay. Mr. Higgins, could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer?
uh john higgins h -i -g -g -i -n -s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel uh john could you please state your
occupation for living i mean for the record currently my occupation is a co -consultant
or better known as an expediter to secure L &I permits.
Okay, and prior to that, did you work for the city of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspection?
Yes, I did for about 25 years.
And at the conclusion of your career there, at what level did you reach?
Code Administrator 3.
Okay. You've heard my representations today to the board?
Yes, I have.
Are they true and correct at the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, they are.
And would you adopt them as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I just have one item to just clarify, if I may.
With regard to addition versus structure, I would just refer the board back to the actual residential building permit.
The permit authorizes the erection of an addition for a one -story and two -story structure.
And I would leave it at that.
okay um questions from the board no mr chairman
hillary do you have any questions not at this time mr chair okay um so look we've had a lot
of testimony you know this is a little bit of a different approach what i want to do is
talk to the board about this in an executive session hillary what's our what's our next day
that we come back or tanya maybe one
i believe it's january 10th okay um is that a wednesday that is a wednesday yeah okay um
And we will vote on this January 10th at 2 p .m.
Thank you.
And thanks, everyone, for their testimony and their presentations.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Chairman and members of the board.
All right.
Thank you.
So we're going to turn two, four, and six over to Ishmael.
Mr. Shahid?
Mr. Shahid?
Looks like he's having audio trouble, Chair.
Mr. Shahid will pop out and come right back in.
Thank you.
can you hear me now
yes perfect
okay I had to log on
I heard you all but
you can get it
pull the case back up
Okay, so we're going to call on number two, four, and six, MI -2023 -004928, 2032 Diamond Street,
along with MI -2023 -0049302100 Diamond Street
and MI -2023 -0049292033 North 22nd Street.
Michelle Reinhart, see you in the audience?
Michelle Reinhardt, please. Okay.
Okay. They have been promoted to panelists. They will be rejoining the hearing shortly.
Hearing shortly.
While we're bringing them in, we have already received a letter of support from Councilman Daryl Clark,
And we also did receive the letter from the RCO stating non -opposition 52 -2 -2.
Michelle, I believe we've already sworn you in.
Just state your name and just spell it for the court reporter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Michelle Reinhart for the City of Philadelphia, last name R -E -I -N -H -A -R -T.
can you please identify your client and your relationship to yes my client is the city of
philadelphia who is the property owner for each of these three properties
mr holliman can you please
yes mr chairman good morning council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required
five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, and there was an additional lot adjustment plan
stamped by the Planning Commission that was also sent yesterday,
which I would like to incorporate by reference as Exhibit 14 as well.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
I'll go through the exhibit packet in a moment, but just by way of background, this is a proposed
public safety project, which includes a police station, a police athletic league center,
as well as public outdoor and indoor spaces.
There are three parcels involved in this proposal as one single parcel is not large enough to
accommodate both the proposed building as well as the required parking. The building itself
as proposed is located at 2100 Diamond Street, which is the center of three adjacent properties
with the two adjacent side properties represent or that would be the
with the two adjacent side properties represent or that would be the accessory parking to support the required the requirements of the code.
The use of the multiple parcels to meet both the building and parking requirements is what has caused this request for variance,
as well as a proposed refueling station on 2033 North 22nd Street, which again promotes the
public safety use of this property and is an existing use at the current police station
that will be moving to this location. Specifically, the reason this site was chosen is because
it's centrally located within the police district, so it will contribute to improved response times
within the district. And it is located on Diamond Street, which provides
safe access as well in order to quickly move through the district.
um the proposed uses are allowed uh or rather the proposed public safety building
is allowed as a use uh however um and if it was distributed as one building on each
of the three parcels um it would be allowed by use without having to request a variance for
the parking. However, that is an unmanageable way to try to structure the building, as you will say.
Rather, the three adjacent parcels accommodated
the required 28 spaces for parking and are distributed among the adjacent parcels.
I wanted to note as well, there was reference that the RCO letter stated that the RCO
RCO was unopposed to this project. However, they actually wrote in support, indicating that there
were 52 community members who voted to support the project and none voted in non -opposition.
The RCO meeting was very well attended as it reflects that there were 54 members of the
community who were available. I note that we made the zoning application for a lot adjustment
and non -accessory parking and the refueling station. The lot adjustments were approved
by the Planning Commission as indicated in what has now been marked City Exhibit 14.
the we made the application for the variances in august of this year
um building density as proposed is not an issue within um the code the rear the required side and
rear yards of neighbors will be maintained and the new facility will include a pal center for
this community which also once again promotes both the community safety and um involvement
that is central to the intention of this project.
Moving to City Exhibit 4, I'm showing you an aerial view that is from the ATLAS database.
The blue icon in the center is 2100 Diamond Street.
I note that 2032 Diamond Street is to the right and to the left is 2033 North 22nd Street.
These are vacant lots that front Diamond Street.
However, as you can see, they cannot be consolidated as there are streets in between them.
um streets in between them this is an additional uh view of the properties um i note as well
there are churches across the street um and this is a residential neighborhood um as i believe you
will hear later in the public comments, there is support of the neighbors. And as you can see from
the RCO letter, there is general support.
is that all council i apologize i am having an issue resizing um part of the
exhibits so um i will move to the site plan are you able to see this on my screen yes okay um this
describes further the uh plan specifically the north central public safety building um again is
on the middle lot uh i'm sorry i did not hear what that was
I didn't say anything.
Half of the building will be dedicated, as I said, to the Police Athletic League Center, and we'll have spaces for the community inside the building, and half of the space will be for the police station.
Specifically, there will be a parking lot to the right for the Police Athletic League.
And there will be outdoor green spaces provided as well, as well as plaza seating.
To the left is the parking that will support the police station.
There is adequate parking intended to prevent police vehicles from parking on the street and crowding the neighborhood.
there is a fueling station proposed here again in order to support the public safety use of
this property it will be screened off so that it is not visible from the sidewalk
and again there is plaza seating planned in order to both promote air quality
and community involvement in the area. The public spaces on the first floor are in this rendering.
As you can see, there is a gym and there are additional homework rooms, computer rooms,
and game rooms. Here are interior renderings that show what the space is intended to look like,
as well as the exterior views of the building.
The grant of the variance will not adversely and substantially affect the implementation
um for the plan for the area in fact it supports the both the community um as a whole and promotes
public safety um the hardship in this instance is that um we are otherwise unable to uh locate
this project so that it is centrally located within the police district um while providing
for the adequate parking required and thieves um for that the property will
is in in fact inspected in fact expected to require um specifically both the building
and the parking being required on the same lot is an unlikely challenge that we would otherwise be
able to find. We appreciate the support of Council President Daryl Clark. His office sent a letter of
support yesterday, as well as the St. Elizabeth RCO, the heritage community.
as well as the St. Elizabeth RCO, the Heritage Community Development Corporation,
and Reverend Darnell Deans of the 32nd Ward. Specifically, he is the 32nd Ward leader,
which is the location of this project.
This project will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The public safety use is permitted. The question here is the location of the parking and the fueling station.
At this point in time, I would like to call my first witness, Pedro Pinto.
He is the project manager of the city of Philadelphia Department of Public Property.
Pedro Pinto is in the virtual audience.
he's been allowed to speak hi can you hear me yes morning sir can you please can you please
state your name and spell it for the court reporter yes Pedro Pinto P -E -D -R -O P -I -N -T -O
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do
please proceed counsel thank you um Pedro excuse me one minute this is Hillary can we
um make sure mr pinto has promoted the panelists so that he can turn on his camera thank you
has he been promoted panelists yes i'm on the camera now yep there you go
all right council thank you uh mr pinto did you hear my complete presentation
yes uh is it accurate to the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt the statements
as your own testimony yes i would is there anything further to add uh no no i think we're
i think i'm good thank you thank you um i would let next like to call mr stephen bartlett the
architect for this project mr bartlett mr bartlett if you're in the virtual audience
please raise your hand and wait to be sworn in
they will be rejoining as a panel shortly thank you um i'm not sure if we want to also uh
promote mr carl st pierre um who will be my next witness after mr bartlett
Mr. Bartlett, please state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
You have to take your phone off mute, sir.
Please unmute Steve Bartlett.
Hello, my name is Steven Bartlett.
Can you hear me?
yes can you spell your name and spell it for the court reporter please
s -t -e -v -e b -a -r -t -l -e -t -t steve bartlett do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do thank you counsel please proceed thank you uh did you hear my
complete presentation i did indeed is it accurate to the best of your knowledge yes it is would you
adopt the statements as your own i would is there anything that you would like to add
no thank you thank you um i would next like to call carl st pierre the civil engineer for this
project mr st tier is your new virtual audience please raise your hand they've been allowed to
speak good morning sir can you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter
carl st pierre c -a -r -l -s -t period p -i -e -r -r -e can you please turn your camera on and do you
swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do can you turn your camera on sir
You came on, sir.
Excuse me, sir.
They will be rejoining as a panel shortly.
For it to do so.
Good afternoon.
Counsel, please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Pierre, I apologize.
Mr. St. Pierre, did you hear my complete presentation?
i did is it accurate to the best of your knowledge yes it is would you adopt the
statements as your own uh yes is there anything that you would like to add uh no
that concludes my presentation at this time
thank you council uh so i do have one question council so out of the 54 people that did show up
52 of them was in support of the project.
Out of that 52, what percentage was in close proximity to this project?
I don't have an idea of that.
I believe the members of the RCO who are present may have a better idea
because not all members of the community spoke at the hearing,
but there were a number of people who were very close neighbors
and did indicate their address who were present.
Okay, understood.
Okay, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Vice Chair.
no mr vice chair um do we have any questions from our attorney our attorney hillary emerson
um one brief question um miss reinhardt i believe you mentioned earlier that there
was a traffic study done is that correct yes um this was uh
if there are questions about the traffic study, I believe Mr. St. Pierre would best be able to
answer those questions. Could you please, because I don't believe that was included in
your exhibit, can you please forward that to the board so it can be included with the record
for the hearings today? Absolutely. Thank you.
Any more questions, counsel?
That was all, Mr. Shahid. Thank you.
No problem. Any questions from the virtual audience?
Yes, I have a Darryl Deans with their hand raised. I've allowed them to speak at this time.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
Please state your name. Yes, please state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Yes, it's Reverend Darnell, D -A -R -A, N -E -L -L, Deans, D -E -A -N -S.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And good morning to everyone.
and thank you so much for the opportunity to speak on this project here. To hearing
of the conversations in reference to the 2100 block of Diamond Street, the 2000 block of 22nd
Street, as well as the 2000 block of Diamond Street, there have been several meetings in
reference to this project. We've had, from the conversations of the biggest meeting we had of
the 54 members. We did have 52 people in support of the project, and I guess two sustaining.
But what I did was, because I am full support of this, but what I did was, if I had to have
the conversation again amongst everyone here, just so that I know that I was, for me, standing
on solid ground on october the 25th 2023 i took a survey of where the project buildings would be
erected because i live around the corner from them i live at 20 on the 2200 block of diamond i mean
of fatane street between 22nd and 21st of diamond so on october the 25th i took a survey of 75 people
And I was very careful when I was speaking with those who I, you know, spoke to because everybody doesn't want to have you have their name.
But I told them of the project that's trying to be erected here and what they're feeling.
But I told them of the project that's trying to be erected here and what their feelings were about the project.
Well, on that given day, I had 18 people who I spoke to was against the project.
Then I had 53 people who was in favor of the project.
And then I also had two people who just didn't care.
So with that part being in support of the community and they wanted the project to be here, I wanted to follow up and make sure that I was talking with the community again and not just for the first time.
So on November the 9th, I did the same procedure, stood between Diamond Street 2100 block and Diamond Street 2100 block and 2200 block of Diamond Street because there's a little small street in between called Banco.
So I stood there and I spoke with 42 people who came across my path. I asked them the same question in support of this project coming here. It's just not a police station. It's a police administration building that's going to have great things for the community.
And out of that, I had eight people who was not in favor of it, 33 people, I mean, yeah, 33 people who was in favor of it, and one person just, again, just did not care.
So with that being said, I think that we truly are in favor of this project being erected here, because it'll be a great source for the community. I'm in total support of this project being here, I mean, being done. So with that being said, we've had several conversations with the community about it.
I do not think that there needs to be a continuance on this project.
I'm fully supportive of it and hope that, you know, with my conversation, it helps the project go along the way.
And thank you for the opportunity to speak.
We thank you for sharing.
Yes, sir.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Vice Chair.
I have Judith Robinson with their hand raised.
I will allow them to speak at this time.
Please allow Mr. Robinson to speak.
Yes, good morning again. Judith Robinson here. I'm going to say, first of all, I am a homeowner.
Can you state your name and spell it for the record? I know we heard you earlier,
but we still need to go on the record with it. Okay. My name is Judith Robinson, J -U -D -I -T -H,
Robinson, R -O -B -I -N -S -O -N
and I am a homeowner
I would be 300 feet away from this proposed
site. My neighbors voted
for me as a committee person. I am the committee
person in the 32nd Ward, the 13th Division
This would be 300 feet away from my home. I am a
grandmother. If I thought this place would be of value to my grandchildren, teenagers, and the
community, I would be so happy. But this is our historic corridor. I have a petition from my
neighbors. I do want to say that. And they are most impacted. We're talking about a police station.
21 28 parking spaces are required they don't have enough room y 'all they're asking us to change our
zoning but i'm going to state that first of all they want us to take away our historic corridor
which has been designated since 1986 by the historic commission and it was has benefits
Okay. The benefits are that we would get a residential house back. We would get our house and we get our history because the facade would be what was a replica of what was there in the past. Much needed housing and then history.
We have this history on our historic corridor where Church of the Advocates is located, where the home of Paul F. Keene, the world -famous artist, lived at 20th and Diamond.
You got the world -famous Jones Tabernacle AME, and as they mentioned, right across the street, New Jerusalem Church.
The reason why it was designated in 1986 as a historic corridor is because of the great architecture, you all, and then all the social history that we know of the Black Panthers, of the Black Power Conference, right on our historic corridor, Diamond Street.
So they're trying to take that away from us, you all, and the benefit of having housing there.
And also, I want to really point out about this traffic study.
Also, I want to really point out about this traffic study.
We never once.
We never once, it was not a part of the package, never once had the community viewed these documents.
I am a professional with nearly 40 years of real estate background.
I was the RCO facilitator for over a decade, you all, in a 30 -second war right here.
I pray to God
why on earth
I've never had a conversation
about this
project
one meeting you all
held on a Friday
my Sabbath
I'm Hebrew Israelite
that was my Sabbath night
at 6 o 'clock
they had to meet and it was sneaky
I bet you can't find 10 flyers
they did not fly in the community
listen
it appears she dropped out chair
listen
I'm here I'm here please please don't do
that don't do that I'm asking for this to be
continued. Listen, can you hear me? Can you hear me? We can hear you, ma 'am. I'm asking for this to be
continued at one meeting on a Friday night at 6 p .m. on a $32 million project. That's unfair to the
community. It's unfair to the taxpayers. This is totally out of order. We never saw a traffic study.
We have people right now parking on our sidewalks, parking on our sidewalks now.
We have a new church, the church you mentioned.
They have a robust congregation.
They are parking on the sidewalk without any community input this project has been put through.
We are being overpowered by the governmental process.
I beg of you, if you have any conscience, if you claim that you are for the people, stop this madness now and allow us to have community input.
All right, let's talk about the refusal.
Could you please put the refusal up?
Because this is about land use, land use, land use.
The refusal, it says, this is zoned RM1, residential multifamily, you all.
We could get affordable housing for real.
we could get that by requesting that they stop this and do not change our land zoning code
because it doesn't allow for accessory parking.
That means parking without a building attached to it just off there.
All that parking, you all, it's an environmental hazard.
It's to our health.
We have respiratory issues.
Why would you plop this in the middle of a residential area?
Look, we have land, you all.
I told you I'm a real estate professional. We got land all over the place. I just sold the community. The whole block, 2300 block North 21st Street, one house on both sides of the street. We got the 19th and 20th on Norris Street, the whole block. You could put the whole thing there.
I'm not a person that brings a problem without a solution, but this is dangerous to us.
If we allow this, with one meeting, you all, everybody in the whole city should stomp down on this.
One meeting on a Friday night at 6 o 'clock, and you call this done, the Art Commission has tabled this.
I hear some lies being told.
Attorney, you're dangerous, baby.
You're dangerous in the lies you're telling.
And listen, you don't do a survey.
Excuse me, ma 'am. Excuse me, Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson, please keep your testimony to the project. Thank you.
So, ma 'am, I understand you're not in favor of the project.
It looks like we might have lost her again. Oh, there she is.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, here I am. I don't know why I'm being lost, but I want to make sure I have a full presentation here
because I want the community to be clear on what they're asking us to do.
This land use is for residential multifamily housing.
Our historic overlay, you all are talking a lot about overlays these days,
and it's the first overlay in the whole city of Philadelphia.
The whole city should be standing on this.
The Historic Commission has advocated their responsibility in allowing us to even move thus far.
At first, they voted against it, and then here comes a politician to the hearing in May this year, two years later, and bullied this way through.
Ms. Robinson, excuse me, can you please, the historical aspect of this is not before the zoning board.
The historical aspect of this is not before the zoning board.
Yes, can you please keep it to the zoning -related issues?
Thank you.
And Ms. Robinson, I believe we heard you,
and we understand the community definitely has a voice at the table,
and we want to make sure the community is heard.
And that's why we did have a meeting, or they did have a meeting.
So we want to make sure we get to hear everyone in the virtual audience.
So is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Thank you, Ms. Robertson.
Yes, I have a Ruth I. Burchett with their hand raised.
I have allowed them to speak.
They've been allowed to speak.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Please state your name and spell it.
I'll go to court reporter.
Good morning.
My name is Ruth I. Birchett, R -U -T -H -I -C -I -R -C -H -E -T.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
I submitted a letter in behalf of Heritage Community Development Corporation,
a 30 -plus -year -old organization in the area of which I am founder and president.
May I read the letter?
Sure, ma 'am, please.
Please accept this letter as an expression of support for the construction of the North
central public safety building and parking at its proposed sites 2100 West Diamond Street
ZP -2023 -007278, ZP -2023 -007463, 2032 West Diamond Street, ZP -2023 -007463, 2033 North 22nd Street.
Regarding this matter, we have received and shared electronic and hard copies of the architectural plans provided courtesy of Council President Darrell Clark's office, gave public comments at meetings of the Philadelphia Historic Commission and its architectural committee,
And on February 28th, 2023, as block captain, I attended the 22nd Police District Captain's Town Hall meeting, where a speaker reported about the plans.
While in attendance at the St. Elizabeth RCO meeting on October 20, 2023, I heard city personnel present about the project and had an opportunity to question architects about the plans.
As a joint venture partner on construction of Eight Diamonds townhouses on 21st Street next door to the proposed building site, Heritage CDC served on the development team and views the proposed architectural plans as being compatible.
Several of the design features are complementary to neighborhoods with brickwork that mimics Van Pelt Street homes.
The corner peak elevation of the building effectively conceals the rooftop HVAC units from street -level view.
The addition of many parks at the corners of 21st and 22nd Streets on Diamond Street provide much -needed neighborhood beautification and the addition of trees throughout the entire project area, helps conceal parking lots, and most importantly, increases the tree canopy in one of the city's hottest areas.
reinforcing the primary goals of the recently released Philadelphia tree plan.
In addition, the horticultural open space aspects of the design
can improve air quality, relieve burdens of those who suffer respiratory ailments.
Relieve burdens of those who suffer respiratory ailments, such as myself, such as asthma, COPD, and bronchitis.
It's reduced violence, which the Horticulture, the Pennsylvania Horticulture Society and Dr. Smith at University of Pennsylvania did a study that concluded that violence, that open green spaces do reduce violence.
and mitigates the effects of climate change, potentially improving the overall quality of life
for community residents. It's an impressive, thoughtful design that aptly provides for
law enforcement personnel and parking needs, along with the valuable community benefit of
a police athletic league center, computer lab, and community meeting access, all of which
we wholeheartedly support. We respectfully submit this in support of this project. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in a virtual audience?
Yes, Daryl Cluck has their hand raised. They've been allowed to speak.
please allow me to speak
am I on you on good morning good morning uh I will be brief uh first of all thank you
I'm sorry I should know better uh Daryl Clark uh council person of fifth councilmatic district
city council president uh first of all thank you all about the truth councilman
Absolutely. Thank you. Please proceed.
Yeah, first of all, briefly, you've heard some significant testimony, so I won't belabor the point.
But I just want to reiterate my support for this particular project.
But more importantly, I want to thank you for the process that has been put before both the community, the zoning board, the historic board earlier in this process.
As a result of the many levels of requirements for variance, it has improved this project significantly.
Earlier on, it did not have a recreational component subsequent to the earlier version and concerns raised by residents.
We actually now have a much better design building.
We have a building that would incorporate, as you've heard in the testimony, the PAL and space, auditorium space for the community to use and much more significant amenities.
So I'll be sure, as I said earlier, I just want to reiterate my support.
And I want to thank you. The zoning board respectfully requested your support for a variance to allow much needed parking in this area as it relates to this particular facility.
So I want to thank you again for your opportunity to allow me to testify in support of this.
We thank you. We thank you, Council President.
We also thank you for your years of service and congratulating you on your retirement.
Anyone else out in the virtual audience?
Yes, Priscilla Bennett has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Priscilla Bennett.
I'm the president of the St. Elizabeth RCO.
and I just want to
say your name.
Can you please spell it for the court reporter?
P -R -I -S -C -I -L -L -A
Bennett
B -E -N -N -E -T -T
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Yes, I just want to reiterate the fact that at the meeting that we had, the St. Elizabeth RCO had on a Friday night.
It was a Friday night and it was quite impressive because it was Friday night and 54 people showed up to show you the importance of how important this is for the quality of life in our community.
and we are in total support of it and I think it was very it was very it's very necessary to make
that point that on a Friday night people showed up that's how important this is to our community
thank you thank you is anyone else in the virtual
Thank you. Is anyone else in the virtue holding you?
Yes, Gail Loney has been allowed to speak.
Hello, Mrs. Gail. Please state your name as well for the court reporter.
Hi. Hello. My name is Gail Loney. My name is spelled G -A -I -L. Last name is spelled L -O -N -E -Y.
You're trying to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
yes i do um excuse i'm sorry thank you um excuse my voice i'm i'm kind of sick right now
um i am a block captain in the 2200 block of north lambert street i have been part of this
police station conversation since since its beginning when the first um eminent domain
paperwork was attached to 2100 West Diamond Street. I am opposed to this because, number one,
as a block captain in my community and an active participant in my community,
there has not been very much community engagement. I have listened to the conversation about
So the meeting that was had in October, which I was unable to attend, however, most of the people on my side of 22nd Street weren't even aware of a meeting.
And I realize that that may not be an excuse, but that means that the community involvement, the heightened awareness of what goes on, not just in one block, in one RCO, needs to be lifted up.
This project should have been announced ahead of time to the whole community.
And when I say the whole community, if you're talking about covering the 22nd Police District, then the whole 22nd Police District should have been made aware in timely enough fashion and had multiple, multiple conversations beforehand.
beforehand. This project was initially turned down by the Historical Commission because I was
on those meetings as well. And there was no community engagement at all then. This community
engagement at the St. Elizabeth RCO, I can't speak on that. I don't know the
St. Elizabeth's RCO, but I do know the 32nd RCO. I know Uptown Entertainment Development RCO,
and I know NCP RCO. Those are the three RCOs that are around here, but I don't know how much
representation was going on there. In addition, this is a historical district. I don't know how
much housing is planned for my area, but there are more empty lots in my neighborhood in the
5th Councilmatic District than anywhere. And that particular lot was housing. That particular lot
is zoned for housing so rezoning has to be done for that property not to mention the fact that
you are now which was not even brought up initially talking about a fueling station
what is the process for a fueling station now in a historic district where housing is so badly
needed and not just market rate housing because around here that's all that's going up
I live around the corner from three and four hundred thousand dollar homes
and the people around here can't afford it but we have so many lots that need to be and I am saying
that need to be a low -income, moderate -income, single -family and multifamily housing.
The police station, I get the 22nd needs a police station, but I also get that you're
going to put the very police that you are now calling a public safety facility in front
of the faces of the people who they disrespect the most.
I have had all kinds of encounters with police, but I still try to maintain a good relationship with them.
I do talk to the 22nd District Police Captain and their liaison.
I do talk to the 22nd District Police Captain and their liaison officer on a regular basis.
We have just had meetings with them at the UEDCRCO, okay?
But I also know that we have a problem, and I am saying we as a Black woman, as Black people, as low -income people in a low -income neighborhood,
have problems with the 22nd district police officers and police in general okay um we have
facilities in our direct vicinity um that are recreation centers but they need work that 32
million dollars we're getting ready to spend to put a new police facility on a historic corridor
are in a location that used to have beautiful three -story brownstones I know for a fact because
I was a kid in this neighborhood who went in those beautiful three -story brownstones that
were allowed to deteriorate um excuse me uh that's what needs to be in those places and those empty
spaces. What is the zoning for this police district? What is the zoning and the process
for this fueling station? The recreation centers and libraries around here are underfunded and
underutilized because they are underfunded and poorly staffed. You know, we have libraries and
rec centers that our kids can't even use. And let's not get it twisted. Our adults can't either
because programming has been shortchanged for other things in this city. I don't know
if you guys take any of those things into consideration. I don't know what your guidelines
are in determining, you know, what gets built, where, when, and how, but you cannot just say
yes to a building because it meets some aesthetic requirement because it's historic. You do have to
take into account the historical cultural history of that piece of land, that piece of property
that you are now saying has no relevance and nobody cared about. When you have people who
have been redlined, disrespected, discriminated against, and treated as trash, you're just giving
them another excuse not to trust, not just the city, not just the police, but the process,
Because their voices are not being lifted up and held up and nobody thinks that they have anything to say. We are assumed to be unintelligent, unarticulate, and don't deserve housing and don't deserve to live how everyone else lives when we are more deserving than ever.
I am not going to go on here. I hope you take into consideration what I just said about the historical, cultural, and what this neighborhood is and was. I know this neighborhood needs a lot of things, but I don't think a $32 million police station right now, right here, is one of them.
housing that's what's needed right here right now it was needed 20 years ago and it's only
going to get worse thank you thank you for your testimony anyone else in the virtual audience
yes chair we have lisa you may unmute yourself and wait for the chair
hi my name is lisa monique jenkins hayden i'm all i am a three generation
um member of strawberry mansion resident your name and spell it for the court reporter please
thank you my first name is spelled l y s a second part of my first name is monique m -o -n -i -q -u -e
My last name is hyphenated Jenkins, J -E -N -K -I -N -S hyphen Hayden, H -A -Y -D -E -N.
And you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed with your testimony.
Thank you.
I am a three -generation resident of Strawberry Mansion.
My mother and grandmother has served as officers of the city.
officers of the city. I have founded the Strawberry Mansion Neighborhood and Homeowners
I have founded the Strawberry Man.
Association, and this issue has come up over and over again in regards to how the city does not
seem to be taking into account what the neighbors are saying that they want, giving them proper
notice to things so that they can organize, have an informed opinion, and ask questions.
We were not properly informed in the manner that we should have been.
And so I am here to support the community's voice, saying that they do not want this police
district at the 2100 Diamond Street because of historical and cultural significance of
this corridor.
I actually do work with the police as well, doing town hall meetings with them.
Um, and so I have tried to establish a decent relationship with the 22nd district and want
to be in support of the things that they need and want to do.
However, in this matter, I don't believe that they should be able to go against the community
or the city should force, um, um, a, an issue where the community is clearly asking, we've
asked for a continuance hearing that has not been granted.
And so we would absolutely like more time to think about it. But the neighbors consensus is at this moment that we want to know things like, have there been a traffic study done? Has there been an environmental study done? And where are those things so that the community could read and digest it and have more information about it?
But from a cultural and historical perspective, we are very much not welcoming the police district on the Diamond Street Historic Court.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Is there anyone else in a virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Jacqueline Wiggins.
How many more do we have in a virtual audience?
This will be the last hand, Chair.
Thank you.
Ms. Wiggins?
Yes, good morning.
can you hear me? Yes, please state your name and spell it for the court reporter. All right,
my name is Jacqueline Wiggins. J -A -C -Q -U -E -L -I -N -E. Wiggins. W -I -G -G -I -N -S.
So you're just ready to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Good morning. Okay, thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'm opposed to the location
of this police station at 2100 West Diamond Street and just by way of some background I've
lived there in North Philly for since I guess most of my life 1952 to 2021 in terms of living
in North Philly but I just moved in 2021 due to age and so forth and I was a committee person
32nd Ward so I am very familiar with things that that do go on in the neighborhood and I still
volunteer in the neighborhood. So first, I really don't understand how one RCO can have
all of the input with respect to this particular project, with the boundaries of the 22nd Police
District being 10th Street to 33rd, and from Poplar to Lehigh. That would take in a number
of RCOs and a number of questions to people who live as taxpayers, whether they're homeowners
or renters. They need to be informed, you know, of this. I am trying to figure, again, about the
historical and cultural piece that Ms. Loney and Ms. Monique and Ms. Robinson brought out,
that that has to be considered. The Diamond Street historic designation from Broad Street,
Broad and Diamond, to Van Pelton Diamond was designated in 1986. I don't know when that
changed in terms of putting a police station. But for many of the comments that have been made,
I want to just mention this. I don't know if there was a consideration in terms of the people.
The people who walk Diamond Street, all right, the people who get off the 33 bus, as I did
for grade school and high school, and I went to St. Elizabeth's right there in the neighborhood.
When the school burned down, we had to take the bus, okay, out to West Philly. I went to
Hallahan, okay. So I'm just saying that I'm used to the 33, the number two bus that takes people
down to, you know, downtown. I'm not understanding how you're going to have the deployment of police
cars zipping up and down Diamond Street when, in effect, people walk there. Children walk there.
There are two public schools on Diamond Street, William Dick at 25th and Diamond and Duckery at
15th and Diamond. But there's also Frederick Douglass at 22nd and Norris, where many of the
young people walk over to Diamond to get home. So I'm trying to figure that out with the people
traffic of those who live in Raymond Rosen, where I grew up, and also at Johnson Homes. So you have
in Raymond Rosen, where I grew up, and also at Johnson Homes. So you have the public schools,
you've got the one recreation center, you've got the churches that were mentioned,
particularly the church The Advocate at 18th and Diamond, where tours are done. I'm involved in
tourism. I take people sometimes up and down Diamond Street. Now we have to compete with
police cars zipping up and down. But once again, more importantly to me is the question of
the boundaries of the 22nd police district and who knows about this in a genuine community
engagement way, which is what the art commission came up with in terms of their unanimous vote,
that there needs to be a continuance, at least on their part, and this needs to be reconsidered.
So I'm hoping and asking that all the comments that have been made in terms of the no to this
police station are taken into real consideration. And again, one RCO does not make up the people
of the 22nd Police District or Philadelphia. Thank you.
And Vice Chair, you are muted.
Excuse me. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No more hands.
thank you for your testimony planning commission thank you vice chair and good morning david
fecteau f -e -c -t -e -a -u with the city planning commission uh do you uh
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do
please proceed thank you sir uh vice chair and members of the board i'm going to read
my testimony for all three property addresses if that's okay with you
sure all right thank you sir um so the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the residential multi -family and residential single -family zoning at this location the lower
north district plan part of the comprehensive plan recommended a feasibility study to determine
whether a new police district building was needed this proposal conforms with that recommendation
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the proposed variances for no parking provided at 2100 Diamond Street, non -accessory parking at 2032 Diamond Street, and 2033 North 2nd Street, and a fueling station at 2033 North 22nd Street.
excuse me mr chair uh vice chair um well you're you're on mute um but i think we also should give
yes to respond thank you no problem council you want to respond back to any of the individuals
in a virtual audience or planning i would thank you um first i would just like to note that the
City followed the requirements of the public meeting. We attended the meeting as scheduled
by the RCO, for which I believe it was already covered. It was very well attended. I would also
like to add references to the 32nd Ward RCO. I would just like to note that the 32nd Ward RCO
is currently inactive. So there is no current RCO by that name.
I would also like to respond to questions about the traffic study. May I call Mr. St. Pierre
in order to clarify some of those questions? Sure. Please have me brief. Thank you. Sure.
Just Carl St. Pierre with Pannone Associates.
Just want to let you know that we did complete a traffic study.
A traffic study was completed and submitted to the streets department.
The traffic study is currently being reviewed by streets department.
And we did find that, you know, based on the studies that we performed, that, you know, no significant impacts were to the surrounding roadways networks.
And, you know, so that was the results of the study.
and it's currently being reviewed by streets thank you if i may just ask a clarifying question um my
understanding um is that the uh streets department did approve the zoning aspect of the plan um and
is reviewing the building aspect correct yes they we submitted a zoning level review to streets which
was approved by streets and we are currently under review uh for the building permit stage
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anything else?
anything else other than noting that um the historical commission has already uh addressed
Let's go.
the um concerns regarding this development on um at the end of the historical district
um and that that matter is not currently before this board that's it thank you
No problem. So we had a lot of testimony today on this case. What we're going to do is we're going to take this into executive session and we'll discuss it in this executive discussion and get back to everyone.
And it's going to be January 10th, 2024 at two o 'clock on what we decide and what direction we plan on for this actual case.
As of now, the case is closed, outside of what we would discuss in executive session.
Hillary, is there anything else we want to add to that?
No, that is all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair?
I'm here.
Thank you.
So let's move to number three, MI 2023, 001 -213 -301 Delmar Street.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney for the owner.
This is a resumptive hearing.
Paul Toner also represents the Ridge Park Civic Association.
They will be rejoining as panelists shortly, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. DeMarco. Could you state your name, please, as spelled for the court
stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Richard DeMarco, D -E -M -A -R -C -O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. Mr. Toner, could you state your name, as spelled, please, for the court stenographer?
You're muted. Sorry, you're muted.
There you go.
Paul Toner, T -O -N -E -R, Council for the Ridge Park Civic Association.
Our address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
So for both of you, I understand the applicant should start.
You're going to finish your testimony.
Am I right, Mr. DeMarco?
I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman.
So why don't we move ahead?
I'll start right into it, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to be calling Anthony Brutiniti, who is an architect that we hired since the last listing.
Can you hear me okay, by the way, Mr. Chairman?
You're fine.
Great.
I'm calling Anthony Bruniniti if you could raise his hand virtually, please.
They will be joining us as a panelist shortly, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Morning, sir.
Could you unmute, please?
Morning.
Is your video, could you turn your video on, too?
Thank you.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Anthony Brutiniti, A -N -T -H -O -N -Y, last name B -R -U -T -T -A -N -I -T -I.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Brutiniti, thank you for appearing today.
What is your occupation?
I am a registered architect.
How long have you been a registered architect?
I've been in business for 32 years in Philadelphia.
I was going to say, is that primarily in the city of Philadelphia?
I am licensed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.
Most of our work is in the city.
We also do a lot of suburban work in the other three states.
And you've been an architect for 32 years?
Oh, at least, yes.
Probably more like 45.
And as far as the duties of an architect, are you called upon when you perform architectural services to know and interpret provisions of the Philadelphia Zoning Code?
Yes. And if you want to if you can just sell the board, how how many projects have you involved involved with in the city of Philadelphia involving the city of Philadelphia zoning code?
and if you want to
Oh, most of them.
I would say most of the properties do have some challenges to them where either we need a used variance or a dimensional variance or one or both of them.
So it's sometimes rare that we get a site that conforms to the zoning code so that we can just do it as of right.
So I do have applications most times in with the zoning board for zoning variances.
Okay. And how many times have you been involved in such matters?
Oh, countless.
Especially over 32 years.
Okay. And have you testified as an architect and as an expert in zoning before this board before?
Yes, I have.
And are you also involved with a community organization? Explain to the board your involvement with that.
Yes, I am the zoning chairman for the RCO South Broad Street Neighborhood Association.
I have been on that seat for approximately 20 years, and I still hold that seat.
And we hear a lot of cases over the years regarding South Broad Street and the boulevard between Washington Avenue and Oregon Avenue.
And so you've testified in both for neighborhood groups and for developers. Is that fair to say?
So I'm going to offer Mr. Brutiniti, Mr. Chairman, as an expert in zoning and architecture in this matter.
Mr. Toner, do you have any remarks first?
I do, Your Honor, or Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brutiniti, at the last hearing, we heard testimony from an engineer in training on behalf of the applicant in the zoning case.
Are you familiar with Jake Sheridan?
not not personally no are you aware that jake sheridan was the individual who drafted the
architectural and zoning plans for his project yes objection as to relevance are we good one of
wall dear is this something else yep i'm entitled to ask some brief questions about his experience
and involvement with this project you're asking about mr sheridan i'm not my objection mr demar
Mr. Toner, you could continue, but try to go. Let's get past the last engineering training.
Yeah. Mr. Brunetti, did you draft any of the zoning plans that were submitted as exhibits in this case?
Did you draft any of the earth moving plans or have you drafted any earth moving plans for the applicant in this case?
No, I have not.
Have you drafted any type of zoning, architectural, engineering, site plan, anything similar to that for the project I'd issue at 301 Delmar?
No, I just did a report regarding this application. That was my involvement.
And what was the scope of your report?
To analyze the zoning refusals that were issued for this application.
Mr. Bergman, I'm going to object to the competency of this witness to testify as an expert.
What Mr. Brutinetti has proffered to testify on are pure legal zoning matters.
An architect is not a lawyer or an architect is not in a position to make legal conclusions about a project that he did not even draft.
He has no firsthand knowledge of this project and the plans that were submitted and are before the board today.
now mr chairman may i go ahead this is cross -examination it's not it's not an objection
to his competency he's he's mr bruden idiot reviewed all of the drawings he's not required
to testify as an expert to have done the drawings he allowed he's allowed to review other people's
work and offer opinions that's why he's an expert and has been qualified as an expert from this
word multiple times. This is cross -examination, not competency. So I'm going to recognize that
he's a very long -term architect, and he can testify to what he reviewed, but I'm not necessarily
going to make him an expert in this field. So whatever he reviewed, he can testify to that,
and Mr. Turner will have an opportunity to cross -examine him. Very well.
I'll continue. Mr. Brutiniti, what did you review? Did you submit, prepare an architectural
report for us in this case yes I did tell the board what you reviewed as part of that
Tell the board what you reviewed as part of that preparation.
Basically, I reviewed the drawings that were created by ACWA Economics.
They were the site drawings and topography drawings created from the site itself.
And I reviewed, I went to the site to take a look at the site and also took some photographs of the site.
Pretty much so. And also, naturally, the zoning refusal that listed all of the zoning variances that were requested so that I can make an analysis of the zoning refusals based on the drawings.
And did you also review the slope analysis prepared by the engineer in this matter?
Yes, I did.
And did you have any concerns about being able to offer an expert opinion today based on what you reviewed? Are you able to make that opinion?
Yes, absolutely.
Let me go ahead and put your report on screen.
Mr. Brutinetti, bear with me.
Can everybody see my screen okay?
We should.
Thank you.
Are you also a LEED certified, Mr. Brutinetti?
Yes, I am.
Explain to the board what that is.
That LEED is for leadership in energy and environmental design.
It's for sustainability in buildings.
Naturally, we try to incorporate a lot of sustainability when we design buildings to be energy conscious.
So I have a professional licensure in LEED for that.
All right.
Do you reach the conclusions that you're going to speak about today within a reasonable degree of professional certainty?
Yes. So let's get to the project itself. What is your first of all, the opinion is, did you submit a written report?
And is that part of our exhibits that we've submitted to the board for today's hearing?
Yes. And do you see that report on the screen? Yes, I do.
All right. So let's do this. Is this property, in your opinion, uniquely shaped?
It is very much so. Why is that?
Your Honor, this is calling for a legal conclusion. These determinations are for the board, not for a third -party architect.
Yeah, it's not calling for a legal conclusion at all. It's a very simple question.
Mr. Turner, I understand what you're saying, but I'm going to let him answer that question.
Go ahead. Why is it uniquely shaped, Mr. Brutnetti?
The property is shaped like a trapezoid, almost like a triangle, if you may, or like a pie shape.
And where the address is on Delmar Street, that is at the apex or the cone of the trapezoid, which is the narrowest part.
And that cone, in essence, is only about a little over two feet wide.
As you can see from the screen right now on the left side, the far left side of Delmar Street, that line right there, that's about, according to the survey, was a little over two feet wide.
going toward the south side of the property, toward the right, that depth of the property
is only 29 feet 6 inches. So you can see how the property tapers in very drastically. So it's a
very unique site, a very difficult site to design from, given the fact that it's inherent shape to
the property. So for the record, Mr. Chairman, so we're clear here, I put on the screen a
Mr. Brutiniti referred to the porch numbers of his report that shows the slope analysis.
Is that right, Mr. Brutiniti?
So how about unusual topography?
Is this site occasioned by unusual topography?
It is.
It drops off pretty drastically.
The zone in the red color is over 25 % slope.
and the green color is less than 15 %
and the yellow being between 15 % and 25 % slope.
So it does drop off pretty drastically for development.
There's also another photograph, I believe, on the next page
that shows you a visual image of the site itself on Silverwood Street.
So explain to the board, in your opinion, as an architect,
does the unusual slope present a challenge as far as developing a single -family home on the property?
Objection, Your Honor.
What's the basis of the objection?
The objection is he's an architect. This goes into engineering.
He's not an engineer. He hasn't been qualified as an engineer.
He's not an engineer. He hasn't been qualified as an engineer.
You know, Mr. Chairman,
So, so, so, so Mr. Toner, I understand your point,
but as an architect, let him answer as an architect, not as an engineer.
And we'll weigh that testimony, sir.
You can answer. Go ahead, Mr. Brunette.
Typically with a site that has a large or a severe topography,
much like this site,
And what would need to be done is on the east side of the property, the one of the property that is opposite the street, where it fronts the adjacent lot, there would actually be a drop off.
If you carve out that land, there's a drastic drop -off in land there.
So a retaining wall would need to be designed by a structural engineer to hold that retainage back on the adjacent property so that the carving of that land can be done and a building or whatever would be put into that space.
And in your opinion, Mr. Brutiniti, is the placement of the home placed in such a manner so as to minimalize, to have the most minimal impact on the steep slope on this property?
Yes. As you can see again from the drawing, the color drawing, that we have a mix of the yellow, the green, which is the least offensive slope on that box of where the house is proposed to go.
So if you go toward the north side of the property, which is closer toward the point of the lot, it is almost all 25 percent, over 25 percent drop in that lot.
And that also has another problem with it, too, is that that area of the lot is really not developable because it's just too narrow.
If you go to the right side, the far right side of the property, that dimension is only 29 foot 6 inches, which in itself is not very deep.
so that having the the building or the the one family dwelling closest to the the south side
the right side of the lot is the most advantageous uh because of the land and also the depth of
taking advantage of the the most depth of the property you can get from is it possible mr
to develop a home on this property without a steep slope variance in your opinion no not at
First of all, this property, when I started looking at it, actually, I was a little bit surprised that it was actually an RSA -5.
It's a bit of a sliver.
Actually, it's a very difficult property to develop.
You have the steep grade, a very narrow site in its largest dimension, and the trapezoid shape is just difficult to deal with.
Now, on top of that, then you have zoning variances that are for required setbacks and things like that that make it even more impossible to develop a building on this site.
Actually, if this wasn't zoned RSA 5, it really should just be a green space, quite honestly, because it's not a very good site to develop a property.
But it is zoned RSA 5, and we're allowed for a single -family dwelling.
So the owner has a right to do that.
Is it possible to develop this property without incurring a rear yard variance or a front yard variance?
No, we need those variances.
The property is only 29 and a half feet deep.
And the rear yard setback, I believe, was a little over 10 feet.
And the front yard, or maybe I'm getting backwards, the front yard, I believe, was a little over 10 feet.
The back was 7 feet.
and taking that away from the only 29 feet, 6 inches,
you're left with barely any building space.
And as far as we have a porch variance as well,
is it possible to locate a porch on this structure
without incurring a porch variance?
No, same thing.
Because of that porch variance,
we would need the setback to design the one family dwelling.
And again, that eats into the very narrow depth of this property.
It would be very difficult.
I also did notice that when I was at the site that the adjacent properties to the south of this lot on the right side, there is one dwelling next to it.
And then the rest are a lot of vacant spaces and some new development, none of which have the porch as required by the zoning code.
i believe the one the one property to the right which is the um um the one dwelling
is does have a force but that's really the only one on the entire block that has one
uh and does this uh property require um what uh water department uh stormwater management review
water department stormwater management review?
Yes, it would.
It would.
Because of the terrain and the steep slope of it,
during the construction phase,
it would require those type of reviews.
Can a deck be designed on this property
without incurring a variance as well, Mr. Ferdiniti?
um the depth of the property is is is again very narrow um so having a deck on the back side of
the property now what i'm saying is when i say the back side i'm i'm using silverwood as the
as the what they have proposed as the front of the dwelling um so putting the deck on the rear
side of that um again eats into the the back of the house and is just very not a very good spot
They designed the deck to the left side of the house, which would make it to the side of the side yard as opposed to the rear yard, per se.
I think that is a better place for it.
You can see it in the elevation drawing there and also the plan where the cursor is at now.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, I put the site, the revised site on the screen.
And I'm circling the proposed deck.
Yeah. All right. So that is that is a better spot for the deck because of the shallowness of the property.
Exactly. OK. All right. Let me go back to the final conclusions.
Oh, and by the way, you did make some conclusions in your report about the parking.
But have I you are are you aware of what the revised plan was done in this matter?
Yes. My understanding is that the parking various has been removed.
Right. Mr. Chairman, we are no longer seeking. We have a revised drawing. We did not pursue the variance for the parking after objections from the neighbors.
I'm going to scroll to the final page of your report, Mr. Brutnitti, and ask you to summarize your opinion. Explain to the board whether, in your opinion, as an architect, having done this on thousands, really hundreds of occasions, does this property suffer from an unnecessary hardship from an architectural perspective?
Objection. This calls for legal conclusion.
i'm asking him as an architect not as a lawyer he was able to testify about facts but now let's
let's let's let me hear let me hear his let me hear his answer okay um this is a very difficult
site um to uh from a architectural point of view as a designer uh we've designed many many different
types of uh dwellings in philadelphia with many different types of shapes and properties we all
know that most row house
properties in Philadelphia are not the same shape and character, and each one
is a unique circumstance. This one is a very unique circumstance.
This is a trapezoid shape, pretty much like a slice
of a pie, and it has a very steep landscape.
Those two items in itself
are difficult, let alone having a very narrow depth of the
the lot itself, and then impacting with the zoning variances that would make it as of right,
it's really not a developable site. Everything gets eaten up with the setbacks and all the
requirements for zoning that you really have no building footprint left. So to make this a
single -family dwelling as an RSA 5 property, you really need the variances for the setbacks
to give relief for this very hardship -type property. If this was really a classic example
of a hardship in a zoning class, this would be it. It's really a very difficult site that requires
There's the help and it has hardships with the site as it's configured that are not inflicted.
The property is shaped that way.
The property has a steep landscape that way.
These are things that were given to the site itself.
And you had mentioned earlier about the retaining wall.
Is that something that's an unusual cost, an additional cost that's involved with the development of the property?
Yes, it is.
I think that's it, Mr. Chairman.
Give me one moment.
no further questions thank you Mr. Brutnini oh one other question Mr. Brutnini were you paid
for today's testimony yes but did that impact the opinion that you have that you um um conclude
in your conclusions, has that impacted your conclusions in any way today?
in your conclusions has that impacted your conclusions in any way today
Not at all. This is my professional opinion.
Thank you. Enough further questions. Mr. Toner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brunetti, I represent the Ridge Park Civic Association.
Are you familiar with this group? No, not really, no.
Are you familiar with the RCO set up in Philadelphia?
Absolutely. I'm the zoning chairman for the RCO in South Broad Street.
Okay. So you generally know what's going on here today in terms of the zoning review process?
So I want to ask you some questions about 301 Delmar. First of all, what is the current use of 301 Delmar?
RSA 5.
So that's the zoning designation, Mr. Brutinetti.
Correct.
My question was actually, what is the current use of 301 Delmar?
It's a vacant land.
Okay. So it is included with trees and natural vegetation?
Correct.
Natural steep slope that has been altered from its natural form?
Correct.
And how long has 301 Delmar existed in its current condition?
I have no knowledge of that.
Did you look into any of the prior uses of 301 Delmar?
I looked at the Atlas site to give me some information about history, but to my knowledge, it's just been a vacant site.
And are you aware that there are a number of violations that were issued by L &I against the owner of this property?
Objection.
Objection.
Why is it not related to his testimony?
anyway it's not relevant well well so so i think he's asking the question because he's trying to
i guess give us a better definition of the site so i'm going to allow that testimony
are you aware of the pending violations issued against 301 delmar by the city of philadelphia
department of licenses and inspection i know that there are violations but i don't know the
specifics of them are you aware if the owner has been cited for removing a heritage trade
from the subject property at 301 Delmar?
Jackson, I just answered that.
Can you identify any structure
that's ever been constructed at 301 Delmar?
Have you looked into whether there was ever
a structure constructed at 301 Delmar?
Not from the Atlas site.
That was the furthest I dug into the site.
Besides reviewing the Atlas site,
did you make any other investigations
into the legal status and use history
of 301 Delmar? No.
And your testimony was this property should be green space, right?
Objection. That's not his testimony at all.
Come on. Well, he's asked him what was his testimony.
If he's going to answer that, let him answer. That was your
testimony that this property should be green space, right? My testimony
If it cannot be as designated as an RSA 5 to be developed as such, then the other alternative is really if we can't get variances for this to make it a one family, like an RSA 5 property that it is, then the only other option really would be a green space because it's just not developable.
Are you familiar with the role of the City of Philadelphia Survey District in reviewing and approving subdivisions?
Okay. Have you made any investigations with the City of Philadelphia Survey District that's responsible for 301 Delmar Avenue?
No, I have not.
In your review of the Atlas system, have you seen any permits that allow 301 Del Mar to exist as a separate building line?
No, I have not.
In your review of the Atlas program, did you see any other prior approvals, acknowledgments of any nature from the city of Philadelphia that allow 301 Del Mar to be to exist as a separate building?
No, I have not.
And have you looked at the deed that was issued, the sheriff's deed that was issued to the current owner of the property, Mr. Adva Epstein?
I did not look at the deed specifically, but I do have a site drawing that gives me all the property lines and dimensions of the building, of the site rather, I'm sorry.
And you're aware that, but you're aware that Mr. Epstein is the current owner of the property, right?
And you're aware that, but you're aware that Mr. Epstein is the current owner.
Yes, Ms. Epstein.
And you're aware that Ms. Epstein acquired the property by Sheriff's deed dated April 23rd, 2018. Is that correct?
Yes. Yes.
Who was the owner of 301 Del Mar before Ms. Epstein acquired it from the Sheriff of the City of Philadelphia?
Objection.
no no okay have you seen a deed from 1870 for the subject property no objection
he answered already mr demarco
gotta keep the record straight mr chairman okay i understand
so just to to review your testimony your opinions
You have no idea when 301 Del Mar was created as a separate building lot or if it was created as a separate building lot.
Isn't that correct? Objection. That's correct. I have no idea.
And as someone with a lot of experience in building in the city of Philadelphia, it's important to know if the lot in question exists as a separate building lot, right?
Objection. Go ahead.
That's an important fact to know, isn't it?
Let him answer that.
Yeah. Are you asking me about if the property was, if it pertains with subdivision?
If it exists as a separate building lot. So take a step back. You're aware that deeds include legal descriptions for real property, right?
And in the city of Philadelphia, the legal description for real property is approved by the survey district, correct?
And it's important when you're representing someone and you're offering expert testimony or giving your expert opinion that you know that the lot in question has been recognized by the city of Philadelphia, correct?
And in this case, you don't have any information whatsoever as to 301 Del Mar existing as a separate building lot. Isn't that correct?
So note my objection, Mr. Chairman. The question is awkward. It's confusing. What does he mean by a separate building lot? It exists as it is. It's confusing. It makes no sense.
So I don't think it's quite as confusing.
So why don't we answer that question?
I'm not exactly sure, again, what the question is.
But what I have seen is an engineer's drawing from Aqua Economics that shows the site property lines and dimensions of the property itself.
with an adjacent property
behind it, which
is also, again, has its
property lines and deeded separate.
So, based on
that drawing, that tells me the
site at 301 Del Mar,
the configuration and the
property lines and dimensions that it
incurs. Can we put the
ACWA subdivision plan or the ACWA
plan up on the screen, Mr. DeMarco?
Which one?
The ACWA engineering plan, which is referenced
by your witness can you please put that on the screen it's the same as this one but this one
all right is this all right for you okay this is not a survey plan correct
it is not a survey plan but it bears no stamp from the survey district isn't that correct
i'm looking yeah i'll stipulate this is a slope analysis not a survey no right correct and there's
no note on the aqua economics plan that the lots are based upon a deed or a legal description
that was approved by the city of Philadelphia? I would have to look at their notes. Yeah,
please take your time. This is important. I mean, note my objection, Mr. Chairman. We're
way beyond the scope of his testimony. It's still confusing me. If he understands, fine.
There is a note on the drawing that says all boundary dimensions shown on the plan are Philadelphia
district standard. The dimensions comply with the standards of the City of Philadelphia,
But there's no reference to an actual approved legal description, an approved survey plan, an approved lot line adjustment, nothing of that nature on this plan.
Isn't that correct?
That's correct.
And nowhere in all exhibits and all the documents that you were shown by the applicant, Ms. Epstein, you didn't see any indication that there was some.
by the applicant miss epstein you didn't see any indication that there was some document in their
package that it references an approval from the city of philadelphia for 301 delmar to exist as
a separate building lot in its current dimensions no no my objection mr chairman this is this is
testimony by mr toner this is not proper okay i think i think he i think it's a simple answer if
he knows i i hear what he said so please answer the question if you know okay you state the
question in all the documents that you are shown in preparing your report and reviewing this
application you can't identify or point to a single document that includes an approval from
the city of philadelphia for 301 del mar to exist as a separate building body isn't that correct
let me reach just for the record i hear what i hear what you're saying for the record i mean
that no my objection all right mr burtani could you please answer that if you can that's correct
i have no sort of questions all right thank you so so um um mr damarkey you've got a few
follow -up questions uh no i'm uh so let me say let me tell you where we are i'm through with mr
I have a I have a we have to cut this at 1230. That gives me five minutes.
And we're going to have to have a resumptive hearing. I mean, as you're aware, we had a little bit of a longer hearing today than we expected.
But, Mr. DeMarco, this is the end of your case. Am I correct?
Well, I have the Epstein, Mr. Chairman. She will probably be longer than five minutes because I know Mr.
Toner will have overbearing cross -examination of her.
Well, I don't. I don't. OK. Why don't we do this? Why don't we? I don't want I don't want to cut in the middle of it. I'd prefer to say you're done with the architect. Am I right? Yeah. You have one more person. Am I correct? That's correct. And then, Mr. Tony, you'll start your case.
okay so why don't why don't we end it now right for a resumptive hearing we'll see if we can get
this back in when we can uh i'll have uh let me take a look at what date we can do i can't i can't
we don't have in time now do we hillary um we do mr chair um oh look at that go ahead yes
Yes, Fatina, can you pull up the date we discussed?
Mr. Chairman, may I make a humble request that we be placed, we heard first, so we can get through this at the next listing, as much as you can accommodate.
We will do what we can for you.
I understand.
Yes, Hillary, were you speaking for January or February?
I believe the February date is where we have room.
Okay, you're right.
February the 20th?
at 9 30. Okay. And we will see about where we place you in the list and things like that. And
I want to thank the architect who just testified and thank the both of you. And
we'll probably see you in the new year, am I correct? Unless you have something to tomorrow.
No. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy holidays, everybody.
Okay. Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 9 30 a .m. case has not been called?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thanks, everyone.
We'll see everybody tomorrow morning at 930.