we're just going to allow a few moments for the attendee sure yep so sure we can continue
number five we received a request from um the tenant for that property to continue it
i believe it's the first listing but i will double check yeah
yep yep okay
okay chair we have 43 attendees you can proceed as you wish
okay good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's
CBA hearings. Our vice chair Ismail Shahid, should be on shortly. Present is Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman. And also our board member, James Snell. Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
Video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating in my phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question-answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett.
Let's look at our schedule for today.
Number one, MI 2023-005-926-3223 West Burke Street.
That case is continued.
Number five.
MI 2023-006-089-2000 East Clearfield Street, that case is continued.
Let's see here.
Number.
Hold on one minute.
Number nine, MI 2023-005-774-1616 North 2nd Street.
That case is continued.
And number 18, MI-2023-006236, 5108 North 15th Street, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Good morning, Chair.
This is Doreen Blakey, and I will be your co-host today.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Steve Masters has a hand up, and I will allow him to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Masters.
Could you, just for the record, state your name is Belcar, a court stenographer?
Absolutely.
Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E-M-A-S-T-E-R-S, with the law firm of JustLaws.
The last case that you read, Mr. Chair.
Hold on one minute.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
i do okay thank you sir i just read number 18 5103 north 15th street it's 5103 yes you had said
5108 north 15th so i just wanted to correct that it's 5103 yes um the other case um that we have a
joint request for continuance is 1457 sterling street uh that we just had a meeting with the
RCO yesterday evening, and both the RCO and our firm representing the applicant sent in letters
asking for a continuum so that we could continue to confer and meet with the RCO.
So, thank you. So, MI 2023-006-250-1457 Sterling Street, that case is continued.
Thank you for your call, sir.
Absolutely.
Is there any other requests for continuance?
Yes, from Craig Melodosian has a hand up and will be allowed to speak.
Good morning, Craig.
Okay, good morning, Sarah. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the course
stenographer.
Looks like he's having difficulties.
can you hear me now we hear you now sir yeah great i'm not sure what's going on all right
it's craig c-r-a-i-g last name melidosian m-e-l-i-d-o-s-i-a-n right do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth sir i do chair please
proceed hi um i'm appearing uh as a coordinating erco on behalf of the southwest philadelphia
concerning RCOs regarding 2105 South Simpson Street.
Yes, I see this.
We do not have any exhibits for this.
This is the first listing.
Correct.
We spoke with the applicant.
He's an out-of-towner, wasn't familiar, has not retained counsel.
So obviously he needs counsel, and then we'll schedule him for his hearing.
So Vince Soundcast, is he in the audience?
Mr. Chair, the listed owner, too, that's the listed applicant, is Rise Hype Group, LLC.
Anybody here representing property owner, 2105 South Simpson?
Please raise your hand, your virtual hand.
i see no hands okay thank you so mi 2023 006 092 2105 south simpson street this is the first
listing the case is continued thank you chair bergman thank you thank you any other requests
for continuance.
No hands here.
So number 10, MI 2023-006-170-1608-12 Ridge Avenue.
This is the first listing.
We have no exhibits for this.
Quantum Marroquino is the listed applicant, and FNDC Howe Properties LP is the listed
owner.
why marquino has been allowed to speak yes good morning hi good morning could you state your name
please and spell it for the course the knock yes it's quayun marquino it's q-u-a-y-y-u-m
last name is m-o-r-a-k-i-n-y-o right and do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do so we do not have exhibits and we we believe you may need
an attorney. So this is just to change my zoning, just to get a zoning variance for my
condo unit to allow visitor accommodation. I was told I shouldn't need an attorney.
Okay. So let me ask you this. Do you have any exhibits that you send your exhibits in?
I do have the documents with me and I can send it in anyhow. I thought I would be able to share
since it is a virtual meeting okay um well so we have to review them first sir this is hillary
emerson board council they have to be submitted five days in advance so that we can review them
and make sure they're complete um in addition according to city records the property is owned
by fndc how properties lp are you are you a member of that lp a limited partnership no uh they sold
the property to me, I do have the deed. Okay. So that's why we need to see the documents in advance
because we didn't know the ownership had changed. So unfortunately, we're going to need to continue
this. And you can call the office for instructions about what documents you need to submit five days
in advance. Okay. All right. Thank you, by the way. Thank you for calling. We appreciate your
information. So MI 2023-006-170-1608-12 Ridge Avenue. That case is continued.
Thank you. And number 13,
MI 2023-006-083-627 South 11th Street. James Armstrong is the owner, is Mr. Armstrong
James Armstrong is the owner. Is Mr. Armstrong present?
present.
I see no hands, Chair.
So MI 2023-006-083-627-South-Eleventry. Cases continued. Mark must be heard.
Okay, we're going to go to our list now, and we're going to start with number seven.
MI 2023-006-240-308 East Allens Lane.
Chris and Sophia Simpson are the owner applicants.
This is a pro se.
There's a letter of support from East Mount Airways Neighbors Association.
Chris and or Sophia.
it? Chris Simpson has, wait a minute, Sophie Simpson has a hand up. Okay. And I will promote.
Thank you. You're welcome. She has been promoted to panelists.
hello good morning um could you state your name please and spell for the stenographer
sophie simpson s-o-p-h-i-e simpson s-i-m-p-s-o-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Yes. Thank you. So this application is for the
erection of a rear deck accessory to an existing semi-detached structure for continued use as a
single-family household living. The proposed deck is constructed above the floor level of the first
floor of the first story, fully above grade, and is thus prohibited in the required rear yard.
So our Mr. Holloman has just a few questions.
OK, excuse me.
I'm sorry.
I'm here mostly in support of my husband and because my name is on the deed.
But but he is the one who has who's going to share the screen with all of our documentation.
So why don't why don't and is he going to testify?
I believe he's here.
So why don't we why don't we bring him on?
What was his name? Christopher Simpson. I'm here. I'm sorry.
Good morning, Mr. Simpson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, could you state
your name and spell for the court stenographer? My name is Chris Simpson, C-H-R-I-S Simpson,
S-I-M-P-S-O-N. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do did you hear me read the original yes i did okay all right so mr hallman has just
a few questions for you sir yes good morning sir good morning did you email all of the exhibits
and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing i did yes sir thank you please
proceed and share your screen and mr simpson we do see that this the uh
mount east manory neighbors associates is in support of your project yes yes um and it
was a unanimous vote in support of the project thank you um what i'm not sure how to proceed
what would you like to see first um so we know that you have all all your particular paperwork
one of you one of you shows is this a deed uh a deck that's already up yes it is sir all right
one of you one of you shows the picture of the deck okay
can you see that it didn't come up yet sir okay
you will need to
stop sharing your screen and then
reshare because we just still see your
documents
there you go okay
um so the the as you mentioned the deck is attached to the rear of the house
um and the reason that we are seeking a zoning variance is because the left the the floor
That we are seeking a zoning variance is because the left, the floor of the deck is above the level of the first floor of the house.
Right. Yep.
Can you click on any of those photos that we can see a little bit better?
Unfortunately, no.
One second.
I may be able to.
yeah that's a little bit better okay is that better okay yes
you have other decks on that block in the back
um i have pictures of my neighbor's deck uh which also has the same thing as well as a
deck at the end of the block which also has the same thing yep okay would you like to see those
um no and just if you have could you show us the uh um the letter from the
east mount airy neighbors yes of course
is she gonna have to go back out for that
do you not see it no okay
so go go go down can you go down a little bit yep so you had six votes in support one of which
was your near neighbor right correct nobody no one in opposition correct all right thank you
questions from the board no mr chairman
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Jim?
No, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. Charles Richardson has a hand up and will be allowed to speak.
Morning, Mr. Chair.
Morning, Mr. Richardson. Please just, as usual, say your name for the record.
sir charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city
hall you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please
proceed the councilwoman supports the granting of the variance thank you very much any other
comments from the virtual audience there are no more hands here planning commission
hello and good morning chair uh this is keith davis with the city planning commission staff
uh it's k-e-i-t-h-d-a-v-i-s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes i do please proceed keith uh this property is indicated for single family
residential um rsa3 the proposal for a rear deck is triggered uh because uh it uh because it's
proposed to be above the first floor. The rear deck design is similar in appearance to several
other decks on the block. The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance.
Thank you. So MI 2023-006-240-308 East Allens Lane, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Sir, you have your votes. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Right. Thank you. Thank you both.
Number eight, MI 2023-006-216-718 Longshore Avenue.
Mary McGinley and Jack Tomsik.
Mary McGinley and Jack Tomsic
Hello, can you hear me?
I can.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Jack Tomsic, the T-O-M.
CZ UK.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...
Yes, I do.
Okay. So this application is for the erection of a first floor rear deck to an existing semi-detached structure for use as a single family living household.
The proposed deck is prohibited in the required side yard. Is this deck already up?
Oh, you have plans to build a deck?
Yes, I would like to build it.
All right. So, Mr. Holman has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, sir. Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay. Can you see my screen?
We can, sir.
So we met with the Take Back Your Neighborhood RCO group, and they sent a letter supporting our application.
And then there's the refusal, and I'll show you some pictures.
So this is the side yard right now.
There's a front porch.
This wouldn't go out any further than that front porch, and it wouldn't go all the way wrapped around.
It would only wrap around partially just to have like a little bump out area to help with the steps down from the deck into the yard.
That's what it looks like currently.
Yeah, so there's steel steps coming out the back there.
So those would be removed and the deck would be placed there.
So there'd be the deck there and then a little bit on the side.
And the reason why we wanted to go around a little bit is you can't see it.
This picture, but there's a tree right there. We didn't really want to remove the tree. I already had to remove a tree when the sewer pipe, uh, we had to get that replaced. So I wanted to keep this tree. So bump it out a little bit. You can see the tree.
Oh, I see. Okay. All right. Okay. Um,
the, uh,
your letter of non-opposition from the take back your yard. Do you have a copy of that?
Yes. Yes.
can i shoot the water yes that's up at the front here there it is okay
okay thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
no chair questions from our attorney hillier emerson
not at this time mr care questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands planning commission hello good morning this is keith davis city planning
commission staff the site is indicated for a single family attached rc3 the existing building
is one half of a twin on a block of twin homes the proposed deck being elevated off the ground
projects into the required side yard which might be expected to negatively impact the use
of the affected neighbor's rear yard because of its height and proximity
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the requirements of the code.
Therefore, we recommend that the variance not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2023, 006216718 Longshore Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Sir, you have your votes.
Thank you.
Number 15.
MI 2023-006-230-7709 Ogons Avenue.
Taliyah Bryant is the tenant applicant.
Taliyah Bryant has been promoted to has been promoted to panelists
good morning
Taliyah
Yes. Hi. Good morning. Could you state your name and spell for the court stenography?
That's Talia Bryant. T-A-L-I-A-H-B-R-Y-A-N-T.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you turn your video on, please?
Thank you. So this application is for use as assembly and entertainment in an existing attached structure, whereas the proposed use requires six accessory parking places, none are provided. The proposed use and assembly and entertainment requires special exception approval in the CMX2 zoning district.
Thank you. So this application.
Mr. Holliman has just a few questions for you. Okay? Okay. Good morning, madam. Did you email
all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, sir. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
okay we see that we know that exhibit you could just roll right through them okay we know this
one here. Okay. Okay. We're aware of the appeal for application. We know what the project
information form is. We know about the project information details. This is the lease. We
i put the whole lease on there okay that's okay why don't you start telling us what you want to do
okay so i just i want to open up this space this commercial space uh as a venue um the host uh
You know, different events, baby showers, parties, also give the community opportunities for providing the space for community engagements, social events, workshops and meetings that will bring the community together and discuss ongoing issues.
um this venue as well will create opportunities for entrepreneurs and local vendors to participate
in events supporting those who have small businesses with the community um also promote
cultural enrichment activities such as exhibits platforms for local artists and showcase their
talents. Also, educational opportunities are also to effect there, which I plan on
partnering with the nearby daycare school, religion centers, provide a space to host
all different events, as well as seminars and trainings, sessions, providing valuable
learning experiences for the community members. This venue will help contribute to many
celebrations um of milestones such as birthday parties weddings graduation baby showers and other
personal milestones that will create or recreate the joyous memories and bonds
amongst your loved ones all right why don't you show us photos of the property okay
um this is the uh floor plan um what it was the gift shop okay it was a gift shop
Yeah, it still is a gift shop.
It's not a gift shop.
This is the back end, the backyard area.
I'm sorry, my computer.
Okay, that's the zoning notice on the door.
A few pictures of the zoning notice.
And this is the outside in front of the building.
This is the street parking on both sides.
Ogonts Avenue.
This is another picture in another angle direction.
This is the back area of the building.
It has an inside gate, also a driveway.
that's the rco it's pictures and what was the what was the vote of the rco the rco was
that's the rco it's pictures and what was the what was the vote of the rco the rco
they supported
okay non-opposition right yes supported um the pictures are and this is a contract uh
uh for the um the event space rental and it has a breakdown of everything as far as trash parking
um the fees okay if they don't go if they go against the the rental agreement that they sign
off on and this is the building here when i first got the building uh them just taking everything
out. Yep. It's just an open space. Um, and this is what it looks like now. Okay.
All right. Okay. All right. So questions from the board.
questions from the board don't share
do we see tom on the line
we'll be right with you ma'am
Yes, it says he's still here, but no audio.
Mr. Holliman, if you're able to hear us, could you please call in using the phone?
Tom, you lost your audio?
Okay, all right, good.
He's trying to get back in now.
Okay, Chair.
can you hear me now we can Tom Tom we've sorry about that that's fine Tom we just taken a vote
I voted, Jim has no comments, right?
Yes, that's where we were at.
Right.
Tom, do you have any comments for all of this case?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Questions or comments for our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments to the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair.
Keith Davis, City Planning Commission staff.
The site is indicated for commercial mixed-use CMX2.
The use of assembly and entertainment requires six off-street parking spaces.
The commercial block backs into a residential neighborhood with both on-street and off-street parking options.
When the nightclub is open, most of the businesses along Ogons Avenue will not be, which could help free up parking.
The Planning Commission recommends that the request for a variance be granted.
Thank you.
M-I-2023-006-230-7709 Ogons Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
You have your votes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number 16, MI-2023-006204, 2421 North 18th Street.
Raza Villa is the owner applicant pro se.
The application is for use as a two-family household living in existing structure.
The proposed use two-family household living is prohibited in the RSA-5 zoning district.
two-family household living is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Letter of support from the Uptown Entertainment Development and also a petition of support signed
by 27 people. Risa Villa has been promoted.
Good morning, sir. Good morning. How are you? Oh, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer.
Yes, my name is Raisa Villa, first name R-A-Y-V-A,
last name Villa, V-I-L-L-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Holliman has just a few questions for you.
Mr. Holliman, we cannot hear you.
Good morning, Madam. Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five
days in advance to this hearing?
I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Do you see the green button at the bottom?
The green button?
Does the green button say share screen?
What type of computer do you have, Rasa?
I'm on my tablet.
Are you not able to see my screen?
No, you have to share screen and then go to the box that tells you what to put on the screen.
Are you able to see my screen?
So you're working off a tablet, not a computer?
Yes, I don't.
My computer's having issues with charging.
I'm so sorry.
Did you send your information to us?
Yes, I did.
Might I ask Ms. Fatina?
I'm already.
Yes, ma'am, I'm already on.
We might be able to offer assistance chair by sharing our screen.
So we'll see if we can find it.
There it goes.
Okay, there you go, Raza.
You got it.
All right, thank you.
I know.
Let's see.
So this is my house.
This is 2421 North 18th Street.
I have a picture here showing the zoning notice as well as the refusal letter.
I did post it out at the end of February, just to ensure that I had it up there long enough.
So when I originally acquired the property, it appeared as a duplex.
And then I came in and I remodeled, did a little bit of remodeling.
It wasn't made clear until probably July that the house was not zoned as a duplex.
And, you know, that's why I'm here now. I'm attempting to get my house legally converted into a duplex.
I just want to make sure I get everything done correctly and right.
Here was. Oh, gosh.
Here is like the street, the street. I wanted to show that there's plenty of street parking.
There is some houses missing on the block.
This would be the first floor kitchen, and I didn't get a picture of the prior living area,
but this is what the first floor looks like now for the kitchen and the living room.
This was the second floor. Part of the ceiling had came down. There was some water damage.
This was the prior kitchen, and then as well this is the second floor kitchen and the living room
over here. You can see the kitchen goes into the living room area.
This was the first floor bathroom. There was an older tub, older bathroom. I ended up putting
of tiles and making it a standing shower.
making it a standing shower and then this was the second floor there had been
some water damage here and there I guess was a bathtub as well in the bathroom
somewhere over here on the side probably similar to the first floor it was the
same design from the first floor and the second floor that we did these were
considered the bedrooms and then we did some remodeling. We added new sheetrock
on the walls and we put hardwood floors throughout the house.
These were the second floor bedrooms. We did remove the closet that was in the master bedroom
just so that it would make the bedroom look larger and we put closets as well. I don't know
you can see this last photo here it has a closet and then that was this one in the middle before.
I have the structural engineering letter.
Basically like I said we just you know we most of the sheer vac was put on top of the old ones
that was previously there before we did put new flooring throughout, new interior doors,
I've remodeled the first and second floor bathrooms and renovated the first and second
floor kitchens.
We did nothing in the basement.
Here's my refusal and my tax clearances as well.
I did get some neighbors to sign a petition, and here are some of the signatures from some
of the neighbors I was able to get signatures from.
and also the r the rco has supported you yes i did get the rco support here's my letter from the rco
okay and when you when you purchase this it was already broken i mean it was in disrepair but it
was a duplex yes um i purchased it in september of 22 and like i said it wasn't until like maybe
late june early july um when i realized that the house was not legally a duplex and so that's why
i'm here now trying to get everything converted one other question are there other duplexes on
the block um not to the best of my knowledge i know there's some people who you know co-live
with other roommates and okay but not to do black okay um i did i did create a community benefits
agreement with the RCO. We came up with the idea for one of the first floor apartments
that we rented out to a senior citizen. And the senior citizen, I'm talking with the RCO,
they're going to give me some references that they have. And they said, you know, most of them
or also like they're they're handy people so they can do like light work and things like this
they can do basic maintenance so we came up with not just a senior citizen discount but if they
want to be the um the the property manager or like the maintenance person an extra discount for them
as well okay um and then here is where me and uptown which was the rco signed the agreement
okay all right thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments
from our attorney hillary emerson hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments
from the virtual audience there are no hands chair planning commission thank you chair this
is keith davis city planning commission staff uh this attached two-story mid-block real home
is indicated for single family attached rz5 there's no indication of a history of any
multi-family at this residence the surrounding block is primarily single family um should be
noted that this CBA agreement cannot be enforced by any city agency. The applicant's hardship is
not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that
were prevented from being used in conformance with the use requirements of the code. Therefore,
Planning Commission recommends that the requested variance not be granted.
Thank you. MI 2023-006-204-2421 North 18th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
You have your votes.
Thank you so much.
I hope you guys have a great day.
Oh, you too.
Number three, MI 2023-006-164-1731 North 23rd Street.
Pascual Calavita is the attorney.
recommendation of support from the United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association with a proviso
Pascual Calavita there he is I'll promote him now thank you he's been promoted okay
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court's demography?
Good morning. Pasquale Colavita, P-A-S-Q-U-A-L-E-C-O-L-A-V-I-T-A.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in the relationship to this property?
Sure. Cynthia Robinson. Go ahead, sir. I was going to say, she's elderly and may need some assistance from her daughter, Simone Robinson. And if we can promote both of them, if possible.
So why don't we get to that point? Let's see here. So Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
Sure. Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy? Yes.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing? Yes.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
as stated my name is pasquale colovita represent cynthia robinson the owner of
1731 north 23rd street and i am sharing screen regarding this property showing the table of
contents 1 through 11. Copy the deed. The zoning application is a refusal. It's a RSA 5 district
for two-family dwelling and approval of an addition for the rear yard. And the problems are
rear yard space and maximum area. Attached to Exhibit 4 is the application for appeal with the
PIF at plan at exhibit five re-architectural plans at six is the notice to the neighbors with the
proof of mailing at seven are the you'll you'll see pictures of the zoning post post photos of
the zoning notice poster which is the proof of posting in advance of the uh well in advance of
the 20 days and then at exhibit eight we're going to show different uh similar use throughout the
neighborhood at 9 are photographs of the property as well as the immediate surrounding area
as stated earlier rco letter of support as well as the certificate of tax clearance
on this one and we'll start with the deed we have cynthia robinson's you know what i'm going to go
straight to the architectural plans which should show everything it actually shows a view of the
property and as you can see in the top left i'll try to increase it the request was right now on
the left side top left of the the screen shows the existing site plan and what they want to do
is square it off so that is what caused the um the refusal due to that small addition there and
again right and left side existing right side is is what what they would like
I'm sorry first second and third floor of the property there and then this wears it
out so we move on as shown notice to the neighbors zoning notice your photographs of the posters
and uh different properties 1723 this uh has two units and it's been two units for quite some time
it's 1733 has four units and that's the zoning uh again just
and that's the zoning again just we continue on three units at 1735 1737
try and see how many units are here three units at 1737 and here's the
different photographs of the area as you can see all properties there at the end
I think that's 1733 at the end right here and if you just look down the block
again you have the entire block is three-story premises with trying to find
the one that's better but eventually what i'll do is i'll share the google maps but i wanted to
to move forward with this before i get to that one
at 1731 as was stated earlier a copy of the what i did not receive is an actual
full letter that um unaca typically uh provides what they did do though is provide me with the
meeting summary i don't know whether they forwarded a letter to the board but this one
obviously it indicates they're in the middle final position taken by the rco is one of support
and again a certificate of tax clearance attached so i'm going to stop sharing this for a second and
And share a, I'll add it here.
And this is the property right here.
And if we take it down just a little, it gives you a better understanding of the rear yard.
And this is where they want to square it off.
And again, just in summary, got support from the neighbors.
I understand the proviso has something to do with trash.
My clients never indicated they wanted to store it up front.
They're going to obviously do like this on trash day.
They're going to put it out front, but they're not storing it out front.
We have no problem with that being a proviso. That was never an intent nor a discussion.
You know, again, if that's a proviso, we have no no argument against it.
So with that, there are other properties in the neighborhood.
Again, even next door, which is owned by my client.
And I just asked that I can have my client on and continue.
Yep. Why don't we bring your client on? If she has a hard time testifying, you're an officer of the court and we can accept your testimony.
Okay. It's Cynthia Robinson. I only have two questions.
Cynthia Robinson will be allowed to speak.
Good morning, Ms. Robinson.
Ms. Robinson, could you just state your name for the record?
Ms. Robinson, if you have two devices on, please turn one off or mute it so we won't
have feedback.
She appears to be muted.
Yes, she can unmute.
Am I unmuted?
Okay, so just for the record, state your name.
Yes, my name is Cynthia Robinson, and it's C-Y-N-T-H-I-A, Cynthia Robinson, R-O-B-I-N-S-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?
The whole truth is nothing but the truth. Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel. Ms. Robinson, did you have an opportunity
to hear my testimony this morning?
Yes. And do you agree to its accuracy?
Thank you.
Thank you, Cynthia. You can mute yourself.
does does she adopt your testimony i'm sorry yes do you adopt my testimony as your own
cynthia do you adopt my testimony as your own
Cynthia, do you adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Colavito, so right now it's already a three-story building.
You want to put a roof, you're putting a rooftop deck on the top.
Is that right?
And you're building out a little bit in the side and the back of the square.
Slightly, yes.
All right.
And most of the block is multifamily.
Correct.
No matter what it's coded, it's operated as multifamily.
She owns the property next door.
That's already three or four units.
It is two units, I believe, next door.
But just let me let me just clarify that one was.
That one is two units right next door.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Ramsey?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
no hands chair planning commission thank you chair uh this is keep davis city planning commission
commission staff uh the site is indicated for single family attached um rsa5 at 23 feet wide
this lot has exceptional street frontage for a row home uh many of the houses on this block are
converted to to duplexes uh the planning commission recommends that the request for a variance be
granted with a proviso that the trash be stored in the rear. Thank you. MI 2023 006164 1731 North
23rd Street. I vote yes with proviso. No trash storage at front of property. Thomas Holloman,
my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Calvino. You have your votes.
Number four, MI 2023-006-169, 925 Manituan Street Avenue.
William O'Brien is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from the Upper Roxbury Civic Association,
but the applicant has provided form letters of support from neighbors on either side of the property.
William O'Brien has been promoted Good morning, Mr. O'Brien.
Good morning, Mr. O'Brien.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
William O'Brien for John and Laurie Maccini, the owners of 925 Memmets on Avenue.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions for you.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I apologize.
For some reason, it's not showing up.
can you see the house on the screen now no no okay we see a we see it let me stop sharing sure sure
here we go
so mr chairman members of the board this is uh an application to legalize a carport that was
erected prior to the issuance of a permit um the refusal is on page two of the materials uh it is
The refusal is on page two of the materials. There's one dimensional refusal. It's a de minimis variance. The required setback is 25 feet. On the north side, which is the side closer to the car, it is 31 feet. But on the south side, it is 15 inches short. It's 23.4 feet.
that's a view
from the opposite direction looking north
the zoning plan is on page
page 7 and again this is called out here that the
this dimension is
23.4 and this is 31 so that's
The only refusal is that dimensional issue.
The plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Wissick and Watershed and for landscaping.
It's been reviewed and approved by the Streets Department and both neighbors on either side of the Machini's home.
Let me make this a little bit larger.
on the left side abel and abigail arazzo uh right to the board that they are the owners and reside
at 927 manitoba avenue in andorra that their neighbors at 925 manitoba john and laurie
machini have built a carport at the front of their home we understand that the location of
carport does not satisfy the setbacks required under the zoning code we support the grant of
variance to allow the carport to remain in the current location. Joan Barry, who's on the right
side at 923 Manitoba, signed the same letter supporting a grand of a variance.
John and Laurie Macchini are in the audience and
perhaps they can raise their hand and we can
hear from them.
Mr. O'Brien, the issue is there's just one zoning refusal, am I right?
Instead of 25 feet, it's 23.4?
Yes, here it is.
Gloria Machini has been allowed to speak. Please unmute.
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's sonographer?
Lori Machini, it's
legally Gloria though, Gloria Machini
G-L-O-R-I-A
My last name is Sheeney, M-I-C-H-I-N-I
You swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the truth. I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Lori, did you hear my testimony?
I did.
Is it truthful? Yes.
You adopt it as your own? I do.
Thank you, Lori.
all right questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from
our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair this is keith davis city planning
commission staff the required front setback for this single family detached rsd3 lot is 25 feet
which should be measured from the front of the structure to the nearest part of the front property
line so in this case the front property line is actually 12 and a half feet in from the street
curb so uh that the measure here the 23.4 feet um is erroneously measuring to to the street curb
and not to the right-of-way line which is 12 feet off of that curb so in fact the structure is only
providing an 11 foot setback so the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique
physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used
in conformance with the requirements of the code uh therefore we recommend the variance not be granted
hillary um did l9 use this numbers mistakenly or
I would I would have to look. This is the first that I'm aware that there may have been a mistake in the measurement.
So I'd have to look at the plans and look at the code to see how it was measured and go back to L&I.
Right. So, Mr. O'Brien, why don't why don't we hold the vote on this until we clarify where we stand with this?
I understand. Is that OK, Hillary?
That's fine, Mr. Chair.
OK, so we will get back to you with this, Mr. O'Brien.
Okay, and the record would be closed other than the additional information from Eleanor.
The record would be closed other than the additional information from LNI, if there is, or how that works out, and Mr. O'Brien having a chance to respond to it.
Everything else is closed.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Number five.
mi2023 006089 2000 east clairefield street rachel pagan um mr chair we already continued
this okay that's right that was the one we i'm sorry i didn't have it listed number six
MI 2024, 000256, 1817 South 2nd Street.
Pascual Calavita is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Penn Sports Civic Association for two dwelling units,
and there's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Pascual Calavita is coming back as a panelist.
Thank you.
good morning again sir just state your name for the record you've already been sworn
pasquale colavita and could you identify your client and their relationship to this property
my client's 1817 south 2nd street llc its sole member is william bonforte okay um mr hallman
has just a few questions okay good morning counsel do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy?
Normally, I would say yes.
This is one that was corrected,
and I did attach a corrected version.
I just want to confirm that the date of the refusal
that you're speaking of is 228 of 24.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents
as required five days in advance to this hearing?
I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
And, Mr. Kolobita, this is Hillary. I can confirm that that refusal we're looking at is for 228-24.
Great. Thank you.
I'll try to keep this one shorter.
This is a three-story property with a similar exhibits that I did last time.
Copy the deed, the zoning application, the NOSA refusal.
This is a multifamily in a CMX 1 zone adjacent to an RSA 5 zone.
And the reason it was denied is due to the fact that it's adjacent to the RSA 5 zone.
Otherwise, the actual addition to it, there are no refusals for it.
It's strictly a use refusal.
You're going to see copies of the zoning plan and the floor plans.
This was previously a doctor's office.
Now, we initially made our application for a three-family dwelling after discussions with the RCO.
We've come to an agreement to make it a two-family dwelling, and they've agreed to it.
We would show proof that there are evidence that there's other similar properties of similar use and height and size.
And again, as the board indicated, a letter of support was there.
I was unable to get the actual letter, the tax clearance certificate only, but what I want to show the members of the board is that payments were made yesterday for the commercial trash fees.
That was the holdup and now attached at Exhibit 11 indicates that there's a zero balance due.
The real estate tax has always been paid.
The commercial trash fees apparently were not paid, but they are now.
Now, as of this morning, the tax clearance, this zero, I just asked that the board accept this.
And again, as you stated, at Exhibit 10, I have a copy of their agreement to proviso to a duplex versus a three-family dwelling, which my client has agreed to do.
Just show you photographs of other properties in the area.
and at exhibit nine and show that there were six units and two units right down the block.
Notice, where is it? And here's the zoning poster that was was sent. It's exhibit. And here's a copy
of the property or a photograph of the property. I mean, if you're inclined, I think that this
is sufficient for us to show but if if you want i can show you on google maps a uh better version
of what what the property looks like but in essence this was like i said the doctor's office
in essence this was like i said the doctor's office on the first and second floor there was
on the first and second floor there was always always
always always in it a um a third floor uh apartment and um my client again wants to
make this into a duplex because of the uh change it just doesn't fit anymore in in the area um
And counsel, that's a corner property, right?
It is.
And the poster was on both sides, as you can see.
All right.
Do you want to bring your client on?
I will.
It's William Bonforte.
Or Bill Bonforte.
I don't know how he has it listed.
There he goes.
William Bonforte has been allowed to speak.
Close enough.
Good morning, sir. Could you state your name and spell it for the courts of the Nogger?
Good morning, Chair. My name is William Bonforte, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-B-O-N-F, as in Franco R-T-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Bonforte. Did you have an opportunity to hear my testimony this morning?
Yes, I have.
do you agree with its accuracy yes do you adopt it as your own i do
watching questions from the board no chair
no mr chairman thank you questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um just quick clarification um mr colavita um william um i missed his last name um he he's the
you said the sole owner of the llc that owns the property is that correct so okay thank you
you're welcome questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands here planning commission sorry quick quick uh this is keith david city
planning commission uh quick point of clarification so the request now is for for a duplex yes two
two dwelling units sir great okay um this three-story corner lot is owned commercial mixed
use cmx1 uh the south district plan completed in 2015 recommends uh actually recommended residential
multi-family for the site because of the site's proximity to major bus routes and amenities
uh the planning commission has no objection to the granting of this variance for for a duplex
Thank you. MI 2024, 000256, 1817 South 2nd Street. I vote yes with provisos. Per refusal dated 228-24, maximum two dwelling units.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
You have your vote, sir.
Thank you. Have a great day.
Number 11, MI 2023-006-334-616 North 57th Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from HMC Squared Community Association Incorporated.
Henry Clinton has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
Could you state your name for the record and spell it for the court stenographer?
My name is Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client is Anat, A-N-A-T, Madar, M-A-D-A-R.
She's a principal of both entities which own the property.
And Mr. Holloman has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do, Mr. Holloman.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
We did, except for the tax certification, which was delivered, I believe, two days ago.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, Mr. Holloman.
mr chairman is that visible it is very good again good morning mr chairman members of the board
henry clinton on behalf of the applicant this is my presentation package which contains
exhibits a1 through a10 as well as zoning records which i ask be admitted into evidence
This request is for a multifamily use in an area that has other multifamily properties existing.
In an area that has other multifamily properties existing, it's a corner property.
It's been vacant, according to my review of aerial photographs, since at least 2016 and possibly before then.
And it has the strong support of the neighbors.
We have no issues with plate, rear yard, or open space.
The refusal, this is an RSA 5 zoning district, even though, as I said, there are other multifamily in the neighborhood.
and it's a request for a multifamily, four-family use on this large corner property.
We do have an RCO letter of support, 10 in support, 3 opposed.
And it's interesting, their letter of explanation, it's rare that you see the word excited in an RCO letter,
but this community group is excited to see this project.
And the summary of the discussion, basically, is it's not going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
It doesn't impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent properties, not detrimental to public welfare.
And I'll repeat some of these at the end.
But what's important is this property has been vacant for a number of years, and your neighbors expressed excitement about gaining a brand new building on the site with multiple apartments that can be used by folks in the neighborhood.
So this is a photograph of 2016 I was able to get from Google Earth.
Between 16 and 2011, the photographs were fuzzy, Mr. Chairman, so I didn't want to submit them as evidence.
This is the clearest photograph I could find indicating the vacant corner property.
So we looked at the properties on the block and also around the corner,
and I've dotted or salted the board here
with multifamily uses in the neighborhood.
And you can see typically they are on the corner
right across the street, down the block
and then on the corner.
And then there are some others that are filled in
that are multifamily.
And our property is gonna be three stories.
You can see there's a three story here.
My cursor is down the other end of 57th Street.
There's another three story on the corner
right across the street. This is a front view of the property. Harmer Street is the small street
right here. We would have a corner property. I just wanted to point out, you can see that the
properties have bays on the second floor and porches on the first floor. And I think the
community group was sincerely impressed with the design of the architect. Michael Cole was also on
the call. He tried to mimic that look. Obviously, you can't go back in time and do it item for item
or replicated item for item, but I think he came pretty close when you see the photograph.
This is a view looking down 57th Street. You can see the three-story building on the corner.
Again, just another shot from the front. You can see next door, it's a multifamily. There's three
meters here. I don't know that it's three-family. I'm not going to represent that. I'm going to say
that it's two family. These are pictures of the zoning notices that we posted.
And these are the plans. So this is the front elevation, all brick, again, trying to mimic
the bays that are on all the properties on 57th Street. And you can see a side view of the porch,
again, trying to replicate what's going on on the block. And then on the side on Harmer Street,
It's completely brick with one bay with some metal siding.
Again, I believe, not to speak for the community group, but they certainly like the old brick
look, minimal metal, and the duplication of the bays on the second and third floor.
This is the zoning plan that was submitted.
Again, you can see it's a rather large lot.
Again, we don't have any issues with open space, height, or rear yard.
We have four trash carts in the rear of the property, and there is a side fence with a gate in it for easy access for putting the trash out on trash days.
These are the floor plans, and I can go over the floor plans briefly.
So basically, we have a bi-level unit, unit A, basement and first floor, two bedrooms, two baths, bi-level unit in the rear, two bedrooms, two baths, and they are large.
They're 1,200 square feet for A and B.
One is just under 1,200 square feet.
And then on the third and fourth floor, it's 1,100 square feet.
And the largest apartment is 1,300 square feet on the third floor.
So the second floor is, again, two bedrooms, two baths, as is the third floor.
There is no rooftop deck.
It's simply for living.
And we have some outside space for the trash in the rear of the property.
This is the application for appeal.
This is the application for appeal.
Our tax clearance, again, which we just were able to get two days prior to the hearing, and I appreciate the board letting this in.
This is the zoning map.
The other thing I wanted to point out, here's the property right here on the corner.
It is one of the largest lots.
Three or four of the lots are rather large on this particular block, including the corner one.
And you add to that the exposure that it has on the side street, on Harmer Street, able to bring some light and air into all the units.
This is the deed indicating ownership.
This is our notice letter that we sent out to all the neighbors.
And these are our zoning records indicating that the properties that I tabbed with red were indeed multifamily units.
In fact, the one on the corner is not only multifamily, it also has zoned for first floor business and professional offices.
And then the one property that I did saw with red was demolished.
It has been set vacant for a while, but that at one time also was multifamily.
And these are the backup records that support the zoning records that I'm representing to the board.
The zoning records do support my summary there of all the other multifamily in the neighborhood.
This is 615 North 57th, 634 North 57th.
This is on why I'm losing on the corner.
This is 633 North 57th, 633 North 57th.
So, in summary, we have a situation where we realize and the client realizes this is an RSA 5 zoning district, as is the community group.
The community group, again, not speaking for the community group, but it certainly was at the meeting.
They understood the lot was vacant for about eight to nine years and possibly longer.
They wanted the new construction.
They understand it's multifamily.
A lot of the corner properties in the neighborhood have multifamily.
This is a large lot.
Now, those other multifamily are two of them are three-story.
Some of them are two-story.
We don't have any height issue here.
We're under 38 feet, and we don't have a rooftop deck.
So, again, to mimic and repeat what the community group said, we're not altering the characteristics of the neighborhood.
It's still residential.
We're not impairing the development of any adjacent property.
not impinging on any adjacent properties light and air.
There's this little street between our property and the property across the street.
It's generally in harmony with the code, and it's certainly in harmony with what
the community group wants and hopes will be able to come to this long vacant site,
a nice new building, almost entirely a brick,
which mimics the characteristics of other homes in the neighborhood.
So with that, Mr.
Chairman, I would rest and ask my client to adopt my testimony.
Please bring your client on.
Ms. Madar, can you unmute yourself, please?
Ms. Madar has been allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court of stenography?
Good morning.
My name is Anat Madar, A-N-A-T, Madar, M-A-D-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Madar. How are you?
Good morning.
And you heard my testimony today?
And you're aware also that there's approximately 58 homes on this block?
Right?
Excuse me?
Yeah, I said it.
And you're aware that there are approximately 58 homes on this block, correct?
And you're aware that 48 of those 58 homes, the sale price, according to the OPA records, is under $95,000, correct?
And to construct a single-family home on this property would probably cost at least $250,000, correct?
And if you had the opportunity to testify beyond what you just did, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you, Ms. Medar. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from Hillary Emerson, our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
yes chair i have two hands up one with the first name anna and she will be allowed to speak
good morning could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenography
Good morning, my name is Anna Volobuyeva, A-N-N-A-V-O-L-O-B-U-I-E-V-A.
good morning my name is anna voluboeva a double n a
Do you swear a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yeah, I'm from community.
Please proceed.
So, I'm from community, and I just would like to say that I support it because I like how
neighborhood change for better instead of abandoned abandoned buildings or just land
really great buildings appear so i support it all right thank you very much for taking the time to
cause do we have another hand yes the next one is nautica galen and they will be allowed to speak
hi could you please state your name it's spelled for the court stenographer
hi good morning my name is nautica n-a-u-t-i-c-a last name galan g-a-l-a-n
do you swear or affirm that wait a minute do you swear do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir are you a neighbor yes i'm from the community
please proceed i was present at the last community meeting i love the interior and the exterior
layouts of the new building. I believe that the addition of the new building on that corner is an
awesome idea instead of having an open vacant lot. So I vote yes. Well, thank you. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience? There are no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair. This
is Keith Davis, City Planning Commission. This corner lot is indicated for single family RSA 5.
At 1,700 square feet, it's a somewhat larger lot than what's typical for this row home neighborhood.
This is predominantly a single-family home neighborhood with some multifamily row homes.
The Planning Commission recommends approval for this variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006-334-616 North 57th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. You have your votes.
Number 12, MI 2023-006214-800 South 9th Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from Bella Vista neighbors with a proviso.
Applicant has two form letters.
burn anastasio has been promoted mr chair this is hillary i want to note that we also received
a letter from a neighbor in support oh good great thank you
good morning council
Did we see Vern?
I did see him.
He disappeared.
I'm sure he'll be back.
He's been promoted, Chair.
Mr. Harris, I just want to note, we also have a letter of non-opposition from Council President Johnson.
Hilary, do we have the posting photos?
Yep, Vern sent all the requested documents in.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 2016 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, 19103.
On behalf of Mr. John Blizzard, the principal of the tenant in question.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions.
Yes, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chair, we're here for 800 South 9th Street, basically a takeout bakery on the South 9th Street Italian Market Corridor.
And that specifically will be a bun shop, a place where you can get cinnamon buns and all sorts of breakfast buns.
It is literally 50 feet away from another takeout bakery that you might.
50 feet away from another takeout bakery that you might know of.
It's called Sarkone's.
They've been there for about 120 years.
And it's even fewer steps away from Ralph's restaurant, also a client of mine, oldest
Italian restaurant, also takeout.
And right down the block from Angelo's Pizza, also takeout.
In fact, this property is surrounded and on a corridor of 250 other additional retail shops, all take out.
So this just continues in the custom of commercial activity on the South 9th Street Italian market
that runs from Fitzwater to Federal along South 9th and has done so for generations.
Before this particular property was occupied, actually, it's not occupied yet, but it's in the process by my client,
that window for takeout was used by the prior tenant for samosas, Indian samosas, and before that for pretzels and lottery tickets.
It's a very small space, 340 square feet in total, and that includes the bathroom and the utility closet.
So we're talking about a very tiny place where no real restaurant activity can take place, which is why my client is desperately needing that window to sell his baked goods.
And that's why we're here. This is not, of course, a variance. We did not get refused.
This is, in fact, a referral because the property, like all the properties on the commercial corridor, are already zoned CMX2.
But, of course, we do need the special exception for the takeout window, which has been in existence, again, for a very long time.
Let me show you some photos of the property in question.
this is what we are thinking of doing and here's the interior extremely small
it's actually one-third the size of uh the other takeout bakery sart cones which is again 55 feet
away with no big there's no major ovens or anything like that the way they do at sarcones
anyway the community meeting was held february 6th we got a letter of non-opposition 156
individual households were mailed here's the proof of posting
and we have our lease. I'm also moving into evidence page 37, which is a letter
from Alex Goldberg, who's a zoning attorney that this board knows well, and he attended,
I'm sorry, submitted a letter of non-opposition with zero restrictions. The RCO is asking for
a three-year temporary. Typically, I'm a big fan of those types of provisos, but in this particular
case, I think it's a little overkill. Again, you've got a bakery, a takeout bakery 50 feet away,
been there for 120 years. You've got a takeout restaurant 40 feet away, several takeout
food places right there, none of which, by the way, none of them have ever had a sunset proviso
attached to their zoning permits. So to ask this particular tenant or person to operate
under the auspices of having to come back in three years, I think is a little just overkill
in this particular case. And as such, the majority of the immediate neighbors agree with that
position. As I said, page 37 had the letter from Mr. Goldberg. Ms. Michelle Gambino, another
immediate neighbor, also sent a letter separate to the zoning board. And then just this morning,
we've got emails sent to the zoning board from residents of 901 South 9th, which is less than
100 feet away, and 903 South 9th, which is less than 100 feet away from 800 South 9th.
You know, it's right there on the block.
It's also, and all of them, support granting of the special exception with no restrictions,
so it's consistent with everybody else on the block.
And additionally, there is a Rite Aid across the street, which is open till 10 p.m., which is lots of heavy traffic.
And additionally, there is a Rite Aid across the street, which is open until 10 p.m.
This operation will be very light in traffic, only open from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Only have two employees, commercial trash pickup, exterior lighting and a marked improvement on the facade of the property.
As an immediate neighbor myself, I have to say that it's a welcome addition to the neighborhood, and it should not be shackled with what I consider to be an unreasonable three-year proviso, given the other 250 to-go operations that have no such provision.
and for those reasons i ask that the board grant this special exception
and i'm going to have mr john blizzard come on and raise his virtual hand thank you
good morning sir
he has been allowed to speak good morning mr blizzard could you state your name is spelled
please for the court stenographer john j-o-h-n blizzard b as in boy l-i-s-a-r-d do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel
thank you john did you hear my presentation to the board this morning yes the true and accurate
to the best of your knowledge yes do you adopt it as your own testimony yes your hours of operation
will be 7 a.m. to 2. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, given my
client's testimony and adoption, given that the majority of the immediate neighbors who live on
9th Street support this special exception with no restrictions on time, I ask that this board
respectfully grant the special exception. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands here planning commission thank you chair this is keith davis city planning
commission staff uh this slide is indicated for commercial mixed use cmx2 but the uses
of takeout requires a special exception uh this is a corner lot facing south 9th street in the
south philadelphia italian market i was previously used um as a uh um for for um i believe it's a
bakery the planning commission recommends that the variance be granted thank you mi2023
006 214 800 south ninth street i vote yes thomas holloman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
thank you counsel thank you have a good day okay all right number 14 mi 2023 006 084
2214 to 22 north 4th street adam laver is the attorney letter of support from nars square
community alliance and letter of support letter of non-opposition from council member lazaba
Adam Laver has been promoted
Good morning counsel
can you just state your name please
and spell for the court sonographer
Good morning Mr. Chairman
and members of the board
Adam Laver
L-A-B as in Victor E-R
Blank Rome
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes Mr. Chairman I do
Could you identify your client
the relationship to this property
Certainly
Blank Rome represents JBA Group and Alan Nadav, owner of the subject property.
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Good morning, Mr. Holloman.
Yes, I do.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, sir, I did.
Thank you.
please proceed and share your screen. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
as I mentioned Alan Nadav is the principal of the ownership entity. Mr. Nadav is with us today.
We have previously appeared before the board actually regarding this very property,
but I'd like to mention by way of background that at the studio house at 1613 Germantown
Avenue, Alan was proud to provide high-quality rental housing, had a more affordable price
had a more affordable price point, under $1,000 per month.
point, under $1,000 per month.
He was a trendsetter, I would say.
With the proposal before the board, Alan is trying to achieve a similar goal,
which has been recognized, Mr. Chairman, as you noted,
in both community and councilmanic support garnered for this proposal that's before the board.
You see on the screen before you an Ariel showing the subject property,
And I'm using my mouse to show you the area, which is a vacant lot right now.
It's very relevant to note that on March 10th of 2021, this board granted variance relief for the redevelopment of this property at MI 2020-002476.
That approval remains in full force and effect.
However, that development has not moved forward.
The approvals were in place, the community has requested a different approach, and the different approach is what we're bringing to you today.
Alan and his team have worked closely with neighbors to bring this proposal to you.
I would respectfully request, however, that the findings and the record below be incorporated into the current record herein, and that the board previously found hardship at this very property.
Bar Levy of Sandbar Design Architects is also online with us today.
You can see in this preliminary photograph that the property is large in size, 7,200
square feet, unimproved, wide frontages on both 4th Street and Leithgall Street.
It runs through to both.
Here is a zoning map, and the subject property is outlined in blue or purple.
The property is zoned RSA-5 single family, notedly with RM-1 across the street, DMX-2
at the corner.
Here you can see some photographs of the lot that I mentioned.
I'd like to point out, as some board members may recall from the earlier case, there is
an auto repair shop immediately next door. In fact, the subject property itself often has cars
parked there in various states of repair, and this is long-standing practice based on the repair shop
being there. Alan is in communication with his next-door neighbor who is aware of Alan's plans.
He does not object to the proposed relief. It's important to note that both Alan and the community
look at the auto repair as an important part of the community. People have their car serviced
there. There's coexistence, if you will, with the auto repair shop, a business that has been
important to the neighborhood. You see that in the right. Just showing you some additional photographs
of the surrounding area. The proposal itself, and here you see some conceptual renderings.
This is really luxury affordable housing.
36 dwellings are proposed, 100% PHA voucher friendly, 15 off-street parking spaces.
The zoning site plan is before you.
Calling for five stories, generous balconies are proposed for each of these dwellings, allowing indoor-outdoor living interplay with the pedestrian streetscape.
There are single-family scaled curb cuts, one here on 4th Street, one on Leithgal, to access the garage and to respect the flow of traffic and traffic patterns in the neighborhood.
Very briefly, you can see cross-sections.
And I'll take you to the proposed floor plans in a moment.
Each unit is generously sized.
This is something that is important to the community as well.
Once again, we're going for that ideal of luxury affordability. High-end finishes. In the basement, fully mechanicals. Ground floor. You have your lobby off of 4th Street. You have interior parking hidden from the public right-of-way. You have trash room for commercial trash pickup with trash picked up out of the site of the public.
The second floor shows a mix of large one bedrooms and large studios, with a common fitness center, which everyone deserves.
Third through fifth floor is typical.
Once again, you see those large balconies for the indoor-outdoor feel for every unit, which is really just something that admittedly improves upon the prior granting of variances at this site.
The refusals themselves, multifamily living.
The refusals themselves, multifamily living is not permitted in the district.
We have here efforts to create more affordable options, a need in the community for elevator
service departments for accessibility, for aging in place with dignity, to meet the needs
of the community.
This fits in well with the mixed zoning designations in the surrounding area, which I showed you
on the zoning map. And as you saw in the aerial photograph, this is a neighborhood that has
amazing long-term housing stock, but also some areas that need improvement, such as these vacant
parcels. Additionally, the off-street parking requires variance relief. This is the minimum
variance to afford relief, providing parking at a very high ratio to meet actual needs.
The balance of the refusals relate to modest dimensional variances that fit the surrounding non-conformities and mix of nearby zoning classifications.
What we have here, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, are livable dwellings for everyone versus mansion-sized properties that don't serve the community.
It is through the combined efforts with the organization formerly known, but officially still known for RCO purposes as NARA Square Community Alliance, now known as Ciente, that you see that the community deemed the project well-liked and is supporting it.
Street trees are proposed along both frontages, American hornbeam trees, which is a tree with shallow roots.
We delved into these little details with the community because it's important.
The community has problems with invasive species.
This is non-invasive directly in response to the community.
The subject property has been significantly underutilized.
What is practicable at this location?
What is possible?
The years of open lots on this block show that combined investment by a developer and
community together is the best option. We're really proud of the partnership with Ciente.
We hope that this venture becomes a model as well for private development partnership with PHA's
housing voucher program. The RCO letter of support is on the screen before you, as is Councilmember
Lozada's position of non-opposition. Given the practical realities of repurposing this site
and the sensitive treatment to design, we believe that the proposed development better meets the
ideals of the community and respects the surrounding land uses. Although this board
previously recognized hardship at this site, and that approval is in full force and effect,
we are happy to proceed with a proposal that better meets current needs of the community.
The authorization of variance relief will not alter the character of the neighborhood or district or
be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood.
The granting of relief would benefit the public and is within the spirit of the code.
The proposed variance would represent the minimum variance that will afford relief
and will represent the least modification possible of the regulations at issue.
In the prior case before the board, 24 use refusals and 42 zoning refusals were granted,
a high number. This is significantly less, speaking to minimum variance necessary.
The grant of variance relief will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger public health, safety, or general welfare.
This will not adversely affect transportation or unduly burdened water, sewer school park,
or other public facilities. There are no environmental issues with this proposal.
Thank you for the board's indulgence.
Counsel, would you bring your owner on, please, or your client?
Yes. Mr. Nadav, Alan Nadav, would you kindly raise your virtual hand to be recognized by Chairman Bergman?
There's Mr. Nadav.
Sorry, Alan Nadav has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court's stenographer?
Mr. Nadav
we cannot hear you
do we see him?
yes he's unmuted
he's having technical issues
Mr. Laver
you're an officer of the court
we will gladly take your testimony
Thank you. I regret that Mr. Nadav has technical difficulties. I know that he's been present.
Okay. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands chair planning commission
thank you chair this is keith davis city planning commission staff this lot is zoned single family
attached rsa 5. the applicant's request for 36 units is significantly more than
seven units that would be allowed by right. The comprehensive plan proposed residential
multifamily one for the site, which would have allowed 16 units, which is still less
than half the 36 units proposed by the applicant. The 2021 rezoning to RSA 5 was led by the
local community civic. The dimensional parking refusals are all linked to the excessive use
proposed. And finally, I want to note that the landscape refusal is because the applicant
is opting to remove 75 inches worth of diameter of trees from the site without replacing the trees
or using our pay-in-lieu procedure. The Planning Commission recommends that the requested variances
not be granted. Mr. Labor, would you want to respond? Yes, please. We respect Planning
Commission statements. However, this is a long vacant lot, which has been a source of concern
to the community. Necessary to meet the scope and scale of the surrounding area and the community's
interests, the trees must be removed to allow development to move forward. And it's for that
reason, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, that we've worked very closely to find as much
appropriate plantings as possible along the public right of way in the American hornbeam trees that
are proposed. Regarding the nature of the density proposed, this board has on record determined that
the site qualifies for increased density. What's particularly of note though is that with this
revised plan, the community has officially embraced this proposal, whereas the proposal,
which has been approved and is of record, garnered mixed feelings in the community.
So we really believe that this meets the scope and spirit of the code fully.
I do see that Mr. Nadav is present, and he may be able to speak if you wish to adopt
and affirm.
I leave it to you, Mr. Chairman.
Why don't you bring him on?
Mr. Nadav, can you voice that you're present, please?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, someone named Jordan Lebowitz says they have Mr. Nadav with them, and their microphone is working.
Okay, thank you.
They haven't been allowed to speak.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the course stenographer?
Good morning, Chairman.
My name is Alan Nadav, A-L-L-A-N-N-A-D-A-V.
I'm sorry, I could not-
That's okay, it's okay.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Nadav, would you kindly confirm that you've been present during the entirety of this virtual zoning board of adjustment hearing?
Yes, I have.
And would you adopt and affirm the testimony that I've offered as your own?
Thank you, sir. No further questions.
Number 14, MI 2023-006-084-2214-22 North 4th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
You have your votes, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number 17, MI 2023-006-172, 3512 Mount Vernon Street.
William O'Brien is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
Vote was 10 in support to a non-opposition.
William O'Brien, can you raise your virtual hand, please?
He has been promoted, Chair.
Mr. O'Brien, you've already been sworn once today.
Could you just state your name for the record?
Good morning, Chairman.
Yeah, just state your name for the record.
You've already been sworn.
William O'Brien.
I represent Martin Lautz, who is the owner of 3520.
Mount Vernon Street. And Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you, sir.
And Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
thank you um mr chair members of the board uh this is a uh the refusal that was issued on the
application to introduce two apartments on the first floor of this building um there is one
refusal it's a use refusal uh it's in a mixed district uh to the south is haverford avenue
and that street is CMX2
and part of this building straddles that line.
Mount Vernon Street is predominantly RSA5.
We did meet with the Manitua Civic Association
back on March 6th
and as you said, there were 12 persons present,
10 voted to support
and two voted non-apposition.
um show you just a few pictures to give you some context so this is the 3500 block of mount vernon
uh in the foreground on both sides you see the two-story structures these are single family
dwellings they range from 850 to 950 square feet this is the subject property 3512 it has about
3,600 square feet. And as you can see, it's a non-conforming structure. The zoning archives
indicate that it has been used for the manufacture of wrought iron and wood products, as well as
auto repair. Right now, there are two apartments on the second floor. The proposal is to eliminate
the overhead garage door and introduce two apartments on the first floor. This is a
capture of the zoning archives referencing those two uses. This is a property two doors away.
It has an address of 3509 Haverford Avenue, Building B, but it is faces on Mount Vernon.
It's two houses away, two structures away, and that has been approved for five units.
And across the street from that is 622 North 35th Street, which faces North 35th, of course, but the side is all along Mount Vernon, and that has been approved for four units.
I'm going to show you the floor plans.
The existing is here on the second floor.
Let me enlarge this a bit.
so here's the set here's the second floor which is now existing you come to the staircase
and there's one unit in the front and one unit in the rear the rear unit has a roof deck
uh the proposal is to introduce uh two apartments on the first floor one in the front one in the
rear uh three of the apartments enter through the entrance the existing entrance uh the first
First floor rear apartment will enter through this passage along the west side of the building.
There'll be a shared trash area and then another secured gate here for the first floor rear entrance for that for that occupant.
The zoning notice, the zoning posters, the application for appeal, tax cert and deed are all attached and part of the exhibit.
uh martin louts is uh is in the audience if he could raise his hand
mr louts mr louts has been allowed to speak good morning sir could you state your name
please and spell for the court stenographer yes my name is martin louts m-a-r-t-i-n l-a-u-t-z
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Aye, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Martin, you were in the audience during the presentation of this case?
Did you hear my testimony?
Yes, I did.
And is it truthful?
And do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience there are no hands here planning commission
thank you chair uh this is keith davis with the city planning commission staff uh this block
Thank you, Chair. This is Keith Davis with the City Planning Commission staff. This block was re-zoned in a residential single-family attached, RSA 5, in 2017. Except for a few vacant lots, it is predominantly single-family. But at 2,200 square feet, this mid-block lot is significantly larger than a typical rural home lot in this neighborhood. The Planning Commission recommends granting the variance.
Thank you. MI 2023-006-172-3512 Mount Vernon Street. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, the board.
Is there anyone in the morning list in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I see no hands, chair.
Okay. Thank you, everyone. See everyone at two.
All right.
Thank you.
One is in.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at philo.gov.
For the benefit of our stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, you wish to testify, press star 9, raise your hand, and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and address of the property in question.
And finally, the question-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 afternoon.
Number four, MI 2023-003-757-2347 North Phillip Street.
That case is continued.
Number ten.
MI-2023-002-778-2848-North 26th Street.
That case is continued.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
Can we see if Darnell Williams is present?
Because we received the continuance request from the RCO.
Darnell Williams, are you present?
That's MI-2023-002-778-2848-North 26th Street.
I see no handshake.
So that case, number MI-2023-002-778-2848-North 26th Street.
That case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
Number 15.
MI-2022-007291-430 West Burke Street. Is David Orphanides present?
David Orphanides has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Orphanides, could you please state your name and spell for the court's sonogram?
Certainly. David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, sir.
Could you give me the status of this case, 430 West Berks?
Certainly. We had met four times with the coordinating RCO, the South Kansas City Community Partners, two times with their zoning committee, two times with their full community.
There was a vote taken. There was a letter and a meeting summary form issued to the Zoning Board prior to the initial hearing, evidentiary hearing in this matter.
There was some inconsistencies in those letters. As I saw it, one was a letter of non-opposition, one was a letter of support, no position, one was a letter of non-opposition or support based upon a vote taken by the people in the community and the audience based upon three provisos.
We've been trying to work on the CBA with South Kensington based upon those provisos that were in the letter.
I thought since we copied those provisos from the letter verbatim into the CBA that we would be good, but there were some concerns that were expressed by South Kensington.
there were some concerns that were expressed by um south kensington community partners i think
back on february 1st we received some additional comments um on march 1st and we're just getting
them back a draft and hopefully you know we can have this resolved have a cba uh in place um that
cba because the south kensington community partners wants us to add a commercial unit at the ground
floor. If we come to an agreement and given that the property zone RM1, we would need to amend the
application. So there'd be some additional time required once we come to an agreement. So at this
point, if we needed a date certain for a follow-up vote, I had emailed Hillary that just a couple
minutes ago after talking to my client that we'd probably need six, seven, maybe eight weeks, or I
could be designated as a movie party. Okay. We'll take that into consideration. So MI 2022 007
291 430 West
Burke Street. Cases continue.
Do you want this attorney moving party? I think
that's best so that we just don't take any time.
Okay, so cases continue.
Attorney moving party.
Attorney moving party. Thank you, sir.
I appreciate you getting on the phone. Thank you.
Have a good day. Good. And number 16.
MI 2023
006415
Germantown Avenue
E-G-328733, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
And also number three.
Number three, MI-2023-005-752-32 West Seymour Street, that case has been withdrawn.
Are there any requests for continuance on the list and the audience?
No, there are no hands to you.
We're going to go to our add-ons.
The first add-on is MI202300694933, Lindley Avenue.
Ismail Shahid will be handling that.
First case.
I'm here, Chair.
Okay, you have number one.
Hold on a second.
I've got to pull it up.
Take your time.
I'm all open now, Chair, you said number one.
Number one on the Adelan, sir. Thank you.
Thank you.
MI-2023-006-949-933 Lindy Avenue, my vote is yes, with proviso, maximum.
My vote is yes.
With proviso, maximum two dwelling units.
Here you go.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
His number two is yours too.
Number two, MI-2023-0068942319-21 Ridge Avenue.
my vote is going to be yes and no provisos there sorry there is a proviso for refusal per refusal
dated 3-14-24 okay so my vote is going to be yes per refusal uh corrected issue on 3-14-24
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes with proviso James Snell my vote is yes with proviso
okay thank you number three MI 2022 003 757 2024 to 28 north 22nd street
Voting on this will be myself, Mr. Holloman, and Ish.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Her amended refusal dated 3-29-23.
Revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA, March 20th, 2024.
Approved uses for commercial space are those in the CMX-1 zoning district.
Use registration required prior to occupancy.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
We're going to go to our regular list.
what we have
in our regular list
do we have one that's
first, do we want to do first
am I right? Yes
that, give me one second
that is
number 14
Albert Street
I knew there was one there
I'll be right with you
I'll be right there.
Sorry.
I'll be right there. Wait, wait one minute, please.
Wait, my computer's stalled here one minute. I'll be right with you.
I'll be right there.
I'm sorry.
My computer just gave me a little problem here.
No problem, Chair.
We'll wait for you.
So, here we go.
Number 14, MI 2024, 00149, 2350 East Albert Street.
There's no RCO letter at this point, but a meeting was held on 227-24, Old Richmond Civic Association, and there's a letter of opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Joseph Consul is coming in as a panelist, Chair.
Hello.
Mr. Consul, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Joseph Consul, J-O-S-E-P-H, last name Consul, C-O-N-S-O-L-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Fishtown Properties, LLC, and the owner of the company, Emily Barker, is on this call.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed?
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have uh accepting the rco letter
we've been in contact with them they said they would get it over but they have not yet
thank you please proceed and share your screen
okay uh hey joseph consul here 2350 east albert street this property is uh or was purchased by
fishtown properties llc last year the property um was acquired to um hopefully uh by virtue of
getting approvals today function as a short-term rental property as well as a place for my client's
extended family to stay when they're in town. It's an international blended family. She'll
explain to you her situation in a second. This property was purchased to be able to accommodate
the needs of her family. And so as a corollary to that, she was hoping to get approval for a
short-term rental permit. There's our refusal. As mentioned earlier, we met with the RCO.
We had a full meeting on February 27th. We have not been made aware of what the vote was or where
they came down on it, so we don't have any information as far as that goes. I had spoken
with john from the rco on friday he said he would get a letter over but that hasn't come yet
it's a three-bedroom two-bath property
there's photos of the outside interior is furnished
no living space in the basement
nice tidy row home on albert street we included the plans showing the layout of the property
all the bedrooms on the second floor first floor dining room kitchen living room access to a fenced
and backyard and the basement is strictly mechanicals washer and dryer finally we
included the tax information form as well as the deed to the property and again we're hopeful that
the board sees fit to be able to accommodate even with the type of temporary variance my clients
requests as she'll explain in a minute this would be able to assist her family in its ability to
visit the city which they do often so with that I'll call Ms. Emily Barker to raise her hand
Emily Barker is allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, hi, my name is Emily Barker.
Could you spell please for the stenographer?
Apologies.
No, no, no.
E-M-I-L-Y and then Barker, like Bob Barker.
Okay, thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Consul.
Good afternoon, Ms. Barker.
Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your property on Albert Street?
I did.
Do you adopt it as your own?
Is there any statement you'd like to add to the board regarding your intended use of this property?
Yeah, I just want to add that while it's Fishtown Properties, LLC, that is me.
I'm an attorney, and I bought it in that way since I knew I might be wanting to rent it.
So that is just the background on that.
And yes, my family is, my husband's from Italy.
His parents still live there.
His father is one of 11 children, so he has many, many first cousins, et cetera.
They do come to visit us.
We don't have enough room for them.
And my sister actually lives right around the corner on East Perth as well.
So my family lives in Illinois, and when they come, it's the same situation.
and the thought was we could purchase this place,
have it be a place that our families could stay
when they are in town
so that they're not running on top of us.
But then in between,
we could offset some of the costs
by having it be a short-term rental.
And obviously it's gonna have our stuff in it.
It's a place for us.
We're not outsiders.
We're from nearby.
So I do recognize concerns people have generally
with Airbnbs,
but I'm hoping that this is an instance
where it's slightly different
and people can understand why we want to do it
and that it would not be some burden on the community so that's that's pretty much it
that's that's pretty much it okay thank you everything further questions from the board
okay thank you i have nothing further
no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um i just wanted to note um the excuse me um it's possible i didn't get the letter from
council member squilla till late yesterday it's possible they have a copy of the rco letter and
Chances are, if they wrote a letter in opposition, the RCO was in opposition as well.
However, we don't have the letter to know if they had any suggested provisos or what the vote was.
So I think that if we wanted to delay the vote, I can reach out to the council member's office and ask for a copy of the letter.
We are going to delay the vote for at least one week.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Plenty of commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon. David Fecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variants for visitor accommodation.
Thank you, Mr.
Consul, I'm going to hold this for one week to next Wednesday to next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
It will be closed.
Everything else is closed other than the letter from the RCO.
And we'll show you'll have a chance to respond to that.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Up here.
Number one, MI 2023-007279, 651 Falkrod Street, Meredith Ferliger, and Brandon Savern are the attorneys listed.
A letter of non-opposition from the 35th Democratic Ward Committee, RCO, and a recommendation of non-opposition from the Longcrest Community Association, the affected RCO.
Meredith Furlager has been promoted to panelist.
good afternoon counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court's stenographer
certainly meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r of delworth paxton you swear for him to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client in relationship
to this property sure my client is pico energy company which is the owner of the property
our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon counsel do you agree to wave the reading of the
refusal or stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed then all the required documents and
exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i did
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed. I see you showed your screen already.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, again, my name is Meredith Ferliger. I'm here today in addition to my partner, Joe Kessler, representing Pico Energy Company, which, as I mentioned, is the owner of the property, as evidenced by the deed in your packet at Exhibit 3.
Today, I have with me Michelle Sanchez representing PICO.
Michelle is the External Affairs Manager for Philadelphia for PICO.
Before the board today is a proposal concerning improvements to PICO's longstanding electrical substation facilities located at 651 Folkrod Street.
The board will note at Exhibit 11, two letters of unanimous non-opposition from the 35th Ward Democrats, as well as the Long Crest Community Association.
Administratively speaking, our exhibit packet today includes 15 exhibits, which does include tax clearance at Exhibit 2.
Briefly, if I turn to Exhibit 6 first, I've included several aerial images of the site at 651 Folkrod Street.
The board will note that this is a large site of approximately 193,000 square feet
that currently and historically has contained a Pico electrical substation facility.
The frontage in this first image here is shown from Folkrod Street.
I've also included an aerial image which is up on the screen from the north which shows the rear perspective of the site, which shows the existing electrical equipment that is across the site.
I've also included an aerial image, which is up on the screen.
And if the board will just take note because it's relevant to today's request, you will note there is an existing enclosure which encloses some of the equipment.
So just keep that in mind because I will bring that up again in a little bit.
If I move along to Exhibit 7, this first image shows the view of the site from the Folkrod frontage.
This first image shows the one existing true building that sits on the site, which is currently an unmanned control building.
And I'm pointing to that brick structure with my cursor.
This is the only true building which exists on this site.
As you can see, access to this site is restricted.
In this next image, the board will note that the site is elevated from the street level
with existing and fairly mature foliage.
And then there's a couple images here as you move further down Folkrod Street.
And then this next image here is a view of the opposite direction
facing towards Tabor Avenue.
And I'll just scroll through a couple other photographs.
This is across the street on Folkrod.
You'll notice across the street is residential in nature.
And then this is from the rear of the site.
You'll notice that there is a large drive aisle,
which separates the site from residences to the rear.
And then towards the back, there is an existing industrial complex.
and the substation is to the left of this image.
The zoning posters, which are up on the screen,
were posted timely on February 27th, 2024.
And I'll just bring the aerial back up
as I talk through some history.
PICO has owned this site since 1954
and has continuously operated it
as an electrical substation facility.
On the refusal, the board will note
that there are two historical notes here, indicating that the electrical substation
was approved by variants in 1957 and was later expanded by variants in 1967.
A more extensive recount of the full history of approvals for this site is included in the
Memorandum of Law at Exhibit 12. Despite the extensive history, the zoning map will reveal
the cause of the repeated requests for variances over the course of the 60-plus year history of
this site. The zoning map at Exhibit 5 shows that the site at 651 Folkrod Street retains an RSA 5
zoning classification that would only permit single-family use of this electrical substation
site. At Exhibit 13, the board will see a basic site layout describing the nature of the site
improvements being made that have triggered today's request for relief. To the west
is the existing control building that I pointed to earlier in the photographs,
and this is along Folkrod Street. PICO is currently undertaking an equipment modernization
project as a part of its long-term infrastructure improvement plan to the Public Utility Commission.
In this case, the work entails replacing end-of-life switchgear equipment and several
transformers on the site. Specifically, PICO will be placing one accessory equipment structure,
which will house electrical switchgear equipment with a new enclosure. And that is that I'm
pointing to that location with my cursor towards the the north end of this view of the site.
The enclosure will measure 122 feet by 40 feet and is roughly 16 feet 7 inches high.
The switchgear equipment and the foundation will also be replaced.
This improvement is uh as I mentioned shown here on exhibit 13.
Additionally, the board will note a second set of switchgear equipment to the west,
shown with my cursor, which will also be similarly improved.
Although exempt from zoning review, the proposed work to the site also includes replacements to
several transformers and other equipment. Should the board desire a more detailed review,
we did include the zoning plans at Exhibit 14. However, the notated aerial provides an accurate
However, the notated aerial provides an accurate summarization of the improvements requested
summarization of
in this application and is much less technical than the zoning plan.
Regarding the refusal, as shown as Exhibit 1, the only one refusal that was issued states
that no more than one principal use is allowed per lot in RSA 5, where L&I questionably determined
that this application would result in multiple principal uses. This is a technical refusal that
results from the difficult application of the structural components existing on this site
within the constraints of the zoning code. As the board has heard today, this site was
previously approved and remains approved for the sole use as an electrical transforming station.
In this case, all that is occurring is replacing a switchgear enclosure with an updated, state-of-the-art switchgear enclosure and installing state-of-the-art switchgear equipment and related facilities.
There is no expansion or change to the existing use.
The uses and facilities on the property, including without limitation the two switchgear enclosures, are grandfathered as a result of the original actions by the 1957 Zoning Board and are entitled to continue.
The principal use of this property is as an electrical transformation station, and the existing and proposed switchgear equipment enclosures, switchgear equipment, and related facilities facilitate the overall operation of the principal use of the property as such, and do not constitute an independent or separate use or structure.
The only principal structure on the lot is that control building that I pointed out along Folkrod Street.
We further submit that this variance is the least minimum variance.
This is a de minimis deviation from the code, strictly based on the unique technical nature of this application, and does not represent a true deviation from code requirements.
The application will not increase congestion, endanger the public, harm neighbors' use of property, impair light and air, or create any impact to area facilities and utilities.
The existing and proposed switchgear equipment enclosures are prefabricated and are not designed or intended for human occupancy.
There is no water or sewer or air conditioning.
Air conditioning only serves the switchgear equipment temperatures for safe, secure, long-lasting, and reliable performance.
This modernization will not materially alter the site or use, nor will it create any impact to the surrounding properties.
At Exhibit 15, I'll bring up the exhibit so you can see the list.
At Exhibit 15, we've included supplemental reports, including evidence on a variety of these points,
including environmental, traffic, stormwater, health, landscaping, and overall site risk.
We'd be very happy to walk the board through each exhibit if it is so desired.
Importantly, there is a roughly 85-foot separation from the electrical equipment on the property
from the nearest residential house, and other uses surrounding this property are similarly
industrial in nature. We have, as always, included a more thorough argument covering each point in
the Memorandum of Law at Exhibit 12, which was also attached to the zoning appeal that was
originally filed with L&I at Exhibit 4. In summary, while the owner alleges that the refusal
has been issued in error as a result of the unique use, size, and contours of the property
that cannot be interpreted within the limited scope of the zoning code. The owner also submits
that the property is subject to a unique and unnecessary hardship as the proposed improvements
are critically necessary to ensure the continued operation of the property as an electrical
transforming station, which has, as the board has seen, continued largely unchanged for over 60
years. The RSA-5 zoning of the property is wholly inappropriate in light of the use of the property,
particularly given the volume of surrounding industrially zoned properties. A denial of the
instant application would soon render the existing equipment on the property obsolete,
with no mechanism to effectuate a necessary upgrade or replacement without generating similar refusals as the one that is currently before the board,
which would materially and adversely affect PICO's ability to provide safe, reliable, and efficient service to this part of the city.
to provide safe, reliable, and efficient service to this part of the city.
As long as the property remains zoned for single-family use, a refusal will likely be
generated for most, if not all, improvements to the electrical transforming station and related
switchgear equipment closures, switchgear equipment, and all related facilities that
are on this property. The applicant has complied in full with all requirements provided at Zoning
code section 143038E. With that, I will conclude my presentation and ask if the administrator
could look for Michelle Sanchez to adopt my testimony. Michelle Sanchez, can you please
raise your virtual hand? Michelle Sanchez has been allowed to speak. Hi, could you state your
name please and spell for the court stenographer. Ms. Sanchez? Ms. Sanchez, you're muted. Oh,
she's unmuted now. I'm sorry. Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, I am Michelle Sanchez, S-A-N-C-H-E-Z. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. Michelle,
can you just identify your title and your relationship to the applicant, PICO?
I work for PICO. I'm the external affairs manager for Philadelphia County.
And you have authority to speak today on behalf of PICO? Yes, I do. Have you heard all of the
testimony and uh evidence that was offered in front of the board today yes i have would you
agree that all that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt that testimony as if it were
your own yes i do we're happy to answer any questions questions from the board no mr chairman
no question questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands to you planning commission thank you chair bergman a good afternoon david
with the city planning yeah with the city planning commission uh chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location
the zoning for this site dates to 1975 this is a long-standing electrical substation the appellant
has shown that the zoning creates a clear hardship to the owner's ability to upgrade the infrastructure
on the site the city planning commission recommends the board grant or proposed variants
for more than one principal building on the site thank you mi 2023 007 279 651 folk rod street i
vote yes thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes ishmael shahid my vote is yes
Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you.
Number two, MI2024-000239-2105-07 North Front Street.
Darwin Beauvais is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from NARS Square Community Action Network.
Chair, the only hand I see is Erica Miller.
Could she be affiliated with Darwin Beauvais?
yes yes that may be that may be darwin okay i will promote thank you you're welcome
they have been promoted to panelists darwin
should be coming in now chair sure good afternoon chair hi are you are you handling the case for
darwin yes okay thank you could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer erica
miller e-r-i-k-a-m-i-l-l-e-r right do you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do could you identify your client in relationship to this property sure my client's
front and coral llc and they're the owner and applicant okay and our vice chair has a few
questions good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate
to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed and
share your screen okay so i like i mentioned before my name is erica miller i am an attorney
and Obermeyer and I am filling in for Darwin. We are here to talk about a project that we are
um he we are here to talk about a project that we are calling the matchbook it is the overall
calling them.
project is to consolidate two lots and build a mixed-use building with frontage on front street
the building will have commercial use in the first floor which is two units and six units of
hotel or boutique hotel space um on the upper floors floors two through four the applicant
is owned by a man named Mike Wastowski. He is a local resident and business owner in this area.
He is the owner of True Hand, which is also a popular business in Fishtown and Northern
Liberties. The applicant will be operating and managing the hotel space upstairs and will be
the landlord of the commercial space. I'm sorry, Chair, this is Tanya. May I ask Ms. Miller,
could you raise your volume a little bit or get closer to your mic thank you very kindly thank
you chair sure apologies do you need me to start from the beginning that's better no that's fine
thank you miss miller okay sorry about that um so the property is zoned cmx 2.5 um in a commercial
mixed-use area. The property is irregularly shaped and quite unique in terms of shape and area.
I am showing you exhibit five in the packet and this best describes
the unique shape of the lot. I am drawing my cursor around the entire lot space. As you can
see there's frontage on Front Street as well as along Coral. The lot that is currently 2109
North Front Street is this area, which comes to a very sharp acute angle here and has a
rectangular shape with an appendage on the 2105-07 lot. It looks essentially like a
kettle. So the applicant is requesting two variances today, the refusal at Exhibit 1A.
The first, the one is dimensional in nature and the other is a use.
The first is from 1430560 to vertically extend a non-conforming wall.
It currently sits in the rear yard setback. And the second is to allow for the floors
two to four to be used as visitor accommodations or that hotel space,
that boutique hotel space that I mentioned earlier.
The dimensional variance, which I will get into first, is due to the unique shape of the property.
I am showing you A5 again, which is our plan.
As you can see, the lot that sits at 2109 currently has a rear wall that is within the
nine foot required setback and it is the applicant doesn't intend to get any closer
to the rear yard lot line but instead intends to go higher um and which requires a variance
in order to continue this non-conforming this non-conformity regarding height the applicant
is proposing a building that is 40, about 44 at its highest feet tall, which is about 10 feet
lower than what is permitted in this zoning district at 55 feet. Applicant is intending
to do that in order to not outmass any of the other properties nearby. I am showing you now
exhibit A12 which also shows the posting of the property along Front Street.
This is a view along Front Street where you can see a property that has faces
coral but is an apartment that appears to be at the maximum height along with a
accessory deck structure for access to the roof. I'm now showing you the other
view under the property faces the l um except the line which is above in this photo and that white
apartment building is towards the middle this is along front street our properties are where my
mouse is indicating as you can see there is a rather tall building here
these are some nearby properties along coral that are also appear to be at maximum height
uh properties along coral um that are also appear to be at maximum height again we are
anticipating a 44 foot high building onto the use variance the property is in a very unique and
culturally significant neighborhood an applicant as a local and who lives and operates a business
in the area believes that this hotel use could really benefit the property and the area and
the residents nearby. It would allow visitors to explore the city and it would be a great place for
creatives and traveling artists to stay as well as families of nearby residents. Applicant intends
to put in the following measures in order to decrease any disturbances to nearby residents
which have been discussed with the RCOs and the nearby neighbors.
I am also going to show you our letter from the RCO, sorry, which I have at a 10.
so applicant intends to manage the property and it will not be outsourced mike and his
team will be fully involved in not only the construction of this property but also in the
management and operation of the hotel space and the commercial space he's he is committed to
having one full-time employee for the hotel use that is available all the time for any issues
that may arise. He does not have any tenants in place yet, but has every intention to not only
work with the community, put in a useful use in one of these commercial spaces, but also to have
that commercial space be cohesive with the hotel space in order to not only keep eyes on the
property but to also you know service the guests that are staying there we are happy to work with
the and we're committed to working with the rcos in order to provide a commercial space that is
appropriate for this area applicant is also suggesting or is intending to have set check-in
times as well for parking to there's street parking in this area but also they have been
working with nearby parking lots and parking garages to create a voucher system for guests
as well as any septic keys is an option as well. Applicant will require guests to abide
by noise restrictions to prevent any unruly guests and will prevent one guest from booking
all of the rooms to prevent any partying concerns as well as a two-night minimum on the weekends.
So, in conclusion, I will go through what was the vote show is the vote of the RCO was 29 to 2 of the.
Okay, thank you.
I will just quickly go through our tax equipped here clearance certificate deed.
deed, our application, and as I showed earlier, our posting, as well as our notice and certificates of service. I would, again, this, like I mentioned before, this is a really unique property.
The applicant is a local who saw a hole in the market and wants to fill it, and as you can see and as you mentioned, we've received overwhelming community support.
I would now ask Mike Lastowski, sorry for butchering your name, to please raise your hand.
Mike Lastowski has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Hello. It's Michael Lastowski. That's M-I-C-H-A-E-L-L-A-S-T-O-W-S-K-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
i do please proceed mike are you the manager of front and coral llc the applicant in this matter
and owner of the property yes i am and were you present for the testimony that i just presented
to the board yes i was were would you adopt that testimony as your own yes i would i would also
like to have matt master pasqua to please raise his hand he is our architect in this matter
i i think your testimonies spelled it out very well all right well i'll ask the board for any
questions all right questions from the board no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
comments from our attorney hillary emerson i just wanted to
I just want to clarify a couple of things.
Ms. Miller, you mentioned that there was commercial space on the first floor.
Is that existing commercial space or is that newly proposed commercial space?
Because it's not listed on the refusal, although I see some references on your application to it.
So I'm just trying to understand what all is being proposed.
So something may have been missed on the refusal.
My understanding is that the property is currently vacant and the commercial mixed use district allows for commercial space on the first floor.
It should be, but there's vacant.
So the proposal is for vacant commercial space on the first floor.
I mean, there's no, there isn't a business isn't there right now.
It's going to be maintained as commercial space.
correct okay so that should have that should have been noted on the refusal
so we'll just i think mr chair we can um indicate just a proviso that um use registration is
required prior to occupancy for vacant commercial space on the first floor
okay and and you depending what the use is it may be by right but you do have to get a permit
for the specific use understood so all right thank you thank you questions or comments from the
virtual audience there are no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and good
afternoon david effecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location
the proposed variance for a non-conforming structure appears to be a variance peculiar
to the site itself and not self-created so the city planning commission recommends the board
grant the dimensional variance however there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of
this property that would prevent it from being used for long-term rentals so the city planning
commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variance for visitor accommodations
Thank you.
So MI 2024-000239-2105-07 North Front Street, I vote yes for the zoning refusal, the vertical extension, and for the used refusal, the visitor accommodation, I vote yes for a temporary variance that will expire 3-21-27.
And, Hillary, what's the other thing you want me to add?
So, excuse me.
So, use registration required prior to occupancy for vacant commercial space on the ground floor.
Use registration is required for occupancy for commercial vacant space on the ground level.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Number five, MI 2023-005-966-6174, Ridge, number T-A100825.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
There is a letter of support.
From Central Roxburgh Civic Association, a letter of support from the Roxburgh Development Corporation, a letter of support from Councilmember Jones.
Richard DeMarco has been promoted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
DeMarco, did I swear you in earlier this morning? Do I remember that?
No, that was yesterday.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yeah, I was on yesterday. It's all right.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer, please?
Richard DeMarco, last name spelled D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Yeah, there are three clients.
The property is being consolidated after, hopefully, we get approval from this board today.
The three clients are Carolina Topolesky, 6172 Ridge Holdings, LLC, and 471 Leverington, LLC.
They are the owners on the deeds that have been submitted with the packet.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I agree.
Have you emailed in all of the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing yes i did thank you please proceed and share this main
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen, Council.
council thank you mr chairman so this uh
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this is quite a unique scenario, Mr. Chairman. This is a scenario where the – can you hear me okay, Mr. Chairman?
I think I froze. I'm sorry. Can you hear me okay, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chair, you're muted.
Yes, sir, I can. Yes, I can.
Okay, sorry. I think I froze for a minute. Anyway.
We're good.
All right, great, great. So this is a unique scenario where there was an as-of-right permit that was pulled for this project in the early part of 2023.
The as-of-right project, as you're going to see from my slide presentation, is seriously nowhere near as efficient and beneficial to the neighborhood as the current project that's before you today.
This has been a collaborative process with the two RCOs in the area who my clients worked for almost a full calendar year with them on improving the project over the eyes of right permit into a project that was really embraced by the groups.
And I credit both neighborhood groups with their efforts in working with us, with my clients, to produce really a much heads and shoulders, much better project that's before you today.
So while the variances that we're looking for might seem significant, when you consider that the as-of-right project was what it was, you can see where the variances are warranted.
so very briefly uh we're asking for parking variance and that is really the reason why
we're before you um the initial permit that was given only had 26 dedicated parking spaces for
um nine nine excuse me 82 units the current project has 71 parking spaces for 94 units
It also has an underground garage, which is actually a variance item on the refusal.
As you can see, I'll show it with my cursor.
You see it here, excuse me, here, the third one, the middle one there.
The original overlay, and these are, by the way, mostly overlay provisions that we've
run afoul of, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The overlay is pretty stringent there.
And what happened was through the collaborative process, we came up with what we think is a much better project.
But anyway, actually, the overlay only permits surface parking, and that caused an issue because the applicant could not fit significant parking into the as-of-right project.
So we are here now for the variances for to have the underground garage and to have, which I think everybody agrees is more desirable because it buries the parking, which can be ugly.
so that we're here for actually for a variance, but we're suggesting to the board that that is
actually beneficial to the community in this instance. And then there's some dimensional
variances. The use is a permitted use. It's a mixed-use structure, commercial along the entirety
of the first floor facing Ridge Avenue. I'll show you some renderings, which will demonstrate that
aptly, and a residential above. So let's go right to some of the drawings. This is our petition of
appeal which i in which i made the argument that i just made let me just briefly show here's the
photos the posting which was done timely um it's a long ridge avenue you can see there's some empty
storefronts um here dollar store which is obviously being replaced and there's a restaurant that's
being replaced okay so let me show you oh and here are some panoramic shots of the streetscape
All right, so here's the as-of-write permit, which was dated February of 2023.
In between that date and the current date, there were additional changes made to the
overlay, which are another reason why we're here for variances.
But as you'll see, the community really embraced this process, and the applicant really worked
with the neighbors to really improve it.
And that's why we have such, I would like to suggest, overwhelming support.
and that's the as of right permit which was only 26 you see it here only 26 accessory parking spaces
for 82 dwelling units which we would submit is probably not even though that was compliant with
the code at the time probably not enough parking so that's why we now have the 71 spaces and the
for the 96 units this is the original as of right project you see there's a surface parking lot in
middle that faces out towards leverington which was not ideal as you'll see as we go forward
uh you'll see how that was improved upon all right so what am i
uh you'll see how that was improved upon all right so what I'm going to do is I'll switch to
uh this is a site contextual uh over over over uh overhead drawing you can see there's Ridge
Avenue a very busy commercial corridor but there are some residential homes um so we were trying
to be sympathetic and I'll get to that in a moment this is the current zoning panel let me do this
I'm going to switch to our CDR.
So this project went through a civic design review process.
The applicant had already worked with the neighbors, the Central Roxborough Civic Association and the development, Roxborough Development Corporation.
This is a pocket park, which the neighbors are very protective of.
What we did with the changes to this project is make the new structure, as opposed to the as-of-right project, which would have destroyed the mural.
There was a mural that was very beloved by the neighbors that was going to be replaced with the old project.
The new project is going to replace it with three new murals under the supervision of the Mural Arts Program.
And that's what you could see on this image.
um we also were more sympathetic to the pocket park that's the survey let me get right to some
uh i want to show you the one so here so you can see here we created an opening here
that and these will hopefully be restaurants along that's the intentions to have restaurants
here again the mural arts program is going to be operated through the neighbors and the mural
arts program to have the new murals. And this is the pocket park with an open courtyard from our
building leading into the pocket park. And that was a key element that was really embraced by
the neighborhood groups. And they asked for that, and we did that. Here's a better view of that.
So you can see how the new project is much more sympathetic, whereas the old project was just
really a blank, a straight wall, which was not sympathetic to the pocket park.
These are some of the, so this is another view. This is the opening courtyard that allows light
and air into the building. Much better than having a surface parking lot there. We obviously know we
buried the parking lot and this is now an open courtyard and green roof instead of a slab of
concrete. That's the Leverington side. This is the opening here into the underground garage. You can
see it right there. And this is the site plan showing that courtyard here. And then this is
the building. But it's really more open than that site plan shows because you have really the open
courtyard here. I just want to show the board some of the comments from the CDR. I guess Mr.
perfecto, we'll talk to you more about that. But we were very thrilled to have the Civic Design
Committee members applaud the efforts of the developer to work with the neighbors to really
improve over what was an as-of-right project, which really was not sympathetic. It had some
elements that were beneficial, but overall, it was not really the best way to go about this
development and as you'll see from their testimony they're going to testify today um and hopefully
you'll see that the the there's been a really a collaborative effort with the neighbors which
resulted in a much better project um so i think that's all i have as far as the documents let me
go ahead and have eric marshall um be uh promoted to a panelist to uh adapt my testimony and answer
a couple of quick questions. Excuse me. Eric Marshall, please raise your hand virtually.
His hand is up, and I will allow him to speak. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, could you please state
your name and spell for the stenographer? Hi, Eric Marshall, D-R-I-C-M-A-R-S-H-A-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed, Mr. DeMarco. Thank you. First of all, I did want, I left one thing out,
So the height variance that we're requesting was necessary because you'll note, and especially in this image, the first floor has a much higher ceiling.
This was intended and something that was done in collaboration with the neighbors to have higher ceilings on the first floor to make the retail spaces more desirable.
And that drove the height of the building up significantly.
significantly, and that's why we're here for the height variance. I forgot to mention that. I wanted
And that's why we're here for the height variance.
I forgot to mention that.
I wanted to make sure you.
to make sure you knew that. Also wanted to mention that the commercial space involved with the
current project is triple the Azurite project. All right, so in other words, 8,000 square feet
on the original project, and we're now at 24,000 square feet of, hopefully, restaurant and retail.
So, Mr. Marshall, did you hear my opening presentation today? I did. All right, is it
true and accurate? And do you adopt it as your formal testimony in this matter? I do. All right.
Was I able to well enough summarize the improvements over the as of right project
to the current project? And do you have anything to add? Yes. I mean, the only thing I would add
is that during the initial application, we did work with the local community. They had voiced
some concerns. We had actually made several changes to our first round of CDR. And once it
concluded, we continued those conversations with the community. We realized, you know, we need to
sit down and really, you know, come up with a better solution. There were constraints, obviously,
and that required variances, but it did take some time. And we sat down and, you know, we even hired
a new architect at that direction, really did major fundamental changes to the project. You know,
They gave us a lot of helpful direction and an understanding of being able to work together to make a project that would, you know, this is the cornerstone of Roxborough on the heart of Roxborough and Ridge Avenue.
And I think we really came up with a great project and it's thanks to a lot of their efforts and feedback.
And it's nice to be able, you know, as a developer to work with the community group and come up with something that everyone can be proud of.
And I'm proud of this project because of their efforts and help.
and we're also concurrently with this process we're working on a community benefits agreement
with them as well right correct yeah um all right that's all i have of mr marshall i do want to have
the architect just answer one question and then we can have community speak um the architect is
the architect is lance saunders if he could be the panelist and mr saunders yeah
lance saunders is allowed to speak hi sir could you state your name and spell for the court
stenographer sure lance saunders uh l-a-n-c-e-s-a-u-n-d-e-r-s you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed mr saunders are you
an architect i'm an architect yes okay and did you prepare the uh did you work on the civic design
review process and the renderings and drawings and plans for the cdr process in this matter
i did um did you agree with the statements that i made did you hear my opening presentation
yes and do you agree with the statements that i made yes okay in your opinion mr sonos can you
explain to the board whether the current project is an improvement over the as of right project
and why just briefly sure yeah i think it's a vast improvement um you know aside from kind of
the the details of parking where you know we're going from 26 surface parking uh spots to 71 cars
underground um if you take into consideration the way we reoriented the building again to kind of
face into the pocket park as you had mentioned we've set the building back more than the required
setbacks on three of the four sides as well um so it's actually 11 feet on the leverington side
to kind of match the the facade of the neighboring buildings and we've set it back an extra five feet
on ridge avenue and on the pocket park side as well to kind of give a little bit more public
space back and then you'll note on the the top floor the fifth floor we've set that floor back
all the way around on four sides so in general we want to be more sympathetic to the neighborhood
we want this to be a more pedestrian friendly building and also something that kind of fits
more um gently into the neighborhood and the urban fabric that that surrounds it right now
especially with the pocket park and would you agree with my statement earlier made that the
the variances that we're requesting today are actually in order to improve the project over
the as of right project as far as impacts on the community yes uh and do you reach that conclusion
within a reasonable degree of professional certainty?
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
There are public folks who will want to speak on behalf of the project.
We have-
Well, I'm going to get to that.
I'll get to that, okay?
I'm going to call for the public.
Okay, questions from the board first.
Questions from the board.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
I just wanted to clarify, because just like in the last case, I didn't see this listed on the refusal.
There's commercial space along the 100% of the ground floor frontage in the first 30 feet of building depth, because that's required for CMX 2 and 2.5.
Yeah, I would just suggest that's why there's not a refusal item for that.
um right well normally notes if there's vacant commercial space and then says use permit required
prior to occupancy so um it's just strange that it wasn't it wasn't noted at all because otherwise
it looks like it's just a residential structure so no no that's why yeah it has it's full 30 foot
it goes even greater than 30 foot okay great enough it's all across the front yeah oh thank
you i just wanted to verify that because that should have been listed on the refusal so mr
Chair, as with the previous case, I think if we approve this, you should include a provisor
that just verifies the use registrations required prior to occupancy for vacant commercial
space on the ground floor so that it's clear that there is that vacant commercial space
there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a hand up from John Carpenter, and I will allow him to speak.
Mr. Carpenter, could you state your name, please, and spell for the sonography?
Yes, my name is John Carpenter, J-O-H-N-C-A-R-P-E-N-T-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
I am the president of the Central Roxborough Civic Association, the registered RCO, for this project.
Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Thank you.
Chairman Bergman, committee members, and Director Sunkit, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Central Roxborough Civic Association's Zoning Committee worked closely with the developer of
this project over the course of more than a year to redesign the development site
after the approval of a by-right development plan.
We appreciate the developer and his design team's willingness to work with us on this project,
and we also thank Councilman Jones and his staff for their support and encouragement
throughout this process. We are pleased to support the variances requested for this project as they
allow for a project that is far more responsive to neighborhood concerns than the original design.
This project now contains nearly 22,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space that is
well-designed for modern restaurant use and complementary to the adjacent pocket park and
microbrewery. The new design added five, no, added more than 54 parking places in an underground
parking lot it added wider front and side sidewalks for outdoor dining in exchange for a reduction in
the rear yard required that is now a variance before you it included setbacks of the upper
floor to reduce the visual impact of the taller structure and the front of the building on ridge
avenue highlights a residential entrance with 36 additional spaces for for bicycle parking
um crca as the coordinating rco held a special public zoom meeting on november 27th 2023 that
was advertised by both rcos through their newsletters and email lists posters on the
building and social media announcements we had 55 people attending our zoom meeting at which this
project was described and discussed uh we held a vote and 95 of those people present and voting
supported or did not oppose the project, and only 5% of those attending and voting voted to oppose
this project. In a separate meeting of our board of directors a week later, CRCA voted to strongly
support this project's variance before the ZBA. We thank you for your time and consideration of
this project. Thank the developer and his design team again for their extraordinary willingness to
work with us in a thoughtful way and to really bend over backwards by hiring even a new design
design team to really make enormous headway on this project, and thank everyone again
for the work that was put into making this a really remarkable central monument in our
central business district.
So thank you again.
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Jax Cusack will be allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenography?
Hi, my name's Jax, J-A-X, Cusack, C-U-S-A-C-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am the executive director of the Roxbury Development Corporation.
In addition, we, as an organization, own the pocket park and the building directly adjacent to it that has the microbrewery in it,
as well as maintain and lease the parking lot that is behind this project.
as well as maintain and lease the parking lot that is behind this project.
So I just have a quick statement.
I want to start by saying the RDC appreciates the collaborative effort that the developer,
Councilman Jones, CRCA, and community members shared towards this project.
By actively engaging with the community and the RCO representatives, the developer has
demonstrated a commitment to address the needs and concerns of the neighborhood.
In particular, we commend the developer for the thoughtful inclusion of commercial space
that is designed to attract restaurant and hospitality businesses. This type of building
stock is sorely missing from Ridge Avenue and is vital for maintaining a thriving business corridor
in our community. By incorporating this element into the development plans, the development is
helping to enhance the overall economic vitality of the area. And while we were heartbroken when
we learned that we might lose the mural inside the pocket park, we are grateful to the developer
for understanding the significance of public art and incorporating three new murals into their
design. In addition, the decision to create a courtyard that is accessible from and resonates
with our pocket part will only enhance this beloved community hub. By prioritizing the
integration of public art and outdoor space, they are not only keeping in line with the character
of our neighborhood, but also enhancing how business and community members interact at this
location. We are excited to see how these thoughtful design choices will continue to bring life and
vibrancy to our community, and we are thankful to have developers who are open to having conversations
around the project. Overall, we believe the developers' approach to this project reflects
a genuine desire to work in partnership with the community and to create a development that will
benefit both residents and local businesses. We look forward to seeing the positive impact that
this project will have on Ridge Avenue and the surrounding neighbors. And just so you know that
our executive team and our board met and voted unanimously to support this project.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your input. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
no more hands planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon david effecta with the
city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location this proposal completed its civic design
review in february 2024 the civic design review committee's advisory recommendations are not an
expression of the city planning commission's recommendation or opinion regarding zoning
variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals associated with this
proposal. The appellant seeks relief for parking, height, minimum rear yard depth,
and the minimum number of allowable dwelling units. Considering the scale, location, and split zoning
in this proposal, the dimensional variances and parking variances are supportable. However,
the appellant could have earned up to 12 additional dwelling units by applying for the
mixed income housing bonuses moderate income option this would have eliminated the variance
for dwelling unit count the city planning commission recommends that the board grant
their proposed use in dimensional variances but limit the unit count to no more than 82.
okay um mi 2023 005 966 6174 ridge number t dash a 100825 i vote yes with proviso use
registration require prior to occupancy of vacant commercial space on the ground floor
Yes, on the ground floor.
Yes, thank you.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Board, and thank you to the neighbors.
Thank you.
We're going to move to number six, and we'll do six and seven together, right?
Okay, so number six is MI 2023-006-408-846 Union Street.
And number seven, MI 2023-007-203-844 Union Street.
Alan Nockmson is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
There's also a vote was 12 in support to non-opposition.
There's also a petition with nine neighbors who have signed it.
Alan Nockamson has been promoted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Nockamson. Could you please state your name and spell for this court stenographer?
Oh, yes, Alan Nockamson. A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the two properties?
My client is Anuki Holdings, and in the virtual audience is its member, John Williams.
holdings and in the virtual audience is its member john williams right and our vice chair
Right.
has just a few questions for you sir good afternoon council do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case for both cases
um five days in advance of this hearing uh yes we have thank you now so please proceed and share
All right. So I'm actually doing both presentations together separately. You should have received separate package for each appeal, but because they're side by side and to accommodate the board in terms of its limited time, I wanted to do this as one presentation.
So, this is 844 and 846 Union Street. We're proposing to put two six-family dwelling buildings here, one on 844 and one on 846 Union Street. During our presentation, we'll review both refusals, and then you'll have the correspondence from the Manitoba Civic Association.
As the chairman stated, this was a well attended meeting unanimous support.
This is a part of Mantua that is woefully undeveloped on Union Street.
And actually, one of the refusals actually makes it speaks volumes about, you know, this the lack of development on this block.
And I'll explain that later. We have a limited petition for this project as well.
It was a well-attended meeting.
You had 12 people on the support.
So my client did make some efforts to reach out to the community.
The issue is there's not much development here, so there weren't much nearby neighbors.
Then you'll see an aerial view of that block, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
There's really not much development at all on Union Street or on that square block.
Then maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notices,
showing that we met, you know, that, you know, we sent out notice for the community meeting
in front of the Mantua group, our applications for appeal that we filed on behalf of the corporate
owner, our deeds to the property showing that the corporate owner owns the property, and our
certificates of tax clearance. Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that
Mr. Williams virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him.
So notice there's a refusal.
So both of these properties are RSA 5 properties, but I really do believe they're RSA 5 properties in name only.
They're both 2,400 square feet in size.
The width of these properties are 20 feet wide.
So they're really ginormous properties.
And so we have three refusals for both, which are identical for both of these six-unit apartment buildings.
The first is, you know, the use, you know, given that we're RSA 5, asking for six units is not technically allowed by rights.
But what we're asking for is not out of character.
You know, the second refusal has to do with the setback on Union Street.
There is only one property on our side of Union Street.
One, one building that has a building structure on it is dilapidated.
The community even stated that they've been trying for years to get this building structure demolished, and they're hoping to.
But it's out of character for this part of town, if you look around the city, perhaps in this block, for properties in Mantua to be set back, let alone 10 feet.
So we would ask, given those circumstances, given the fact that this building structure, which is the only building structure on our side on Union Street, will likely be demolished, we're asking, you know, obviously for an exception here for this variance.
And then the third variance request has to do with open area. We're asking for de minimis open area, where 25% is required, while we're asking for 22.4%.
Again, we're trying to have functional floor plans here, and, you know, we need that extra square footage in the rear to allow us, or extra square footage of the building structure, you know, to allow us to have a functional floor plan.
And then these same refusals are for E46 as well.
and then the correspondence from the from the mantra civic association as you can see the
anonymous support 14 individuals voted either in support or a non-opposition to this matter
and then the petition we did a limited petition you know my client started doing the petition
And then the petition, we did a limited petition. My client started doing the petition. And then he honestly stated, Alan, there's not many building structures here. And so I said, that's fine. We met with the community. It was well attended.
But he got a few addresses on Fairmont, which we're not far from. But after, you know, doing a few hours where there wasn't many building structures, he stopped. So just letting you know why it's not as extensive as it usually is.
And then the aerial view. So this is where we are in Union Street. And, you know, we back up to Sloan. But you can see there's, I would say, almost all, you know, this is the building structure in Union that we have to follow. But you can see there's not much development, if any, on Union Street or in this general vicinity. So, again, the community is hoping that this will spur development.
And then maps of the area, again, you know, behind us is RM1. You know, there is a good mixture of zoning classifications here. And again, in order to encourage development, we're hoping to allow for these two six-unit apartment buildings on lots that are 2,400 square feet each.
And you can see we're on the outskirts of the Mantua neighborhood, too, near train tracks, which also makes it very difficult to have single-family homes where you're facing train tracks and hearing the noise of train tracks as well, and trains as well.
And then this is the property.
It's a vacant lot.
It's been vacant.
This is the hearing notice posters showing proof of post ink.
But it's been a vacant lot for some time.
Google Earth goes as far back as 2007.
This is Union Street from both the left and right.
As you can see, there's not much going on here.
It's quasi-industrial over here, which makes it very difficult for that RSA 5 zony classification.
And then our plans and drawings.
Again, try to keep it very simple, flat building facades.
Brick have a nice pronounced coordinates line.
These are on grade.
It's built on grade.
So these are accessible units. We're not having any bedrooms or living in the basement at all. There is no basement. And the garbage will be stored in the rear.
and then again just to confirm there's we're building this on grade so there's no there's no
bedrooms in the basement or any living in the basement and you know again each of the units
are on its own floor so you have unit one and unit two for both 844 and 846 on the first and
second floors. And then you also have units on the third and fourth floors as well. Same thing
for 846. And then the meeting notices we met on February 14th at 5 p.m. We had two separate
notices. The notices were emailed a few weeks in advance to the coordinating RCO and the other
RCOs. 115 addresses were notified with regards to 844 Union Street was the addresses, proof of
mailing to those addresses. For 846 Union Street, again, February 14th at 5 p.m., same thing. The
notices were emailed to the relevant parties. 115 addresses were notified by mail. Addresses,
proof of mailing to those addresses or applications for appeal that we filed along with the project
information form and the notices of refusal and our deeds of property showing that my client
owns the property and then the certificates of tax clearance. So with that being said,
I would then ask Mr. Williams to be sworn in.
Did you say, Mr. Why use me? Jonathan Williams, can you raise your virtual hand, please?
Oh, Williams, I'm sorry.
It's been allowed to speak.
All right, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
sorry about that do you hear me now yes we can could you state your name and spell for the
course stenographer please yes it's jonathan williams j-o-n-a-t-h-a-n-w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Williams, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes, Mr. Williams, you heard everything I had to state today.
Yes, sir.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own task?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
And good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman, we'll submit our testimony for both 844 and 846 Union Street.
So for the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning of this location.
The appellant seeks relief from the use, front setback, and occupied area requirements of the RSA-5 zoning district.
This is a rectangular 2,433 square foot lot.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use and dimensional variances.
Mr. Nogman, do you want to respond real quickly?
So, especially for the setback, I would have hoped that the Planning Commission would have acknowledged the fact that the only reason why we have a setback requirement is because of the one dilapidated building that's setback 10 feet on our block, the only building on our block.
As far as the open area requirements, we're asking for de minimis variances in that respect.
And as you can see from that part of Philadelphia, it's really hard.
Given the location of this property, where we are near the train tracks and the industrial nature,
the community is actually seeking some type of multifamily use here, which is close by as well.
And the six units are a reasonable use of the property,
given the large square footage that lies a whole of 2,400 square feet.
For all those reasons, we ask that the boards grant these variances.
So I'll do them both together.
Number six, MI 2023-006-408-846 Union Street.
And number seven, MI 2023-007-203-844 Union Street.
I vote yes to both.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
James Snell, my vote is yes to both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes to both.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2024-000128-9701, Roosevelt Boulevard.
Darwin Beauvais is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member O'Neill, who also served as the coordinating RCO.
Darwin Beauvais, can you please?
Oh, there he is.
I'm going to promote him now.
Mr. Bovee, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bovee, could
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's sonographer?
Darwin, D-A-R-W-I-N, Beauvais, B-E-A-U-V-A-I-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, your relationship to the property?
My client is AutoZone, the tenant to the shopping center, and my client is, or representative
for the clients cassandra peeler who is the pre-construction project manager for auto zone
if she can raise her hand and be identified okay so later okay our vice chair has a few questions
for you sir yeah good afternoon counsel do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate
to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Clearly, I'm having
technical difficulties here.
technical difficulties here.
Okay, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, before you is an application for an auto zone in a commercial district.
We are looking at our exhibits, which includes exhibits 1 through 12, and we are looking at our referral, because this is a special exception.
we are we have our tax clearance we have a deed but we also submitted a lease earlier today to
Hillary we have our application for special exception along with the project information
form, and we have what I would like to start with, our locator map. This is Whitman Square.
As you can see, it's a longtime shopping center developed by the Goldenberg Group. It was a
former site for Whitman Chocolates, and it is probably one of the most adaptive reuses
since this area decided to focus more on commercial rather than industrial.
If you look at my cursor, you'll see there's a Lowe's here.
But if I go across, and this building here is where Rite Aid used to be.
So it's no longer a Rite Aid.
They gave, as you can hear from national news, they closed down a lot of their Rite A's.
and now what we have are a lot of empty structures throughout the city and whitman
square is one of them because it used to host friday so this is the location of the building
you can see that's our posters as well pull back a little
See more of the site itself, see around the area, see the back of Lowe's and that's it.
So, our referral, a referral was simple.
it's just the proposed use just requires a special exception so with that with that
um we did meet with the community
go to page 36
and as you can see we have a letter from councilman brian o'neill now this letter is somewhat uh
unique in that councilman o'neill did act as the cr rco um if you see the statement in the letter
where he says he acted as the RCO for the zoning case due to the location currently not falling in the catchment area of a neighborhood RCO.
So with that, he did hold a meeting, and I believe there were three participants who attended the meeting,
and they all voted unanimously for the project.
Now, just to talk a little bit about AutoZone, in terms of what AutoZone is, it's a retail auto cart shop, and they seek to take the old pad site of Rite Aid.
They will have approximately 15 to 25 employees, and their hours of operation will be between 7.30 a.m.
employees, and their hours of operation will be between 7.30 a.m. and 9 p.m. Given the fact that
this is a commercial auto area, we don't anticipate any pedestrian vehicle conflicts
in the sense that it's already pre-striped and the location is meant for autos. With that said,
I believe I would like to identify Cassandra Peeler and she can be promoted.
Cassandra Peeler has been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Cassandra Peeler.
That's C-A-S-S-A-N-D-R-A-P-E-E-L-E-R.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed counsel yes miss peeler can you state your position i'm a pre-construction
project manager for autozone okay and did you hear everything that i said today yes and would
you adopt that as your testimony yes thank you uh that concludes my presentation mr chair i'll
open myself up to any questions questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman question
or comments from our attorney hillary emerson um i just want to confirm that we received a copy of
the lease thank you okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience yes alice
udivik has her hand up and i will allow her to speak alice just for the record state your name
and spell it please sure alice udovich a-l-i-c-e-u-d-o-v-i-c-h on behalf of councilman
brian o'neill do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed although you have the letter i just wanted to go on the record and voice our
support for this project uh we're happy to have a tenant in a building that is currently vacant
and we think they'll make a good fit in that mall there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling us.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this
location from commercial area one to commercial area two.
The appellant has shown that the proposed vehicle, equipment, supplies, and sales will
have no detrimental impacts beyond what might be expected the city planning commission recommends
the board grant or propose special exception for vehicle equipment supplies and sales thank you
mi2024 000128 9701 east roosevelt boulevard i vote yes thomas holloman my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes
Thank you, thank you
Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Number 9, MI 2024
000060
3912 Aspen Street
Alan Nockamson is the attorney
There's a recommendation of support
from the Mantua Civic Association
Alan Nackamson is coming back in as a panelist okay
Mr. Nackamson you've already been sworn but for the record could you mention your name
uh alan occamson could you identify your client the relationship to this property
yeah carpenters investment llc and the virtual audience is joe at a seven
okay our vice chair has just a few questions good afternoon council do you agree to read
another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
I have thank you please proceed and share the screen
all right uh I think a straightforward one uh let's see uh oops 3912 Aspen Street
Another project in the Mantua area of Philadelphia.
And you will see from just the characteristics of the properties around the area.
This is a property or a project that makes sense.
This is a property or a project that makes sense here.
So first of all, we'll review the notice of refusal.
Then we also have a letter of support from the Manitoba Civic Association.
What we're asking for is not out of character to similar variances the board has granted for a number of properties.
And we'll go through each one of those.
And then maps of the area, you'll see, too, where we are in the neighborhood.
It kind of makes sense here to have what's a proposed triplex.
Then the aerial view of the neighborhood as well.
Photographs of the properties around the area are plans and drawings.
Our RCO meeting notice or application for appeal.
Our deeds of property showing that Carpenter's Investment LLC is the owner and our certificate of tax clearance.
I would again ask that Mr.
Out of Seven virtually raise his hand at the conclusion of my presentation so he can be sworn in.
and he can adopt my testimony as his own. So first things first, this is an RSA 5 property.
It's a pretty significant size lot, which you'll see. It's approximately 1,441 square feet,
and we're only asking for a triplex here. And the only refusal we have is for the proposed
multifamily use. So we met with the Manitra Civic Association. Similarly, we received a letter
of support that was unanimous in nature. So again, this community, especially in this part of
Philadelphia at the 3900 block of Aspen Street, they're asking for multifamily here. They're
seeking the density, which also leads to some affordability rather than the single-family homes
that are not being built because it's too expensive to build in Philadelphia right now.
And they particularly want more affordable housing, which they can get through these multifamily structures.
So the board has granted a number of variances, you know, requests over the year.
So 3854 Brown Street, which is a triplex, smaller in loss size, only 1,289 square feet,
while ours is 1,441. 3801 Brown Street, that's six units, which had 1,347 square feet of lot
size. 3860 Brown Street, 1,173 square feet of lot size. That was also six units. 3813 Folsom
Street was 1,139 square feet of lot size, three units, 3861 Fairmont Avenue, again, 1,330 square
feet of lot size, three units, 3930 Brown Street, 1,418 square feet of size, three units. And then
the list goes on and on. I just, you know, again, this is what we're asking for has been granted
on a number of occasions by the zoning boards.
And as you can see, there is a diversity of housing
from a zoning point of view, RM1, RSA5, and CMX2.
In particular, there's a commercial corridor
right here on Lancaster Avenue,
which they're trying to hope to develop
by increasing this density in the neighborhood.
And then again, here is it from a Google Maps perspective.
Then the aerial view of the property, as you can see, like this entire block is, you know, not entire block, but mostly vacant.
And, you know, we're trying to encourage that development through this proposed variance.
And then, again, you can see that we are a vacant lot, and it's a, you know, vacant lot from many different lots from this picture.
And then this property has been vacant for some time.
We've got this picture from Google Earth.
And as far back as 2007 as well, this property has been abandoned and or vacant.
And then these are the orange notice posters showing that we posted the notice posters for today's hearing.
And this is Aspen from both directions.
As you can see, this is a porch block.
So we try to emulate that and mimic that by way of our design.
and there are plans and drawings so again we have a flat building facade pronounced corners line
uh lentils and most importantly a porch to again mimic what you would expect from that part of the
neighborhood in mantua and then again we're not asking for any dimensional variances um we have
you know the requisite height the requisite open area and the requisite rear yard setback
and then this is just our floor plans the first floor and the lower level is unit number one
and the lower level is unit number one, second floor is unit number two, third floor is unit
second floor is unit number two third
number three. And then we met with the community on February 29th at 5 p.m. This is the email that
was sent out to the relevant parties, you know, a few weeks before our community meeting where
we gave a copy of what we mailed out to the community, and that mailer went to 126 addresses.
These are the addresses.
This is proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Carpenter's Investment LLC,
the notice of refusal, the project information form, our deed to property,
and most importantly, our tax clearance certificate.
Showing $426.90 due, but technically it's not due until the end of the month,
so my client is tax compliant in that respect.
I would ask that Mr. Adasevich virtually raise his hand.
Alan, that block's almost completely vacant. Am I correct?
I'm sorry, what'd you say, sir?
The block is almost completely vacant.
Oh, yeah. Oh, completely.
Thank you.
Mr. Adasevich?
Yes, Chair. Mr. Adasevich is allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Gazi, G-A-Z-I, Joe Adaseven, J-O-E-A-T-A-S-E-V-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Adaseven, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
I have.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, absolutely.
And do you adopt this as your own testimony?
Yes, I will.
thank you questions from the board no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney
hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have robert mandeville and i will allow him to speak
hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Robert Mandeville, can you unmute yourself, please?
I did not request to speak.
Okay, thank you.
We appreciate it.
Oops, I hit him up.
Sorry.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no more hands.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Good afternoon.
David Fechter with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location. The zoning on this block dates to 2017, resulting from a
community-requested map change. The appellant proposes three dwelling units where one is allowed.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code. The City Planning Commission
recommends the Board deny the proposed use variance for three dwelling units. Thank you.
MI 2024, 0-0-0-0-6-0, 3912 Bastion Street.
I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed.
Tom was muted.
Ishii just voted yes?
Yes, Chair.
uh tom you need me to re-say it thomas holloman thomas holloman you have me could you give your
vote please tom thomas holloman my vote is yes thank you ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
Thank you, counsel. Number 11, MI2024-000150, 9600 Stanton Avenue. Ira Quarterwood is the attorney. Letter of support from the Chestnut Hill Community Association.
Ira Cotterwood has been promoted.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
My name is Ira Cotterwood, K-A-U-D-E-R-W-O-O-D, first name Ira, I-R-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is the Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania, and I am an Associate General Counsel at the University of Pennsylvania.
Sure. My client is the Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania.
Very good. Thank you. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed, then, all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have. We have done so.
Thank you so much. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay. Let's see.
Can you see that?
Uh-oh.
I have with me Eric Dells, who is going to help me if you would allow him to share the screens.
He's the one that submitted the exhibits.
Yeah, please.
Why don't we do that?
Is he with you there?
We have to.
Yes, he's in another.
Please promote it.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
Have him put the screens, the exhibits up.
There he is.
Eric, could you put up exhibit H, please?
While Eric's doing that, this is a proposal to put a 370-foot storage shed on a 116-acre
site. So we feel it will be an unnecessary hardship to prohibit this small addition that
the zoning code considers it an additional principal building on this 16-acre site. And
And Eric, could you go to page two of this plan?
Just a quick scroll down.
There we go.
So here you can see on the right side in plan and section, the proposed storage set.
And just very quickly, I'd like to, I have also with me William Kalina, who's the executive director of the Morris Arboretum. And he could quickly explain what the use of this will be and why the Morris Arboretum needs it. And Eric, if at the same time you could go exhibit K, that would be great.
You want to bring him on now to speak?
Yes, please. William Kalina.
Mr. Kalina.
Should I promote him or just allow him to speak?
bring mr bring please promote mr kalina okay thank you he's been promoted
mr kalina could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
mr kalina yes hello chair hi could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
William Kalina, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-C-U-L-L-I-N-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
We have just a few images here to show you the site and the current structure that's on the site.
This is a canvas tent with some workbenches and shelving.
uh that's part of eric if you can go to page two uh part of our up sorry yeah not not quite that
far maybe it's page one i think that this is part of our yeah there we go uh our model train exhibit
which features uh pennsylvania rail history a lot of scale buildings of philadelphia landmarks and
that sort of thing, a popular exhibit here at the Arboretum. And we want to, we propose to
replace that canvas tent with, if you can go to page three, a scale version of the iconic
newsstand from the Chestnut Hill West train station on Germantown Avenue in Chestnut Hill.
and we it's we think this will have no impact on adjacent property or even on the arboretum
property and we really just got to use variance because it's considered a second principal
structure on the 116 acre um parcel okay good thank you um questions from the board
no chair no chair no mr chairman
no chair no chair no mr chairman questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
We'll be right back.
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair charles richardson has a hand up and will be allowed to speak
okay hi mr richardson you've already been sworn just mention your name state your name
yes sir charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass from 508 city hall
So, the Councilwoman is not opposed to granting the variance.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate that.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No more.
Hi, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from residential single-family to parks and open space.
This proposal for more than one principal building on the site is consistent with the site's long-standing use as an arboretum.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant their proposed variants for more than one principal building on the site.
Thank you. MI 2024-000150-9600 Stanton Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Hollomans, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Counsel, you have your votes.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Number here, number 11.
Is you're going to be recused on this?
This is a housing authority property.
MI 2024-000152-2411 North 11th Street.
Darwin Beauvais is the attorney.
recommendation of support from the 37th Ward RCO vote was unanimous there was a CDR completed and
was required and completed
Darwin Beauvais is coming back in as a panelist chair okay
Mr. Chairman Mr. Beauvais could you uh you've already been sworn just state your name for the
record, please? Yes. Darwin, Beauvais, B-E-A-U-V as in victory, A-I-S as in sand.
And could you tell us the relationship between the Housing Authority and this property?
Yes, they are the owner. The Housing Authority is present. As you can see, I'm in a conference room
and I have with me Mr. Greg Hampson, who is a senior executive vice president for construction.
All right, Mr. Holliman has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
okay mr chairman members of the board can you see my screen we do yes so i have exhibits one
through 16 includes our refusal our cdr referral uh as well as our application to for cdr as well
as aerial views our cdr letter and photos of the property so let's start with the refusal
and while you look at that let me just introduce greg again the senior executive vice president
for construction for the housing authority. Now, this redevelopment project is consisting of
136 dwelling units for low-income senior citizens, and it sits in our M2 district.
This property was previously occupied for multifamily living in a tower with a mixture
of single multifamily dwelling units in townhouse.
Our application is basically continuing that model,
but we are revitalizing the area
and providing additional housing.
The property is currently non-conforming
with respects to the FAR,
but the property also has the support of the local RCO,
the city of Philadelphia,
the commonwealth and federal and there's federal dollars tied our zoning appeal specifically
And there's federal dollars tied. Our zoning appeal specifically requests for a variance for the erection of three structures, two semi-detached and one detached structure, all on a single lot with an existing detached structure to remain, which I'll show you in photos.
All for it to be a multifamily housing.
Now, we look to provide 54 accessory parking spaces, three ADA, and four electric cars.
We are providing 28 off-street bicycle parking spaces all along accessible routes.
But if you can also see, we do have additional parking spaces for our bicycles.
However, part of our refusal is only dealing with the 28 that are as of right.
So let us start with our photos.
I would like the board to see the site and how do I get to, how do I change pages?
Okay, so here is an existing tower that has been vacant
along with its companion tower, which is not part of this application.
Here's the site along 11th Street.
Another view of 11th Street.
As you can see, the two towers and the vacant property in front of it.
A better view along 10th Street.
10th street now the view on 10th street so with that let's go to
our drawings so this is the application that we basically submitted to cdr and we're giving this
to the board because it actually tells the story in a very very succinct manner as you can see here
we have two lots one was phase one we'll consider one to be phase one and what's before the board
is phase two and i believe this is phase two as you can see this is a copy of our site plan
This is the existing tower that we're looking to redevelop.
Here are the townhomes of mixed structures.
Here's our parking with the island.
And the additional white spaces will be along the concrete islands and near the dwelling units.
Here is views that I showed the board earlier.
Here's maybe a better version of our landscape plan.
That includes our landscape plan.
You can see the different mixed uses here at the tower.
And this gives you a sense of phase one versus phase two.
Above, which is slightly more gray, is phase one.
Below is phase two.
I want the board to also take notice of this new right-of-way.
I say it's a new right-of-way because we subdivided the lot, and we now placed in what is a new street.
It is on city plan, and it is now a right-of-way.
That street is called Boston Street, as you can see up here, and right above Boston Street is Phase 1.
look around showing our landscaping
here are elevations this shows how we are intending to redevelop the existing tower
and how it looks in relationship to our dwelling units here are some side views some cutouts some
Here are some side views, some cutouts, some renderings, showing the elevation.
And also, we have here in the room the architect, Jose Hernandez, so he's available for any questions.
Again, here's a view of what looks like phase one as well as phase two with the new street, Boston Street.
So, Darwin, if you would, I see two refusals here, right? One is for bicycles, and the other one is the exceeds maximum permitted floor area ratio. Why don't you concentrate on that?
Okay. So here, the FAR is an issue when we divided the lot and put in the right-of-way, creating a new lot.
We have this existing tower, and our FAR ended up becoming a refusal.
Had this lot not been subdivided, we would have been fine.
But because we did subdivide it, our FAR was increased and it became over the required amount or the allowable amount.
Now, when it comes to the reason, because I don't want the board to get to take a position that this wasn't unnecessary.
We created this right-of-way because we needed to allow more cars, more traffic. We had to make this area much more open than originally before.
So if history can serve of the board, when this was all one lot, it became an isolated area.
It became an area where people will come in and they couldn't easily find a way or come out.
This is a much better version.
Now, when it comes to our bicycles, we did provide the bicycles in accordance to the code.
However, we have the correct number of bicycles to meet the number of the required bikes.
With that, we're saying because we're creating a more walkable area, a more friendly area, we're asking the board to grant our application to allow these bicycles throughout the property as described on the plan.
With that, I'll just jump to the CDR and the meeting.
So, we met with the community on February 22nd.
The meeting was unanimous.
Received 12 out of 12 supporters at the RCO meeting.
And when we appeared before CDR, they gave us their support as well, not requiring us to appear any further.
They were acceptable of our designs and how we were proposing to move forward.
So, again, let me just introduce you again to Greg and so he can adopt my testimony.
Greg, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Greg Hampson, G-R-E-G-H-A-M-P-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Greg, can you state your position again?
I'm the senior executive vice president of Capital Projects, Construction, and Development.
And have you heard everything that I said today?
Yes, I did.
and would you adopt that as your attention yes i do all right thank you that concludes our
presentation okay those up to questions questions from the board no mr chairman no chair
questions or comments large questions are i think you're recused yeah questions or comments from our
attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
And good afternoon, David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chair and board members, this proposal completed its civic design review in February 2024.
The civic design review committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the city.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation or opinion regarding zoning variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
In 2023, the City Planning Commissioners approved a street introduction bill to enable the new low-rise dwelling units to have access to a public street.
The floor-to-area ratio bonus is supportable since it continues the use of the site as a guaranteed affordable housing complex.
The appellant also seeks to substitute 28 Class 2 bicycle spaces for the required 46 Class 1 bicycle spaces.
The City Planning Commission has concerns about the reduction in provided bicycle spaces and requests the appellant try harder to comply with this requirement.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant both variances.
Thank you.
MI 2024-000152-2411 North 11th Street.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
That's it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have your votes.
Number 13, MI 2023-004-520-308-West Queen Lane.
Alan Ockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from Solo Germantown.
I do believe we do have a letter from Faith CDC.
And Mr. Chair, Councilwoman Bass is taking a position of opposition at this time.
She's in opposition?
Her position has changed.
Yes, she's now in opposition.
Thank you.
And how about the FAFE CDC? Where did they stand?
We do not have a letter. I believe they're, it was my understanding that they were in opposition as well, because I was told their position was similar to Solo Germantown, but their vote count was different.
Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Nackamson.
Yes, Alan Nackamson.
just state your name that's all uh could you identify your client the relationship to this
property uh yes my client is vp308w queen llc and in the audience is uh iran aronovich
okay um our vice chair has a few questions
good afternoon counsel do you agree the way the reading of the refusal or stipulate to
with accuracy? We do. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed and
share your screen. Thank you. So I'm here to present 308 West Queen Lane in the Germantown
section of Philadelphia. You'll see from this rendering that our lot is rather narrowed.
This is an Eastman area that we have the benefit of. But when you look at the photos, it really
starts with a two-story structure in the front, and our building is 16 feet wide, which matches
the width of the property in the front. This portion of the property on the rendering where
I'm pointing to is RSA 3. The RSA 3 portion of the lot is one-third of our lot. As you go towards
the rear, you'll see there's newer construction here that we're proposing. That's two-thirds of
our lot, which is CMX 2.5. So we have really a hardship here because we have two separate
zoning classifications on a regular size lot. And we're trying our best under the circumstances to
choose the least modification possible under the Philadelphia zoning code. We'll review the notice
of refusal. We've eliminated a number of refusals, and we've done above and beyond that as well by
eliminating things that were distasteful to the community. So I think we had three community
meetings, I believe, or at least two. And we really try to do as much as possible, even after
the community meeting, to make this project work under the Philadelphia Zoning Code and meet our
legal burden, but also to meet the needs of reasonable requests by the community. So we'll
first review the notice of refusal. And then we have correspondence from Charles Richardson and
others the reason why i have the correspondence from charles richardson um um inez love the
Inez Love, the leader of the FAITH CDC, the coordinating RCO, had some technical difficulties today.
leader of the faith cdc the coordinating
So he included an email to the zoning board earlier today, but really just forwarding the thoughts of Ms. Love.
So we have that email along with correspondence that was submitted by the other RCO solo.
Then we also have a revised proviso plan form that we completed.
again we made changes over time based on multiple community meetings and after even
the last community meeting which was within the past week we've made additional changes
again to choose the least month to choose a project with the seeking the least modification
possible under the philadelphia zoning code you'll read we'll go over the correspondence
of the community there was only one affected neighbor at the community meeting that i that
I saw. And, you know, they voted in opposition to this project. They're on Pulaski. We circulated
the petition after the community meeting because it didn't seem like there were many nearby
neighbors at all. There are a lot of people there who are outside the affected zone. They weren't
just not nearby neighbors. They weren't even within the 250 square foot radius. And during
the community meeting, Ms. Love asked every individual in that audience, I think there were
maybe like 12 or 14 well how did you hear this community meeting only one person maybe two i
think but two people may have gotten to notice only one of them was within you know like touching
our property the rest of them indicated one of the rcos alerted them to that meeting and they
were blocks away from where this project is um but so we reached out to the community ourselves we
You know, we had our client canvas the neighborhood and there are 14 addresses all within the 250 square foot radius.
Most of them that you'll see on this map are in Pulaski, like the ones who would be most directly impacted by this project.
And they're all in support of this project.
Then we'll review maps of the area and you'll see both the original shape of the lot, which makes it almost impossible to do anything, you know, other than one single family home, technically.
But also you'll see the split zoning, where one-third of the lot is RSA 3 and two-thirds of the lot is CMX 2.5.
Then we'll review, have an aerial view of the neighborhood or of that block.
And then photographs of the property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice of the last meeting we had, our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of the property owner.
The deed to the property showing that VP308W Queen LLC is the owner of the property and our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I'm going to actually ask that Master Passport, the architect, as part of this project, virtually raise his hand.
I'm going to ask him a few questions about the project itself.
And then at the conclusion of that, I would ask that Mr. Aronovich virtually raise his hand and he can be sworn in and he can take some questions from me about adopting my testimony as his own.
So a notice of refusal. So you can see this is split zoning. It's a rather large lot, but it's an RSA3 lot. One-third of the lot is RSA3 in the front, and then two-thirds of the lot is CMX2.5.
And what we were originally proposing was to have multiple roof decks and 19 units with a commercial, vacant commercial in the front.
This property has a long history of mixed-use zoning, where the commercial will be in the front, there will be some residences above, and then there is a warehouse in the back that's been abandoned, which also had some commercial use.
So because of the mixed zoning, you know, the zoning examiner chooses the most restrictive zoning available, you know, for the review and for multiple sections of their review.
So the first thing that they applied was, well, let's go first.
First thing that they did was originally there was a roof deck in the rear that hugged the back of the building structure where we had a zero foot roof setback on the roof deck.
And five feet is required for a setback for a roof deck.
We've eliminated that refusal.
So that was after the last meeting, I indicated to my client, I said, listen, let's choose the least modification possible on the Philadelphia zoning code.
I want this to be a by-right project, essentially, as a CMX 2.5 property.
I want this to be a by-right project, essentially, as a CMX two and a half property.
And we've made concessions beyond that.
But there's no reason to have a roof deck in the rear.
We would like to have one, but there's no reason to.
So let's get rid of that refusal.
And so now there's one less refusal here.
So that's number one.
The second refusal has to do with the number of dwelling units.
Originally, 19 units were proposed.
Two is allowed technically as a right, given the RSA-3 zoning classification.
The issue is, and Mr. Master of Password will testify to this, given the width of the lot at the front of 16 feet wide, we only get one unit in there anyway.
And if you go based on the CMX, and that's the RSA-3, given the physical limitations of the lot itself.
Well, if you went based on the CMX two and a half zoning, we were allowed 17 units as of right.
We're asking for 16 units as of right.
We're asking for 16 units.
So what we did was originally we had an extra floor on the extension of that building, which gave us a height variance, which is the fourth refusal of 42 feet, seven inches.
We're now going down to 33 feet, six inches at the roofline.
So we're eliminating that refusal.
Again, originally we had this built as a CMX two and a half property.
But in order to accommodate the community that was concerned about the height of the building, we went down to 33 feet, six inches, which, by the way, lopped off a complete floor of the building structure in the rear, which we did briefly.
But we went down three units to 16 units, which is one less unit than we would be allowed if this was straight CMX two-and-a-half zoning.
The third refusal, as you'll see in the notice of refusal, has to deal with the maximum occupied area.
Again, they didn't imply CMX two-and-a-half zoning, even though two-thirds of the lot is CMX two-and-a-half.
They applied RSA three zoning, which is only a third of the lot.
So we have a lot occupied area limitation of 50 percent. Well, you know, we have 74.98 percent of occupied area.
Currently, this is a nonconforming property because based on the building structures that are there, our occupied area is 65.6 percent.
So yes, did we increase the occupied area based on our project by an amount that is greater than what's there today? Yes. Is it in violation technically of the Philadelphia Zoning Code? Yes.
Is it out of character for what the lot is currently today? No, because we merely increased it by 9%. And again, the lot is 66% CMX 2.5%.
And only a small sliver of it was RSA-3.
And then there's two refusals dealing with parking.
Again, they're applying the RSA-3 zoning classification.
If you apply, and you couldn't even do parking.
We have a building structure that's 16 feet wide on a 16-foot wide lot in the front.
So it's physically impossible to put parking on our property unless we, you know, given its current conditions.
And so, but they're applying the RSA 3 zoning of 19 parking spaces.
If this was CMX 2.5, which, you know, two-thirds of the lot is, there would be no parking requirement.
And those are the two next refusals, that for 19 parking units and one accessible parking space.
And again, we're not that far from the Queen Lane station, train station, and there's ample public transportation as well.
And it would be out of character to have this type of parking as well in the neighborhood.
And then the last refusal is a technical refusal.
It says, whereas the proposed attached building is explicitly prohibited in RSA 3 residential zoning district, our property on the, you know, on the front on, you know, on with the building structure we have now is built to, you know, to the left of our property line.
So, but there's no building structure to the left of us.
There's a 10 feet gap between our building structure and the building structure to the left of us.
But because our building structure is built to our property line on the left, when we extend that building structure further along our property line, we get that technical refusal.
But we're not attaching to anyone because there's nothing attached to us to the left.
because there's nothing attached to us till that. So you got a lot of technical refusals here. And I
So you've got a lot of technical refusals here.
think partly we have these technical refusals because of the mixed zoning, which by the way,
at one point, this property was full CMX two and a half. So I don't know why they changed it from
the front thirds to be RSA five. And then the last two thirds to be CMX two and a half. And as you
can see, because of the regular shape of the law, there's been one, two, three, four, five, six
refusal requests. The only thing that the board has denied in terms of commercial use is a poultry
business. It looks like, I didn't look at the year, but the ZBA has approved commercial use
for cabin and manufacturing, boat manufacturing, laundromat, auto repair shop, and actually
granted for a variance for open area.
But this property does not have, you know, the community wants two single-family homes
there.
Only one can be built.
But this property has a long history of not being single-family in use.
And then the correspondence that we received from Mr. Richardson today, again, I think there's a dispute like between this defaced CDC organization and the SOLO organization about how many close by neighbors, people within the affected area were at the meeting.
I think Solo believes that there were two people within the affected area. I believe, and I don't want to speak for Ms. Love, but I believe that she believes that there was zero within the affected area. I know that there was one because everyone who announced themselves at the meeting, I checked them off to see if they were within those addresses that we always show the board that the Planning Commission requires us to send letters to.
Only one person was within the affected area on Pulaski. And then that's why we specifically looked at Pulaski to make sure we got support by way of the petition, which we'll be showing you shortly.
um now miss love did you know mr richardson i don't know if this is for miss love or mr
richardson but they're the both the um fate cdc organization as well as the solo organization
stated okay we're against this project but if the board feels so inclined to grant you know the
variances, these are the provisos that we would require from the board. First one is replacement
of the dilapidated dividing wall in the back of the property that separates the 308 Queen Lane
property from the Pulaski Avenue property. The wall is part of the Queen Lane property.
During the community meeting, we stated that, yes, we are going to replace it. We have to. It's
dilapidated. So we are going to replace it. Whether that's an enforceable proviso, that's
another thing. I don't think it is, but just indicating at the community meeting, we said,
we stated we would do it or my client did, and we still believe that. And, you know, I'm stating
that on the record under oath, which my client will adopt my testimony as well. The second one
is changing of the existing front steps connected to the front commercial space to allow access to
the handicapped and senior neighbors living in the area. I think a lot of the opposition,
I don't want to speak for the neighbors, but some of that opposition had to do with the fact that we have a vacant commercial space in the front that is being repurposed by way of this development.
Well, we have a building structure that we can't change, right?
It's raised out of the ground, and they wanted us to put a ramp to give people the opportunity who are the more elderly or needy to be able to access that.
We stated we can't, that the front of the property is too narrow, that our ramp wouldn't be able to work from a building code perspective.
And I have Mr. Master Pasqua, the architect on the project, who's going to testify in that respect.
We can only do what we can do.
And again, you know, we always try to work with the community, but we can't do the physical
impossible.
Number three, the third proviso, permission from the property owner on the right side
of 308 Queen Lane property to allow both properties to have free access to the shared
easement.
That easement's a public record.
It's in the deed.
It says we have access to the seven-foot wide easement.
It's reflected on our site plan.
We did explain that to the community as well.
And again, I don't know if they understood the legal implications of that, but we have a seven foot wide easement.
So we don't need permission from the owner to the right of us because it's already been granted.
you know, it's within the chain of title. Number four, basement area to be used for utilities,
You know, it's within the chain of title.
Number four, basement area to be used for.
laundry, and possible tenant storage, not to be used as living space connected to the first floor
apartment as presented by the owner. We're fine with that. We're fine with no living in the
basement. I don't know if there were floor plans that show living in the basement, but if the
board feels so inclined to grant this project, no living in the basement. That's perfectly fine.
That was from Ms. Love. Now, on behalf of the FATE CDC organization. Now, we also have a letter from Solo Germantown Civic Association. Again, they're opposed to the project. Their whole board voted against it, who attended the meeting.
They also claimed there were additional attendees who voted against it, including two people that were nearby neighbors.
Again, when I took account of everyone, there was one nearby neighbor on Pulaski.
We have now 14 nearby neighbors in support of this project.
So if you read the letter, they're like, you know what?
They may not like the project, so to speak, and there may be different reasons why.
But they recognized that we made significant changes to this project that were asked of us, which includes reducing the height of this project, where instead of having height refusal, which would be allowed by CMX 2.5, the height that we were requesting, it was above 38 feet, but less than 45 feet.
We said, okay, we'll do that.
If you think that it's out of sorts and out of scale, we'll take a whole floor off.
We'll reduce the unit count as requested.
So even though if this was a CMX two and a half property, we would completely, we would
build out 17 units, we'll do 16 units.
And then we even made architectural design changes of how things looked, the materials
we looked.
And, you know, and again, there are other things that, you know, have asked of us at the next meeting about lighting, things like that.
You know, we would definitely do that.
So they said that it's all within these two pages.
Oh, wait, I think they had these are the the the provisors at the bottom of the second page.
So these are the provisors. Originally, we're going to have a dog park on the roof.
You can think about it, what you want. But my client said, OK, we would agree to no dog park on the roof as agreed.
We would agree to interior storage of trash. That was a request of us. We have a trash room. We're fine.
Interior storage of trash. Interior mailboxes, we were fine with.
And then they said provide walkway lighting security cameras registered with the 39th Police District.
We're OK with that. I don't know how enforceable that proviso is.
And then landscaping and street trees front and side. Well, we can do the landscaping and street trees on the front. We can't do it on the side because that's the easement area and we can't build on the easement area. So from a legal standpoint, we can't agree to that. Again, that's not probably an enforceable proviso anyway. But we are in agreement to do landscaping the front on our property and adding street trees.
So, again, we submitted this updated plan to the board, and these are the four changes we made.
We reduced the building height from 42 feet 7 inches to 33 feet 6 inches at its highest point.
We reduced the unit count from 19 units to 16 units.
We removed the rear pilot house.
Again, this reduced or eliminated three refusals.
And then the roof deck is for mechanical access only.
So again, that dealt with no dogs on the roof deck as well.
So again, we made as many changes as we can possibly do.
Now, basically, this is a buy-write CMX 2.5 project with a height limit of 33 feet 6 inches from the roof line.
And then the petition that we did.
So this is our property here. And you'll see the regular shape when we go to the zoning map. But again, there was one owner back here who was against our project. So we reached out to all the ones because this wall that they said we have to deal with, the lapidated wall, we wanted to make sure that we met with as many of the neighbors on Pulaski Street, which we did.
And we got a letter of support from the neighbor to the right of us as well.
And then you can see the only addresses I showed you are the addresses on this map are the addresses that are listed with the planning commission as affected property.
uh with the planning commission as affected property so we my client got more signatures
So my client got more information.
than needed but 14 of those addresses are are are occupants within these affected properties
while at the community meeting only one person from the affected area attended and then this is
you know the phone numbers and and such of where they live of these individuals that signed in
support. And then the maps of the area. I mean, again, if you take a look at this, this is one
of the more unique properties I've dealt with over the course of my career. But this is RSA3.
This is only 16 feet wide. And then it's like a flag-shaped lot where you have then CMX 2.5 in
the rear. And then we're connected to actually in the rear CMX 2.5. But again, from a lot square
footage point of view. One-third of the lot is RSA3, where, again, that front portion has been
commercial before. And then two-thirds of the lot is CMX 2.5. And then you can see this from
a Google Maps perspective as well. You can see this ample, ample public transportation. Again,
we're next to, we're a block and a half away. I mean, we're maybe two blocks away from the
Queen's Lane Station as well for train. And then the aerial view of this property as well,
you can see this is a rather long, long, long lot. Here's the abandoned warehouse,
which I think we have a picture of as well. But this is a very irregular shaped lot.
And then photographs of the property. Our property is right here. Actually,
that's not even a great picture, but our property is right here. So and then this is the easement
area. So, and then this is proof of the notice that we put onto the property for today's hearing.
But again, another aerial view of the property. And then this is West Queen Lane from left and
right of the property. And then this is the abandoned warehouse that's in the back of our
property, which is completely dilapidated. We only bought the property of, you know,
Let me see where we bought the property. We bought the property in 2022. We haven't done anything with it, but clearly it needs to be dealt with.
And then this is the inside of that warehouse, as well as just the weeded backyard. So nothing's been done with this property for some time.
And then our plans and drawings, again, you'll see from the bubbles, like we made these changes,
which includes the reduction of the height with a roof line now of 33 feet, 6 inches at its highest point.
It actually slopes downward where I think it goes as low as 31 feet high.
And we removed here the roof deck in the rear.
and then again just just to kind of expand outward a little bit
um the only thing in the basement are utilities so i don't know where they come up with thinking
that we're doing any basement living at all it's very limited basement use at all and the only
basement use is really for that that original two-story building that we added a story on top
of it but like there's no basement use and it's built on grade actually in the rear which makes
accessible units as well for people in the rear we also provided an elevator so again we have
you know again we can if you the board feels don't climb we can go through the floor plans
um but you know we try to do a very responsible project here oops
And then, you know, we met last with the community on March 14th, which I believe was last Thursday at 6 p.m.
And then we emailed notice of that community meeting to the relevant parties beforehand.
So they had notice of that and proof of mailing of the notice that we sent to 110 addresses.
These are all the addresses. And that's what I do is if the people who attend the meeting,
if their addresses are announced which in this meeting they were one by one um i check it off
whether or not that that person is an affected um individual and there was only one on class like i
said and then this is proof of mailing of that notice and then this is our application for
appeal that we filed on behalf of our client notice of refusal project information form
deed to the property and then finally uh the certificate of tax clearance
uh with that being said um let me change the uh order that I originally stated I would ask that Mr
Let me change the order that I originally stated. I would ask that Mr. Aronovich adopt my testimony, and then I'll have Mr. Master Pasqua testify as well. So, Mr. Aronovich, can you virtually raise your hands?
I see no hands with the name Mr. Aronovich.
It would be A-H-A.
Okay, I found him.
He's been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon.
Eran, E-R-A-N, Aronovich, A-H-A-R-O-N-O-V-I-C-H.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Iran, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yeah, sure.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, sir.
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Yeah, I do.
Thank you.
I would ask that Mr. Master Pascua virtually raise his hand.
And Alan, he's just going to do parts of this.
He's not going to go back over the whole architecture.
No, we're just going to go back for record-keeping purposes.
Yeah, absolutely.
architect
i'm looking for him i did see him earlier here he is i will allow him to speak
sure thank you sir could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
hello yes matthew m-a-t-t-h-e-w master pasqua m-a-s-t-e-r-p-a-s-q-u-a
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel yes uh matt what's your role um in connection with the development
of this uh property i'm the architect of record for this project
gotcha and then are there any unique characteristics of this property
uh yes this the shape of this property is what we refer to as a flagpole lot
meaning that the rear portion of the parcel is wider than the street frontage.
In this particular case, it's wider by about 20 feet,
and it's also split zoning, as you mentioned before,
with RSA 3 in the front and CMX 2.5 in that wider rear portion.
Let's get to that page so the board can see that again.
is that what you're mentioning here i'm i'm on the the zoning map here this makes it a flag
shape a lot because it's very narrow in the front and then kind of expands out towards the rear
correct yes the yellow is the single family zoning and the coral color is the cmx 2.5
What is the width of the property's frontage?
It's 16 feet in the frontage.
All right.
And how does it compare to the frontage of other properties on the 300 block of West Queen Lane?
Right.
With one or two exceptions on our side of West Queen Lane on this block, we are significantly larger than any other property.
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
We're significantly narrower. Yeah. So we're more narrow. The 16 feet that, you know, the width of the front of our properties out of character to what you would see nearby on the 300 block of Queens.
Correct. On the front edge it is. Yes.
OK. And is it feasible to to develop this as as two single family homes?
Based on the Philadelphia zoning code, it is not, because there is a minimum requirement for street frontage.
So we would not be able to subdivide, even if we were to do a variance for a subdivision,
those homes would only be eight feet wide, which is not a feasible dimension.
So because our lot is only 16 feet wide in the front, right?
Correct.
And is it feasible to subdivide the RSA 3 portion of the property from the CMX 2.5 portion of the
property where you would have this as one parcel and then you would have a second parcel in the rear?
So we did explore this while designing the building and found that providing the intended
use in the CMX 2.5 zoning district would not be feasible here since access to the commercial
component would not be from the street frontage. Essentially any commercial component that we
tried to design into the building would not be visible or accessible from the sidewalk.
from the sidewalk uh not only that but it would also create undesirable conditions for
Not only that, but it would also create undesirable conditions for
both patrons and neighbors alike since any commercial space that we could provide either
retail or office would be in the center of the block and would be adjacent to a lot of
rear yards and just residential properties in general all right and then i have one
further question this deals with the proviso that was requested of us from the community
Is it feasible to make the commercial storefront handicap accessible in the front?
Unfortunately not.
So in order to bridge the vertical distance between the sidewalk and our first floor, which the difference is about 36 inches, we would need a ramp of the length of about 41 feet to be compliant with the ADA standards.
All right.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
But for record keeping purposes, I would like to introduce our packet of materials into evidence. Yes.
And then I have no further presentation. I would like the ability to respond to any comment from the community. I'll hold my comment until the community fully response questions from the board.
No chair.
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Lydia Johns with a hand up and will be allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, it's Lydia, L-Y-D-I-A, Johns, J-O-H-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please, are you a neighbor?
I'm not a direct neighbor, but I'm a neighbor around the corner from there, and I've been a neighbor for over 60 years in this area.
Thank you very much.
Please, please.
Yes, I'd like to start out by saying that we used to have a high-rise project right across the street from this proposed project.
that was demolished and they built mid-rise units but they are filled and at that time
the lot that he's referring to we had discussions with our council person that was supposed to become
a recreational area for all these residents who were put back into the new projects that are there
There are several multifamily units along Queen Lane from the train station on up.
And also the parking issue, I can see why it was denied because it is going to be a parking issue.
We already have parking issues all in the neighborhood.
Everybody has cars. And if everybody knows this, and I'm not sure, SEPTA is proposing changing the K bus route that services that area that may become non-existent in the immediate future, as well as the Queen Lane train station.
You would see signs all around. They've been trying to fight that, but that even may be eliminated. So that's not going to be an alternative. Parking is a big issue. And that area is too dense already to accommodate 16, 19, whatever the number of units, too many people. And it's just not a good fit for that spot.
Now the two family issue, he could put up condos. He could have a two, three story unit there where he could have bi-level two condos. That could be a two family dwelling. I can understand maximizing, you know, because 19 units, 16 units will bring much more money, but he could, you know, we're trying to promote home ownership in the area.
So that, to me, just bringing in more renters, we don't know how much they're going to be charging.
You know, is there a demand or has there been feasibility studies?
I don't know.
But it just seems to me that that is not a good fit for the area and particularly for the parking.
All right.
Thank you very much for calling.
We appreciate your comments.
Who else in the virtual audience do we have?
There are six hands up.
The next one is Greg Palmier will be allowed to speak.
We'll be allowed to speak.
Greg, could you give us your name and spell, please, for the court sonographer?
Greg, could you give us your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, it's Greg Palmier, G-R-E-G-P-A-U-L-M-I-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do affirm, yes.
Are you a neighbor?
I'm a 65-year resident of Germantown. I don't live on the 300 block of Queen Lake.
That's okay. Okay. Please proceed, sir.
Okay. The developer showed us some pictures earlier of the way the property exists today.
As you know, it looks neglected. The grass is overgrown. The property has not been maintained. I think that weighs in here when it comes to the character of the developer and his disrespect to the community.
In the last 10 years, Philadelphia Housing Authority built 53 multi-unit townhouses on the adjoining block and the surrounding blocks.
That includes that within those 53 townhouses are 103 units.
Now, there is no parking for any of these units.
And so we already have a very, very bad parking problem in the community.
OK, we've also seen I have been living in this immediate neighborhood for 65 years.
And for 45 of those years, I have been renovating property in the community.
On top of that, I started a Habitat affiliate in the community and renovated another 18 homes for people in the community.
So I'm very well versed with housing in the community.
there have been single family dwellings built in the area in the immediate area that have sold for
a good bit of money and i would suggest to the developer that he do just that because anything
other than doing that is increasing the problem that we have in the immediate neighborhood as it
stands with a lack of parking and so i would suggest that he do that and i would lastly say
that, and I would simply say that in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, it was stipulated that in
the last three years, Philadelphia has lost 50,000 residents. And so this kind of speculation
in the best interest of all of us is inappropriate, especially when we don't have the services to
support the number of residents that he wants to bring in here. So on behalf of what's in the best
interest of both the community and the developer, I would suggest that he build a single family
dwelling with ample parking and that he will then get a return on his investment. Otherwise,
it's pure speculation and it's inappropriate to do such a thing in a community that already has
the problems that it has with parking and services. All right. Thank you. Thank you for
your comments. Next hand, please. Charles Richardson will be allowed to speak. Mr. Richardson,
you've already been sworn. Mr. Richardson? Mr. Richardson, can you unmute yourself, please?
he's still muted chair mr richardson
all right who else who other hands do we have next is wayne allen and i will allow him to speak
mr allen could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
Mr. Allen?
He's unmuted.
All right, Mr. Allen, could you state your name, please?
Mr. Allen, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Looks like he's having technical issues, Chair.
Let's move on to the next hand, then.
Okay, Susan Ponson will be allowed to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, as spelled for the court sonographer?
Yes, my name is Suzanne, S-U-Z-A-N-N-E.
The last name is Ponson.
P as in Paul, O-N-S-E-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I have been a Germantown resident for 40 years.
Okay. I'm sure you've heard there's a few people have testified prior.
Is there anything, are you in favor of this project or against it?
I am president of West Central Germantown Neighbors, which is a neighboring RCO.
this property isn't a few blocks out of our catchment area. However, I've been on the line
all afternoon, and I've noted the various attorneys and developers that have worked
effectively with the community to create things that the community needs and wants. And I'm
concerned that this property was bought, as you say, in 2022 for $46,000. Now, in my opinion,
he could easily build a single family home. He doesn't have to charge top dollar. He doesn't
have to put granite. He can build a nice solid home that fits in with that community. He can
sell that back plus area off to the rest of the CMX2 back there, and we'll deal with that when
it comes. But they bought this property knowing what the zoning was, knowing that there would be
an issue, and they still did it. I don't see any hardship here, and I also see instead,
I see a concerted effort, not necessarily on this attorney's part, but I see a concerted effort
for many developers to come to Germantown and, you know, disrespect the community.
All right. Thank you for taking the time to call.
Thank you.
Any other hands?
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the question of this, particularly this one witness.
Ms. Ponson, how far away do you live from the subject property?
I live in the 5900 block of McCallum Street.
That's not the issue, though.
I'm just asking, so do you live in the Germantown area?
Absolutely, and I have for 40 years.
Is it a mile away from the property that you live?
If it's a mile, I can do it in an easy walk.
Thank you.
i would say it's probably i don't know how much how many blocks it's probably 15 blocks
okay but that's not well that's that's that's that's fine thank you very much we appreciate
your call next hand please it's allison weiss will be allowed to speak hi mrs weiss miss weiss
yes hi thank you could you please state your name and and spell for the course stenographer
allison weiss a double l i s o n w e i s s solo germantown civic association
an affected rco all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes i do miss weiss are you miss weiss first there's been several people testify and gave
different reasons are you for this project or against the project no we're opposed all right
And if you're, listen to me, if you're opposed, please just tell us what you think is different than what you've already heard.
Okay, I wanted to clarify a few things, that this is not necessarily a commercial area.
It's a residential area.
There is a corner store on one corner, another corner store on the other corner, and a restaurant.
It is not what you would call a commercial corridor.
Additionally, the commercial area is in the rear.
The zoned commercial area is in the rear, not in the front, which is the residential section.
And so I wanted to clarify that.
And it has been used in the past as a residence.
And there is no real reason that it cannot still remain a residential use.
In fact, the council person in 2015 zoned the other side of the street residential.
She ceased all the commercial uses. And so there are three single families on the even side of the street. And there are a couple of newly built commercial properties that don't have a commercial tenant.
And so there doesn't seem to be a need for this. And the community was totally opposed.
Okay. Ms. White, thank you so much for calling. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience? Yes, a caller, a call-in with the last four numbers, one, two, three, two.
Yes, a caller, a call-in with the last four numbers, one, two, three, two.
Has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Pamela, P-A-M-E-L-A, last name Bracey, B as in boy, R-A-C-E-Y.
I simply want to speak.
Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on one minute, hold on, hold on, hold on, that's okay.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And are you a neighbor?
I am not a near neighbor.
I'm a member of Solo Germantown Civic Association.
Now, let me ask you this.
Are you for or against the property?
I'm against the project.
And I was the person who raised the question at the meeting about handicap accessibility.
And I see you say that.
All right.
Thank you very much.
So you're against the project.
All right.
Thank you, ma'am.
Yes, sir.
Anyone else in the audience?
Yes, there are two more hands and next is Wayne Allen.
Hi, Mr. Allen, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Mr. Allen?
Do we see his hand?
Yes, he's been unmuted.
Mr. Allen?
He's still having to.
all right go to the next hand okay um robert mandeville is allowed to speak
mr mandeville could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
okay he's gone he did okay is there any other hands up yes sir um wayne allen hand is back up
mr allen
mr allen
you still have a technical issue okay thank you all right um and then that excuse me chair there's
nicholas holman okay he's been allowed mr holman please state your name is spelled for the court
personographer nicholas holman n-i-c-h-o-l-a-s last name h-o-l-m-a-n do you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir are you a neighbor yes
are you for this project or against the project i'm against the project on the ground of
no parking being provided for the development thank you very much we appreciate you calling
thank you is there anyone other hands up yes chair two more hair two more hands robert mandeville
well we just had him he didn't answer did he mr mandeville i'm here i could you please state your
name and spell for the court stenographer robert mandeville r-o-b-e-r-t-m-a-n-d-e-v-i-l-l-e
do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do are you a neighbor sir i am three blocks away and sir are you in favor this project or
against i am opposed okay and is there anything different that you can mention than what's already
been heard from the other speakers yes examining the history of this lot in problematic shape
is uh it's all there on the zoning map yeah which which uh puts commercial space on the back half
of all the adjacent lots for the next half dozen very long lots down the street and in their
wisdom they said these these lots are too big for residential going back that distance and they've
made the back half of all these lots commercial and indeed this lot had its own commercials
thing down a little driveway that was carved out as an easement so the the back half of this
property ought to be aggregated with the rest of the commercial lots adjacent. And the answer to
this whole thing is to change the lot lines, put residential on the street, and keep the commercial
in the back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Is there anyone else?
Yes, James Etty is allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
is his hand there no chair okay all right then i have kathy stone okay is that the last hand
uh allison wise put her hand back up but she disappeared again okay all right kathy stone
yes all right could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
Kathy Stone, can you unmute?
kathy stone can you unmute
can you hear me now yes we can could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer
kathy k-a-t-h-y stone s-p-o-n-e right do you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
truth and nothing but the truth i affirm i'm telling the truth okay okay thank you are you
are you a neighbor i live about three blocks away and and are you in favor of this project
or against the project again okay and is there anything else you can say that hasn't been said
um lack of parking in that area thank you very much man we appreciate it is there anybody else
gwen gwen bill williams will be allowed to speak is it is this the last person
it's repeat hands up chair i'm not going to go to repeat hands
miss williams is that williams is that what it was gwen bill williams can you unmute yourself
yes i did hi hi could you hear me now we can could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer yes my name is Gwendolyn G-W-E-N-D-O-L-Y-N-B-E-A-L-E hyphen Williams
W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth I do are you a neighbor I am a half a block away are you for this project or against the
project? I am, I am against it. I am opposed to it. And I think out of everyone that is here
on the, on this line, and I, I could not hear my computer. Um, I couldn't hear everyone that was
on. Um, but, uh, given the fact, please, and, and bear with me. Um, I was on the other, I was on
both of the uh meetings um the variance meetings uh prior to uh this today's meeting and um
mr allen i i've i've actually and the chairman i've i've actually lived on this block for 65 years
and and um i'm i i am solely i you know there are others that i know that would like to speak
But for some apparent reason, there's technical difficulties and they cannot speak.
I don't know if it's on your end.
No, but Gwen, we've had quite a few people testify.
Okay, I understand that.
I am a direct person.
Excuse me, wait, little, wait, wait, little.
And little is Carlitha Brooks.
She lives on Pulaski Avenue and I live on.
When do me, when do I'm going to tell me why, tell me why you don't want to have this project.
um it really not only i hear individuals constantly speaking in regards to parking
and i heard um mr allen say um uh as far as uh transportation um we have the septa revolution
that we're dealing with that is uh threatening to take away the k bus and chestnut hill west
Okay, see, I didn't hear that. As I shared with you, there's a lot of information that I unfortunately was not able to hear.
But with us having new developments going on in the near future at 447 and 449 West Queen Lane, 442 and 444 West Queen Lane, and 417 and 419, eight units.
But they are single family homes, which is providing parking all the surrounding areas, especially which is very it's not nearby.
But Gwen, Gwen, Gwen, listen to me a minute. I know the surrounding area. I want you to talk about this project and why you don't want this project.
it's it's it's a multi-unit okay and i would appreciate i would i would really is a multi-unit
and we are inundated with multi-family um uh units and i would love to see more um
possibilities for for for family single family homes even if he were even if they were as a
young lady said i i heard someone say before like what there is room enough for two two homes i mean
I mean, the way Mr. Holman, Mr. Holman is, is developing his properties are going back. And this would allow, they, they, they do have the, the, the space or the, you know, the, the space to, to build two, two single family homes or one.
the way mr holman mr holman
All right. Thank you. And I really would like for you. There was a there was confusion between that I'm aware of between Mr. Richardson's letter to Miss Love and then a letter from the city councilwoman's office in opposition to, I do believe, Solo.
So, okay, I think you'll have really and I did one other thing. There was a comment I heard in regards to the canvassing of the area, which was Pulaski Avenue, I think Queen Lane, if I'm not mistaken, possibly Penn Street.
All right, well, tell me what about the canvassing you didn't like.
Okay, the fact is that these are PHA homes, I'm sorry, affordable housing.
These individuals didn't even really fully understand what they were signing.
What bothers me the very most about the RZBA meetings or RCO, the variance changing,
is that the community at large is not aware of all of these CMX 2 1⁄2, RSA 5.
Okay, Gwen, Gwen, Gwen, listen, Gwen, listen, Gwen, listen, I know where you stand.
We hear everything you've said.
I hope you do.
We did.
I really hope you do.
I did.
I did.
Okay, next hand.
Chair, let's just repeat hands, Allison Weiss.
Nope, we can disregard.
Chair, you can finish. That's good. That's good. Thank you kindly. All right. Thank you. Alan, Alan, do you want to respond and please try to be very brief, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the board's time.
I think a lot of the testimony that we heard actually speaks volumes about what the community doesn't understand about the situation.
Mr. Master Pasqua, the architect on the project, indicated that the only thing that they can build here, if you kept everything as of right, and even then, because you have the CMX two and a half property, you would still need a variance, is one single family property on the front.
That's it.
It's 16 feet wide.
Is it a regular-shaped lot?
You know, I heard that we don't want commercial here.
All we're doing is proposing a vacant commercial space on the ground floor in the front.
We're doing multifamily here.
And what I heard was, yes, we're okay with multifamily, two multifamily, which made no sense.
But if you look across the street, it's RMX4 across the street, which would allow multifamily.
There is multifamily.
This is a residential area that allows multifamily.
and i heard of other projects that were indicated on queen lane the difference between those
projects and this project is we're not on a flag-shaped lot we're not mixed zoning where
it's cmx two and a half where again two-thirds a lot is cmx two and a half um we we can't do
anything and we can't provide the parking that they're asking they're saying you know the
community's like we want the parking on the on the lot we wish we could we can't and i i want
also to be factual, my clients paid $295,000 for this lot. I thought I heard somewhere where they
said, oh, they're only paid $46,000 on this lot. My client worked hard with LNI to figure out
solutions about subdividing the law in half, as Mr. Master Poswell stated, about keeping the RSA
5 portion, RSA 5, and keeping the CMX 2.5 portion, CMX 2.5. It just couldn't work. This is the
textbook case for undue hardship. During the community meeting, it was indicated this is a
democracy and our community doesn't want it, where only one nearby neighbor was there while 14 was
signed a petition. But there's also a legal standard. And the legal standard here, I would
respectfully state that we have met. And I hope that the zoning board looks at this very carefully.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. And good evening, David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location to residential single-family three.
This property was last rezoned in 1971.
The appellant seeks relief from the occupied area, re-rebuilding setback, parking, parking for persons with disabilities, building an attached structure, and
parking, parking for persons with disabilities, building an attached structure, and density
provisions in the zoning code. Given the unusual size and shape of the lot and the split zoning,
the appellant has shown that a hardship exists that will prevent them from using the lot as zoned.
Off-street accessory parking is not a common condition on this block face, so the two parking
variances are supportable, and building anything on this lot without attaching to a neighboring
property would be unrealistic. So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant
the variances for parking, parking for persons with disabilities, and building an attack structure.
However, 16 dwelling units would be unusual on an RSA 3 block face. A lesser dwelling unit count
could also eliminate the variances for occupied area and rear building setback. So the City Planning
Commission recommends the board deny the use variance for 16 dwelling units and dimensional
variances for occupied area and rear building setback. Thank you. MI 2023, 004-620-308 West
Queen Lane, I vote no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no. James Nell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience
whose 2 o'clock case has not been called?
There are no hands, Chair.
We're going to take a five-minute break,
and then we're going to come back and finish the list.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this ZBA hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Isabel Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings will be recorded.
a video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of our
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 while mute. To enter and appear in the statement, 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 tonight. Number two, MI 2023-006-304-5003
Woodland Avenue. That case is continued. And number seven, MI 2023-006-283-3401 Tampa
Street. That case is continued. Are there any other requests for continuances?
There are no hands to hear. Thank you. We're going to go to number six, MI 2023-006-277-4233.
teen chester avenue stephanie magna um letter of non-opposition from the spruce hill community
association stephanie magania has been promoted hi could you please state your name and spell
for the court sonata stephanie magania last name is m-a-g-a-g-n-a right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do could you identify your
client the relationship to this property for my client is 4213 living lp they're the owner of the
property and our vice chair has just a few questions for you good afternoon counsel do you
agree to win the reading of the refusal or stipulate truth accuracy yes i do have you
emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with
correspondence in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed thank you
um so briefly this property is 4213 chester avenue it's an existing three-story building
that includes 24 units within the building um it's located two blocks north of what's now
st joe's university center city campus formerly the university of the sciences and this project
was developed back in 2014 um originally oriented towards student housing when the university of
the sciences was here and there was a significant demand for that use in this location.
and there was a significant demand for that use in this location um as i mentioned there are 24
units within the existing building which is approved by right at the time um 55 bedrooms
are included within that building this is our original zoning permit um 24 units and 55 bedrooms
um again again when this building was constructed it was specifically oriented towards a student
housing population, not entirely, but primarily that was his orientation. But since the University
of the Sciences has moved out and St. Joe's has moved in, programming has changed significantly
in the neighborhood for student housing has changed. So the owner of the property has taken
many efforts over the last couple of months and years when this change happened to re-market the
units to the new demographic that's looking for units within the neighborhood. But they've had
trouble leasing particularly the larger units that are located in this building because they
were really intended more for a student audience so to address the changing market conditions
they've already begun um by right improvements to the site which includes an addition to add
amenity space to the project but with this application they are looking to change the
internal layout of the building ultimately to reduce the bedroom count here by nine bedrooms
will be taken out to create several smaller units within the building for a total of 28 units within
the building instead of the 24 that currently exist. So the total unit count, although there
is a bedroom reduction, Ellen is looking at the total unit count here, 28 units is not permitted
in the RM1 district on this lot given the size of the lot. So we are seeking variance really
for that condition. We did have an opportunity to present this to the Spruce Hill Civic Association
on February 20th. They have some familiarity with this project, although the original building was
constructed pursuant to the zoning code and by right. The owner worked very closely with the
community towards the architectural details that are here to be respectful of the neighborhood and
the design that's around the property. So Spruce Hill has some familiarity with the project.
their primary concern was that the bedroom
count here would not increase. And as I mentioned
the total bedroom count is going to be reduced by 9 bedrooms from
55 bedrooms to 46. So they were happy with that change
and ultimately submitted a letter of non-opposition
and that is included within our packet. And here you can see
the architectural details for reference of the building. With that
i'll ask um peter spain who's with core development on behalf of the owner
to speak very briefly and adopt my testimony um peter if you haven't already can you please raise
your hand peter spain has been allowed to speak sir could you please state your name and spell
for the court stenographer sure my name is peter spain uh spain is spelled just like the country
s-p-a-i-n all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do sir please proceed counsel hi peter did you hear the statements i made to the board
this evening yes i heard i heard the statement it is it is correct and i adopt it thank you um
quickly i know the board's short on time um but if you could briefly explain um the project as
it stands and what the purpose of this application is i i will uh you did a great job explaining
this, Stephanie. So I'm going to truncate my statements as best as possible. So this building
was built in 2014. I'm particularly proud of this building for a couple of reasons. First is,
it was the first one done with my partner and as core development. And secondly, more importantly,
it was a result of a collaborative effort between core development and the Spruce Hill Civic
Organization. We voluntarily appeared before them with our plans before we began construction.
in order to get community feedback they they told us that they wanted a less modern facade
and they asked that we consider um pushing the building back 20 feet further than we were
permitted to build um we again voluntarily built a building that was 20 we set it back 20 feet so
that to make it um uh even with with the twin that we were formerly attached to and still attached to
And we, you know, we built a facade that took into consideration the spirit of the architecture around us and the community.
So that's how the building became to be. Like all our assets, we treated this building well and it treated us well.
What's changed recently is the market. This building, as Stephanie mentioned, was designed for and has been used primarily for student housing for the students at the University of Sciences.
About two years ago, the University of Silences announced a merger with St. Joseph's University.
About two years ago, the University of Salaces announced a merger with St. Joseph's University.
We took no action at that time.
But then shortly thereafter, St. Joe's announced that they would be closing the entire West Philadelphia campus and relocating both the facilities and the students to their Hawk Hill campus.
And that process has begun and is not complete.
The effect on our leasing at this property was dramatic and immediate.
We took a couple actions right away.
The first thing that we did and what we're trying to do is to simply repurpose this building to to appeal to market rate housing as opposed to a student housing audience.
First thing we did is we are we we we created plans and have permits for and are and are in the process of constructing new amenity space in the rear of this in the rear of the building.
There was a portion of the building that cantilevered out over a back area, and we were hoping to connect with an easement to this large property behind us, which languished for nine years.
That project is almost done, and unfortunately, we're unable to get vehicles back there because there's a dramatic change in elevation, so we're landlocked.
So what we're doing is we are enclosing that space and creating new amenity spaces, a small gym and a club room slash co-working space.
Those projects are under under construction. We hope to have them completed by the end of this year.
And we've been marketing this property with new amenities coming soon.
We've had actually some success with remarketing to market rate housing in the first leasing cycle, and we've leased most of the smaller units, the smaller units being one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and studios.
What we have not been able to lease and we've had very limited success with is some of our larger format units, which were designed, as Stephanie mentioned, again, for a student housing audience.
We are now in our second leasing season. A couple of those remain unleashed.
We have tried a number of different marketing tax. We've incrementally lowered rent in those spaces.
We have marketed three bedrooms as two bedroom dens. We've marketed four bedrooms as two bedroom, two dens.
We have what we're finding is is in a not for a non-student audience in an urban environment.
There's just there's just not a lot of demand for units of this size.
What we're asking for this board to allow us to do is to take four of these units and to break them into, eliminate bedrooms in those units and break them into smaller units.
So in other words, one large four-bedroom, we would convert into two one-bedrooms, for instance.
That would result in increasing our unit count density from 24 units to 28.
But practically, it would reduce the density of the bedrooms in the building by nine bedrooms.
We would go from a total of 55 bedrooms to a total of 46 bedrooms.
I'd like to introduce you to our architect, Jeff Watson, at this point, who could answer any questions, if you wish, about the layout and mechanics of the proposed change.
I think Stephanie did well, and I think you expanded on it, and I think we understand what you're doing.
That's super. I appreciate that.
Okay. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
first name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, sir.
This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan
recommends no change in existing zoning at this location with a documented history of
operating multifamily apartment building.
There's no evidence of unique physical circumstances or hardship that would force
the applicant to increase the amount of units at this building. Therefore, we recommend
the aggressive variance not be granted. Thank you. MI 2023-006-277-4213 Chester Avenue. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you.
okay number one mi 2023 006
Number one, MI 2023, 006-300-1623 Rittner Street.
To pro se, Stephen McCarriter is the appellant.
There's a letter of opposition from Broad Street West Civic Association and a letter of opposition from Council President Johnson.
Stephen McCarraher has been promoted
Hi sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court stenography
Hello, my name is Stephen McCarraher, S-T-E-V-E, last name M-C-C-A-R-R-A-H-E-R
Right, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes sir
Could you put your video on?
Our Vice Chair has a few questions for you and first of all, this application is for use as a visitor accommodation in an existing structure. The proposed use visitor accommodation is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, sir. Have you have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Do you have your documents you could share with us?
Yes, sir. Let me pull that up.
Where are the...
Is there a green, the C says share screen, the green button?
I don't have a green button.
Where do you come and come?
On your phone?
Are you on your phone?
I'm on a phone, yes, sir.
Tanya, do you have any suggestions?
Yeah, I kind of think that's not going to work for you, sir.
Yeah, I think you need to have a computer to do this.
Do you have a laptop or computer that you can get on?
No, I don't own a laptop.
I just have an iPhone.
I'm not sure how to direct you how to work an iPhone for a presentation.
I believe I emailed in all the exhibits.
Yes, but the job, when you come here to give the presentation, you have to actually present the documents that you submitted to us.
Let me just see.
One of you ladies, Latina or Lakeisha, would you be able to pull up his documents?
Maybe we can share.
we might be able to accommodate
you're sharing the screen it says
okay well can you see the photos yeah i can i can yep
We have all your other documents, so why don't we do this?
Why don't you tell us what you want to do and how you're going to do it?
For 1623 West Ritner Street, it's a duplex.
This is not a single-family house.
There's actually two entrances.
I live on the lower unit.
The upstairs has previously been used as an Airbnb.
However, I don't have a short-term guest accommodation license.
Apparently, they have my house zoned as single-family.
which when I purchased that house, it is zoned as multifamily.
I have evidence of that also.
How long have you had the Airbnb?
I've owned the house since 2008.
Right.
And how long has it been an Airbnb?
Since 2013.
I have zero for any tax liability also.
and you've not had no problems with the rental right zero the problems i've had with rentals
were long-term year-long rentals that's why i switched to airbnb and that was my primary income
before losing the license so
before losing the license so questions from the board
no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from um our attorney hillary emerson
just a clarifying question um sir are you seeking to have um the entire property both units
zoned for visitor accommodations or okay just no just just the second floor which i've okay
which i've done the lead certification for also i'm not sure if you had that but that's on the
screen okay okay so just the second so to be specific and this was an issue when i brought
up to the zoning board i'm sorry to the rco um this is an owner occupied duplex i am the owner
i live in the first floor they said they were unopposed to that as being a um owner occupied
duplex with a guest uh allowance i'm sorry the visitor accommodation allowance however because
i was listed as a single family house and they had uh one person was um objected to it when
everyone else was on board it's only three people at the meeting when i sent out 192 notices um
but it it was confusion over uh certifying two units which i wasn't applying for only the second
floor unit as an owner occupied unit so okay to clarify the question no no for the downstairs
Okay, now thank you for clarifying because the way the refusal is written is for the
entire building, but if you're just seeking it for one of the units, if the board grants
they would need to provide those specifying the unit.
Yes, so I was told that I needed to file for another variance for the duplex also, which
I have done also waiting for.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Properties indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to zoning at this location.
There's no evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that will prevent it from being used in conformity with the zoning code.
So City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variance for visitor accommodation.
Thank you.
Hillary, can we just do the second floor?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
We can specify that approval for visitor accommodations is for the second floor unit only.
So that would be awesome.
I didn't vote yet.
Wait a minute.
MI 2023, 006-300-1623, Rittner Street.
I vote yes, proviso.
Second floor only for visitor accommodation.
Thank you, sir.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Nell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ismail Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
thank you sir you have your votes thank you very much for your time and everything i appreciate
you thank you thank you so number three mi 2023 excuse me mr chair um we had a we had a request
to actually um well so actually out of order to take number nine um next because the witness in
that case um is only going to be available for a short time more okay mi 2024 003
28 6109 market street al knockamson is the attorney this is a reconsideration hearing
um myself thomas hollman ismail are the three people in this case
Nockamson is coming back in.
Mr. Nockamson, just state your name, please.
Alan Nockamson.
And could you identify your client?
yeah my client is um winfield investments llc in the virtual audience should be len chang and
actually also uh len chang's uh the the landlord's uh realtor as well okay and um
uh realtor as well okay and um our vice chair doesn't have to do a file because we know that
all the information so why don't you just begin sir okay um mr chair sorry i just wanted to note
for the record that the evidence and testimony from the prior hearing on october 25th um is
incorporated into the record for today's hearing and the scope of this hearing is limited to a
discussion of the temporary variance for the proposed change of use at the subject property
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
I'll just give you a brief overrun just so like we just go really quickly.
So 6109 Market Street, you know, the only – so we're seeking three family dwelling units, right?
This is a three-unit building, commercial on the ground floor, two residential above.
This is a CMX2 property.
We're just trying to swap the commercial unit for a residential unit.
And, you know, I would just ask that my client's realtor virtually raised her hand, but they've made every effort possible to lease out this property.
They're asking for a three-year temporary variance to just get someone in here.
It's been a vacant storefront forever.
And, you know, the community under similar circumstances for 6104 Market Street did say yes to a temporary variance like the, you know, by way of a letter, they agreed to, not the community, I'm sorry, the council member on the other side of Market Street.
So it's kind of weird. UTA is a council person for 6104. Council member Jones is the council member for 6109. 6104, the council member said, fine, we understand that there's an issue with the commercial corridor here.
there's a ton of commercial space that's empty that's not that's not leasing will let you on a
temporary basis but um uh put like a commercial a residential space in there so that's what we're
asking for in 6109 three years so um you know i think we can keep it pretty short it's been a long
day uh so i would just ask that my real my my client's realtor virtually raise her hand and
she could just testify via narrative so okay what's your name um that's a good question
it's been a long day my mind is much uh so um i should have in my notes but it's okay hold on
alex goldberg's gonna save the day because he he's he's my brain right now who is it gail thinkpen
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
B-A-Y-L-E-T-H-I-G-P-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Oh, yes.
Ms. Thigpen, are you a realtor?
And you're a realtor for this property, 6109 Market Street?
Can you just, in narrative form, just explain why we've had such a difficult time and what
efforts you've had, you know, known efforts to market this property as a commercial property?
Yeah, sure.
So I got the listing in December.
I've only had one realtor reach out to take a look at it.
um the feedback is was the space was too small um since then i have had no one um
contact me to take a look at it it's um advertised on the mls which means it goes out to um cx i
it goes out to loop net and um redfin and also trulia um i think the space personally i think
this space is too small for a commercial space it would be um much better as a living space
especially on the first floor since um we get a lot of requests from elderly
people in an area that want a first floor unit
anything else to add
no i we lowered the rent a few times um two and five rentals is very flexible with the rent
You know, if we get someone that needs it for a little bit lower, we would go for that.
Just trying to get it rented.
And Mr. Chair, I know this doesn't matter, but my client, he's an affordable housing provider.
provider. This is his business model, so this would go towards affordable housing as well.
This is his business model.
So this would go towards affordable housing.
So, Ms. Pickpen, thank you so much for your time. Okay, thank you. We have your client
adopted your testimony before, I think that's fine, right? All right, so questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair. Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Mr. Chair, I don't know if you noted it previously on the record, and I apologize if you did.
We did get additional letters, and I believe Mr. Nockamson included them in his packet,
a letter of non-support from Achievability and a letter of opposition from Calton and Jones.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Bridget Powell with a hand up and will be allowed to speak.
hi could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
um my name is bridget powell b-r-i-d-g-e-t p-o-w-e-l-l do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do are are you a neighbor
i'm one block away okay please proceed um i actually did attend the second meeting
And I just want to go on the record and say that 6104, from my understanding, is staying commercial.
It's not going to three-year.
And that idea came from Councilman Gaudier.
We're referring to a property that's in Councilman Jones' district, which he also just submitted another letter of non-support.
But what I want to say is that I've been on this Zoom since they were talking about Queen and my understanding that Queen is much narrower than ours.
But the same attorney is going to try and do commercial there.
And that's what we want here.
I mean, I've been a resident of this area since 1980 and I do a lot of walking on Market Street.
So our pushback about making this commercial, we're pretty adamant about it.
So I would ask that we deny this once again and keep this first floor commercial.
And I'm also here with a nearby neighbor, Mr. Cleveland.
So I wanted to know if you would allow him to also offer testimony.
Tell Mr. Put Mr. Cleveland on.
He's right here with me.
Hi, Mr. Cleveland, could you please state your name for me and spell it for the court stenography?
Yes. Cleveland English. C-L-E-V-E-L-A-N-D-E-N-G-L-I-S-H.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And, sir, you're against this?
Yes, I'm definitely against it.
like we told them at the last
meeting they should
they may be
advertising it other ways
but they don't
they cover up the sign
like they don't want to
rent it commercial
you're just against
you're safe to say you're against this
I'm against it because I want businesses
I want it to be commercial
yes sir
All right. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair Lynette Hill will be allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, Lynette Hill. The spelling is L-E-A-N-N-E-T-T Hill. H-I-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am a walk-in distance community member.
Are you against this project? I am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the first audience? No more hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Mr. Chair, can I just respond? Sure.
So, first of all, again, we reviewed the record of the last time that Ms. Powell testified.
And according to the record, she lives as she put an address at 654 North 52nd Street.
I just want the board to know that, that she's not a nearby neighbor.
My client would not go through the effort of filing this zoning appeal, asking for reconsideration if it really was a necessity.
We're asking for the least modification possible under the Philadelphia Zoning Code by asking for a temporary variance of three years.
This is a commercial corridor that's in shambles.
that's in shambles like there there's so many open uh commercial spaces here um i just don't
Like there are so many open space.
get it but that's just me thank you planning commission uh ron bednar city planning or the
property is currently indicated for commercial mixed juice on the city plan ground for commercial
is not appropriate with existing block character therefore we recommend we have no objection to the
We're ending in the variance, requested variance.
MI 2024-003-28-6109 Market Street.
I vote yes, but a temporary variance, 321-27, it expires.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
james now my vote is yes with proviso ishmael shaheed my vote is no
thank you thank you have a great night all right hold on mr chair yeah um so we're gonna
so you and tom and ishmael were the votes on this case
so we have a two to one so we're mr snell is going to need to review the video of the prior
hearing and then we need to vote okay all right can you hear that alan no problem yep okay all
right we'll we'll have the answer for this next next wednesday at two
um we should be able to do that yes okay thank you thank you all right
let's see here south street where we at now
MI 2023 006 337 308 south street Sean Rex Road is the attorney there's a letter of support from
the South Street Head House and a letter of non-opposition from Councilmember Squiller.
Sean Rexrode has been promoted. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court
stenographer? Yes, my name is Sean Rexrode. I'm counsel for the applicant, which is Automatic
Dumpling South LLC. Could you spell your name just for the court stenographer, please? Certainly.
Sean, S-H-A-W-N, Rexroad, R-E-X-R-O-A-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Automatic Dumpling South, LLC.
They are the tenant of this property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to read the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
And he emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Green button on the bottom.
I got it.
Yeah, it's coming up.
Let's make sure.
Actually, I snatched the wrong thing.
Give me one second here.
can you see starting with the south street head house district can you see that uh why don't you
uh could you make it a little bit bigger i think hold on a second i can't see what you can say
give me one second here can you see this that's good we're good all right thank you i'll be brief
i know it's been a very long day um so i'm here on behalf of the applicant which is automatic
dumpling south we were authorized authorized by the owner to be here we have letters of authorization
which i'll get through in my packing here but just to be brief um we are requesting uh a variance
to permit a projecting sign that will go above the second floor but below the roof um i'll just
take you through here's a refusal notice uh this is a copy of our application for appeal
This is the PIF form.
Just so you can see, this is the vesting deed for the owner, which is 308 South Street.
Actually, give me one second.
Sorry, it's 308 South Street Owner, LLC.
This is the lease vesting us with the leasehold interest.
Just in a letter of authorization, just so you know, we're not – the owner affirms that we're not in breach under the lease.
The lease is still active.
And so so basically what we're looking for, let me just go through the let me go through the other.
And so –
So here we reached out to the near neighbors. Give me one second here.
You have a letter of support from the South Street. Correct. Letter of support. And also Council Member Squilla. And Council Member Squilla. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm a bit out of order here.
Essentially, let me just present the plan to you. So the copy of the plan, first and foremost, my clients went to the art commission first, presented their plan to them.
They had a hearing for not the art commission, excuse me, but the but the give me one second here.
But the commission sign and steer streetery committee, my clients adopted every one of their recommendations.
Essentially, they're now just waiting for approval from the ZBA in order for them to go back to the art commission and submit that.
But here's the gist of what they're doing.
um they want to have a projecting sign um which is um this is what it's i'm sorry this is that
was their original plan uh but this is what it's going to look like yeah they're with me here
this is what it's going to look like it's going to be 18 feet off the ground um it's a it's a
small projecting sign. It is going to go above the second floor, but this is actually the
client's dining room. There's no residential there. And part of the reason why we're doing,
really the reason why we need to do this is because of branding. This Brooklyn Dumpling
Shop is a chain, started in East Village in New York, and it's now moving down here.
It's an automat. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that, but an automat is where
you order food and it then gets placed into an automat. You just pick it up. It's a really cool
concept. This certainly fits within the character of the neighborhood. These are also, I'm getting
through the pictures, but this shows our zoning signs are up. This is an exterior photo. This is
without the signs, what it looks like currently. But this is part of the problem here. This is
actually walking east down south street um my client's uh restaurant is right here and you
actually can't see the sign but you can see the other projecting signs uh so it's just you know
it's just a matter of them being in a sea of other signs and needing the sign themselves um this is
interior this shows the automat concept uh which is where you would order your food you'd pick it
up here this is this shows uh the kitchen uh and this is just a this is the dining room this is
actually what that sign would be looking at so this is this is just purely for commercial use
and for use in the uh for use by the restaurant there's nothing um there's nothing residential
there um this just goes to show you that there are plenty of other uh projecting signs that are
well above uh the second street or the second floor uh of course gyms everyone knows or gyms
everyone knows that snipes um next italian grill valente these are all within a block
um this just goes to show you sort of the branding of brooklyn dumpling shop this is
the original uh and we're asking for the same sign um and of course these are our letters to the
to the near neighbors uh we sent them out uh on time uh we had a pretty good showing at the rco
they were uh they were they were ecstatic about it actually i was uh it was a very good reception
uh particularly because my client is bringing something to that area that's a little um that
particular block there's not a lot going on our our our client my client has you know has revived
that area and i think that the businesses around are actually very appreciative of it um we are in
cmx2 this is my client um and at this time i'd like to bring on my client to adopt my testimony
do you have his name for us
sean they have his name oh yes i'm sorry alex flack i apologize okay sure
hi mr black it's a flack i'm sorry alex black mr flack
chair there's no one in the audience by that name okay um counsel uh you're an officer i actually
have him i could get him on my phone i think i think he got dropped for some reason oh sir sir
counsel listen to me you're an officer of the court yes we'll take your testimony
we'll take your testimony questions from the board questions on the board no mr chairman
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just a quick comment.
I noticed on the refusal, it says it sounds like this is a new use,
but looking at prior history and other recent building permits,
It seems like this use is already established.
You may just want to, if this is approved and you go back to L&I for your permit, make sure they're not looking at this as a new use because they're limiting it to the first floor.
And from what I saw in the lease and other permits, it's more than just the first floor.
Yeah, it extends above the second floor, but below the roof.
yeah so i would so if this is approved um when you go back to to lni to get the permit just make
sure they're not reviewing this as a new use um it wasn't it was a little unclear the way it was
worded on the refusal and if it was a new use it shouldn't have a special exception as well
um for it so yeah so i just want to make sure that nothing yeah that nothing gets messed up there
no i appreciate that i didn't actually submit the initial application so that might be
But nevertheless, thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for neighborhood commercial.
Mixed use on a city plan, projecting signs above second floor are in keeping with the character of the block.
Therefore, we have no objection to the grinding address.
MI 2023-0006337, 308 South Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you. Have a nice evening.
All right.
Number four, MI 2023-006-332-1227 West Tioga Street. Benjamin Garrick is the owner applicant. Letter of support from Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team with one enforceable proviso.
Benjamin Garrick has been promoted.
Mr. Garrick.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Garrick.
Could you state your name for us and spell it for the court stenographer?
Benjamin Garrick, B-N-J-A-M-I-N, last name G-A-R-R-I-C-K.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So this application is for two-family household living in an existing structure. The proposed use, two-family household living, is prohibited in the RSA-5 zoning district. Our vice chair has a few questions for you, okay?
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
excuse me yes have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
five days in advance of this hearing yes i apologize getting late please proceed and
please please proceed and share the screen one second
should be a green button at the bottom so share screen
One second, we're trying to figure it out.
We did it earlier.
We was practicing.
well here's what i could do i have a few i have a few more to do why don't i move on
and we'll come back for you and by then you no no you you got it okay go ahead
let me just do it now share screen
yeah you might just got to come back yeah whatever i'll do i'll come back don't worry
Yeah, you might just got to come back.
What am I going to do?
I'll come back.
Don't worry.
We'll be back, all right?
Sorry about that.
That's okay.
Number five, MI20230062842114Reed Street.
David Jennings is the owner.
David Jennings has been promoted, Chair.
Hi, Mr. Jennings. Could you come on, please, and state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Hi, Keith Harris.
Yes. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
David Jennings, D-A-V-I-D, last name Jennings, J-E-N-N-I-N-G-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Jennings, could you put your video on, please?
Yes, I can. Sorry about that, sir.
No, that's okay. No, no.
There we go.
So this application is for use as a visitor accommodation in existing structure.
The proposed use visitor accommodation is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
And I will note that there's a letter of support from Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
And you also have a petition.
Good afternoon, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you.
please proceed and share your screen give me one second and i will note too you also have
your own petition that approximately 13 neighbors have signed that is correct okay you're coming up
proceed all right all right so i'm just showing um the first denial from the
for the permit
I'm just going to kind of scroll through all this
scroll through that because we have all that sir
I would get to the photos
I wanted to show
you said you had the
petition also
we have a copy
the petition came in
let me get to the photos then
and tell us what you want to do
yeah so um we've been airbnb and while i'm bringing the rest up i'm just going to kind of
talk um we've been airbnb in this for about the last year and a half um no issues we never had
any problems um so just trying to repurpose the property um and it's you know one of the main
one of our main sources of um income it's a single family home yes sir okay
just show us the photos all right
i'm gonna write up
so first i'm going to show the photo of i lost my
so this is the that's your posting yep it's the front of the property
with the posting okay um what is it else you want to see like the photos inside the place too
i do want to just show us a couple photos of what it looks like inside okay and you've been doing
this for a year and a half yeah about a year and a half and point breeze was voted five two in your
favor correct i'm trying to find the email where i have the photos at okay take your time
and the neighbors that you have are some live on the block they all it's all on on uh neighbors
that live on the block okay yeah my my grandparents actually live 21 23 which is the house you know
directly in front of directly in front of us.
I'm just I'm having a little trouble finding the.
All right.
So you did show us a picture of the front of the house.
That's correct.
And when I sent the documents in five days before, I included photos of the inside also.
OK, good.
All right.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No, hands, Chair.
Questions or comments from the Planning Commission?
Ready to testify?
Yes, please.
Okay. The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan. Our adopted district plan
recommends no change to existing zoning at this location. There's no unique physical circumstances
or condition of the property that would be prevented from being used in conformity with
the zoning code. City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed
use variants for visitor accommodation. Thank you. MI 2023-006-284-2114 Reed Street.
I vote yes for a temporary variance that will expire 3-21-27.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso. James, now my vote is, oh, I'm sorry. No,
my fault, James. Sorry. James Snell, my vote is yes
with proviso. Yes, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. You have your vote, sir. Thank you, sir.
Okay. Number eight, MI
2023-006275-2501
South 11th Street. Zen Jin is the attorney.
Um, Lower Moimensing Civic Association did not reach an agreement in this case.
The vote was two in support, three in opposition.
Council Member Squilla is leaving this up to the zoning board to make this decision.
Mr. Zen Jin.
Yes, good afternoon.
Good. For the record, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia EPA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Ms. Yang, Y-A-N-G, Xiaoli, X-I-A-O-L-I.
She should be here in the audience, and she's the owner of the property.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted.
the exhibits. Can the board see the exhibits on my screen?
Yes. Thank you. So this is an application for a use of an existing property as a duplex.
I'm sorry, I'm going to jump to the refusal first. So this is zoned in the CMX1 district.
The property was previously used as a law office and a single-family dwelling.
And at some time in the past, some time ago, it was converted to a two-family.
My client actually purchased the property just in the last year.
It was purchased with the thought that it was a two-family dwelling.
When they went to get rental license, of course, it shows that it is a single-family with an office on the first floor,
a commercial type use. So when we went before the RCO, one thing that the RCO and people attending
did acknowledge is that the property has been in this kind of a condition of two family for some
time, well before my client acquired the property. Whether that was ever converted legally, that
doesn't seem to be the case since the city search still comes back as a law office and
a single residence above. The reason they did not reach an agreement partly is because the
RCO board generally has reservations about any conversion within their area, and that's always
been my experience with this particular RCO. As you can see, there's also non-opposition and
support from some of the board members, as everybody do understand that this has been
in this two-family youth situation for quite some time.
Now, the photos also verify that this property was always separated.
always separated. The history of the property as an office and a single family above actually goes
The history of the property as an office and a single family.
back quite some time. This is the corner property. The first floor and the second floor are two
separate units. While the first floor might have been used as an office, it certainly is now set up
as a single family. As you can see, it is not a new renovation. This has been in this condition
for some time, and it was actually acquired by my client in this particular condition.
So at this point, we are really here before the board to legalize this use, to avoid having
to be forced to essentially convert the first floor back to an office, try to rent it, and
then figure out whether that's a feasible use, and then if not, come back to the board
again to ask for the residential use.
Again, this has been in this format for quite some time, and the neighbors mostly acknowledged
that when we went to the presentation.
And that is the primary reason we're asking for the board's consideration to allow what is an existing condition to, although it is nonconforming, to continue and be legalized as a legal condition.
I'm happy to.
Why don't you bring your client on and adopt your testimony, okay?
I'm going to stop sharing it for now.
Ms. Yang, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
I don't know if she's...
Yeah, she's there.
Personal last name Yang is allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state...
Hi, could you state your name
is spelled for the court stenographer?
Hi, my name is Sally Yan.
First name X-I-A-O-L-I,
last name Yan, Y-A-N-G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Yang, did you see my presentation and hear my testimony before the zoning board?
Yes, I did.
Can you verify what I have stated is true and correct and adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is currently indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan, given the documented use history of the site.
We recommend that the request of variance be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006275-2501 South 11th Street.
I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Counselor, you have your votes.
That's three votes.
Thank you.
Have a good evening.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
We're going to go back to, here it is.
Mr. Garrick, MI2023-006332-1227 West Hyoga Street.
Benjamin Garrick has been promoted.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
We're here.
We're here.
Hi, could you put your video on so we can see?
This is the whole stop thing.
i said the whole stop we're trying to turn it on it says you can't start your video because
the host has stopped it i'll start my video now okay all right all right so mr garrick
can we put it on now
here we go can you see it okay all right so mr garrick you're the one that's going to have to
testify okay okay so first tell us what you're doing okay um my mom and my dad this house been
in the family for a long time my father passed away my mom had it but it was a two two family
household it's been registered since i was born so once my father passed away it went to my mother
and it was so i guess the taxes were so high so she switched it to a single then my mom passed
so I inherited the property
so I was trying to
reinstate it back as it
originally was
is there something
you can show that it was always a duplex
it should be
It should be in the fire. It should be in the city.
in the city
is it broken down as a duplex
But is it broken now? Is it duplex now?
Yes, yes.
Okay, could you show us that?
So this is the first floor.
Are that him? He's going to have to testify, okay?
Yes, this is the first floor.
Okay, could you bring that up so we can see it?
So we're only seeing all the pictures. Can you double click?
Thank you.
can you see it can you see it yes sir where is that this is the first floor okay could you see
Do you have other photos to show us?
This is still the first floor.
This is still the first floor of the kitchen area.
Show me the second floor.
The second floor.
Okay, here we go.
This is the third.
This is the third.
You want this?
This is the third.
It's the ways in sequence.
oh it's the way it's in secret so this is the third floor so this is the third floor two three
floor stories you have yes and we're telling me how it's broken up it's broken up the you have
three you have three units yes the bottom floor is me and my brothers that i live on there in the
first the second and third was is being rented you have renters in the second so you have three
Do you have separate utilities?
Never had separate utilities in the three apartments?
No, it's a three-story house.
It was always running like that.
Because even if you look on the city, 30 years ago, it was going to say two-family household.
Two-family or three?
Two-family.
But the utilities are in the rent.
Because I stayed there, too.
So I just, I put the rent included with the utilities.
Okay. So when you went to Nicetown Tioga, how did the vote go?
Tell me about the vote.
Oh, so they passed.
So in the 1200 block of Tioga.
Where you live, how many other places or multiple families?
It's like the whole block almost.
Not the whole block, but definitely a good amount.
like it's right not even a block away from temple hospital like literally yeah i know where it is
yeah it's like literally like 20 steps all right questions from the board
what do you want to show me i did and i'm telling the deed it is the deed now no chair
I blanked out there
for a second chairman sorry I just
got back on
no questions
questions from our attorney Hillary
Emerson
um yeah i just wanted to to clarify because at the beginning of your presentation you said
you wanted to re-legalize this as a duplex and then there's some talk of three units and the
rco said you really wanted three units um but i am i'm confused at how many units you
you actually showed up i live on the bottom floor i rent the second and third but as a single unit
I do rent the second and floor third floor together as a single unit or those each unit
themselves okay so you're okay so you are asking for a triplex triplex okay in that case we need
to amend the refusal because the refusal says duplex but that's the way the house was already
since 30 years ago she just if you look at the paperwork she just recently changed what like
seven years ago when she passed when she passed no i yeah but no listen to me what she's saying
what she's saying is on the paperwork you asked for two when you got the when you went to this
the community you said three and you're telling us today three but you initially only asked for two
no i didn't tell that's what they told me i explained the layout to them and they just
oh that sounds like a three story and she said i'm going to pass it to the next people and they
can decide. Because I guess when I told them that it's three stories, she was like, I think that's
Because I guess when I told them that it's three stories, she was like, I think that's a three triplex.
a three-story, a triplex.
I said, no, I live there. I only rent two other places up top.
Yeah, I think I think there was confusion because this what you're asking for is an owner occupied triplex.
Right. Yeah. So you need to you if you want to have three units here, whether you live in one family rented, whatever.
the number of units determines what it is under the zoning code so three units is multi-family
triplex we need to have a refusal that reflects that before the board can vote on this so we will
need to have the refusal amended um and either myself or zba staff will reach out to you for
how how to do that um we essentially will need a letter um from you and then you'll need to go back
to lni and get and get an updated refusal and then we can vote on this okay okay and you'll hear from
us um you had a question i had a question i deal with the paperwork this is our first time so it
was kind of so we'll hear from you guys right yeah and i just wait for you guys and then we
have to reapply you saying you don't have to reapply you need to go back and get an amended
refusal um it's the same application but you're asking for one additional dwelling unit than what
you were asking for before and it needs to say that on the refusal before the board can vote on
it otherwise if we voted on it now it would just be a duplex but you have you're telling us that
you have three units and you want to legalize this three unit okay so amend the application
do i go on side the eclipse thing again and do it um you will be you'll end up emailing actually
the examiner directly but we will give you instructions for what to do oh okay excuse me
this is the court reporter could i please ask that the woman who's speaking identify herself
my name is rosemary garrick r-o-s-e-m-a-r-y-g-a-r-r-i-c-k thank you
um okay hillary do we want planning to take a position um if if they if not then we'll
have to do a resumption we also need to check for public testimony right okay questions or
comments from the virtual audience no hands chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar city
planning property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given the physical circumstances
of the site we recommend the request of variance be granted so so you're going to hear from us
right and you'll have to reapply at l and i and then we're going to bring it back okay okay well
not not re not reapply but we'll be sending uh materials to l and i issue an updated refusal
then we'll vote on it um aside from the amended refusal the record is otherwise closed one more
question so once we come back do we have to do this all over again uh no you take the vote within
you're on your tell us or we have to be here yeah yeah you know you don't have to be here for the
vote we just once we have their amended refusal then we can vote on it okay you're voting that
you let us know what the vote is yes ma'am if i could if i could just step in this is tanya real
quick so we will send you the decision that the board renders and then you'll be good to go after
we complete everything you don't have to come back to us or anything we'll contact you thank
you so much for the explanation thank you so much thank you okay is there anyone in the virtual
morning whose case has not been called there are no hands here thank you uh thanks everyone
i mean this has been this has been two long days this is a week it's just been two long days and
i and i really do appreciate everybody and tanya i appreciate what you did yesterday getting us
I always, always got to.