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