All right, we're going to go live.
DPZ, Zoom, something wrong with your audio, it looks like.
Good morning.
Sorry I was late.
Sharon.
So we're currently live.
Hold on one minute, please. Let me get my stuff together here.
Sharon, you sent us a delayed list.
There's one delay list case to be voted this morning. You were only waiting for the tax
clearance on the other one. Right. Okay.
And the other is a follow-up hearing.
right and we were waiting for feedback was it from the rco um yes i believe there was a
a second rco meeting and leo mulbahill was going to come back and um request and report on the
meeting uh so let did we go live yet are we live yes we are okay um so let let's get let me open
this up and then we'll go from there. Good morning, everyone. I'm sorry, Tanya, are we ready?
A couple more minutes if we could. All right. Yeah, no rush. Do you let me know when you're ready?
And you also have the updated continuance list. Yes. Yes, I do. Thank you.
um and since sending this that one more is at it number 10 uh 23 440 orthodox street is also being
continued
sharon thank you for doing all of this this is amazing oh you're welcome
number 10's continued also
and sharon i don't know if you were on i i told the board uh and everyone that uh we're going to
move the Packer Avenue case to the end? Is that still the plan? Yes. Okay.
Okay, looks like we're good, Chair. Okay, wait, I'm sorry. I'm taking something back already.
um call number 10 i'm i'm not certain about that i think there might have been a mix-up
thank you
hold on let me get it back in my packet number 10.
back in here
okay i think i'm ready on my end okay orthodox is not going to need right unless we hear
perfect i actually i don't have exhibits for it but you should call it just to okay we'll call
and see what happens um good morning everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair of the zoning
board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair miss
Carol Tenere, Board Secretary Confessor Plaza and Board members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James
Snell. Board Administrator Ms. Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in
attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Pardon me.
fourth for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand
by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself i'll repeat for anyone
and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone,
if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine,
and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement,
call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue.
i'll repeat that also to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue with that being said we can begin but
before ms tenary calls our first case i'm going to read off a list of cases that have
there's a request for continuance and at the end of that if anyone else is requesting a
continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand at this time first case on the continuance list
for this morning mi 2020-001534 105 north felton street f-e-l-t-o-n
MI 2020-000070 1615 South Broad Street. MI 2020-001045 1740 North Marshall Street.
MI 2020-000344, 2433 Harlan Street, H-A-R-L-A-N.
MI 2020-001535, 2724 East Somerset Street.
MI 2020-001533, 3112 West York Street.
If there's an applicant present or an attorney,
and if you are not in agreement with the cases that have just been read off to be continued,
please raise your hand.
And again, I'll repeat, for anyone who would like to enter a request for a continuance
or withdraw, please do so at this time also.
Also, Mr. Chairman, if anyone here presenting a case today hasn't met with the RCO or hasn't
emailed their exhibit packet five days prior to this hearing, please raise your hand, come
forward and explain to the board.
Thank you.
And before, Chair, if we go forward with the attendees requesting continuances, I do have
7806 Lime Kill Pike. If anybody is here for that case, Sharon was alerted that it was heard
already and probably put on the list an error. That's number, I'm sorry, that's for the next
i'm sorry yeah i don't see that yeah it's two o'clock miss two o'clock okay then i have a request
from the attorney for number eight on your list and it's um requested by nick nicholas um and it
a request for continuance but i would ask if we could mark this must be heard as it's been
continued multiple times and it was on the um appeal list since september 2 2019 very good
thank you so uh mi2020-0002521743 east washington lane is continued and must be heard
thank you chair fatina we can start going to the first person that you see with their hand up
ready for continue asking for continuance
okay i have daniel mc l hatton i'm about to allow mr mckelhatton please identify yourself
for the record. Spell your name and I'll swear you in. Daniel McElhatton, 2000 Market Street,
suite 1400, Philadelphia PA, 19103-215-557-0811. I represent your last name, Daniel Furrier.
M-C, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N.
Okay, and you're here on what case?
okay and you're here on what case i'm here on 2724 east somerset
I'm here on 2724 East Summertown.
but we already said that was continued i i'd asked for the continuous the address that i
heard was not 2724 so i may have been give me a second let me get my stuff
yes chair we did continue it okay okay
And you can check next week on the ZBA calendar for your new date.
Thank you very much.
Good day.
Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
mr chairman uh dustin dove here i'm requesting a continuance for 890 north mr dove excuse me
just spell your first and last name please sure uh dustin d-u-s-t-i-n last name is dove d-o-v-e
and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
And you're here on what case?
Calendar number MI 2020-001537, 890 North Holly Street.
I don't, is that for the ninth?
Oh, I got it here.
Okay, it's number 16 on our list.
You're asking for a continuance?
Yes, we haven't had the opportunity to meet with the community yet.
We've attempted to schedule it, but we haven't heard back.
So we would like to hopefully continue this until January.
Calendar number 2020, MI 2020-001537890 North Holly Street is continued.
I'm sorry, Chair, if I could just interject that your date will be posted on the ZBA calendar
next week, and you will probably be in March, more likely.
All right.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you. Anyone else? Chair, we have Charles Richardson. Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. I am asking a continuance for 35- Mr. Richardson, excuse me, you've got to identify yourself, please.
Oh, sorry about that. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Yes, sir.
3517 North 15th Street, MI 2020-000345.
We have received no communication and have no information with regard to this request of variance.
So we're asking for a continuance.
I don't know whether they were from 2019 or something along those lines.
but we don't have any information at all excuse me this is Sharon Saleta that's number 14 on the
board's list and we also have no exhibits okay uh was this continued already Tanya
number 14 yeah yes this here was uh um submitted as an appeal on November the 13th 2019 so we're
past a year um so if we could continuous continue it this one time and must be heard thank you
kindly chair thank you mr richardson mi 2020 that's 0003453517 north 15th street is continued must be
heard. Any other requests? Yes, Chair. We have Alice Udovich. Good morning, Alice. Please identify
yourself with the record. Spell your name and I'll swear you in. Good morning, Chairman, members of
the board. Alice Udovich, U-D-O-V-I-C-H from Councilman Brian O'Neill's office. Swearing
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed chairman on
behalf of the ronhurst civic which has reached out to us we're asking to continue two cases
the first one being 2100 benson the second being 7800 uh busselton okay the ronhurst civic uh has
is undergoing a reorganization and because of these cases being pretty important we'd like to
have the RCO meet on these cases before a hearing. Thank you. Excuse me this is Sharon Saleta those
understood thank you excuse me this is sharon saletta those are number nine and 15 on your list
are number nine and 15 on your.
yes and number 15 um 7800 busselton i believe justin crick is here to um speak to the continuance
he is the applicant's attorney all right let me do the number nine on our list first mi 2020
that's 000735 2100 benson street is continued um excuse me i'm sorry because that's a third
party requests. The attorney on that one is Brett Feldman. He may want to. I know it's if it's worse.
Mr. Feldman, are you out there? Or is someone representing 2100 Benson Street out there?
Mr. Chairman, Brett Feldman, this case actually is being handled by my colleague,
Kate Missimer, who I believe is out there and can explain the reasons why we need to proceed today.
um all right uh what about uh sharon on number 15 7800 busselton
yes since they are both requesting that they be permitted to go forward it doesn't matter
which order you do this in okay so is there not there's there's not there are objections
to continuing both those cases yes um kate missomer if you'd like to call number nine first
kate missomer missomer would like to speak to 2100 benson sure okay and i apologize kate for
thinking it was brit well the brett's name is on the sheet so okay no problem i'm here good morning
please identify yourself spell your first and last name for the record and i'll swear you in
Good morning. Catherine Mithimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400-19103.
We're infirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
If granted today, this would be the actual fourth continuance in this matter.
This was originally scheduled in April.
A continuance was granted for the COVID period.
It was rescheduled in August and again in September.
We've kept a log of communications with the RCO.
We have over 30 points of contact.
The case is somewhat unique in that our preference is always to meet with the community first.
But this proposal is to restore a building that was previously destroyed by fire.
So essentially the use is the same at the same location.
But we've been unable to hold a meeting, and this would be the fourth continuance in this matter.
Additionally, the owner is currently under an agreement of sale that is pending, but has been delayed several times, obviously, given the scenario.
So while we appreciate the community's interest in this project, we've received no real response since the summer about meeting on this project or any input from the community.
Thank you.
So Alice, I was not aware that this case has been continued on several occasions.
Do you have any sense of when the community would be able to meet before the end of, well, let's see, our last week.
What's our last week of hearings?
I think the week of the 15th, is it?
That question is for Tom.
After speaking with several of the new members of their board I believe we could get a meeting
in December. Would it be possible to hear today and hold for a vote once the community has a
meeting? What we do is we can resume it on a specific date. We can hear it.
Tanya, any suggestions?
It's kind of hard because we're just totally swamped and booked up.
And we wouldn't really have availability until January.
Does that work, Kate?
I think the preference obviously be for something sooner because, again, they've been
paying fees to extend this agreement out to accommodate a hearing um you know we're open
to suggestion but obviously a fourth continuance is pretty unusual yeah i'll agree i'll agree to
that um and again sarah and seleta kate i i think what they're considering is holding the hearing
today and then scheduling a second follow-up hearing for community feedback after the hear
after the meeting as long as we can commit to a time period within that um that the
um that the the meeting has to take place i think that's fine i think you can work that out with
the meeting has to take place i think that's fine i think you can work
alice offline yep alice at work yes great thank you all right so we'll hear it alice and then we
will uh we'll have a uh wait to hear back from your office and the uh community group excuse me
but we are going to have to have a specific date for the follow-up hearing or else it will need
to be reposted yep so well once we hear it then i guess time will give us the date yes correct
chair okay and on the second one um alice while you're still there uh busselton avenue
do we have an attorney representing
there's a request for a continuance on 7800 busselton is anyone out there objecting to the
continuance i believe this is justin crick who did submit exhibits if he is available to speak to
this yes hi thank you members of the board um good morning justin please identify yourself
for the record spell your name and i'll swear you in yes justin crick j-u-s-t-i-n-k-r-i-k address
is 1500 jfk boulevard suite 63019102 you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes please proceed thank you um we we would similarly on this matter uh
object to the continuance request although admittedly this would be a first continuance
requests, but the nature of the request is one for a similarly previously approved use in an
existing group practitioner building. And what my client is looking to do is put in a dialysis
center in an existing adult long-term care facility, and the services are greatly needed.
So delay would really hinder services to the patients for this. But in addition, and I completely
respect the RCO's reorganization, but despite various correspondence with both the RCO and the
councilperson's office, this is the first we're hearing of it. So simply because of the lack of
substantial change at all from what this property is currently used for and had been previously
approved, as well as the nature of the use being a dialysis center, a group practitioner for that
sort of life-sustaining and vital service, we would like to proceed today.
Atlas, what was the reason again for the request?
It was simply again that the community group had not heard the case, but we would agree for
if you could hold the vote and we'll do a follow-up with the with the community group's input
okay Mr. Kirk we're going to hear the case thank you all right thank you thank you Alice
any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
latina can you call someone else yes i have rodney little you've been unmuted you're ready to speak
morning thank you good morning sir please identify yourself for the record first my name is rod rodney
little stakeholder at 886 north holly street in west philly um i'm this is my first process but
i'm in total opposition of the 890 sir yes ma'am here could you swear him in please
we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do in what case are you speaking to 890 sir number 16 well you're you're here as a as an
opponent total opposition yes yeah well you have to wait till we get to that case sir oh i apologize
no problem once we get there then you can excuse me this is Sharon Saleta I believe there was a
continuance granted for this case number 18 I remember 16 yeah that case yeah you're right
thank you that case is being continued sir so sir you can look online to the ZBA calendar for
the next date yes ma'am okay thank you everyone uh anyone else yep continue Fatina please
Yes, we have Richard DeMarco. He's been unmuted. He's ready to speak.
Good morning, Mr. DeMarco. Please identify yourself with a record, and I'll square you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me okay?
Thank you. I'm here on two matters, and I think you already continued 1615 South Broad for me, so I don't...
We did. Yes, we did.
Thank you. I'm also here as an interested party in the Packer Avenue matter. I understand there is a request for...
I'm also here as an interested party in the Packer Avenue matter.
I understand there is a request for continuance from Packer Park Civic.
I'm entering on behalf of Veteran Stadium Neighbors Civic Association, which is the RCO, about a block away from the project.
We are an interested party.
There are a lot of concerns about the application.
There's been no RCO meeting.
It was canceled, from my understanding, and we're joining with what I believe will be a continuance request by the Packer Park Civic.
We would like to hear more about this.
until we have information about it we're going to be opposed if we can find out some information
about the case we may not be but there's a lot of concerns in my community right now so we're
joining with the request for continuance from packet park civic since there has been no rco
meeting thank you excuse me excuse me this is sharon saletta um michael mattione is the attorney
handling this case i believe he wishes to speak to the continuance also paul bonnie is representing
the RCO. Again, not to get into the arguments now, I thought at the beginning I said we're
going to hold that case till the end. This is Paul Bonney. I have a question of clarification.
Mr. Bonney, please identify yourself with the record. My name is Paul Bonney. My last name is
spelled b-o-n-i my office address is 325 chestnut street suite 1109 philadelphia 19106
um and i'm swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir please and i'm here representing the rco in this matter the packer park civic association
um i guess a point of clarification before i um um go further uh is the chair saying that
that the board is holding until the end of this list the question about what the question about
whether to continue the case or not well i was not aware that there was a request for a continuance
until just now. Thank you. If I may interrupt, this is Sharon Saleta. I believe there was some
consideration of, because this is expected to be a highly contested case, of perhaps splitting it
into two hearings. Well, if I could make the request for continuous, Mr. Chair.
Should I, am I on video? Should I activate my video? It doesn't matter. We can hear you.
that's all that matters. No, you're not on video. And Mr. Mattione is available if you wish to speak,
Mr. Mattione. Well, I'd like to make the request first, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, make your request. Okay. Well, first of all, this is a first request for a continuance.
This case has never been continued before. The parties agreed to have an RCL meeting on November
16. And we were all ready to have that. And unfortunately, and we had secured a safe outdoor
location, we flyered the neighborhood, and we were ready to have that. Unfortunately, as you may
recall, Monday, November 16 was the day that the mayor and the health commissioner at one o'clock
in the afternoon, announced that there would be increased, you know, COVID restrictions
coming into place, albeit not until November 20th. And outdoor RCO meetings were not prohibited
as if properly distanced. And we were prepared to go forward. The applicant called us that day,
the afternoon of the RCO meeting and begged us to cancel the meeting because of the COVID concern.
We didn't want to cancel it, but we thought about it. The applicant then put the request in writing.
We continued to think about it. Even the police department suggested that we should cancel it
out of abundance of caution. And so we did. So we agreed to the applicant's request
to cancel and then reschedule the hearing, the RCO meeting. We then asked the applicant for
new dates so that we could continue to progress with this matter. And we think it was somewhat
of a ridiculous suggestion, but they offered the Tuesday and Wednesday before Thanksgiving.
Well, that, of course, doesn't work for us. It doesn't really work for anyone. Even this board
canceled its, did not hold hearings last week
on the Tuesday and Wednesday before Thanksgiving.
And so we are just, this is a highly,
this is a proposal to put a-
Let's not get into, let's not get into.
What I'm saying is there are a ton of questions
from the community. I'm sure there are. And we are simply unable at this point to have any sort of
from the community and-
I'm sure there are.
And we are simply on a,
effective cross-examination of these witnesses when we don't understand or we don't even know
what the project entails. We have, as you can understand in an RCO meeting, a million different
questions are asked. Okay. I'd like to hear from you. He's muted. You can go forward. Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Chairman. You want to swear in here? Please identify yourself for the record and I'll swear
you in. Sure. Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence
Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia 19106. You swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but the truth? I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. You heard Mr. Bonney about they were
supposedly there were opportunities that were trying to have a meeting, but they were
canceled? Or your client? Can you explain that? Certainly. First, there was an original RCO
meeting scheduled on October 19th, and the coordinating RCO requested that that be continued
until after the election. Everybody was busy, etc. We agreed, and then we agreed upon a date of
November 16th, and it was going to be an outdoor in-person meeting, and as Mr. Bonny did say,
it was the same day that the city came out with the new safer at home restrictions on public
meetings um we we called him up and asked about whether we should have this meeting at all given
the new restrictions and the uh lack of you know concern for uh outdoor gatherings the city has no
more than 10 people per thousand square feet um we were really concerned about whether we could have
this meeting in a safe manner given the new restrictions from the city mr bonnie did send
me an email that said, and as I've mentioned, we've been having the same discussions here
on our end, especially because the police department refuses to attend tonight and is
advising us to instead meet virtually.
So yes, tonight's meeting is canceled.
Let us select the mutually convenient date, and then you can send out another round of
notices with a Zoom link.
So we suggested that we send out a Zoom link with meetings held either Tuesday or Wednesday.
I believe it was the 24th and the 25th.
I would have suggested the 23rd, but I already had another RCO meeting that night anyway.
So the suggestion that having a meeting the week of Thanksgiving is somehow improper,
it would be lied by the fact that the Point Free CDC had a meeting on November 23rd with my client.
Beyond that, I have six witnesses online today.
This is a long case.
Even though it's only a special exception, there are several witnesses we're going to present.
I believe that there is ample opportunity for, one, us to at least start the case today,
given the number of witnesses and the amount of time it's going to take.
Two, for proper cross-examination, you know, that'll be available today.
And if we can agree on a virtual meeting, which we would much prefer,
especially in light of the safer at home, at some point in time as well, we can do that.
It is not uncommon for this board, especially in cases where there are numerous witnesses that will take more than one hearing date to have a hearing and then to have an RCO meeting afterwards, especially in when we've had already two cancellations of the RCO meeting.
So, given what you're saying and what Mr. Bonney and Mr. DeMarco have already testified to, everyone is in agreement that this is going to be a rather long, lengthy hearing.
and Mr. Bonnie indicated that according to him his clients are not even aware of what is being
proposed here whether that's true or not I'll take Mr. Bonnie at his word so maybe at least we can
hear the applicant's side of it and get to understand what the issues are and what the
application represents so that by the time we have our second hearing the opposite the RCOs
will have an opportunity to respond because they will have full knowledge of what this
application represents. So again, we're going to hold this to the end. It'll be the last case
this morning, and I'm sure we'll have some arguments again about this, but
I'd like to go forward with the other cases on our list, and we'll get to you folks momentarily.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
Chair, we have Sloan Foulkes. Mr. Foulkes, you've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Foulkes. Please identify yourself for the record and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Chairman DiCicco and members of the board.
Good morning, Chairman DeChico and members of the board. My name is Sloan Foulkes.
My name is Sloan Fuchs, S-L-O-A-N-E-F as in fire, O-L-K-S.
Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinone Sanchez, room 508 City Hall.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
I have two cases that I would like to request be continued.
The first is MI-2020-000028, 1366 Anchor Street.
They have not met with the RCO at present, and we'd like forward them to some community input prior to the case being heard.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. That's number two on your list.
I need to say that we also have no exhibits and this is the second scheduling it was originally
scheduled to be heard on September 29th all right so I'm sorry yes I'm sorry chair but this here is
an old case mark from July 26th 2019 I got you thank you MI 2020-0000281366 Anchor Street is
continued must be heard. Thank you. My second request for continuance is calendar number
MI2020-0003462340 Orthodox Street. Again, we've reached out several times to the coordinating
RCO. The first time this case was scheduled to be heard several months ago, the coordinating
RCO hadn't heard from the appellants at the time. Recently, we reached out to the coordinating
RCO again, and we haven't got a response from them either. So if the appellant is here
and they have met with the coordinating RCO,
we would be fine with a holding here.
I'm sorry, not a holding here.
We'd be fine to let the case continue,
but we haven't heard anything at all.
And excuse me, this is Sharon Solita again.
This is number 10 on your list and I have no exhibits.
And has this case been scheduled before?
I'm sorry.
Just the first time, first continuance?
I don't know the answer to that.
No, it has been scheduled.
This will be the first request, correct?
This should be the second.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
It should be a must be heard.
Yeah, that's what I'm asking.
Last year.
Gotcha.
That's why I was asking.
Thank you.
MI 2020-0003462340.
Excuse me.
Orthodox Street is continued.
Must be heard.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
any other requests there are no more hands here okay uh make sure i got everything right here
okay uh the first case mi 2020-001539 140-03 south 21st street
and excuse me chair if if you go forward with this someone could we then go on to the add-ons
uh yes i'm sorry um hold on
you talk about the hold on
I can read the first one in if you'd like. It's simply a delay list case.
Yeah, a delay list. I have it. We'll go to that one now, and then we'll hold the
South 21st Street moment for a few minutes. MI 2020-01228-223 South 44th Street.
and the record was closed except for proof of tax compliance which we have since received
okay mi 2020 that's 01228 223 south 44th street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes
to mi2020-000551 3649 north 15th street
and three and mi2020-0006863651 north 15th street
is mr moldahill available
Is Mr. Mulvihill available?
Thank you.
Mr. Mulvihill has been promoted to speak, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Mulvihill.
You know the drill.
Please identify yourself with the record, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Yes, good morning, Chairman, members of the Board, Leo Mulvihill, 2424 East York Street, Suite 111, Philadelphia, 19125. Here today for 3649 and 3651 North 15th Street.
We're having a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
I'm sorry, can we give this one minute, Leo?
I'm going to promote you to a panelist.
Thank you, I was just about to ask.
okay you're ready
okay members of the board pardon me my computer's being a little slow this morning so i'm going to
do my best and ask that you bear with me today as i try to present these projects so board members
we were here several weeks ago for these two projects 3649-3651 north 15th street we had
originally scheduled a zoning meeting, I believe with the 13th Ward RCO. We attended that meeting.
No one from the community did, and we weren't presented any time really to present our project,
so we were asked to return. We did so on, if I may just refer to my notes one moment, please.
on i believe it was november 17th it may have been it may have been the 16th i'm doing my best
to recall okay all right that was an in-person meeting that was held at the hero center
um on 19th street that by the 13th ward rco as you all recall that monday the mayor's office
and the city had announced that they would be locking everything down on that Friday.
And the best way I can describe the meeting is unproductive, to be charitable.
I showed with my architect, and we showed in person.
There was the chair of the RCO present, several other members of the community,
and an off-duty Philadelphia police officer who acted as security for this,
who had a mask on their face, but it was generally either around their chin or leaving their nose
uncovered the whole time. So needless to say, it wasn't a very safe environment. That said,
we began to present the project when a member of the community who was very upset that the
project meeting was being held in person at all came to the meeting and began with a raised voice
berating me, my architect, and the RCO chair for holding a meeting that night.
That kind of set the tone for the rest of the evening, which generally devolved into
these voices. And it's my understanding and belief that we couldn't have gotten a
bi-writer project approved that evening. Nevertheless, there was a vote held. I
understand that the RCO chair had sent a letter to the ZBA. I didn't see it because the attachment
that I received was unopenable, so I'm unsure what the vote was. For purposes of this hearing,
I'm going to share my screen, or at least attempt to. One moment, please.
While you're doing that, Sharon and or Tanya, do we have a letter?
i can try to check um leo what was the name of the group it was the 13th ward rco the chair would
have been charles karn c okay let me check yes and miss sunkett for for purposes of today's hearing
if i recall you just sent you may have sent him back a message saying that we can't open this
because it's not a PDF file, if that's helpful in refreshing your recollection as to the
correspondence. Okay. So let's just share this. In the meantime, members of the board, the sole
reason we were here for a zoning hearing for these two properties was for required off-street
parking both of these properties are located on north 15th street directly south of erie avenue
you should be seeing my screen right now which the presentation pack that i previously submitted
if you can enlarge that's good thank you so the the two refusals are identical
for 49 and 15. the floor plans are identical but mirrored in the cmx3 zoning district
the number of units we're asking for are by right the height that we're asking for is by right
The number of units we're asking for are by right.
The height that we're asking for is by right.
The block itself has numerous multifamily properties on it, including a rooming house directly to the north that's existed for years, which is right on the corner of Erie and 15th.
Several multifamily homes going down the block.
I can refer to the photographs later if the board would like to see those again.
And it is an intact block with no curb cuts.
The sole reason we're here is because the zoning code requires in CMX3 districts that we install all-street parking for these projects.
To do so, we would have to take 20 feet away, give or take, of the curb, or 10 feet if we do a smaller curb cut, right, times two.
This privatizing, essentially, two on-street parking spaces to put one parking space on each proposal.
for four dwelling units.
We only asked for this refusal
because we thought it didn't make any sense
to install brand new curb cuts on the block
where none existed.
Otherwise, we would have built this project by right.
The community kind of inexplicably voted this down.
I don't have any explanation as to why this happened
because I did not receive a letter.
My assumption without having any real evidence
to back this up is that
due to the general tenor of the meeting,
um the people being very upset about the circumstances that no matter what was presented
that night it would have been voted down because in any other meeting in my experience when we are
asking to not put a curb cut in on an intact block where there is legal on-street parking
that is generally preferable by the community um i will again move to the photographs of the
properties so the board can see for purpose of the record the refusal that i was previously
referring to is on page 3 of 78 of my zoning packet. I am now going to be shifting to page
65 and 66, pardon me, 64 of my zoning packet. Members of the board, this is the block that
we're discussing. To the left, you see large homes that have been converted to multifamily
dwellings. There are newer homes down the block, which I'm indicating with my cursor
at this point. There are two-story, single, and I believe at least one or two, two family dwellings
on the opposite side of the block. This lot to the left, which this car is parked directly in
front of on the street legally, is where we'd be proposing to build. So the relief that we're
asking for, generally members of the board, I would expect that would have otherwise been totally
approved why it was not approved i am uncertain i would ask that the board find that my client
faces a hardship in installing these two off-street parking spaces for several reasons
first off the lots themselves are 17 feet wide if we install curb cuts we're taking parking away
from the street from anybody to park there for one car per unit and that's basically all we could
theoretically fit. Two, our curb cuts in our driveways are going to be 10 plus feet wide,
taking up more than half of the lots themselves. And they're going to have to be around 18 to 20
feet deep, which would require us to either cantilever the structure so that it doesn't
even come close to matching the existing structures that are adjacent, or coming up with some strange
way to place off-street parking on these parcels. And I'll just move to the floor plan to give the
board an idea of what we're looking at. I think we can, not to interrupt you, I think we can
get past that. I'm just sure, is there a letter in the file? Yes, Chair. We were sent the letter
November the 25th. It was sent to Leo. However, it was not provided as a PDF for him to open.
I was able to open the documents and it was opposition in the letter for, I believe it
was one address. We only got one letter for, I believe it was 51. But that's what we have. And I
will download it as a PDF, Leo, and then email it to you. Not what I'm supposed to do, but going
forward, if we don't have the documents in the PDF form as requested, we're not going to be able
to submit them to anyone. This is Sharon Saleta. We also have an email exchange that we were copied
on. Which is, I'm showing that for purposes of the record right now. It's an email dated Thursday,
November 19, 2020. Yes. I provided three emails, which I believe encapsulate the entire exchange
between my first initial email and the responses from the RCO, from the council person's office,
uh from the council person's office and there may have been one or two other people
And there may have been one or two other people as the RCO.
as the RCO chair counseled many many folks um and copied many folks on the correspondence
and this is Farid Seletic and I just forwarded that email to the board members in case they
can't read it on the screen yeah so members of the board I sent this email only because of the heated
exchange that occurred uh on that Tuesday so that would have been the 17th when we had that meeting
because I had another RCO meeting with this RCO at a different location on that evening, the 19th.
And for purposes of the record, it just essentially states my concerns about having continuing
in-person RCO meetings, the fact that I did not feel safe at the meeting,
the fact that I would not be attending any in-person meetings in the future,
and my offer to use my personal Zoom account to help the RCO facilitate virtual RCO meetings in
the future. And I reached out to the council person's office as well as a plea essentially
to help if they could do anything to help Mr. Karn and the RCO facilitate these virtual RCO
meetings in the future because it's a volunteer organization. As we all know, Zoom costs money,
which I'm not sure this RCO has a budget to do.
um the response that i got was surprising um i'm going to allow the board to read that at their
leisure um it essentially i feel like attacked me for trying to offer this service to the rco
i feel like it mischaracterized the events of the evening i stated to everybody present that
evening that while my client was not there physically at the meeting due to having family
members with compromised immune systems, I had my client available via FaceTime at any point
should anybody have any questions. This note fell on deaf ears at the meeting, I think because
everybody was so upset about the fact there was a meeting being held, period. So I did my best to
try to do everything I could to facilitate this RCO. This was the second in-person meeting I'd
held for this project. That's essentially all I have to do. I would just submit that the email
that I previously submitted to Ms. Zuleta, the Thursday, November 19th exchange, and there are
multiple exchanges. There was another exchange later in the day at 11.05 a.m., which I showed
on the screen, and another exchange at 11.46 a.m. I would just ask that they be marked and moved
into the record for purposes of these hearings to help elucidate what happened at these community
meetings and the pleas for for if the council person's office is still present on this call
i will do anything i can to help this rco have import virtual meetings in the future i'm not
trying to impugn the rco they're doing their best in this weird time i want to help them out i just
can't go to in-person meetings anymore my client won't and my architect won't because we can't
continue doing this that's all i have members of the board i'm happy to answer any questions
you have at this time. And if anybody else has anything they'd like to add, for example, Mr.
Karn of the council person's office, I'm happy to continue that dialogue and respond to any
questions they may have. Here we do have the council person's rep, Mr. Richardson. Fatina,
can you please unmute him? And he can be sworn in. Mr. Richardson, you've been unmuted. Please
wait for the chair to be sworn in. Mr. Richardson, good morning. You're still under oath. Please
identify yourself with a record. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson from the Office of
Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall. The councilwoman is opposed to the granting of the
variance. The community did speak very loudly with regard to what their desires were for this
property and uh based on the on the uh refusals that's what what they voted on uh i do have on
the line charles karn uh because in fact he's at work right now but i wanted to get him on the line
to uh you know hear anything that that had to be said with regard to uh mr mulvihill's off
offer of uh you know trying to get to get them to have future meetings uh via zoom and that type of
thing but you know that that being all with state withstanding uh the community voted against the
granting of the variance and the councilwoman stands with the community
mr mr karn available uh because i'm a bit confused that it's one of the first cases i
think i could remember where people actually want curb cuts on streets that don't have them
and that's why i brought it to the board's attention confused about that one i am i was
also surprised by that result and if that's what the community once understood it just because it
was such a bizarre result in my experience doing these hearings I wanted to kind of provide a
in my experience doing these hearings i i wanted to kind of provide a little bit of background as
little bit of background.
to what happened at the meeting which seems to me to be the potential explanation for what had
happened i wasn't privy for the for conversations that were had by members of the community
because i i left the building as to my architect and there was conversation so you have a buy
right project that is required to have off-street parking that it would we would have built it by
right with off street but we thought having the off street in the middle of a block made no sense
understood thank you it's mr chair chair oh excuse me chair i don't see charles corn but i do have
two telephone uh callings i have charles uh this is mr richardson again i have charles on my phone
right now uh i don't know how well this is going to work out if you have any questions uh perhaps
you can, Charles, can you hear? Yes, I can hear. Okay. If you can, I don't know if you guys can
hear him over my speaker? Yes. Okay. If you have any questions, you can ask Mr. Karn directly.
I'll have to swear you in though, Charles. Mr. Karn, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Please identify
yourself with the record spell your last name and I'll swear you in. Charles Carn 3853 North 19th
Street RCO chair for the 13th Ward RCO. And Mr. Carn spell your last name for the stenographer.
I'm sorry C-A-R-N. Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth.
Yes sir. Would you care to comment on what the purpose of the objection what why the community
is objecting objecting to this application what happened was we're talking about um 15th street
15 30 um 36 49 and 51 yes um the variance the variance uh mr mobile presented was not to have
all street parking for the two um the two properties the community voted that they wanted to have
off-street parking
off-street parking for the properties
and we understood about the curb cuts
and that was
that was the vote and that was
discussed with Mr. Mulvihill
at the meeting and his architect
the elimination of at least
two on-street parking spaces
is what the community
supporting correct
yes sir
oh yes
that because it's very unusual that's why i need to ask and make sure we're we're all on the same
page here um yes sir the design the architect the architect came with the design and the pictures
and that's what um they wanted that's what they voted on you say the design so is this more to do
with the design of the structures or does it have more to do with the curb cuts
the design was fine um the variance was for the um um not to put the um the parking spaces
the community voted to have the parking spaces on the property and and the curb cuts all right
okay thank you anyone else i'm sorry
you have anything else to add
there are no hands chair all right uh questions from the board no no no planning commission
good morning david effecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the philadelphia city planning commission
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, these properties are indicated for commercial mixed use on the comprehensive plan.
They are located one block from the Erie Broad Street Line station.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting these variances.
Thank you very much.
um mi 2020-000551 3649 north 15th street and mi 2020-000686
3651 north 15th street uh my my vote is yes with all due respect to mr karn and the councilwoman's
office uh this is very unusual but my my vote is yes yes my vote is yes to both my vote is yes to
both my vote is yes to both thank you all
my vote is yes to both thank you all thank you members of the board have a good afternoon
thank you take care
so did we we got to go to 21st street now correct south 21st
MI 2020-001539, 1401-03 South 21st Street.
I believe Mr. Marcioni is representing the applicant.
Is there anyone representing 1401-03 South 21st Street?
I'm sorry, Chair.
Mr. Mattione, you've been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Mattione, identify yourself with the record.
Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence
Mall, Suite 5A, Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
Mr. Mariano, you're still under oath from earlier this morning.
Please proceed.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Cliff Lasky, my client is available as well, and I'd like to have him unmuted.
He's the owner and developer of this property.
It's a 1401-03 South 21st Street.
We did receive late last night a support letter from the RCO, there's our tax clearance certificate, and the refusal.
This is 1401-03 South 21st Street, was consolidated from two lots into one lot in 2018.
The prior owner then sought to develop it as five units.
that was denied. My client bought the property and he seeks to subdivide it back into two separate
properties, 1401 and 1403, South 21st Street. Because doing the subdivision creates two lots
that don't meet the minimum lot requirements of 1,440 square feet and for 1403 doesn't meet the
16-foot-wide requirements, he needs variances to basically build two single-family homes
where two single-family homes are permitted.
It would be bringing back the lots to what had been prior to 2018.
In this area, there are many 14-foot-wide lots, including basically every one on Garrett Street,
and a lot of 15-foot-wide lots, including 1407 South 21st Street,
and then every other lot in the area is undersized.
The two lots here are basically 18 by 48 and 15 by 48,
so they're 855 square feet and 715 square feet.
So that's the refusals.
The homes themselves, they meet all of the dimensional requirements.
They're less than 38 feet in height.
There are three stories, the rear yard and open area requirements for both properties are met.
And again, we have the full support of the RCO.
On the site plan, we do have bump outs for bay windows.
And what we would like to do, Mr. Chairman, we met with the RCO on November 23rd.
And we would like the opportunity to revise the plans at the suggestion of the RCO to remove these bay windows.
We just didn't have enough time between last week and this week with the holiday.
So, if we could finish the presentation and hold the vote until we can revise the plans
and come back with revised plans without the bay windows on the side, we would appreciate
Excuse me, this is Sharon Sledder.
Mr. Mattione, is this something that could be addressed with a proviso, no bay windows?
If we could have Cliff Lasky add it on, then he could comment on that.
I'd rather not comment on that for the developer.
I'm sorry. What's the name of the developer? Cliff Lasky, L-A-S-K-Y.
Hello, can you hear me? Mr. Lasky, please identify yourself for the record. Spell your first and last name, and I will swear you in.
Hello, Clifford Lasky, C-L-I-S-F-O-R-D, Lasky, L-A-S-K-Y, Ben Franklin Residences, 1453 Point Breeze Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.
Hello, Clifford Lasky, C-L-I-S-F-O-R-D, Lasky, L-A-S-K-Y.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
You heard the question.
Could you just repeat it once?
Yes, I'm asking if the request of the community could be addressed rather than submitting revised plans
simply with a proviso to the decision saying bay windows to be removed.
Yeah, so the only issue is, you know, the architect didn't have enough time to resubmit this zoning drawing here,
which L&I has, which shows these two bump outs.
I know when my architect actually completes the plans, these structural drawings will have to show, you know,
a triple joyous beam supporting these bump outs when in reality we're not going to do any bump outs.
There's not going to be any triple-joice beam. I want to make sure that the architect can submit
a zoning plan not showing these bump outs and the final building plan not showing the bump outs
so that there's not any issues later on. There's an agreement we can do by proviso.
Right. Maybe we'll submit to you the zoning plans with the bump outs removed.
You guys can stamp them if everybody's in agreement. No, that's the point. We cannot
stamp them after the decision is read but how about this as an alternative is there a possibility that
the architect could have the plans to the board by end of today or by end of tomorrow uh possibly
yes uh let me you know i'll call him right after this meeting and tell him it's a super rush and
to get the plans to you guys today tomorrow because if it could um if it would be cleaner to simply
remove them from the plans i don't think this requires a follow-up hearing but if the board
approves it, you could instead say that the record is being held open solely for submission
of plans showing removal of the bay windows, if that would work for you, Chair.
Yes, yes.
I'm fine with that as well, yep.
Let me just do one other thing, Mr. Chair, real quick.
Did you hear my statements, Cliff?
Yes, I did.
And are they truly correct?
do you adopt them as your testimony i do thank you thank you any questions from the board no no
anyone else will care to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
we still have uh mr lasky's hand up but there's no other hands chair
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
I'm sorry, Chair. Can I please interrupt for a second?
We do have Pietra Gamble.
Pietra.
I thought she was missing. All right. Good morning, Ms. Gamble.
Please identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
Good morning. My name is Pietra Gamble. I'm a member of the coordinating RCO.
We're in front of the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I just wanted to go on record saying that we are in support of the project with the
proviso of the removal of the bay windows.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
Anyone else?
That's all, Chair.
And Planning Commission again.
Sorry.
Oh, that's okay.
Good morning.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board.
This property is indicated for residential single-family use on the comprehensive plan.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting this variance.
Thank you. Sharon, what was that proviso again?
For the removal of the bay windows or?
Oh, Sharon.
Tanya, do you remember what that statement was? Does anybody remember it? Proviso would be
removal. I'm sorry, I forget, but I was muted. We can't vote. Yes, what you could announce is that
the record is closed aside from submission of plans showing the removal of bay windows.
it will be voted tomorrow at 3 30 with revised plans so my vote is yes no we can't vote oh that's
right we can't vote on so i'm sorry it will be voted tomorrow but the record is closed except
for the revised plans being submitted thank you so noted i will i don't have to repeat that thank
you yes thank you all right okay um am i
All right. Okay. MI 2020-000494. 1439 South 20th Street.
anyone here for 1439 south 20th street
chair we have two hands up
one anthony merlino and a phone call excuse me i'm sorry one anthony merlino and the other steve
masters masters good morning please identify yourself with the record and i'll swear you in
i'm sorry can we promote steve masters fatina yes
mr matter masters you've been promoted to panel
good morning mr chair members of the board steve masters from the law firm of just laws
representing the applicant we're going to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about
the truth i do please proceed your masters do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy yes i do and have you mailed the entire email packet the exhibit
packet to the board within five days of this hearing yes we have thank you you may proceed
thank you members of the board this is a change of use only proposal to put a restaurant
at the corner of Dickinson and South 20th Street.
This is a location that since 1954 has had a sandwich shop.
So the proposed use that Mr. Merlino's company is bringing in here
is a very slight alteration from the use that's been at this location for quite some time.
um go through the exhibits really quickly um so the the um refusal here is just um a denial um
because this is a cmx1 uh zoning district and the sit-down restaurant is not permitted
um so it's it's one use refusal uh we had several very productive meetings with
the community on October 21st, October 26th, and November 16th. And as a result of those
conversations, and in addition, Mr. Merlino was able to meet and talk with many of the near
neighbors. And as he went around to explain the project, we had an overwhelming vote in support
of this project 27 community members voted in favor of it and only two were opposed all of the
near neighbors were in support there are some provisos that we agreed to as part of this process
and i'm go through in a in just a a bit just a description of the whole project but the provisos
and the community letter that we agreed to are the hours from 7 a.m to 11 p.m cut off a pickup
at 11 p.m. The trash trucks, commercial trash, will be on 20th Street and will pick up trash
from both the tenants and from the restaurant during daytime hours. We're going to have a
barrier that's a vegetative barrier to insulate the sound from the pickup window to the near
neighbors. We'll be adding some extra security cameras to ensure that the barrier doesn't
cause a blind spot. We are not going to apply for a streetery parklet. We are interested in
a sidewalk cafe, but nothing onto the street. And the neighbors did agree with us that it was
beneficial to have a loading zone, one parking space between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.
so that the residents could use that spot between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., and that loading zone is going
to be for not just deliveries during the day to the restaurant, but for the commercial drivers
with the online orders that people will make, like Uber Eats and Grubhub, so those types of
uh companies um so uh we you'll see in this photo is um our property is on the corner here
is um our property is on the corner here and we have the approval of the neighbors um except
and we have the approval of
uh for the vacant home which there's no one there uh that there would be the most impacted by uh
bringing back this this restaurant use into this property and we have um a very large number of
petition signatures from the immediate area including a second round of petitions that were
that were done after we negotiated the the provisos
that confirmed that the near neighbors were all in support of those
have the client if you could summarize sure um would you like to see the the plans at all
uh yeah briefly i guess yes okay all right sure let me put this over here
So this is the site plan, um, Dickinson Street, oops, I think it's a little smaller.
Dickinson Street is to the right. South 20th is below here. We're proposing containers,
very attractive containers to put the trash bins on the south 20th side. And a few will
be applying to the streets department for a few tables and chairs for sidewalk dining.
and then, go down.
So this is the view from the rendering
from South 20th Street.
This is the entrance to the apartments that are upstairs
and this is the main entrance to the restaurant.
This is the view from Dickinson Street.
And again, the main entrance to the restaurant here,
the sidewalk cafes, the neighbors who are gonna come
and look for and take out will come into this door and then the commercial drivers will use
this window for commercial pickups and uh this is a floor plan for the restaurant
and a more uh three-dimensional rendering uh for they have roof mounted ventilation
yes the ventilation we discussed that with um with the community is going to be
um up in um on this edge of um of the property um so that's all right yes
all right and you can summarize that would be helpful um absolutely and this is just a photo
of the property so um mr molino can he uh can can the the applicant be given privileges so that i
could have him adopt my testimony. Mr. Merlino has been unmuted. Good morning, sir. Please identify
yourself for the record. Spell your last name and I'll swear you in. Good morning. Anthony Merlino,
M-E-R-L-I-N-O, address 1915 Annan Street, Philadelphia, EPA, 19146. We're in firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Please proceed, Mr. Masters.
um thank you um mr merlino you heard my um testimony and presentation this morning do you
um agree with it and adopt it as your own testimony yes i do
we arrest mr sheriff thank you any questions from the board no no no no anyone else would
like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
chair we have petra gamble good morning again mrs ms gamble you're still under oath please
identify yourself with the record and proceed good morning chairperson this is petra gamble
a member of the court needed rco i just wanted to go on record saying that we are in support
of the project with the provisos that mr masters mentioned previously okay thank you
planning commission good morning david fecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of
the board this property is indicated for commercial and residential mixed use in the
city's comprehensive plan we have no objection to granting this variance thank you uh mi 2020
020-000494 1439 1439 south 20th street my vote is yes with the following provisos
hours of operation 11 a.m through 11 i'm sorry 7 a.m
Hours of operation, 7 a.m. through 11 p.m., commercial trash pickup, roof-mounted ventilation.
And correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon, I don't know if any of the other provisors are enforceable.
I don't believe they are.
They aren't specific enough or they aren't enforceable.
You just sent me a text, okay.
Trash to be stored on 20th Street.
is that correct that's correct on the 20th street side of the property yes thank you
thank you okay my vote is yes with those provisos i just read into the record
yes with provisos yes with provisos yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you
thank you very much members of the board have a good day uh am i
Chira, you muted yourself?
I think we're going, are we going to number nine now?
He is muted.
Try again.
Is it better?
MI 2020-000735, 2100 Benson Street, B-E-N-S-O-N, Benson Street.
Chair, I have Kathryn Missimer.
Good morning again, Ms. Missimer.
You're still under oath from earlier today, but please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Chair and members of the Board.
Kathryn Missimer, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400-19103.
Could you just spell your name for the stenographer, please?
It's M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R.
okay carol yes do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do i'm assuming you've met with the rco and you have emailed your exhibit packet five days
prior to this hearing we've emailed the exhibit packet at the beginning of the hearings we did
discuss that we have not held the meeting with the rco given their overturn in leadership we've
agreed with the councilman's office to hear the hearing today and hold that meeting at a later
Okay, and in the exhibit packet, there is a proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal
and referral, photos and plans of the property.
Is that correct?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
I'd like to begin just by orienting everyone with the site.
As you can see on the aerial on your screen, this is a large corner site at a busy intersection
of Busselton, Hofnigel, and Benson.
It's a large trapezoidal site.
It's about 47,000 square feet. It is zoned RSA 3. What's interesting about this site is that
today's proposal is to really reinstate what has always been here. In the late 50s, early 60s,
a multi-family building was constructed on the site for 51 units with some accessory parking.
Unfortunately, there was a fire that destroyed that building and it was never rebuilt.
Our proposal today is to restore the prior building essentially in the same footprint
with 56 units and 31 parking spaces.
So what I wanted to discuss are a few refusals that this does generate. Again, because the
building was not rebuilt and the zoning does remain RSA 3, the multifamily use at this site,
even though, as historically always been used, multifamily does generate a refusal. Additionally,
parking generates a refusal. This would require a one-to-one ratio. We're proposing about one
to two units, which historically was what was at this site. We do present revised plans today
that do remove the height refusal, so we will be within the 38-foot height of the traditional RSA3.
And what I want to start with is a look briefly at the zoning plan for this area because as you
can see the zoning map, all the other corners here are CMX2. For whatever reason, this large chunk
remains RSA3. So even though we've got density on these corners as well as the PGW building across
the street. For whatever reason, this has remained untouched at RSA 3, and I do believe
And I do believe it's because previously that building did exist on this site,
it's because previously that building did exist on this site and there was no need
and there was no need to rezone it, given that multifamily was already here.
This page is interesting because we're showing all of the multifamily in this area.
As you can see, there's quite a few. I'll just zoom in a little bit. The large Samuel Tabis
senior apartment complex is right around the corner with hundreds of units at that location.
And there are several others, as you can see, that are nearby.
This is the current zoning plan.
As you can see, we're taking advantage of the wide space we do have to provide parking
and access.
These are the elevations.
Again, we're projecting about 35 feet in height, so we do no longer need the height
refusal that it was initially issued.
these are a rendering of what it would look like and this is interesting because i'd like to show
what the previous building looked like and the improvements we've been able to make
so what you're seeing on your screen now is this is the original building that was destroyed by
fire as you can see on the first floor these apartments were below grade with new construction
and modern building we're able to bring them above grade still within the height requirements so we
that really creates more usable apartments at this level that are no longer below the ground.
And here's some other photos of the prior building and again the large site that we're working with.
So I would just ask Brian Miller who's our owner's representative and available on the line
to be promoted to speaker.
is okay brian miller he's been unmuted mr miller can you please put your name and address on the
record brian miller m-i-l-l-e-r office address 1218 green street philadelphia pa 19123
Mr. Miller, have you heard my testimony today?
Hold on, please.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Mr. Miller, have you heard my testimony today?
I have.
Would you agree that it's true and correct?
Thank you.
And I'll also add that Jed Morgenstein of PSA Architects is also available if there are questions on the proposal of the new building.
Thank you.
any questions from the board no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand we have three hands up chair i am uh unmute and ken patkin at this time
mr patkin you're free to speak can you hear me yes sir please identify yourself for the
the record, spell your last name and address. Give us your address. Yes, my name is Kenneth Patkin,
P-A-T-K-I-N. I live at 2141 Hofnagel Street, which is on the block that the building is
proposed to be built, and there's very significant opposition. Do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I affirm. Thank you. Please proceed.
um there's a lot of opposition among the neighbors on this block we were
plagued with a um apartment building that was there for many many years um the bradford arms
apartment building we um found that the the people living there were um were troublesome
to the neighborhood we with all due respect sir that was then this is a new application
I understand that, but we were traumatized by that event and the people that live through it don't want to live through it again. I understand this is another building, another time. We're concerned with property value being lowered. We're concerned with Section 8 housing being there.
We're concerned with tenants who don't care about the neighborhood in the same way that the people that live in the twin homes, which are on both sides of the street, single-family homes, care about the neighborhood.
And we found that our neighborhood wasn't respected before.
And there's, well, being organized, there's a lot of people that are opposed to it.
And we want to see that this thing isn't built.
And that just regular homes that are the same as what we have, twin homes, single-family units,
are built in that space rather than multifamily housing.
Since we are zone, it right now is RSA 3, we want to keep it that way.
and we do our best to make sure that zoning isn't changed.
the zoning hasn't changed. Thank you. I understand that Councilman O'Neill might be on the
Thank you.
I understand that Councilman...
line. If you can get to him next, that would be helpful. Thank you.
Sure, Chair. He's been unmuted and ready to speak. Good morning, Mr. Councilman O'Neill. Please
identify yourself with the record. Spell your last name and then I'll swear you in.
Okay. Councilman Brian O'Neill, Councilman for the 10th District, which includes 2100 Benson Street.
we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you
um first of all i strongly object to hearing and hold it is a terrible disadvantage for the
community um that is solidly opposed to this and is asking the board to um respect the current
zoning, which contrary to the presentation of the attorney, there are single homes
zoned exactly like this site, this vacant site, this empty site, however you want to call it.
There's nothing on it. There are twin homes across the street. There are twin homes next to this
on two different streets, the front and the back.
Busselton Avenue is a wide, busy street.
But what's on the west side of Busselton Avenue
has nothing to do with what is on the east side.
The zoning that is there is perfect for this community.
And this is a case that is going to be strongly opposed.
It will need counsel.
Witnesses should be prepped.
this COVID has caused the problem. And I know how long the board is on, you know, dealing with
continuances. Both State Senator Sabatina and myself are trying to put together the RCO to
build it back up. They had a great president. His wife died of cancer earlier in the year.
and before COVID he moved to be closer to his daughter. He's no longer in Rondhurst,
the area that we're talking about. And I also want to vehemently object to counsel testifying
that this case is being heard today with an arrangement with my office. The only thing my
office agreed to is to work with counsel to set up a future meeting with the RCO. That is not a
slight mistake to say that we agree to the hearing today. And I strongly object to that and would
like the record to be corrected. I not only didn't agree to it, I strongly object to a hearing and
hold because what's the use of having the hearing if you have to have the whole hearing again
because there's no way you can you can justify to the community that you come in and state your
objections to something that isn't before the board that day and no one is there and the attorney
wasn't there for the protestants so i i ask that that this this entire case be continued i know
there's been some testimony by the attorney. I know that there's somebody waiting from the
management company. This is under agreement of sale. We're in COVID. It's extraordinary
circumstances, but it's also even extraordinarily extraordinary because we have an RCO president
who moved after the death of his wife earlier in 2019. And the vice president who's become the
the president. He's incapable of, he doesn't do emails. He doesn't have any technology.
Senator Sabatine and I have agreed to build up this RCO. And I would ask for at least a couple
of months considering the holidays and considering when you knock on a door, it's to ask somebody
something, whether it's to sign a petition to join the RCO as a board member, it's really
tough to get people to answer the door. And this is a case where it's a huge variance. This is not
a minor variance. This is going from single family to multifamily. And whatever was there before the
fire in 2008 or 2009 and the demolition in 2009 is irrelevant. There was three years where this
could have been rebuilt as an apartment. It wasn't. That's the law. The zoning applies to this ground.
That's the law. The zoning applies to this ground and it is adjoining twin homes, front and side and Busselton Avenue on the other side.
This community and the zoning here should be respected. And this is not a small variance case.
This is a major variance case, and I just plead with the board to give us time to get back, try to get the senator and myself to get this RCO up and running, and correct today's record that I agreed to a hold in any way, agreed to a hold here and hold on a matter.
On a minor matter, I don't have a problem with that kind of thing.
This is major.
And I would just ask that this be a brand new hearing when we come back in the new year.
Thank you.
Councilman, and correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon and or Tanya,
I thought at the onset we agreed that we would go forward with the hearing,
but we'd have a specific date set at which time we would then consider any feedback from the RCO.
that is correct chairman the rco representatives any member of the community who wishes to testify
and any representative of the council person's office will also be given an opportunity to
testify it isn't simply a hear and hold it is a hear and resume right you understand councilman
that so it's not what we typically did prior to covid right we're actually going to hold it
until there is a an rco meeting and get any feedback from that that that whatever comes
out of that meeting then the board will make its decision okay there will be another hearing
um and assuming assuming council is there for the protestants um there'll be a fresh presentation
by the i i it was a very brief presentation i've i sat sat here through it um there'll be a a brief
presentation by the applicant refreshing the board about their presentation today
and also being able to answer questions from counsel at that hearing correct at the beginning
that's correct before the protestants get yes okay yes i appreciate that and could you correct
the record that i agreed to that or my office agreed uh so noted okay because i i did not agree
to it i wanted a flat out continuance okay and could you think that could could you be a little
generous with the time we really have to i don't think i don't think you need to ask us that
question we're way out there tanya will uh do you have a date or you want to get with them to get
back to you tanya because i i don't see this happening before the end of june january i will
provide a date um if this is complete or when it's complete i will have a date okay and i just
want to clarify for the councilman's benefit we did provide written notice to all of the required
addresses multiple times and received no comments from the community so we mailed letters notifying
them of this plan um on at least two occasions and no one responded or reached out so above and
beyond the rco staff um none of the neighbors responded either i could i know and we we in my
office, myself, my staff, Alice particularly, we deal with counsel all the time, including
your office. We've had no contact except CCs, carbon, you know, being copied on emails. And
nine times out of nine, usually, we get contacted by the attorney. What's going on here? We'd like
to get this set up. This is an extraordinary hardship case on behalf of the RCO, above and
beyond COVID. And while counsel's speaking, I would like counsel to recognize and correct the
record that where she stated earlier in the hearing that this hearing was agreed to by
hearing and hold was agreed to by councilman's office. That is not the case. I believe what I
stated was I responded to Ms. Tenari's question of whether an RCO meeting was held and that I
reiterated the conversation at the beginning of the meeting that we agreed that we would hold the
hearing today with a follow-up date at a set date. I think Ms. Sunkett was projecting in January
to reconvene and complete the hearing. Ms. Bismarck, I listened to you intently. You said
the councilman's office agreed with you to hold the hearing and hold today to have the hearing
and hold today that is what i'm objecting to that that's a misstatement and
That is what I'm objecting to. That's a misstatement. And I want the record corrected because I and my office did not agree to the hearing and hold today.
I may have misheard, but I believe Ms. Udovich said okay when that was projected.
I think what happened, Councilman, I think it's a question of semantics. We typically would do hearing holds, as I said a few minutes ago.
but that that's that process has changed so i think it was just a kind of a misinterpretation
of what we're actually providing you with is we're going to resume this hearing on a specific date
at which time you know we'll get any feedback from you your office sabatina's office and the rco
okay as long as it's clear that i did not agree to the hearing and and uh uh that's a real stretch
And also, I would just ask the board, when something is a serious use change, like going from a certain number of twin single homes to a mid-rise multifamily apartment building, that hearing and hold is really not appropriate.
You've got to have all the parties in the room.
It's just too serious a variance.
to uh to deal with that it was just a parking issue a dimensional issue a height issue
of that kind uh you know i can understand that particularly in the times we're in but this is
one where everybody should be in the room and uh to the extent we're virtually in the room and um
that's what we're doing okay well thank you i uh uh look forward to it and um if if um
tanya's on the line you know sometime in february would probably be the quickest we can make this
all happen so um it shouldn't be a problem with your schedule but uh the further back you can
push it the better um yes chair we do have february 3rd at 2 p.m as the new date okay thank you so
okay um planning commission do we need your input right now or not um all right mr sherman david
City Planning Commission. I think we prefer if it's okay with you to wait until we hear from
some other witnesses. That's why I asked. Okay, thank you.
Chair, did you want to hear the others that had their hand up or prefer to wait? We have Sabatina.
he's muted i guess you can see that i'm sorry but something's going wrong at february is that
february 2nd or 3rd oh let me look again i think you said two o'clock on the third i think you said
yes the third year at 2 p.m thank you all right uh mr sabatina please identify yourself with
record spell your name for the stenographer and i'll swear you in and hopefully you have uh you
can concur with the councilman's office the councilman if not give us something new and
different thank you chairman uh senator john sabatina jr s-a-b-a-t-i-n-a i'm the state senator
for uh this district uh comprised of 2100 benson street and i've heard numerous senator before you
ago, I apologize. I thought it was your dad. That's why I said, Mr.
Senator, do you swear and affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you, Chairman. I just want to reiterate what the councilman had already stated. I've
received new, my district office is about two blocks away, two or three blocks away from this
property. And I've had numerous people from Hofnagel and Benson Street voicing their concerns
about the proposed building. I do want to also reiterate the hardship that Ron Hurst Civic
Association is going through, not only dealing with COVID, but the loss of their president.
And, you know, it's been difficult to restructure the RCO during COVID and just given his absence.
I echo the sentiments to the councilman.
It's zoned RS3, which is residential houses, which is, you know, congruent with the nature of the block itself.
There's no hardship presented by council, and, you know, I intend a fully animated audience in February regarding the opposition to this project.
the opposition to this project thank you thank you uh anyone else uh we're going to continue
Thank you.
Thank you.
this case so i don't even know if we need any more testimony but somebody here we do have
sabatina on the line as well which i believe is i'm ready to speak senior
hello hey jocelyn go ahead john yeah this is john sabatina senior s-a-v-a-t-i-n-a
uh i do swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed uh i normally represent the lawnhurst civic association however uh i have
I've just recently gotten out of the hospital with COVID-19, which has obviously set me
And I still have not been released to practice or go into the office.
I'm at home.
I'm speaking to you from my house.
So I respectfully request a continuance based on my sickness, which prevents me from getting
involved with this case and in presenting a opposition.
Thank you. And as you said, you've probably heard this case is going to be continued to
February the 3rd. But I would like to request that it's more of a bifurcation rather than just a
here and hold
where we really don't get a chance to
present? No, it's not a here and hold.
You're going to have a full meeting
with your RCO and the applicant
and the board will
consider any testimony coming out of
that meeting
or meetings.
Will we be able to
testify in front of the board as well?
Yeah, we're going to resume the hearing on
February 3rd at 2 p.m.
All right then.
All right, John?
all right thank you all right you get better stay well talk to you anyone else i think uh
i'm going to move on we really don't need any other comments at this time so yes
mi 2020-000735 2100 benson street this hearing will be resumed on february the 3rd at 2 p.m
at which time we will consider any feedback related to the RCO and the council person and senator's office at that time.
Thank you.
2020-001538, 7800 Busselton Avenue.
I believe we had a similar agreement on this earlier to have a resumed hearing if I'm not
mistaken.
That's correct.
Is there anyone here?
Chair, we have Justin Kirk.
Thank you, Mr. Kirk.
Please identify yourself with the record.
I think I swore you in earlier today.
You're still under oath.
Thank you. Thank you. So members of the board, Justin Crick, K-R-I-K, last name. I'd like to proceed. I just want to clarify any concerns that there may have been with the Ronhurst Civic, because I believe that this application is substantially different and substantially more de minimis than the prior one.
um so so i don't know if you the board wants to address whether this would be the type of
here and hold um but i do i do have some concern about the hold if the rco is looking to wait until
february uh again this and i'll i'll wait for the the formalities to start about the refusal and
stipulating to its accuracy etc but the the nature of this is for a um a group practitioner
or dialysis center to be just put on the first floor of a building that already has senior care
rehabilitation long-term care facility on it it is not for anything more substantial than that so
to wait till february for a hold might be a little difficult we don't believe that there's really any
impact this would have on the neighborhood considering the existing uses authorized at
this property and i'd be happy to present on that but i just wanted to address considering
the council person and the Sabatina gentleman's input. I want to make sure that
I understand the path moving forward on this application, if that's okay.
I understand the path moving forward on this application, if that's okay.
Fine. So let Carol, you begin, and then we'll get into the issue of the hold.
Okay. Do you agree to wave and stip?
Yes, I do.
Okay. And I'm assuming, I think this is what I should be saying, that you have met with the RCO,
and you have an exhibit packet presented to this board with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, referral, photos, and plans five days prior to this hearing. Is that correct?
The submission of documents is correct. Unfortunately, again, for the reasons set
forth before, we did not meet with the RCO at this time.
Okay. Thank you. You may proceed.
thank you um and i'll share my screen just to express and go through it as though we're
proceeding and then um i will gladly you know allow others to weigh in on that uh members of
the board what we're dealing with here is the property at 7800 bustleton avenue and an application
for a group practitioner in an existing structure with other previously approved uses what we
received is the refusal because that this is an RSA 3 residential zoning district. A group
practitioner facility is not permitted. To give everyone a little bit of bearing, we are located
at on Busselton Avenue between Borbeck and Hartel. This is a better aerial view of the property. It
used to be a nursing home, etc. that many people may recall. It's been that way for decades.
Even though this parcel is RSA-3, it clearly has not been used entirely in that way, although, again, there is a long-term care facility present in the majority of the upper floors of the building.
This is a photograph of the Busselton Avenue side of the building.
And this is also another photograph of the Busselton Avenue portion.
And then this is, I believe, the, give me one moment.
This is the Hartel side of it.
I think it's Glendale on the other side, but yeah, on Glendale Avenue.
So the photograph, the side photograph is from Glendale Avenue.
What we're seeking to do here is repurpose a portion of the first floor space.
to accommodate a dialysis center that will service primarily the current long-term care
elderly patients, but it would be a separate business operating within that area. There are
definitely similar services already provided through the Roosevelt Rehabilitation and Healthcare
Center that's already at the property, but this is a more thorough dialysis center,
and a little bit more of a close-up of the approximately repurposing of 5,300 square feet
of the first floor of the building as shown here with several dialysis stations available to the
public. I'm sorry, to the residents, but also some members of the public. It's inpatient and
outpatient treatment available. This is being brought by the Mayfair Property LLC, owner of the
intended owner of the property and seeking the intended use. We do have a tax clearance
certificate that was obtained, and we are basically just seeking to have this approved
to allow that process to start so that the facility can start to provide this dialysis
to the neighborhood. We don't believe that there is any harm to the neighbors out of this,
considering its existing and consistent use in this fashion. We believe that there would be a
hardship to refuse the ability to use the property for what it's been approved for in the
past, especially where the use is so congruent with the existing services being provided in the
property. Again, it's a very straightforward use variance. And aside from the RCO conversation,
I would like to have the owner's representative, Dina Napolitano, unmuted in order to adopt testimony if we're moving forward in that way.
She's been unmuted. She's available to speak.
Thank you. Dina, can you please state your name and spell your name for the record?
can you hear me now yes okay it's dina napolitano d-i-n-a last name
Okay. It's Dina Napolitano, D-I-N-A, last name Napolitano, N-A-P-O-L-I-T-A-N-O.
And what else did you need?
And if you could state your address for the record as well.
The office address is 1608 Route 88, Suite 200, Bricktown, New Jersey, 08724.
Thank you. And have you heard my testimony to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
And do you adopt the statements and the facts
that I've said as true as if it was your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
No further questions for Ms. Napolitano.
Chair, we have Senator John Sabatina.
can anyone hear me now yes yes sorry i had to leave and come back my uh computer malfunction
uh mr ms uh napolitano do you swear in a friend to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i i i believe she had already uh testified to that but okay i didn't i didn't hear uh because
I had to leave. Chair, I do. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome.
Questions from the board? No.
Excuse me, Chair. We have two hands raised. One is Senator John Sabatina. Yeah, I'm going to get
there next. Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand. And I thought
we had an agreement earlier, but I'm not sure if that's still the way we're going to go about
resuming this hearing at a later date. So is it the senator or the or senior?
We have the senators, sir.
Good morning again, Senator and Sabatina senior, both on their oath. Just identify
yourself for the record before you testify.
Thank you, Chairman. It's a state senator, John Sabatina, Jr., S-A-B-A-T-I-N-A. I'm the
I've spoken to Councilman O'Neill, and he and I agree that we both have not heard any opposition for this property.
We were initially concerned just because of the lack of information that we had,
but hearing the presentation, I don't believe that opposition will present itself,
And I am not, I don't know that a further hearing will be necessary.
I appreciate that.
I kind of thought the same thing, but thank you.
Thank you for your testimony again.
Anyone else?
Anything new and different?
Chair, we have John Sabatina Sr.
Again, John, you're still under oath.
Just identify yourself with a record.
John Sabatina senior can you hear me yes yes yeah again my my same problem is the fact that I've
you know just recently gotten out of the hospital obviously as someone who represents the civic
association on various occasions I would just like to have them the opportunity to find out
what's going on. The presentation that I've witnessed myself seemed straightforward, but I
still would like to allow the Civic Association to know what's going on.
The only problem, not problem, the issue with that is we were not going to be able to bring
the, have another hearing on this until sometime in February. So, I mean, we can close the record
And I'm trying to think of the best way to do this.
If we close the record, we won't be able to get any written testimony, correct, Sharon?
That's correct.
Chair, if I could interject a thought.
Based on the fact that this is not a presentation that would be a little lengthy, I can squeeze this in at a close date.
and we can have a resumption hearing
to allow testimony from the community as you wish.
Good idea.
John, does that work?
Again, according to the senator and the councilman's office,
no one seems to think there's going to be any objection.
I understand you don't want to just bypass the RCO.
I understand you don't want to just bypass the RCO, but on the other hand, we don't want to wait until February to have to vote this case.
Sounds reasonable. I'm not looking to just put a cog in the wheel to let the Civic Association know what's going on.
All right. So, Chair, based on what I could squeeze in, if it works for Justin,
I could do December the 15th at 930. I will make that work, and I will gladly work closely with
both Senator Sabatina and Senior, as well as Mr. O'Neill, to see if we can get any information
from the neighborhood as quickly as possible, and I'm happy to, you know, directly speak with them
to give them any additional information they need here uh planning commission
good morning david vecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is indicated for single family residential use on the city's comprehensive plan since this is there
is already existing medical office space in the property and since this will provide medical care
to senior citizens. We have no objection to granting this variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001538
7800 Busselton Avenue. This hearing will be resumed on December the 15th at 9 38 m at which
time the board will consider any feedback related to the RCO and the council councilman O'Neill and
senator sabatina's uh office uh okay thank you very much and uh thank you thank you thank you
uh before we get into the packer avenue issue which is probably going to be a little bit lengthy
uh i think we might want to take a 10 minute break for the stenographer yes please okay uh it is so
we'll see everybody back here at 1150. 1150. Okay. Thank you.
i'm here okay so let's go with um thank you mi2020-001532
1526 Packard Avenue. Packard Avenue.
Mr. Mattione, we're going to begin with Mr. Mattione, if I'm not mistaken.
That's right. Mr. Mattione represents the applicant.
I am back, I believe.
Good afternoon. Still morning. Good morning, Mr. Mattione. Please identify yourself for
the record. And I'll remind you, you're still under oath from earlier this morning.
Michael Mattione, Federal Reserve Bank. It's M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I. Federal Reserve Bank
building 100 north independence mall suite 5a northwest philadelphia 19106 thank you and i
carol i don't know if you went through your list earlier so why don't we go over that again
yeah okay okay have you uh do you agree to wave in step yes have you mailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and also have you
met with the rco and do you have a letter we have done everything except me with the rco
okay you may proceed thank you mr chairman i have an objection to uh to make before we proceed
please identify yourself my name is paul bonnie b-o-n-i and my office i'm an attorney my office
address is 325 chestnut street suite 1109 philadelphia 19106 and i represent the packer
park civic association drco uh in this matter well under oath from earlier this morning so
please state your objection. Thank you. Well, as you know, we object to this hearing
proceeding today because of the fact that we canceled the
uh proceeding today because of the um fact that we canceled the rco meeting at the applicant's
request um uh a couple of weeks ago and also i and but i understand that the chair seems to be
inclined to allow the applicant to present its evidence you know i would sort of um second and
reiterate everything that councilman o'neill said for the other case which i think you know is valid
here. But I want to make an objection based on lack of posting or insufficient posting. I have
photographs of this property showing insufficient posting. I can scroll through them very quickly.
I see the photographs in the applicant's exhibit package, and I don't think those exhibits show
adequate posting. And so I think on that basis alone, it would be improper to hold this hearing.
And if with your permission, I'd like to scroll through the photographs and show you that the critical posting that was that was not done.
But you would agree that RCO knows everything about this. I mean, they're aware of it, correct?
I mean, is there anyone? We are aware of this, Mr.
I mean, Paul, I live two and a half miles, three miles away. And I know about this application, not because I'm a member of the zoning board, but because people talk down here.
So let's show us your photographs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's not about us knowing.
It's about our members knowing.
I understand.
I'm saying I can't imagine people in Packer Park not being aware of this.
I just find that hard to believe.
But maybe you can prove otherwise.
Can we hold one second, Chair?
DPZ Zoom, can you make me a co-host, please?
I think it says I can't share if Mr. Mattione is sharing also, so maybe I have to be given
access.
DPZZoom, are you there?
Yes, I'm there, I made you a co-host, can you hear me?
very well thank you very much okay mr chairman may i add one one uh item if i may real real
quickly i join with paul's objection i i do want to mention that my members were under the impression
that and i forgive me if i've i gave them that uh that assumption but i i did not think the
hearing would go on today because of the cancellation of the rco meeting so i i did not
tell my board members who are very upset about the proposal to attend today. I just want to let you
know. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I do want to note that Mr. DeMarco's RCO is not listed as an RCO
covering 1526 Packer Avenue as set forth in the city's website. I can respond to that,
Mr. Chairman. We are without a doubt with legal standing. I really object to that statement by
Mr. Mattione, we are literally less than 50 yards from the application. Our members walk to
this Chickie and Pete's. We are less than a two-minute walk.
Sorry, Chair, you can continue. I had asked if we could hold, but everybody's going for it.
You can continue, Chair.
I'll agree. I'll agree that you guys might be in, but I would not agree that you're 50 yards away.
You're much further than 50 yards away.
Mr. Chairman, on that photo, you're within 250 feet or so.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
We're that close.
We are that close.
As a matter of fact, you can make an argument that my members are actually closer than,
with the exception of the people that are abutting the property, my members are as close.
Thank you.
But you're still not listed as an RCO on the city's website covering this area.
And there is absolutely nothing in the zoning code that prevents someone who has legal standing from participating in a case because they're not listed as an RCL.
Understood. You guys are representing veterans, and you're permitted to be in.
Thank you.
mr chairman i'm sharing my screen showing an aerial photograph of the subject property which
is this large square in the sort of bottom right hand corner of the photograph and i've put two
red two dark red lines on the area where there's no posting whatsoever the bottom the the one in
the rear is clearly a street frontage,
because you can see the street right next to it.
street right next to it. And of course, at the bottom of the photograph are a number of row
And of course, at the bottom of the photo,
homes on Curtin Street. And, you know, let's take a look. Excuse the interruption, but I don't know
how you're showing us these red lines, but we're to assume there's no posting on those? No.
You have any photograph? That's what I'm looking for. Here is the front of the property and you
could see just on the right hand side the orange photo on the front we're not right we're not
claiming there's no posting on the front okay and here in fact is the posting on the front
and now here's the side now i don't have the full side but again we're not claiming that this side
is deficient um here though is the rear of the property and there's the current street homes
and the street is on the left there's no posting at all on this side of the property
no posting at all now we're coming around to the to the other side of the rear which
directly faces the curtain street property and we're going to walk you down this entire wall
there's no posting at all no posting at all walking you all straight down that big wall
there's some no parking signs all the way to the end
then now you've got all the way to the end that's the front of the property on the left hand side
And now I'm even giving you a perspective shot about all these homes that don't have a poster about a sports betting partner going to be in their midst.
And now I'm actually at the corner of the side of the building right there.
Now we're going to come around to the front again.
And now we're back at the front.
You see the sign at the Play 2, which is a portion of the Chicky and Pete's.
and that's all we have. Now I'm also going to show the applicant's exhibit package. Here's
their applicant's exhibit package where they try and show the posting and let's see what they show.
They show in the front. This is the bank building. This is Packer Avenue is behind you because that's
where the bank building is. So we know that's Packer Avenue. Of course you can see the nice
wood trim on the front and this is all the front. This is all the front that they're showing.
um this is the this is all the front and that's all they have so so i think that we've proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the street frontages were not posted there's even a provision
in the zoning code that says when you're in a building in a larger property um you know sort
of like in a in a mall like this like this is that additional posting might be necessary so i i can't
see how the closest houses, the closest houses to this proposed sports betting parlor, whoops.
You know, I can't see how it's not unintentional to leave these people without a poster
facing their houses. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here. That's just
my opinion i'm not i mean all the activity that goes on at chickie and pete's uh from what my
experience is where the posting is uh that's the parking lot for patrons to all of the retail
establishments there along the side where the tent is currently because of no end or dining
the back part you show that bread brick wall that faces the rear of the party at the homes
i don't know if that's that curtain street or whatever uh who has access to the back of that
building employees everybody who looks out their back window in all these 1500 block of curtain
street and of course they're parking i don't know if you can from their back window i don't
to be able to read that posting i don't know mr chairman i'm not being sarcastic i just don't
understand who else would be back there the law employees the law is the law and at some point
this case. I get it. So let me ask you a question. I guess the question is for you, Mr. Bonnie and
Mr. DeMarco. Are you guys asking us to not go forward with this hearing and have a reposting
done? Where does that get us is what I'm wondering. May I respond? I think the objection
is more about, by the way, those red areas are the path that we take. We go through that rear
driveway we cross broad and walk through that driveway at the bottom there and walk through
the shortcut to Packer so we do take that route but to answer your question directly Mr. Chairman
we're upset more by the fact that the applicant has not met with the RCO we feel unprepared for
the hearing we are at a little bit of a disadvantage in that the applicant will move
forward with technical testimony without us being prepared with our own cross-examination I mean
without us being prepared with our own cross-examination.
I mean, granted, we ran the risk that the hearing could go on today,
And granted,
I did.
but I really did feel honestly, and forgive me for assuming that this would be continued.
So, I mean, I don't want to speak for Paul,
but we would really want to have the opportunity to have effective cross-examination of each witness.
If that means that you kick our cross to the next hearing, that's fine.
but i would say that you know i do object to that as well because um i really did believe that
without the rco meeting the hearing would not go on today thank you
uh well i don't know sharon i need a technical answer from you uh we're not supposed to go
forward with hearings unless they were was it there were meetings with the rco we had a similar
case earlier in Councilman O'Neill's district. We understand this is going to be a long drawn
out fight. It sounds to me. It's going to be a lot of testimony all the way around.
I have six witnesses. First of all, second of all, these are not street frontages that
we're talking about with the poster. It's an on-ramp to the Schuylkill Expressway in
a rear drive. I asked that. That's why I asked. Mr. DeMarco.
I wanted to make that clear. They're not street frontages. They're an on-ramp to the Schuylkill Expressway, which has pedestrian access prohibited. You'd never see it. It's an elevated ramp. You'd never see a zoning notice if you're driving your car on that ramp.
I get it. That's why I asked that question. I didn't ask you about specifically the way you did, but I just don't understand who is back there, other than people on Curtin Street, who are quite a distance away from that brick wall, and unless they leave their house and walk across that driveway, and then into that section that looks like employee parking, I can't imagine.
Great notice of this. And we also sent out prior to the November 16th RCO meeting a full set of exhibits to Mr. Bonney. I didn't send it to Mr. DeMarco because I did not know he was involved because his RCO, again, is not listed as an RCO covering this area.
So I didn't send it to him, but I did send it to Mr. Bonney. He's had it. He knows what we're about. We've discussed this. I told Mr. Bonney it was our intention to go ahead, especially because we've had two different attempts at an RCO meeting.
And we at least wanted to start with some of our testimony because we have six witnesses, and this is going to be a lengthy case.
Even though it's only a special exception, it is not a major variance like Councilman O'Neill's project was.
This is a special exception.
We have a very low burden to meet to be able to get the special exception granted.
So it is totally different from Councilman O'Neill's case up in the northeast on a very large.
This is a 2,600-square-foot facility inside of a 22,000-square-foot facility.
This is not an acre-and-a-half apartment complex like Councilman O'Neill's was.
Yeah, I understand that.
I understand that.
I understand that, and I only was using Councilman O'Neill's case as a reference point as to how we've been handling rather than here and hold.
and we understood i understand at least that this case is going to be rather lengthy that we get
some of the testimony because i believe mr bonnie in his statement earlier this morning said they
weren't even aware of what was being proposed here or something like that and if i misquoted you i
apologize but i have a suggestion i have a suggestion that might allow us to all get what
we want here um and i you know mr demarco mentioned it if you want to make the best use
of everyone's time my suggestion is that we allow the applicant to go forward today with presenting
their witnesses but that we hold our cross-examination until the next session that was
what excuse me this is this is sharon saletta i was going to suggest the same thing mr bonnie and
that mr mattione agree that he will return with his witnesses in order for that to happen right
i thought we agreed to that this morning that's what all right so we're all agreeing thank you
Thank you. Thank you.
Now, I have, unfortunately, one other matter that I'd like to bring up before we start, and that is that we are sort of, I'm letting you know now that we are contesting the accuracy of the referral.
We believe that this, in fact, should be a variance case, not a special exception case.
And so, therefore, what we would like from the board, in order to make that argument, we would like the board to issue a subpoena to L&I to require the L&I examiner to attend the next session or whenever our case starts.
This is Sharon Saleta. We don't usually have to subpoena them. They will agree to come, but we would ask that before we request that, that you submit something in writing and copy all parties, laying out the grounds for your position.
This is Sharon Salota.
We don't usually have to.
Should that request be coming from the board or should it be coming from the attorney representing the opponents?
well i think mr bonnie is asking if he can um challenge the refusal yeah i think that he is
entitled to do so yes but yes if the board would subpoena he's asking if the board would subpoena
representatives from l and i i mean i don't know if that's within our power to do that or not i
don't have any problem if we do but it isn't it is within our power but it generally isn't necessary
I will contact Mr. Reuter at the law department,
ask him to have someone here at the next hearing.
If for some reason he opposes that,
then we will issue a subpoena.
Does that satisfy you, Mr. Bonney?
Yes, I can put my request in writing tomorrow.
But what we also want is not just the person,
but also the file.
And so, you know, beforehand.
And I think that's standard fare,
but, you know, we would like to see their file
and notes on this before the testimony of course i'll request that of them too and i will um
get them to confirm in writing and send that to you so you'll have before the next hearing
the protocol is though we'll ask them to adhere to that that's all i have thank you
i just want to note anything provided to uh mr bonnie i would expect a copy
It will be through all three of them.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Medione.
With that, are we ready to proceed, Mr. Chair?
Yeah, and I just want to remind everyone that we're still in the 930 list.
We have a two o'clock list.
So I know this is important, and we always expected it to be rather lengthy,
but we hope we can get as much in prior to two o'clock.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. It would have to be prior to 1-1-15.
You need the break, right? Yes. The staff has to take lunch. And if I could ask a special request
to all attorneys to please not speak over each other so that the record can be clean for the
court reporter. I thank you kindly. Okay. Thank you for reminding us. Staff needs to have their
break, and we're required to make sure that happens. Please proceed, Mr. Mattione.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I'm Michael Mattione, and I'm representing City Turf Club,
our subsidiary of Parks Casino and the operator of the Parks Race and Sports Book,
which presently is located at 700 Packer Avenue. I have six witnesses today to present.
Whether we get to them is another issue, but I have six witnesses.
Park Sportsbook has entered into a lease for a small 2,600-square-foot area
in the existing Chickie and Pete Sports Bar at 1526 Packer Avenue.
Their goal is to relocate their existing sportsbook there inside of Chickies and Pete's.
The use is classed as an assembly and entertainment use in the zoning code
and is permitted use as a special exception at 1526 Packer Avenue.
A special exception is a conditionally permitted use so long as the applicant shows that the use
will not cause greater congestion or other harm as outlined in the zoning code than what is
expected to be caused by the use. Importantly, this is not a variance and no showing of unnecessary
hardship is required for this project to move forward. Presently, the park sportsbook occupies
36,000 square feet of space
at 700 Packer Avenue.
Again, they are seeking to relocate
into a 2,600 square
foot area
in the rear of the existing
Chickies and Peets.
Excuse me.
And there's our tax clearance certificate
as well.
This is a
plan showing the existing Chickies
and Peets. It's
about 22,000, 23,000
square feet, and this little portion
back here is the 2,600-square-foot area where the sportsbook would be relocated.
This would be an added amenity to Chickies and Pete's, which will help Chickies and Pete's
maintain its status as the best sports bar in America.
Chickies and Pete's has had its business adversely impacted by the pandemic, as many others have.
They are presently closed to indoor dining.
and also new competition, including the soon-to-open live casino,
which will open a sports book and have 24-7 casino gambling right down the street at 900 Packer Avenue.
casino gambling right down the street at 900 Packer Avenue.
This application will not bring slot machines, table games, or any other casino features to
Chickie and Pete's, as only a casino may offer those type of operations. Again, this will be
just in a rear room, only 600 square feet inside the existing Chickies and Pete's.
In the space being converted right now, there are presently 138 restaurant seats in this area.
This will be reduced, if this is approved, to 59 seats, comprised of 27 lounge seats, 20 dining seats, and 12 viewing seats, greatly reducing the number of patrons and overall capacity in this space.
If approved, there will be nearly 80 fewer seats in the sportsbook than in the present space where the restaurant and bar operates.
There will not be any separate outdoor entrance to the sportsbook.
The only way in will be if you come in through Chickies and Pete's and into a separate entrance
area into the sports book. The sports book will only operate when Chickies and Pete's is open.
It will not be a 24-7 operation. It will have its own security personnel. Inside Chickies and Pete's
is required under the Game and Control Act, in addition to Chickies and Pete's already existing
personnel. In addition to this, we do have 60 letters, which I submitted last night,
of support from neighbors for this project moving forward. With this overview, what I'd like to do
next is call on Pete Chiraki as my first witness, if he could be unmuted.
I'm sorry. Could you repeat the name of your first witness?
Chiroki. Chiroki. Chiroki, correct.
So we don't look for them. They would have to put their hand
up in order for us to reach out to them. Okay, he told me he was on.
I have him. He's been unmuted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chiroki. Would you please identify yourself with a record? Spell your last name for the sonographer and then I'll swear you in.
Sir, you have to unmute yourself.
my name is peter chiroki c-i-a-r-r-o-c-c-h-i
we're infirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed mr mattione thank you mr chairman uh pete what is your relationship to
chickies and peats i'm the president and ceo
and how long has chickies and pete's operated its restaurant and sports bar in south philadelphia
we opened in 1977 but we've been open in south philadelphia since 2003
and what ties do you have to the south philadelphia area most of my family members live
in in south philadelphia we're the only ones that moved to northeast uh i've been in south philadelphia
all my life most of my friends are down there that's just part of the neighborhood and could
you describe to the board your current business at 1526 popper avenue uh it's a restaurant sports
bar uh crab house and you signed a sublease with the parks race and sports book what will parks
race and sports book be bringing to chickies and pete um we will be putting in a boutique
high-end sports book, which will only take up 2,600 square feet, including offices in the back
of Chickie and Pete's. And I will add, we're already a sports bar. So the consumer that comes
in watches sports and to open up a sports book, renting out to the Parks Casino, renting out that
spot would be great for us because it would be an amenity to Chickie and Pete's. So not only can
you watch sports, but you can bet on sports. It's not like the same customers would be
in a sports book that would be in a sports bar. And do you already have any working relationships
with the Parks Casino? We've been with Parks Casino for 11 years up on Street Road, and we
also have a sports wagering at our Egg Harbor Township location on the Black Horse bike for
last two years. And is that Egg Harbor Township location that's similar but different but similar
to what you'd be bringing here? That's correct not not high-end like this this is much more
high-end first class plus that's not all sports betting that's just uh horses.
all sports betting that's just uh horses. And where inside of Chickie's and Pete's will this
be uh located? I'm gonna show the the floor plan. So if you came in the front door
um of Chickie and Pete which is on the corner where the signs are posted um you would walk straight
back to the you'll see that there's two curves there that's the back doors those doors take
you to the sportsbook. So you'll have to enter through the front door of Chickie and Pete's.
There's no way you will know that that sportsbook is in there from the outside. You only know by
coming in the Chickie and Pete's. You can't get to it unless you come in.
Let me interrupt you. Is that the area, I'm not sure if my other board members have ever been
there, but I've been there several many times. Is that the area where fundraisers sometimes
were being held that's that's correct and those rooms will be moved to the plate two area but
that's exactly right uh chairman thank you um we uh we do have some park parks representatives
here as well but can you describe from your perspective what this proposal will mean to
chickies and peats well as you know and you mentioned that uh you know xfinity live opened
And then they're opening up the live casino up the street from us.
And they take a lot of business away because we can't,
we don't have the money that they have to build these palaces and,
or the size.
But what we do that will help us compete, keep people working,
give Chickie and Pete's continue to be the number one sports bar in North
America. You know, a lot of people, when you go into a sports bar,
you see guys on phones and you think maybe they're on Facebook.
They're not on Facebook. I can tell you what they're doing.
They're betting because now it's legal.
Now you can bet from your phone, from your house, from your bathroom,
anywhere you want. So it's not like they can't wager now,
but this will help them for the people who are from a out of town tourism.
When they come to the city of Philadelphia to watch a game,
like a lot of people travel to go to see Eagles games out of town or Phillies games out of town
when they come here also when they come here they can't make a bet on their on their draft
king or their fan duel because that only works in the city they're from that's the way they set up
the accounts so they either have to set up a new account which is ridiculous to do in another city
or walk into a place like Chickie's and Pete's
that'll have a sports book, make your wager,
go to your game, enjoy your fans,
cheer for your team, come back
and hopefully they get paid.
Then they could buy a drink or have a sandwich
at Chickie and Pete's and continue on their way.
But I just think it's going to be somewhere.
And I think it's a perfect marriage.
It's a perfect complement,
a sports bar with a sports book.
Let me ask a question. Will there be, how many employees, will you be increasing the number of employees?
We will be. Let me say right now, as of right now, in year 2020, we have 318 employees. And this is a rough year.
I'm speaking about specifically for this, for the Packer Avenue site.
yes not only will they be hiring more employees for back there but they will be
union employees the tellers and so on are those employees who has the jurisdiction are they
your employees are they parks employees or the combination of the two the okay the um we're we're
just the renting that area to parks we're a landlord okay we will have our servers can go
back and serve drinks or food to those to their people that's part of the deal so we can make some
money but if their workers all their tellers all the people that work for the uh for the uh sports
book are their employees our employees just has a cross where they can come in and get a drink
for someone or a uh something to eat and would you happen to know how many employees that would be
Our amount of employees won't change.
How about parks?
I will not.
You could ask them that.
I'm sorry.
I'm not now.
And you actually said some of the things I was going to ask you about.
I mean, anybody can walk.
You can sit in your home nowadays and gamble.
That's correct.
You don't have to call a bookie.
You can legitimately call, get that FanDuel or whatever it's called.
I don't use it.
Which is probably going on in your establishment now anyway.
Which is probably going on in your establishment now anyway, I would assume, in any bar for that matter.
I would assume in any board.
Yeah, you think people are on Facebook, they're not.
That's what I was trying to say.
And 80%, I think, of all bets are made online.
They can speak to that better than I can.
So we're talking about obviously going from 36,000 square feet to 2,600 square feet.
Obviously, it's not going to be that big of a deal compared to what it was.
because the the live casino is going to be putting in a giant sports bar beautiful with
the best screens and it's going to be a sports book and it's going to be open 24 hours a day
and now that's who i have to compete against when you say it's high end is there a fee
involved or is it uh is it open for anyone it's open to the public but of course you'll in the uh
I don't know if you'll get to them today, but I know the architect's home is there.
That'll be in the presentation.
All right.
Presentation.
You'll see what it looks like.
It's not going to look like the turf club.
Yeah, understood.
That's why we're-
It's going to be beautiful.
We've got to compete with the live casino.
I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
Am I to understand that's going to be Chick and Pete's food that will be served back there
as well?
Absolutely.
only okay that's the whole idea behind it okay i wanted to make sure it's going to be crab fries
mussels all the things it's going to be only served by chickie and pete's thank you they're
just renting a portion of your your your space to run this operation that is correct okay all right
thank you i just want to make it clear mr chairman the people that work at the sports book are parks
employees not chickies and pizza yeah i got that that's why thank you i just was curious and when
we get to them i will know how many employees we're talking about correct um pete will will
the uh cars race and sportsbook interfere with your restaurant and sports bar um no it will
complement it but it will not interfere we're still going to operate chicken piece like chicken
pizza it doesn't change us at all it's just an extra 2600 square feet that we're able to lease
out without putting an outdoor and if it wasn't for them coming through the restaurant i wouldn't
even do it but at least we can get some business by people coming through and going back to the
to the area to uh to wager and will the overall size of chickies and pete's and the sports book
will that change from what it is today your 22,855 square feet will that increase with the
The overall size will not, but the seating capacity will change.
It will get smaller by like 83 seats.
Right.
So you're actually going to decrease your seating, like you said.
Why do you believe that this is a good fit for both parks and for Chicky and Pete?
Well, nobody that bets sports doesn't watch sports.
I mean, they go hand in hand.
Like we've said a couple of times during this, people will be betting,
and they're going to keep betting it it's i know it's new to everyone but it's here to stay
and it became it went into law two years ago so now it's all new and um i just think it'll be uh
a compliment complimentary to chickie and pete's we've been dealing with sports people watching
sports since 1977 i don't think anyone in the city of philadelphia has more experience than us
So sports bettors and sports watchers are the same people.
We believe we can keep those people at a very nice place, enjoying themselves, and possibly get some tourism.
And in your opinion, will this change in Chickies and Peeps and bringing parks in have any adverse impact on the neighborhood?
listen if i if i thought that it would have any adverse impact to the neighborhood i would not
do it i am a very big part of that neighborhood i i'm one of the founders of the 1492 society
puts on the parade every year with jay agnes and and lu galdo and mark rago i mean i am a part of
that neighborhood as well as anybody else we we also have 318 employees at chickie and pete's
And let me just say that 127 of those 318 in 2020 are from zip codes 1-9-1-4-8 and 1-9-1-4-5.
I have 82 in 1-9-1-4-5 and 45 employees from 1-9-1-4-8.
So we're a very big part of that neighborhood.
And to do something adversely, it would affect me in more than just my business.
I have a lot of friends there, and I don't want to, and I wouldn't want to upset them.
I have a lot of friends there and I don't want to, and I wouldn't want to upset them.
For the board.
For the board members, 19148, 19145, is the, the boundaries are Tasker Street on the east side, south to the Navy Yard, including the Navy Yard, Broad Street to the river, and I believe 45 may start on Snyder Avenue.
who I could be wrong, on the west side to the Schuylkill River
and then south to the Navy Yard or points beyond.
I think that's somewhat close to the boundaries.
And I think you already testified to this,
but right now if somebody came into Chickie and Pete's
and they had DraftKings or FanDuel on their phone,
they could sit at Chickie and Pete's right now and bet on sports, correct?
That's correct.
It's a new kind of betting today, and people just – I'm sure they are if you were allowed to sit inside.
But I'm sure they are.
But not only that, now you can bet on who's going to score the next touchdown, who's going to get the next pass.
It's not like it was before where you would go to – you would make a phone call maybe, make a bet, and say, I'm going to bet on the Eagles.
And that's the end of the bet.
Now there's bets that go through the entire game.
So the entire game, who's going to win the third quarter?
Who's going to win the fourth quarter?
Who's going to win the coin toss?
Those are things you want to be there in person to make a bet for.
Or you could do it on your phone.
But it's a different kind of sports betting today.
And it's becoming more and more popular because it's now legal.
And will this change, bringing the sports book into Chickies and Pete's,
Will that bring any other form of gambling to Chickies and Peets?
There's no other form of gambling allowed.
And will there be slot machines or table games at Chickies and Peets?
Absolutely not.
That would require state legislation anyway.
That's not going to happen.
You have two casinos and that's it.
I'm sure the other casinos wouldn't be too happy about me putting that in there either.
Just wanted to make that clear, though, Mr. Chairman,
because I heard some rumors being sarcastic yeah understood anyway um and again there will be no
separate entrance to the race and sports book only through chickies and pete with my consider two
reasons my consideration to the neighborhood understanding that they would not be appreciative
of a storefront because I have a lot of room there to that isn't as busy it used to be as you
know um or may not know but having an entrance to the outside wasn't an option when i spoke to
the parks people they must come through my place for two reasons one i could hope hopefully they'll
buy something on the way through or but more importantly that they didn't have their own
entrance people coming in and out in and out they'd have to come through my front door through
by my host stand through my jurisdiction for them to consider going to the sports book
So I thought that that was my reason for doing it.
So we put it in the back left-hand corner with no entrance.
It does have a fire exit only.
Isn't it true that on the sidewalk that there's a new stand between your building and Packer Avenue
where there's a curb cut to enter the parking lot, that there's a new stand that sells lottery tickets?
There is.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Will the sports book be open any times other than when Chickies and Peets is open?
It cannot be open any other times in Chickies and Peets because Chickies and Peets has to be open to get in.
You have to come through our front doors again to get to the back room.
I just have a couple of final points, Pete.
Did you hear my opening comments?
I did.
And are they true and correct?
Yes, they are.
And do you adopt them as your testimony?
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Sharaki at this time.
Does the board have any questions?
I want to thank the board for listening to me.
I appreciate your ear on this.
and uh chairman vice chairman and board members i appreciate your time thank you thank you
thank you i'd like to uh call on ron davis of parks casino next
mr davis
mr davis has been unmuted he's free to speak
Mr. Davis has been unmuted he's free to speak thank you good afternoon Mr. Davis please
identify yourself with a record name spell your name and I'll swear you in and let us
Let us know your affiliation with this application.
Mr. Davis, please unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
My name is Ronald W. Davis, R-O-N-A-L-D, W-D-A-V-I-S.
I'm Director of Diversity and Community Development for Parks Casino.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Medellin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ron, how long have you been the Director of Diversity and Community Development at Parks?
In March, it will be 16 years.
I was one of the original hires by Parks to bring diversity, inclusion, equity, and community development to our product.
Thank you.
And could you explain to the board the community outreach programs Parks has that benefit the South Philadelphia community?
Yes, we are excited.
Our casino has an exemplary record of achievement in bringing community development to Philadelphia area in several ways.
One, our individual outreach to the community comes through partnerships.
And I must commend Pete for this innovative partnership that can lead to great benefits for the community.
Parks has given about $120 million over the years that have been open.
and we are very sensitive and we do a lot of outreach not only with money but with people
and we'll talk about that in a second but with Delaware Valley Crime Commission we're very
passionate about the Crime Commission and so much so we've given $130,000 and hosted this year at
poppies. They're very extensive and well done Crime Stopper lead program, Law Enforcement
Appreciation Day, where we recognize those who are outstanding in law enforcement. And we're
part of that. We're part of that board. The American Red Cross. I'm on the board of American
Red Cross locally and nationally. And so we do a lot of outreach with humanitarian and
And biomed, that's blood and disaster, for those who might not know.
Universal companies, we have a partnership with Kenny Gamble, with his Auden Reed High School, and with his schools.
We give scholarships.
In fact, we're planning a huge fundraiser for him here at Parks because we understand his mission.
OIC is another one of the beneficiaries of what we do.
A number of organizations like the NOMO Foundation, the chambers, it's Asian, Hispanic, and African-American chambers.
We're on their boards, and we give them considerable support through financial contributions, but more through our diversity programs.
We have established internally a program called Employee Resource Groups, ERGs, that work in tandem with us to reach out to the community.
So the benefit to the South Philadelphia area would be there.
We have women's leadership. We have veterans group. We have a group of people of color. We have LGBTQ. We have the people who have disabilities. So those are the kinds of things that we do along with outreach to the community itself.
So that's certainly part of our portfolio, but our attitude is that we are here in communities to enhance those communities.
We listen and we act and we're part of the communities that we serve and we build effective teams inside and outside the organization.
So that's our motto and the way we handle the vendor construction and community is, I believe.
The vendor construction and community is, I believe, exemplary. Our numbers are the highest of any casino because we don't look at a casino as just a casino, but we also look at service. We're servant leaders in helping the community.
So we bring that special outreach with Pete, who has done tremendous work in the South Philadelphia area and other areas, as we all know, to the table.
We also look for doing good.
We look at opportunities with other entities, and we'll talk about that in a second.
and in your experience as director of diversity and community development at parks
how will the relocation of the sports book inside chickie and pete's enable parks to better serve
the community i think anytime you have hands-on and relationships and all of its relationships
that are built that pete has built in a strong way that we can only enhance those relationships
we have a relationship now with community college where we have a diversity inclusion program
that looks for leaders, women leaders, that looks for veterans.
We celebrate the diversity of the organization by helping with scholarships.
We have given money to GAMP, which is in South Philly, with their alumni.
The continued quest for intentional growth within the community is our passion.
Thank you. And could you elaborate a little bit on the relationship with the Community College of Philadelphia and Parks and how they will be benefited by opening the sports book inside Chiggies and Peds?
Thank you. Again, partnerships and the key partnership with the Community College is certainly one that Dr. Generals knows well, who's the head of the college there,
Because Parks is unusual in that it has connected with all the diversity groups, including those with disabilities, including those who are veterans, including those who are people of color and other organizations within or other people within the community college.
giving scholarships and motivating and mentoring our staff is reaching out and mentoring those
students and we look at it as long-term community development and workforce development so we look
for those kinds of opportunities and in your opinion would the presence of the sports book
and chickies and peets benefit the community i think it's a super opportunity for chickies and
Pete's for the community.
I think the community has a great opportunity to expand whatever programs give us suggestions
that might help in areas that we define engagement with and a continued relationship building
within that community.
And I think it's exciting for me because I recognize opportunity.
And I think Pete and his grounded approach to what he's done and he's been so successful with it can only enhance the community's benefits from our operation.
And in your opinion, would there be any injury to nearby properties or public health or safety if the sportsbook opens inside Chickies and Pete's?
Definitely no.
You can ask any partner that we deal with or have dealt with in the communities that we serve, local or regional.
They give you a lot of examples of safety and passion for helping is unparalleled in any of the communities that we serve.
whether it's here in the Ben Salem area, but in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia is one of our communities entirely that we draw people who need jobs from
that we continue to enhance as we go along in our strategies.
Thank you, Mr. Davis.
I have no further questions.
If the board has any questions.
Yeah, I have a question.
good afternoon sir
how many shifts will you have
and how many people will be working
in each shift
the next witness is the
operations guy
I'll wait
and for some reason I'm not able to get on
And for some reason, I'm not able to get on video, Tanya.
video Tanya it's saying
It's saying you cannot start your video because the host has stopped it.
I actually had the video changed during the presentation, hoping it would work.
No problem.
People don't need to see me, but I want to make sure I'm on the screen.
So, Chair, it should work now.
You can try it.
Nope, still says it's stopped.
Yeah, I'm an old football player, so you don't want to see my face.
I play for the 49ers and some of the
we didn't give you a party for video we got it now thank you
thank you thank you other questions for Mr. Davis Mr. Chairman
any questions from the board no
no thank you for the opportunity and uh thank you for uh taking time with me and uh our
presentation today thank you thank you for your testimony
My next witness is Matthew Cullen.
Mr. Cullen, you've been unmuted. You're free to speak.
Good afternoon, Mr. Cullen. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your last name, and let us know about your affiliation with Parks, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon. My name is Matthew Cullen, C-U-L-L-E-N. I am the Senior Vice President of Interactive Gaming and Sports at Parks Casino.
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And your affiliation, again, was?
I run internet gaming and sports wagering for the casino.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Marrione.
Thank you, Mr. Marrione.
Could you explain to the board and the public what the park's proposal is intended to achieve
in moving its sports book from 700 Packer Avenue to inside Chickies and Pete's,
It's a 2,600-square-foot area inside Chickies and Peets, Sports Park, 1526 Backer Avenue.
We have to downsize our current location.
Years ago, it was an ideal size, but now it's just too large and untenable for us to remain where we are.
We want to save our business, and we want to save the local jobs that we have,
and we want to continue to serve the South Philadelphia area.
We also want to help Chickies and Pete's because we have a longstanding relationship with Pete and his family and his employees and allow him to be more competitive in the neighborhood with the Cordish Casino, Philly Live, which is coming in.
So what we're proposing is to take our very large facility and downsize it into that very small, state-of-the-art, sort of miniature sportsbook in the back left-hand corner of the Chickies and Peets location.
What is, please describe to the word, what is the parts, race, and sportsbook?
Well, today it's a very large facility.
facility. It's first and foremost a food and beverage establishment, but in the days of COVID,
that's kind of fallen by the wayside for several months, which has put a lot of strain on the
business itself. But it's a secure and regulated horse racing and sports wagering facility
that contributes many, many hundreds of thousands of tax, hundreds of dollars of tax revenue
to the Commonwealth.
And have Parks and Chickies and Peets collaborated before?
Yes, we have.
As some of the other witnesses had attested, we have for many years,
both here in Van Salem as well as in Egg Harbor Township.
And has this relationship benefited both entities?
Yeah, very much so.
It's been a very positive relationship,
and that's the main reason that we wanted to focus on this project.
And what will happen to the existing turf club at 700 Packer Avenue when this move is completed?
Well, we'd relinquish our lease on that facility.
I can't speak to what the landlord at our current facility would do,
but then we would downsize that facility from what's currently 36,000 square feet
to the new location inside Chickies and Peets, which would be proposed at 2,600 square feet.
And why propose this greatly downsized unit located entirely inside Cheeky and Pete's?
Well, it's just a perfect mix. As Pete spoke to, it's a perfect mix of demographics. Sports
wagering enthusiasts and sports fans really are one and the same. And this activity is already
going on in bars and restaurants when you're able to go into those establishments on their
mobile phones or on a computer or in their homes. So the activity is already fully legal
The activity is already fully legal in the Commonwealth and has been for a couple of years now.
in the Commonwealth and has been for
And it's really an opportunity for Chickies and Peets to really up their game
and to provide an amenity that no other places would have
outside of any of the casino establishments that exist in the state.
And is the race and sports book subject to regulatory control by governmental units or agencies?
oh very much so it's one of the most if not the most highly regulated industry in the in the
commonwealth today and who regulates this this business there's several um because it's a because
we we have racing um horse racing wagering uh the pennsylvania racing commission does
in conjunction with the pennsylvania gaming control board as well as the liquor control board
currently. And will they continue to exercise regulatory control if this application is
approved and remove the sports book inside Chickie and Pete's? Absolutely, no doubt about it.
They're going to look at it very, very closely. They'll go through and walk through and do
several inspections of the facility before they would deem us operational. They'd be responsible
for licensing of all the individuals that would work in the facility in the sports book
itself, certify and regulate all the equipment that would be used to take the wagers, regulate
all of the wagering activity that would happen day in, day out across both wagering and
sports, and then provide oversight of all the applicable laws relative to the Commonwealth
and the regulations of those regulatory bodies,
the Racing Commission and the Gaming Control Board.
Will there be any slot machines or table games inside the racing sportsbook?
No, no, there never will.
It's not a casino facility or a racetrack, and it never will be.
And in your opinion, will approval of these changes
have an adverse impact on the local community or neighborhood?
No, not whatsoever.
Not whatsoever.
And do you anticipate any increase in vehicular traffic if the proposal is approved?
We don't.
You know, we're currently located down the street.
We're, and obviously, as I stated earlier, in a much larger facility.
And we would, you know, by downsizing, we would expect even less foot traffic as a result.
Will approval result in overcrowding of the parking lot used by Chicky and Pete patrons and the Parks, Race, and Sportsbook patrons?
No, not at all.
And we actually, I believe, which we will be submitting as part of our testimony, a study that we conducted, or maybe you'll be speaking to another witness about that?
Yes, we have a separate traffic engineer.
um will the uh in your opinion will the approval provide any benefit to the community
absolutely i mean jobs first and foremost it's going to bolster chickies and peets
um you know providing them with more amenities to remain you know competitive in the neighborhood
itself um and and with the the environment changing with the the new casino just down
the street coming online in january that which is going to add even more competitive pressure
to Pete's existing business, and ours for that matter as well, we definitely believe that us
joining forces and working together is beneficial for everyone involved and the community.
And you said you would bring jobs to this facility. How many jobs are coming here?
Well, currently we've got about, depending on the time of year and the sporting events that
are happening and the racing that's occurring, anywhere from 35 to 45 jobs currently. Unfortunately,
even with this downsizing, we would bring those jobs back to about 25, so a net loss of probably
10 to 15 jobs, but it's better than losing everything, which is what we would face if we
don't make the move. And are these permanent jobs? It's a combination, mainly permanent,
and then also some part-time jobs as well.
Do Parks employees receive benefits?
Yes, they do.
They do.
Full health care, dental, vision, 401K.
And does Parks – will Parks provide security for the race and sports book?
Any time that we're open, which, as Pete testified,
will be open during his business hours.
and we'll fit within the confines of those business hours,
we will have security at the entrance
security at the entrance within the sports book. So no one under the age of 21 would be permitted
within the sports book.
So no one under the-
to enter into the sports book facility, the sports wagering area within Chickies and Pete's
without first showing proper identification to a security guard or two security guards.
And will the, just to reiterate, make this clear, will the sports book be open when
chickies and pizzas closed it will not and do you believe that there will be any adverse impacts
on the local community if the application is approved by the zba we do not why why not
well i mean like as i stated before i mean we're doing this to save our existing business
and and to help help pete's business um and to continue to to promote local jobs and and keep
local jobs in the area like pete said and and for us as well a lot of our employees come from the
neighborhood um and we want to help to to build up pete's business ahead of what's planned down
the street with the new casino because it's going to be it's going to be ultra competitive for him
to differentiate himself with all of the f and b options food and beverage options that they're
planning to open within that facility, which, by the way, will probably be open 24-7, which is
going to put a tremendous strain, we would believe, on his business, which is why we came together
to try and join forces on this venture. Thank you, Mr. Cullen. I have no further
questions for him, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Cullen, in regards to your customers currently
at 700 Packer Avenue, would you happen to know where those customers are coming from?
Do you have any way of knowing that?
I know there are people, I've probably been there four times in all the years you've been open.
I always noticed that it was mostly local people, but do you have any sense of how that breaks down?
We don't have a 100% transparent sense of how that breaks down. When you come into a retail wagering facility for racing or sports, everything is done anonymously. And what I mean by that is you have to show ID to walk in.
So you have to prove to our security guard at the entrance that you're of age, that is 21 and over, to enter the facility.
Our tellers and our managers and supervisors that work the various shifts when we're open at our current location, they get to know customers.
And a lot of those customers, you're right, are from the general area within several blocks, actually, and have been going there for decades.
And we would expect a lot of those patrons to start going to Chickie's and Pete's as well once we move the establishment.
Your customer base, pretty much, I'm not putting words in your mouth, are pretty much local area residents.
When I say local, South Philadelphia, generally speaking?
Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions?
Any board members?
Any questions?
uh tanya before i go any further we are at uh four minutes to one
um do we have any what we have up to what 115 or now
i was going to say mr chairman i have three long witnesses i mean it might make sense to break now
rather than possibly have to break in the middle of somebody's testimony we could go to 115 if we
to give it could you wrap it up by 115 mike um i'm sorry tanya um yes if we could um go to 115
uh possibly 120 ish um and then i can just ask that the staff and others involve leave we not
ask for um anything else for planning commission or whatever and then i'll just stay on the line
for this particular case but if we can wrap up in a few more minutes that would be great
okay i can go on to the next witness then mr chairman okay zba staff you can pop out as
necessary for your lunch as well as planning however you um feel and then i'll stay in and
wrap this case up thank you uh let's still like to call jeremy drummond
Mr. Drummond you have been unmuted you're free to speak
Good afternoon this is Jeremy Drummond D-R-U-M-M-O-N-D
I am an owner and principal at L2 Partridge
I am an owner and principal at L2 Partridge.
We are the architect working
We are the architect working with Parks, Casino, and Chickies and Pete's on this project.
Take the sparement, Mr. Chairman.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I'm going to go ahead.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Drummond. What's your profession or occupation?
I'm a registered architect at L2 Partridge and one of the owners of the company.
And I have on my screen now a copy of your CV or resume. Is this accurate regarding your experience and background?
Are you the person responsible for preparation
of the plans for the accommodation of the parks
sports book in the existing Chickie and Pete's restaurant and sports bar?
Yes. Could you explain to the board
and to the public what you
intended to achieve with your design work on this project?
Yeah, so as Pete and Matt have alluded to
So we're taking the existing private dining area in the back and converting it into a sports book.
And aesthetically, the goal was to create an overall enhanced user experience.
So with people that are watching sports being a sports book, a sports bar, there seems to be a natural synergy here.
So the design concept was really to create more of a high-end user experience and just a fully immersive sports viewing and wagering experience.
And will Chickies and Peach continue to operate their restaurant at this location?
And are you familiar with the turf club at 700 Packer Avenue?
I am, yes.
And what's the square footage of that operation now?
Approximately 36,000 square feet.
And after they move inside Chiqui and Pete's, what will the square footage of the relocated sportsbook be?
Approximately 2,600 square feet.
And will sportsbook business have a separate entrance or exit?
no as testified earlier the entrance to the sports book will be through the main restaurant
and patrons will enter through the main doors of chickies and pete's excuse the interruption i
think we can stipulate that the only way into this sport the sports book will be through the
main entrance in this chicken pizza will be no other entrances to the facility for as it relates
the sports book sure follow up on that though is there a reason for limiting entrance to the sports
book from inside chicken pizza only primarily just to control access uh for engagement strategies
for chickies and pete's and just for overall security reasons okay um and what will the
design capacity i'm sorry excuse me counselor what is is there any physical barrier for
for minors at the entrance of the door to the sports bar, to the sports bar?
Yes, there is.
Mr. Drummond can address that.
Yeah, I apologize.
Yes, there is.
So the rendering you're seeing on the screen, actually.
So once you enter the restaurant, as you head back towards the sports book, there is a glass
entry, a secure entry.
And as Matt testified, there will be a security guard at that entry controlling access.
Is this the entry that I'm pointing to?
Correct.
Yes, that is the entry.
And is the rest of this a walled-in area?
Correct.
The entire space is enclosed.
I think if I go down to the renderings, I can show that a little bit further as well.
Yeah, so this is the entry to the sports book from the inside of Chickies and Peets.
We don't see that.
We're not seeing that.
Oh, okay.
That's not coming up?
I see it.
I'm sharing the rendering.
I thought my screen was sharing, Mr. Chairman.
This is all.
You had it up earlier, but not now.
It's not up now?
I can see it.
I can see it.
Yeah, because the board members, I don't think the board can see it.
The board can't see it.
It's a problem, obviously.
Should I stop and restart the screen, Chair?
Should I stop and restart the screen share?
Let me restart the screen, Mr. Chair.
Oops, that's not it.
is it up mr chairman yeah i see it yes thank you sorry about that
so the rendering you're looking at is a view looking into the sports book from chickies and
pete's main restaurant as you approach the entry and that is a glass uh enclosure
and these are all glass here correct so where's the where's the security uh barrier
you have a total glass enclosure that you that you can't walk through Mr. Holloman
there's a door that'll open it to allow you into the sportsbook correct this is a door
correct it stays closed until people want to enter or exit
and they're correct correct and i i'm sorry michael go ahead no i was going to say there'd
be security personnel uh the station at the door and we do have our security expert who can talk
about the specifics of how that will work he's going to testify later as well mr problem
maybe we should have had the security guard in the picture that would help
anyway well or maybe you can well we're going to have this continue at some point maybe you
could just show us a visual where it will be okay so let me ask you a question to go back
of the earlier I think Mr. Manione you may have I think I asked about occupancy or you brought it
up. Occupancy is 59. Is that 59 guests or is that 59 include the employees?
Patrons is 59 or is that the grand total of patrons and employees? 59 is the number of
seats Mr. Chairman which we have right here and and Mr. Drummond can can speak to that a little
bit but here is your okay yeah i thought you did i wanted to double check all right 59 seats and
then you have employees okay correct and uh again mr drumming is that the correct number of seats
59 that is correct okay and um what's presently um in this area in chickies and pete so currently
that is three private dining rooms or three dining rooms that creates a flexible environment
for Chickies and Peets so they can seat large parties back there or they can rent out the
separate spaces for private dining events and fundraisers. And is that present seating capacity
of that area 138? Yes, it is currently. So we will be reducing from 138 seats to 59 seats?
Correct.
And will that use be discontinued, at least in that area of Chickies and Peets?
Yes, it will.
And what will the occupancy of the Chickies and Peets restaurant and sports bar be after the sports book is relocated there, the total occupancy?
514 occupants.
And is that a reduction of the present occupancy?
Yeah, it is a reduction of the overall occupant load by approximately 80.
I think 79 to be exact.
Other than the planned alterations of building the sportsbook,
were there any other alterations to the chicken pizza operations you're aware of?
No to the operations.
We are making some accommodations in the Play 2 area to accommodate the loss of the private dining spaces.
If these changes are made, will Chickies and Pete's with the relocated sports book, relocated as your design proposes,
will the operation meet all the applicable zoning use and dimensional restrictions for this area?
Are you building anything beyond the four walls that already exist?
no we are only making interior modifications
does your plan alter the exterior of the building that houses chickies and peets in any way
no it doesn't and will the changes create a need for additional parking or other changes to the
parking area provided for the present occupants of this building no and are you familiar with
And are you familiar with the zoning codes provisions applicable for uses which are permitted
the zoning codes provisions applicable for uses which are permitted
by special exception?
Yes, I am.
And are there any use specific provisions applicable to the proposed use under the zoning
code section 14601C7?
14601C7.
i'm sorry michael repeat that please i'm sorry are there any use specific provisions
applicable to the proposed use under zoning code section 14601c7 is this any of the special uses
listed in that section yes assembly and entertainment okay and um in your opinion
will approval of this application for special exception
have any detrimental impacts on the community
beyond that which might normally be expected
from the proposed use described in your plans?
And why do you have that opinion?
Well, because as you've heard testimony earlier,
to me, it's a natural synergy between these two parties.
And I actually believe this is going to enhance
the overall user experience.
and make Chicks and Peets more competitive with what's happening in the neighboring community
with some of the other facilities that are being constructed.
And will the proposal cause congestion in the public streets or transportation systems?
No, because it's an overall reduction of seating capacity.
And will this interior design change cause overcrowding of the land?
no i don't believe so for the same reason it's a reduction in overall seating capacity
will these changes cause any added burden on water sewer systems or on local schools parks
or other public facilities no we're not making any alterations to the building outside of the
building envelope will these changes injure the use of the neighboring properties no
And will these changes impair light and air to the neighboring property?
And in your opinion, is the proposal consistent with the city's comprehensive plan?
Yes, it is. It's a commercial auto-oriented facility, and it's going to remain that.
And in your opinion, will approval this proposal have any negative impacts upon the community or neighborhood?
No, I don't believe so.
and why do you have that opinion well because as i said i mean this is a natural um uh synergy
with chickies and peats it seems consistent with what they've always done i'm very familiar with
chickies and peats i've been working with them a long time and i'm also an avid sports watcher and
and wager and it's um you know what we're trying to do here and what chickies and peats and parks
is trying to do here is really create just an enhanced environment so you can see from the
rendering that this is really more of a high end upscale facility designed, you know, taking
concepts from some of the higher end waging locations in like Las Vegas and things like
that. So it's designed to be consistent with the existing clientele that Chickas and Pete's
caters to. And I don't see any reason why that would change.
mr chairman i have no further questions for mr droman i have a question i don't know i don't
it's not for mr cullen but if i'm going to use an example uh and i'll use myself as the example
if i'm sitting in tricky and pizza i'm either at the bar or at a table i'm not in the uh sports
book and i have my uh cell phone or whatever will i be restricted will i still be able to make bets
off my phone even though i'm not in the sports book area so in other words am i blocked out or
does life go on for me i can still bet at the bar i don't have i'm not going to be forced into that
facility correct into this i'm not being forced to go into the sports book if i'm a philadelphia
resident i'm not talking about outsiders i think that's a question for matt but i'm i'm saying
from what I understand no would not make a difference just a little bit from your phone
okay all right very good thank you uh counselor the counselor
I can't see the plan clearly but is there restrooms within that space
are there any restrooms no there are not therefore so therefore you have to come back into
Chips and Pete
to use the restrooms and come back to the sports bar.
to use the restrooms and come back
to the sports bar.
Correct.
Correct.
Tom, it's not like unusual.
I mean, when they have banquets there or fundraisers,
people who are in that area that we're looking at now,
they all have to leave that section.
It's actually closed off now.
There's a doorway, if not like a double doorway,
to get you into that area where the proposed sports book is.
so it'll operate pretty much the same way is that correct i mean as it relates to to bathroom
facilities that's correct the bathroom facility is not far from there the bathroom is centrally
located for the whole restaurant right in this theory mr chairman uh i have uh but i just want
to i know we have two minutes left till we get to 1 15 there's a matter i want to bring up before
we adjourn so i just want to mention i need a minute okay now can i speak yeah yeah okay um i
appreciate that you know our uh all the witnesses will come back for next time but i would also like
to ask the board to require that parks bring an additional witness um to the next hearing or to
whenever we're up for our part of the hearing which is their director of their compulsive and
problem gambler program i can explain if you'd like chair i think it's our case to decide what
witnesses we want to present and whether we want to present that that person as a witness
is up to us and you know i i don't think that the zoning board really i don't know what yeah
what role that plays for us well i can call the i'll i'll ask for a subpoena when it comes to our
And for our witness, I think that, you know, we've heard a lot about how Parks helps the Red Cross.
And I think it I think there's another side that is critical to our case that that we need to have the wherewithal to to put on.
And I think. And you make that. Yeah, it's a decision, Paul, you make if you want to subpoena, that's up to you.
um actually excuse me this is sharon i believe that it's up to the board you would have to
submit a request for a subpoena and in that request you would have to state specifically how
that witness is expected to provide testimony that is relevant to the standards for grant
of a special exception in that case then i'm not willing i'm not i'm not willing to do that i'm not
going to be labored a record we all know about people who have problems with gambling this isn't
going to change the world as far as I'm concerned it might have to get rid of a lot of you get rid
of the newsstand outside because people played a lottery some people spend their whole check
paycheck on lottery tickets I'm right I let me just make sure I understand I still have the ability
to request in writing a subpoena from the board and the board will consider that or are you saying
that I'm not to do that.
You can submit it.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
All right.
Tanya, we're done, aren't we?
Michael, you have one more witness?
I have two more witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
So that we can stop here and cleanly resume where we will have the start of the hearing with those two witnesses.
And I would request, Chair, even though with a typical resumption hearing, we would state that posting is not required.
However, based on the testimony, I would request that when we continue this, posting be required for all furnishes and exterior of the building so we won't have to deal with this.
I agree 1,000%.
I have one request, Mr. Chairman, and that is that if we can work out logistics and have an RCO meeting, that it be a Zoom meeting.
My client has specifically requested a Zoom RCO meeting.
Mr. Chairman, this board has no authority to dictate the manner of the RCO meeting.
What we're asking you is to do it in the safest way possible.
Absolutely. 100%. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't want it to, by the way, I don't want this to be used as an excuse.
No, no.
Not to have an RCO meeting.
Well, we couldn't do it because, well, you do have alternatives.
And as you know, I don't think that we had a case yet, unless maybe the one that we talked about this morning, since this pandemic started and this board resumed hearings, when all these cases I'm aware of were all done virtually.
RCOs have all done them. I'm not aware of, and somebody can correct me, that if I'm wrong,
RCOs have all done them. I'm not aware of, and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.
they've all been done virtually. And if they haven't, it's probably been less than the fingers
on one hand. That's the way it is. Unfortunately, it's the way we're living these days.
Everything's being done virtually. Yes, that's true, Chair. That's what we're getting. Everything
is being done virtually. We're doing it virtually. I'm home. I'm home.
we'll leave it we'll leave it to the parties to work out um so chair i can schedule this for
february the 10th at 2 p.m okay um everybody's on board this um mi 2020-001532 this hearing will
be resumed on, is that February the 20th, you said? The 10th, Chair, at 2 p.m. I'm sorry, February 10th
at 2 p.m. And we'll finish up with your testimony at that time with your next two witnesses, Mr.
Manione, and we'll also get any feedback related to the RCO's positions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, we'll likely have a fair amount of cross-examination as well as some witnesses
We haven't thought about that yet, but I, you know, this is a big case, Mr. Chairman, and I know we all understand that. I just wanted to reiterate it.
So, excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. Can I also ask Mr. Bonney that if you are going to challenge the refusal referral that you submit something in writing at least two weeks prior to the next hearing serving all parties as to the grounds for your challenge?
I agree. Thank you. And Chair, if I could speak to the fact that this would only be allowed one
hour testimony. If necessary, there will be another continuance. Unfortunately, we are super
overbooked. I know. I don't think the public understands what's going on here. We've got
cases that are scheduled out in March and April already. Okay. We'll do our best to get this done.
Okay. Thank you all. Thank you for allowing us to proceed today, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all. Stay safe, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
All right. See the board back. We'll be back at two o'clock.
Thank you. Yes, Chair. Okay. See you then. Okay. See you then.
Go. I'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere, Board
Secretary Confessor Plaza and Board Members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator Ms. Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also
in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded. Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat,
for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star
nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement,
call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
i'll repeat that as well to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue with that being said we can begin but
before Ms. Denary calls our first case, we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance
or withdrawal of an appeal listed for this afternoon's hearing to please raise your hand.
In the meantime, I will read off.
Frank, you muted yourself.
You didn't hear anything I said?
Yes, we heard the beginning statement, but not the continuances.
I made my papers down on my computer.
I'm sorry.
All right, so if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand.
All right.
So if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal, please.
In the meantime, I'll read off those cases that we've already received a request to continue.
MI 2020-0020539 North 22nd Street.
MI 2020-001964, 2750 Aramingo Avenue, MI 2020-002118, 2105 Ellsworth Street,
and MI 2020-002116-217-2107 Ellsworth Street.
I apologize.
2107 Ellsworth Street.
So far, those are the requests we've had.
If anyone disagrees with that,
if any attorneys out there
and are not in agreement with the continuous,
please raise your hand.
And also-
Excuse me.
This is Sharon Saleta. We do, I believe we have one more. I'm not sure if you read this. MI 2020-001925, 2113 North 21st Street. It's number 15 on your list. It may have been added after I sent you the continuances.
Yeah, it wasn't on there. Okay, I'll do that now. MI 2020-001925-2113 North 21st Street is being continued. Again, I'll repeat, if the applicant and or attorney are present and you disagree with the case being continued, please raise your hand.
move um chair if i could um i have a couple things so case number two on your list
7806 lime kill pike was um put on the list for today however it was voted september 22nd
so you can scratch that okay that's mi2020-0008587806 lime kill pike has already been adjudicated
and then chair number six on the list i have 6047 west oxford i have that has been continued
requested by the attorney clementa okay uh mi 2020-002035 6047 west oxford street is continued
okay now fatina we can look to those who are have their hands up
all right first we have sean word excuse me sean ward he's been unmuted he's free to speak
Good afternoon, Mr. Ward. Please identify yourself for the record and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant,
S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D 331 East Street Road, Trivos, PA 19053.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I most certainly do. Thank you. Please proceed.
We submitted a request on calendar MI2020-001529, 2120-22 East Arizona Street.
We have not met with the RCO yet.
What's the address again?
2120 East Arizona.
That is on the 330 list.
it's yeah I didn't see it on it it's on the 3 30 list oh my apologies no worries no worries
okay thank you thank you anyone else yes chair next we have Charles Richardson he's been unmuted
and he's free to speak you good afternoon Mr. Richardson identify yourself with a record you're
still under oath from this morning good afternoon Mr. Chair Charles Richardson from the office of
Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall. I was trying to ascertain whether we need to do
a continuance for 2017 Westmoreland Street. That's MI 2020-001865. From my understanding,
I spoke with the head of the RCO this morning, and she said that they're supposed to come back
for another meeting on December the 7th.
I want to confirm that with Mr. Nakhomsen
if he's available and see what, you know,
where it actually stands.
This is Sharon Saleta.
That is number 13 on your list
and Mr. Nakhomsen did submit exhibits.
Mr. Nakhomsen, are you available?
Mr. Nockamson, are you available?
I am, Mr. Chair.
I am, Mr. Chair.
Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Where from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
You've heard the request from the Councilwoman's office.
Please comment.
So, Mr. Chair, we actually, this is already a continuance that we continued to meet with
the community before, you know, since the last time we were supposed to have a hearing.
We actually have met on two separate occasions with the community.
The first time we met, I guess no one within the affected area appeared to our presentation.
We made our presentation.
They asked us to provide signatures of nearby neighbors.
We did.
We provided, and as part of our presentation packet, over two pages of signatures for addresses within the vicinity of our property.
We were then asked to appear a second time in front of the community, which we did.
Only one person showed up who was even close to our property, and I believe they were over two blocks away from our property.
After that community meeting, I asked my client to provide more signatures.
I defer to the board if the board believes we should have a third community meeting, but we have over two pages of signatures.
We have continued this matter once before. We have had two community meetings. I don't
believe it has anything to do with the merits of the proposal that we are getting pushback,
but just that people are not showing up to our community meeting. And as Mr. Chair, you
would hopefully agree with this, that if this was a controversial project, we would have
a bunch of people showing up to the community meeting.
But again, I would defer to the chairman.
Yeah, I appreciate that.
Mr. Richardson, do you think it may have been a miscommunication
as it relates from the RCO to your office?
No, I spoke with her this morning.
She did say that they've had meetings, but that nothing had been concluded
and that they had another meeting set up for December the 7th,
which, you know, she gave me that date specific
because I wrote it down as she said it.
So that's the confusion here is, you know,
did you agree to, Mr. Nockmson,
did you agree to another meeting with them?
Or are you just trying to push it through at this point,
thinking that you've done your due diligence?
If you have, you know, have committed to another meeting with them,
I think you should go ahead with the...
I would completely agree. I've never had any communications with them about a meeting on December 7th.
If we did have a meeting on December 7th, we would have had to notice it at least 10 days before the meeting.
So I haven't had any communications of having a third meeting on December 7th.
If they want, again, I don't know what a third meeting would do. I really don't.
But I will defer to the board if they want us to have another meeting. But, you know, today is December 1st, so we haven't even prepared our notice. And with the mail service, I don't think any notices would reach the affected properties by December 7th.
But I never agreed to any new dates for another hearing.
I mean, another community meeting.
That's strange.
But they had not furnished you with a letter of opposition or support, correct?
That is correct.
I did know that they were going to request another continuance.
Like today, when we followed up with them for a letter from the organization,
they stated to us that they would ask for another continuance.
i have no knowledge of like another date now i know um my colleague clementa amazon who's also
online she has been communicating with them directly so i would defer to her if they indicated
a date of december 7th but i have no knowledge of that but let's hear from ms amazon if she can
shed any light on this seems like just a breakdown of communication on behalf of the rco sorry who
did you um state clementa amazon good afternoon chairman and members of the board please identify
yourself spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in of course clementa amazon c l e m e
Of course, Clementa, Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
So I did speak to the RCO in regards to this matter.
We never agreed to a December 7th date.
We do have a community meeting for a completely different project on December 7th,
But we never agreed to have a third community meeting for this particular project on the Southern.
Thank you. And Sharon, we don't have anything in the file from the RCO?
Not that I have.
Tanya, nothing, right?
I will have to look.
Yeah, it sounds like there is no communication from them.
But I mean, their obligation is to submit it to the attorney.
and multiple meetings is not typical but of course as Mr. Nakerson stated it's up to the
board but it's not typical for more than two meetings. My concern is this going this can get
pushed back pretty far out right? Yes I have no availability with the two weeks off at the end of
the year. All right. I want to like I'll do this. We'll hear the case. We're going to go forward
with the case, Mr. Richardson, and then maybe we'll close the record and we'll have the executive
session discussion next week. Okay, that's fine. Let's go forward with the case. Okay. Okay. Thank
you any other requests yes chair we have will he's been unmuted and free to speak
good afternoon please identify yourself for the record first and last name and your address
will are you there
sure he's um unmuted so if you wish to move on we can okay is he going to testify
he's not speaking and his mic is open so anyone else we have steve bertill
good afternoon mr bertill please identify yourself for the record and i'll swear you in
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Steve Bertil, representing the applicant for 2113 North 21st Street, B-E-R-T-I-L.
Didn't we already, I think we already, are you in agreement with the continuance? I thought we continued that, didn't we?
No, I represent the applicant. I'm not aware. Ms. Saleto mentioned this matter for a continuance. I'm not aware of any continuance requests. We did not make a request. We've met all the notice requirements and met with the RCO, and we're ready to go forward today, so I'm not aware.
Okay, so that's 2113 North 21st, correct?
That's correct, and we have a letter of non-opposition from the RCO.
I apologize, Mr. Bertil. I must have confused it with another case.
no problem we'll go forward with it okay thank you thank you anyone else
we have a calling user i'm unmuting him the person now you're free to speak
caller you're free to speak
okay hello yes um yes i'm calling about uh 2017
excuse me to identify yourself with a record
yes this is adrian fernandez the swamp little neighborhood possible association rco excuse me
this is Sharon Saleta if I can just interrupt Ms. Fernandez after this was announced I did see that
we did get a letter on this or an email yesterday from Ms. Fernandez so I will
can I can I testify when the case comes up just just just one minute Sharon is this for
a continuance case Mr. Richardson I believe requested a continuance
and Mr.
Nockamson.
Yes, yes.
But I will forward the
email from Swampoodle
to you and to Mr. Richardson.
Okay. And yes, Adrian, when the case
gets called, you'll be able to testify.
Okay, thank you. I'll be listening.
Okay, thank you. I'll be listening.
Can I just verify what address this is
Can I just verify what address this is for, Adrian?
for Adrian?
Adrian?
Yes, can you hear me now?
Yes, can I verify what is the address for this?
Yes, it's 2017 Westmoreland Street.
Thank you.
I'll wait until the hearing comes up.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Yes, Chair, we have Benjamin Webb has been unmuted.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself in the record. Name and address. I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon. Name is Benjamin Webb. Address is 1127 North Hancock Street.
Excuse me. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and love the bunch of truth.
And you're here for what case?
case mi 2020 001963 1127 north hancock street number 16 16 on our sheet okay okay are you
requesting a continuance i'm just um requesting to make sure that we're on the the list and that
you have all the documents that you need to move forward um but actually you're the architect right
I am, yes.
So if the owner?
The owner is listening, too.
Yeah, so if he wants to speak to something, it would have to be him.
Thank you.
And wait, this is Sharon Saleta.
Can I ask, I have a note that I don't have a record of having received exhibits.
Did you email them to all the required addresses?
I noticed I left one off and I tried to resend.
I'll resend everything right now just to make sure.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you so much.
I'm sorry, where was these documents sent?
they were sent to um the rc rcozba at philadelphia and then cc to two other um addresses
okay chair it's your call with that one all right we'll go forward let's go anyone else
yes chair we have will he's unmuted and he's available to speak
Will, please identify yourself, first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Will, you will have to unmute yourself again for the last time. If not, we will move on.
um chair no activity there we can move on that's the second time okay thank you all right um
hold on i got everything and no more any more requests patina no chair okay i'm sorry i'm so
sorry chair but um richard demarco's hand just popped up we can ask mr demarco hi mr chairman
uh just want you know i'm having trouble uh logging on i'm on a mac computer and i don't
know if has anything to do with the fact that i'm uh i mean i'm on with my phone but i won't be able
to share my screen and show exhibits uh i keep getting kicked so i'm on 31 excuse me 31 33
so juniper juniper i can't get into the the zoom on my computer so mr demarco i believe we do
have your exhibits available as necessary i can share the screen and present for you
and you can speak on the phone if that's okay oh all right yeah if that's okay with the board i'm
sorry i don't know what the problem is with my computer just i keep getting kicked back to the
registration form no problem no problem we'll move thank you all right anyone else
no one else
i'm sorry chair we have two we have uh hannah ashlock she's been unmuted
good afternoon ma'am please identify yourself for the record spell your first and last name
and provide us with your address.
Hannah, you must unmute yourself.
Will you be discussing
1330 Vernon Road?
if it's scheduled
for today, then it's on the list?
That's going to be for 3.30
list I don't see it I'm sorry it's number 17 on our list as of now yes there's been no request
for continuance we intend to go forward with the case thank you thank you here we also have
Chair, we also have Jay Harris.
Jay Harris and if I could
And if I could add, Chair, this is not question and answer for him.
If they wish to ask a question, you can do it in a Q&A.
This is a request for continuances or withdrawals.
Thank you kindly.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Jay Harris, could you please unmute?
Yes, I'm unmute.
Can you hear me?
Yes, ma'am.
Good afternoon.
Please identify yourself in the record, spell your name, and give us your address.
Jamila Harris, first name J-A-M-I-L-A-H, last name Harris, H-A-R-R-I-S, 7802 Williams
Avenue.
I was actually looking for 1330 Vernon Road as well.
We're going to hear that case.
Okay, sounds good.
Anyone else?
No more hands, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2020-001220, 929 Alberger Avenue, A-L-B-U-R-G-E-R Avenue.
The attorney is Sean Ward.
Mr. Ward, can you please raise your hand?
it's almost 100 people in the session.
Mr. Ward you have you have been promoted to panelists you're free to speak and share your
screen. Good afternoon again Mr. Ward just identify yourself with the record you're still on the roof.
wait a minute there you go all right uh good afternoon mr chair members of the board sean
ward on behalf of kathy laspina owner of 929 alberger avenue let me find my
can everybody see my screen yes yes very good uh attached is my typical um exhibit packet
excuse me do you agree to wave and step mr ward yes i do and have you emailed your exhibit packet
with the required documents, including proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal
referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you
heard the RCO? Yes, I have. And yes, we did. Yes. Thank you. You may proceed. I need to
bear with me one second. I got the wrong screen up.
Hang on one second.
okay can you see this my exhibit list now no no no okay
how about now
yes if you can yeah
make it a little bit larger that would be helpful
all right I represent Kathy Laspina
929 Alberger Avenue
Unfortunately, she is working today.
She's a registered nurse and could not get off given the current medical pandemic.
In any event, I'm ready to proceed.
Mr. Woodward?
Submit the exhibits on her behalf.
Yes, ma'am.
Would you be able to increase your percentage 44.2 maybe to 60, 65?
How do I do that, Tanya?
Right here with your percentage, 44.2, underneath try Acrobat.
Right here where your percentage 44.2 underneath TriAcrobac.
And just make it a little larger
on the right hand corner. You see try Acrobat? Yeah. And percentage underneath 44, if you can
enlarge it a bit. Just click on the arrow beside it, down arrow. Yeah, I'm showing 100%.
are you yeah how does the board see I don't see I don't see it in a participant 44 44.2
right and we can make it larger why don't we do this let's go to the next slide and see if it's
if it changes the next exhibit see if it changes I doubt it but we never know did that change
You're still on the first exhibit
Your summary list
Alright let me
Let me close that
And reopen
That's great.
you got it now perfect thank you awesome okay
we did have it now it's back in your files
if you um stop sharing screen double click on whatever you want to present
then share again and tap on that exhibit.
About sharing, share screen.
Got it now?
Okay, that's great.
Thanks, Mr. Ward.
Okay, thanks.
I apologize.
I don't know why that happened, but okay.
Anyway, A1 is the notice of refusal.
This was an application for a permit for a carport accessory to a residential dwelling.
Resulted in two refusals, one for a front yard setback, the other for a side yard setback.
Front yard 35 feet is required, approximately 12 and a half is provided.
15 feet is required for the side yard, and 12 feet is provided.
Accordingly, we seek dimensional variances.
A2 is the Zoning Application of Appeal.
A3, the Project Information Form.
A4, Proof of Ownership.
A5, Proof of Tax Clearance.
A6, the Site and Elevation Plan.
A7 are photographs of the posting, the subject property, and aerial views.
A8 is a Petition of Support, including the immediate neighbors.
Both adjoining neighbors have signed.
A9 is the RCO Meeting Notice.
A-10 is the RCO letter from Greater Busselton, non-opposition.
A-11 is the district councilman's letter of non-opposition.
Relevant permit history, there was a building permit issued last year for solar roof panel installation, which has bearing on this case.
A-13 is the zoning map, and A-14 is the aerial photograph.
So, very quickly, we have the refusal.
This is the appeal transmittal with the application, the refusal, the PIF, copy of her deed.
Tax clearance, site plan.
As you can see in the site plan, it's an irregularly shaped, almost triangular lot fronting on
Alberta with a horseshoe driveway and to the right of the driveway was a parking
pad at which spot the new carport was installed.
As you can see, it's a slanted roof installation. With regard to the solar panels,
She engaged the company to install solar panels on the roof of her home, and due to insurance regulations and policies, the insurance company would not insure the property with the solar panels on the roof.
she engaged the company to install solar panels on the roof of her home.
I've never heard of that before in my life, but so it was recommended that she build another structure to house the solar panels.
Unfortunately, she engaged a contractor who was supposed to pull the permits but did not.
So, this is a copy of the zoning notice posted on the front of the carport.
Again, the poster on the post.
This is a Google view of the carport itself.
A little close up.
They try to do some architectural detail on the carport to match that of the home.
again another google earth view here is the petition of support as you can see the uh the
owners of 923 and 931 alberger or the two adjoining property owners they have signed off
we we got that to submit to greater busselton to show that the adjoining property owners were
in support this was the rco notice that was mailed out it included a copy of the refusal
as well as the address list and the certificate of mailing 25 identical
pieces were mailed out. This was the residential building permit detail for
the solar modules installation. This was the violation notice that the carport
was built without a permit. This is the zoning map and this is an aerial
photograph. I would point out that. So we did meet with Greater Busselton Civic League by a vote of
10 to 2. They voted to support the application. And then, of course, we provided that to Councilman
O'Neill's office, and he has issued a letter of non-objection to the granting of the requested
variance so so based upon that based upon the support of the greater busselton and non-opposition
of the councilman and the precarious situation she found her in with regard to and just just
to summarize she entered a contract to install the solar roof panels that permit was issued
the insurance carrier declined to insure it therefore she required a separate structure
for the panels the contractor engaged to erect the carport was supposed to obtain the permits
but failed to do so and in order to get the building permit we need a zoning permit and
obviously due to the dimensional relief required uh she needs uh variances and the she's already
incurred the cost of installing or building the uh the carport and she's installed expenses with
regard to the contract for the installation of the solar panels therefore I would submit that
for financial circumstances are such that the dimensional rate should be granted
and with that I would ask the board to approve the application
I can't hear Frank if you're speaking
Frank are you Frank is speaking yeah I couldn't I can't hear him I just realized he was speaking
and we can't hear him can you hear me now yes I can thank you I had to leave the meeting come
back my computers acting up today all right do you have any witnesses uh no again uh mrs lasfina
is uh working today she's registered nurse so okay all right questions from the board no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
here we have bernard jadash i'm unmuting him now good afternoon sir please identify yourself with
the record spell your first and last name and give us your address can you hear me yes i can
okay uh bernard carl jadak bernard b-e-r-n-a-r-d carl c-a-r-l jadak j-a-d-a-c-h
I'm with the zoning chair of Greater Bustle and Civic.
I'm with the zoning chair of Greater Busland Civic.
You should have the.
You should have the approval letter.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
You should have the letter, but there's a couple of provisos with it that weren't mentioned
about some trees or shrubberies around the carport.
Is that correct?
Well, if they are, that's not really within our jurisdiction.
We're not enforceable by the zoning board.
Mr. Chair, I'll just point out that the applicant did agree to install some shrubs in front of the carport and that there would be no commercial use of that carport.
They're afraid of a roadside stand, you know, fruit stand or something.
Well, that we can do.
I just wanted to make sure that was clear because it wasn't mentioned.
That's all. Thank you.
You got it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Anyone else?
there are no more hands chair you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
we're going to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed
this property is indicated for single family detached residential use in the comprehensive
plan the neighbors impacted by this use have indicated no objection we do not feel the
structure negatively impacts the surrounding community. Accordingly, we have no objection
to the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001220, 929 Alberger Avenue. My vote is yes
with the proviso. Carport areas to be used for personal use only, no commercial use.
My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
thank you mr chairman that concludes my business may i be excused until the 3 30 list
be at 3 30. thank you very much thank you mi 2020 dash zero zero two zero three four
three nine nine franklin mills circle
anybody hear me yes chair we had we have natalie young and stephen polack
You can promote Stephen Pullup.
He's been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Pollack.
Unmute and video.
Okay, here we go.
Mr. Pollack, good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Could I allow also Natalie Young to have privileges because Natalie is my, helps me so I don't look like a Zoom for dummies kind of guy.
Yes to your request, not to the dummy part.
And I also have two witnesses, Mr. Mike Manav Patel, who is the operator and applicant for his entity, and also Mr. Paul Huron, a member of the bar, who also is available with regard to this case.
We're asking, this is an existing beer store that has our restaurant license.
through the sorry i'm sorry chair was he sworn in and i know i wasn't been sworn in
thank you thank you swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
i do please proceed so this is uh a in a nutshell mr pollack excuse me do you agree to waive the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do madam vice chair and have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos plans of
the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you also met with the rco and do you have
a letter yes we have okay okay uh this is a request for it's an existing um and if you look
at your uh exhibit our exhibits natalie if you can show it at our pictures at a 1101 uh that'll
be the start but it's an existing uh store in the middle ring of the franklin mills now known as the
philadelphia mills shopping center up in the far northeast uh go to number two if you can our a
1102 and go to three so this is our store keep going with four five six you'll see it and it
has has a restaurant component and that gets and paul herrin is here uh who's our liquor attorney
who's our liquor attorney for this matter, has a restaurant license.
for this matter, has a restaurant license.
What Mike would like to do, Mr. Patel would like to do, is get rid of the restaurant part,
which would also eliminate, right now he does sell wine and alcohol,
we would also get rid of that and go to a, what's called a de-distributorship license.
So the CA1 zoning does not allow a beer distributorship.
In our packet, we do have the prior history at A16,
which showed when Mike got the permission, Mr. Patel got permission in 2015 for the beer store.
The property was zoned CA2. CA2 did allow for a beer distributorship, but then got rezoned to CA1.
So we're in that situation. So that's just to give you an overview.
Can I have Mr. Mike Patel, Manav Patel sworn in just so we can continue with the matter?
and uh good afternoon mr patel please identify yourself spell your first and last name
and i'll swear you in if they could raise their hands here so i could promote them
mike you have to rate click raise your hand
it's down below on your screen do you see it yeah okay there you go there's mike patel okay
Mike, please identify yourselves by your name.
Manav, M-A-N-A-V, Les Niels Patel, P-A-T-E-O.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
And Mike, you have been operating the beer store since 2015, is that correct?
That is correct.
And now, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, we have pre-marked exhibits A1 through A16.
Instead of reading them in, I'll just ask all of those read in with regards to refusals, letters, and everything like that.
We do have a letter of support that was provided from the Franklin Mills Civic Association by a vote of no objections.
And then we also have a letter of non-objection from Councilman O'Neill.
I don't know if Alice Udavik is on the line or not.
You can conclude and I'll ask if there's any other witnesses.
And we are just, in essence, just trying to change this.
front we will if you want to see this we have about 25 to 30 parking spaces nothing's changing
outside except it won't say restaurant or draft room anymore it'll just be the beer store we're
taking out the tables and chairs that are in the front uh and so it'll just be a beer distributorship
it has access on all three sides since it's in the Franklin Mills Mall as you can see
and basically that that's what we're going to be doing days and hours monday uh through uh
thursday is 10 to 9 friday 10 to 10 saturday 10 to 10 sunday 11 to 7 we'll have about four to five
employees uh we have adequate space for the for loading and unloading uh because as we say we're
a standalone we're right next door to a wendy's right across on the other side of the street is
a fine wines and spirits store run by the state liquor control board so basically uh with that
that's i would ask mr patel uh you've heard what i've stated on the record do you adopt that as
your testimony yes i do and i don't paul harran is here uh i don't know if we could get paul
sworn in very quickly just to paul are you on i am raise your hand there you go uh paul state
your name and address for the record and my name is paul heron my address is 1500 market street
suite w3110 philadelphia 19102 and mike paul you are the uh uh an attorney who specializes in
sworn in we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you please proceed steve paul you're thank you mr chair uh paul you're uh
an attorney who specializes in liquor law isn't that correct yes that is can you just just real
brief what's the difference between having to go from an r license to the d license
the r license is a retail license primarily for restaurants permitting the sale of
alcohol beer and wine the distributor license is a wholesale license which solely permits the sale
of beer. And the restaurant license requires that the operation include a food component
with seating for 30 individuals for in-store or in-premises consumption. The distributor license
again is a wholesale license. There is no component for in-store eating or
There is no component for in-store eating or drinking.
George.
Everything must be taken out of the store for consumption.
That's basically sort of a nutshell.
So if you want to see briefly what he has the ability, and Paul, he will still be able to,
because one of the things he is is a craft beer store.
So you can go in and still as a distributor, you can go in and put a six pack together of specialty beers.
isn't that correct that is correct okay so if we go to pay our pictures 56 through 58 very quickly
just unless you the board there it is that's what that's what it looks like right now it's not going
to change um mr herringer anything else you want to add not really i think that that gives a pretty
good idea and that's the area where it's going to get removed so with that mr chairman we rest
and we would move for all our exhibits into uh put in the testimony and that would be our case
thank you questions from the board no
planning committee i'm sorry anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
there's no other hands chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for commercial use in the comprehensive plan the property was rezoned
from CA2 to CA1 in 2019 against the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The proposed use would
have been an as of right under the previous zoning. Accordingly, we have no objection to
the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-002034. 399 Franklin Mill Circle. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
thank you mi 2020-002045 thank you mr chairman members of the board uh completes my
activity for today i'll see you tomorrow at two o'clock
i'll try that again mi 2020-002045 3133 south juniper street mr demarco
Mr. DeMarco has been promoted to panelists.
Mr. DeMarco, you're still under oath from earlier today.
Just identify yourself with a record and proceed.
Carol's going to read off.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Can you hear me okay?
We can hear you.
Can you rotate your device once?
I'm trying to do that.
Okay, there we go.
We got you.
Now, a quick question, Carol.
I just wanted to see if Mr. DeMarco needed me to do his exhibits.
I am, Tanya, I am going to need you to do that.
And I'll talk to you offline.
I don't understand why.
This happened once before.
No worries.
We got you.
No worries.
All right.
I appreciate it.
So name and address and do you wave and did you already put your name and address on?
Earlier I did, but it's Richard DeMarco, not for this listing.
Richard DeMarco, 2005, Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of the hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you also have a letter?
Yes to all of that.
I did submit on Friday rather than Thursday.
Thursday was Thanksgiving, which was five days ago.
So, yes, I sent everything on Friday.
We did meet with the RCO, and we have a letter of non-opposition from the RCO,
and it was fully flyered, and I submitted all the exhibits on Friday.
That's great.
You may proceed.
So, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you.
This is a third-story edition request.
We are asking for two-dimensional variances,
The first one being to not have to set back eight feet at the third story.
And the other one is the rear deck.
We do want to be flush with the building line.
So those are the two dimensional variances.
The client is Joe Pizzo.
He's a neighbor.
Our architect should also be on.
And in a moment, I'll ask them to accept my testimony as accurate.
The reason for why we believe, first of all.
We still don't have, excuse me, Richard, we don't have the exhibits.
Oh, I'll ask Tanya to.
Yes, Chair, I'm working on them.
I got to save the file on the desktop, then promote it.
Okay, I knew you said you were going to do it.
Okay, thank you.
Sorry, yeah, and I only need Tanya to show the refusal,
which is within the petition of appeal in Exhibit 1, and then the.
within the petition of appeal in Exhibit 1. And then the plans are Exhibit 2. I think those are
the most important ones, so you can see. And I don't think we need to, I don't need Tanya to
scroll through the rest, but I'll say that a number of properties within my neighborhood,
this is my neighborhood. I am the vice president of the RCO, but the RCO meeting was chaired
by the president, Antonio Perretta.
There was no opposition mentioned.
And a number of properties in the neighborhood
have taken advantage of the third-story addition
and have received variances to not have to sit back at eight feet.
The reason being, and our architect will verify this,
especially among the properties along South Juniper Street,
the properties are very, the buildings are very shallow,
unusually shallow. So to have to set this particular property, the building is only
36 feet deep. There is a lot of open space because we have private driveways and we have very large
front yards, but the building itself is actually extraordinarily shallow. And that is the case
with this property. It's only 36 feet deep. So having to set back eight feet really makes it
almost impossible to construct a viable third story, and the third story is otherwise legal.
This board has granted a number of variances in this actual neighborhood from this setback,
from these setbacks, and what we as a community have been doing is supporting this because we
want people to stay in it. It's a nice neighborhood. We want people to stay here.
We want people to improve their homes.
So we have not been opposing these requests, and that's why there is no opposition in this particular case, at least none that I know of, or none that was voiced at the neighborhood meeting.
So the plans are in there.
I did flyer everyone in the community per the requirements of the code.
Let me ask Joe, if you can see Joe Pizzo and Michael Nardi, those are my two witnesses.
I don't need them to speak other than to accept my testimony as accurate.
So, Tanya, if you could authorize them.
Could you please raise your hand so I can acknowledge you and unmute you?
Joe and Mike, raise your hands.
That's the refusal I see on the right.
Hello?
Mr. Pizzo, you've been unmuted. You're free to speak.
Please identify yourself, first and last name, and your address, and I'll swear you in.
Joseph Pizzo, J-O-S-E-P-H-P-I-Z-Z-O, address is 3133 South Juniper Street.
Joseph Pizzo, you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. DeMarco.
Joe, did you hear my statement to the board a moment ago?
Do you agree with my factual testimony, accept it as your own, as true and accurate?
Yes, I do.
Is Mike also with us? Mike Nardi, the architect, would he be with us?
I don't think we need Mike.
Okay. Very good, Mr. Chairman.
We're good.
Yeah, Joe is familiar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that.
Joe is very familiar with the plans and agrees with the issue.
And Joe, do you agree with everything I said about the depth of your property and the scenario in the neighborhood?
okay and you have two other properties on the same block that actually did not set back and
were granted third story additions as well correct yes that is correct mr chairman that
concludes my presentation uh we'd ask for the variances uh to be consistent with the neighborhood
and um we appreciate your time thank you questions from the board no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
there are no hands here thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential the neighborhood is predominantly
two-story single family residential accordingly we recommend an eight-foot setback to maintain
the neighborhood character accordingly we object to the granting of the variance
Thank you. Calendar number MI 2020-002045, 3133 South Juniper Street.
My vote is yes.
Hold on.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you. MI 2020-001514, 2657 Livingston Street.
All right, I got it.
All right, I got it.
We have Ryan Bolin.
Mr. Bolin.
Mr. Bolin, you've been promoted to panelists.
You're free to share your screen.
Perfect.
Good afternoon, Mr. Bolin.
Please identify yourself for the record and I'll swear you in.
Ryan Boland, B-O-L-A-N-D, 1801 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Carol, hold on.
Carol, I apologize, Carol.
I know this is a little confusing.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
We agree to waive the reading, but we won't stipulate as to its accuracy as the building's about six inches shorter than noted in the refusal.
Okay, and have you emailed your exhibit packet with all the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos, plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Terrific. So I'm here and I represent the property owner, Alexander Sharpen.
So we submitted a package to the board that I'll walk the board through.
We're also here with a letter from the RCO, who is Old Richmond Civic Association,
which shows there was a vote of eight to seven in our favor overall.
And there was an even split of five-five from the near neighbors.
And we also have a letter of no position from Councilman Swilla's office.
We're here today seeking a variance for a completely finished, new construction, single-family home that is located in Old Richmond.
And we're here today due to a series of mistakes, including mistakes by Ellen and I in approving of 41 feet when the code only allows 38 feet.
and as a result of this there are there's a vested rights issue where in our client has
vested rights to build to 41 feet um what what happened here was there was a second mistake on
top of that after we had the plans approved at 41 feet um the the contractors um when they were
doing the foundation they hit water and they ended up digging the basement out two feet shallower
than in the plants. What which ended up happening and I'll take you through the pictures is that we
have a foundation that ends two feet above the ground and when they frame the building out
they frame the building out two feet too high. So the building here it's 43 feet in the front
and it slopes down and it's 42 feet in the rear. In order to minimize this impact what was done is
this the pilot house was reduced by two and a half feet so instead of being 10 feet tall it's seven
and a half feet tall. And we also reduce the height of the parapet from 42 inches to 9 inches.
Can you share those exhibits, Mr. Bowen? Yes, I will. Here's the refusal. I'll take you through
the pictures. So there's the location of the property. Here it is down here.
There's an aerial view of it. Here it is from above. So here's the property from the front
as it stands, and you can see what the error is here. If you can see my cursor, you can see that
the garage here, you have a foundation that comes up two feet. So what happened there? Well, now you
have a garage that has over 10-foot ceilings, and there was no benefit whatsoever by this mistake
because instead of having two steps up the front, now you have five steps up, which just creates
accessibility issues. The first, second, third, and fourth floors are the same as in the approved
building plans. The mistake is just here in the height of the garage.
So I'll just walk you through these photographs very, very briefly. Here's a look down Livingston
Street. Here's directly next to it. Here's another view of it to the side. You can see
there's some garages. Here's a view from the rear. Here's a view from the roof deck down on the one
side. Here's views across the street and down the street. Again, here's a here's a more of
a close-up of the garage which shows the the issue with the extra two feet. As far as the
interior, here it is as far as the view that's looking away from Center City. This is this is
what would be between what what is on the other side of the pilot house. Here's the view of
what what is on the other side of the pilot house here's the view of center city and again we reduce
the pilot house height by two and a half feet and there's nothing on the other side and there's no
views there to block here's just the very basic unfinished basement it's a three-bedroom house
it's it's a single family house as you can see it's very high-end finishes so if we had to
tear this house down it's more than just a regular tearing it down because the
the owner spared no expense in trying to build something really nice.
I'll zoom in here a little bit just so that you can see the zoning plans.
This here shows the 38 feet approval and that was obtained by a prior owner.
The construction plans I have here.
Here, these are the approved plans which show the building at 41 feet, which is approved.
And as you can see from the photo I showed you, there's only two steps here.
So the additional, the compounded error was that the framer just built the building on top, up too far.
So if anyone has any questions with that, I'll keep moving.
Did we lose Mr. Boland?
Can anyone hear me?
I can hear you.
All right.
You hear me.
I think we lost Mr. Boland.
Mr. Chairman I think I'm back I'm back Mr. Boland yes I don't know if anyone else was not able to
hear you uh did the rest of the board hear Mr. Boland's testimony before I jumped in
That was just me then.
Okay, continue.
I stopped talking when we had what the existing front elevations are.
So just in sum, what we have here is we have a refusal with a height, which right now is 42 and a half feet.
A building permit was issued at 41 feet to the current owner, which we believe we satisfy the legal requirements for vested rights.
is it me can anyone hear me I lost we could hear you we can hear uh Mr. Bolin
I lost him again
we lost him
Mr. Bowen
anyone figure out
what's going on here
It appears as though he's here.
I just don't know if something happened.
I requested him to put his video on, and I'm just waiting.
If you wish, Chair, we could cut this case and move it to later in the 2 o'clock listing
and move on to another one as you wish.
Let's do that. We'll go to the next case. MI 2020-001958-2653-61 Salmon Street.
I would request that everyone put their hands down unless they're here for Salmon Street.
And there goes Mr. Boland.
and there goes mr boland let's go back to mr boland then mr chairman i'm just on my phone
my computer i don't know what just happened i'm sorry for the sorry i think i i think we got the
gist of what you can just summarize yes um so the real issue here is that my that with vested rights
is that um a client was unaware that there was any issue with the height because the framing had
been approved by L&I. It wasn't until he went to get his final CO. Everything's done that he became
aware of this. So now in order to comply with the code, it would cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars. The client acted in good faith. And I'll just move along, Mr. Chairman, because I know you
have a long list. But we believe we meet the five elements for vested rights, and we also meet the
five elements necessary to grant a variance. If Mr. Frank Conlin can please raise his hand.
Conlin, are you out there?
If not, we'll stipulate Mr. Bolin that you're as an officer of the court, your client would
adopt your testimony? Yes, Mr. Chairman, he would adopt my statements. He would also explain that
he is a licensed contractor. However, he has no experience with new construction as of this time
so that he was completely ignorant of the zoning code because the only renovations he had ever
dealt with were completely interior renovations questions from the board no no no anyone else
would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand sorry if i could um request that
the only individuals with a hand up should be those regarding this case livingston street case
patina you can continue
we have a pete boyer
you can good afternoon sir please identify yourself with the record name and address
Pete Boyer, 2670 Livingston Street, Philly, PA, 19125.
You swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I believe you're setting a bad precedent by letting this go.
By him being...
How do you know what we...
We haven't voted yet.
We haven't voted yet, sir.
That's why we're asking questions.
Please proceed.
okay pete you can unmute yourself and speak to this case
mr boyer did you wish to continue testimony if not we will move on
here you can move on anyone else to testify on 2657 livingston street we have a john beset
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with the record. Name and address.
Can you hear me? My name is John Bazette. I'm 2668 Allman Street, Philadelphia, PA.
My property is...
Excuse me, excuse me. Spell your last name, please.
Bazette. B as in boy, I-S-S-E-T-T.
You swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
hi um my i i'm on almond street but i have one of the uh the property runs street to street so my
garage is uh three doors down from this property um most of the houses on the block they've at some
point split the uh split the property in half and and you know build on the other side um i would
like to someday do that with my garage and, you know, build the tallest house I'm able to because
that's what you do. And my concern is that if this thing stays at a higher level than I'm ever able
to build, it's a straight, it's directly in the line of sight of the city skyline. So it, you
know, permanently would deprive me of having that view on my property. It's a different problem than
everyone else in the neighborhood has because they're worried about setting a precedent but
i would just ask that if this does get to stay at 42 feet that i would be allowed to do the same
at 42 feet that I would be allowed to do the same when I go to build a house.
when i go to build
Well, we'll have to address that at that time.
I might not even be here.
I don't know who else on the board will be here.
But this will not set a precedent.
It's an unusual situation the way I see it.
But again, we have on occasion this board approved heights of buildings
that are taller than 42 feet.
it's every case we hear every case and decide on every case individually
so at some point in your life if you decide that you want to go up above
the 38 foot which is a by right that's why we have a zoning board we'll make a decision then
can i just ask how that would go i would get the i would if i were to get an approval that
be before i would do any construction absolutely sure yes okay yes but i mean that's my only
objection to it okay understood thank you all right anyone else
we have dominic aspetay dominic you can meet yourself
Dominic you're the expediter correct that's correct Mr. Chairman are you testifying in
this case I am not Mr. Chairman I registered someone else to testify okay thank you thank
you question I already asked questions from the board planning commission
good afternoon board Peter Bernard for the planning commission
This property is indicated for residential single-family use.
Do not feel the proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding community.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the grantee of the variance.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-001514. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you. MI 2020-001958, 2653-61 Salmon Street.
Good morning, or good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Alan Nockamson, Nockamson, PC.
you're still on the oath from earlier uh alan carroll please proceed yes yes you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do and have you emailed the
exhibit packet with proof of ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the
RCO and do you have a letter? I have and I do. Thank you. You may proceed. Okay. I'm going to
share my screen. Okay. All right. So in front of you is a packet of materials which include eight
exhibits. The first exhibit is the deed to the property, showing that Salmon Street Holdings
LLC owns the property. Salmon Street Holdings is a holding company for Metropolitan Group.
Metropolitan Group owns approximately 200 units in the Philadelphia region.
They've been in existence for well over a decade.
The company is owned and operated by Jordan Brody, who's been in the real estate development industry for well over a generation.
His company also, he also owns a company called Metropolitan Property Management Group.
His property management company manages, amongst other things, all of his properties.
So all of his properties are self-managed and taken care of throughout its existence.
After the deed, we have the tax clearance certificate or proof that there is no taxes owed as to the subject property.
Oops. After that, we have the notice of refusal. So this is an ICMX property. Currently, and
Currently, and you'll see from the pictures, it's a one-story property that goes street to street, from Salmon Street to Emory Street.
you'll see from the pictures, it's a one-story property that goes street to street.
The property itself, the lot size, is well over 5,000 square feet.
By code, we're allowed to build over 60 feet high in the air.
This is a predominantly two-story block, single-family in nature.
although I would say that the zoning board did grant a variance at the end of last year at 2656
Salmon Street where they allowed 16 dwelling units. So this portion of the block is a little
bit different than the remaining portion of the block which tends to be residential in nature.
Most of the block on Salmon Street go where the houses are the properties are cut off where half
the half of the houses face Salmon Street and then the and you'll see it from the zoning map
and the other half of those houses face Emory Street. So our proposal is to kind of do what is
typical of what you would see on this block on Salmon Street. What we're proposing is to put
eight dwelling units in this one-story structure by adding a second story to this structure
where you'll see from the from the renderings essentially even though it says eight dwelling
units multi-family they're really eight single family homes two story in nature matching the
roof lines of the single family houses you're not the only exhibit we have in front of us is the
notice of refusal yeah i'm going to go through that i just want to give a little bit of a
generalization so the only reason why we're refused here is because this is an icmx property
So requesting eight dwelling units in the ICMX property is not allowed under its zoning,
as well as requirement of parking where if again under ICMX technically parking is required
where we propose no parking. Again, not uncommon to what is in the neighborhood.
After this is our application for appeal that we followed with zoning board of adjustment.
along with the project information form and here's our zoning map again if you look at
it this is where we are we're just short of the 95 overpass our property is this large
property right here this is across the street where the zoning board granted a 16-unit apartment
building as you can see the properties are cut in half where the some of these single-family
structures face Salmon Street and some of these single-family structures face Emory.
What we're proposing is in line with what is on the block.
So you'll see from our pictures, this is the structure right now. Again, it's a one-story
warehouse structure. It's an ICMX property. And this is the property from Emory Street.
properties to left and properties to right on Salmon Street as well as to left and right
on Emory and here's a copy of our notice zoning posters and then this this is what we propose
so as you can see even though it states in the refusal that we're asking for this to be a
multifamily structure of eight units it's how we designed it we try to keep the single family
nature of the block in line by having each of the units four on Salmon Street and four
on Emory to have its own entrance. Again, equally important, we're only adding, we're
repurposing this one story structure by adding a second story and the roof lines would match
what's the second story of the nearby properties.
and this is what it looks like on Emory Street.
I'm going to decrease the size a little bit.
Each of the properties will have its own roof deck even with the roof deck and the pilot house.
If you count at the top of the pilot house, it's only 30 feet high even with the top of the pilot
house. So we really try to keep in scale with what's in the surrounding neighborhoods.
And then this is the floor plans. No basement living for any of these units. Again if you
just go as an example you know just you know any of these units it's an open floor plan,
kitchen, living room, dining room. Each of each of the units after we talk to the community group
Each of the units, after we talked to the community group, one of the contentions was
that there was no place to store the garbage. We're not using any, there's no basement living,
so what we did was we created a significantly sized trash closet in each of the properties.
Again, because we're repurposing the first floor, the one-story structure, which goes,
which has full lot coverage.
So we don't have a benefit of an outside space.
And then if you look at the units,
after the open floor plan,
you can go up a flight of steps
and all the units except one or two bedroom, two baths.
Now we did meet with the coordinating the RCO,
old Richmond Civic Association they administered the meeting I would say
that like again there were more people who are not in favor of this project
that were in favor of this project I would point out particularly if you read
the letter it says though ORCA has has taken the position of opposing this
project in line with the community can you enlarge that letter oh yeah sure
100 can you see it now Mr. Chair a little bit bigger please a little larger is that better
my eyes yes all right good all right so
So first thing is, we presented to the community.
Now, I would dispute the amount of votes that were there, just because, you know, there was a link to the vote.
According to my calculations, other than us and our team, which were like four individuals, there were approximately 12 other people.
So I don't know how they got all these votes.
But I think what's more important is just to focus on the discussion, right?
And it says, though ORCA has taken the position of proposing this process in line with the community vote summarized above, there are a few merits I'd like to point out.
The overall scale of the project, especially the height relative to the existing context, is very much appreciated.
By dividing this project into eight two-story units, each with access from the street, the project team has attempted to integrate the proposed development with the surrounding row house context.
By altering the existing structure, rather than opting for a full tear-down, the project demonstrates an admirable attempt at adaptive reuse.
And that was really the purpose of this project, was to, even though it says it's an eight-unit building, it's really eight single-family homes from the outside, if you're looking at it.
Each has its separate opening, four facing Salmon Street, four facing Emory Street.
The scale of it is to keep in line with the two-story scale of that block.
um you know metropolitan group is like takes pride in in in having projects with adaptive reuse
uh they've taken um you know churches for instance and adapted them into apartment buildings
so they take pride in making sure that they take something that's within the community
not tear it down and put it as new construction but actually repurpose it and reuse it and that
was the the goal of this rather and instead of having like an apartment building with no eyes
on the street they wanted something which felt like single family in nature without having to
tear down the entire building now the only the contentions that the the neighborhood had uh was
like first of all that there were no backyards well we can't control that right because it's
full lot coverage right now other than tearing down the building and as as i showed by the
zoning map, it's not uncommon for the properties on that block to be divided between Salmon
Street and Emory of that size.
So what we're trying to do is very similar in nature to what's on that block.
And other than tearing down the buildings, we couldn't do anything but not have a backyard.
But that's why we had the outdoor space on the decks on the third story.
The other issue that they had was about the trash storage.
Again, for purposes of this hearing, we changed our floor plans to make sure that there was a significant trash closet in each of the kitchens to account for trash.
Another issue that they had was the fact that they were concerned about landlord maintenance and upkeep, like snow removal and things like that.
Again, Metropolitan Property Management manages all.
Again, Metropolitan Property Management manages all the properties of Metropolitan Group.
They have a dedicated staff where they do snow removal whenever it snows.
They do maintenance of the properties on a monthly basis.
They have their team drive around all of their 200 units in the Philadelphia region to make sure that they're well maintained.
And they take great pride in actually landscaping their properties to enhance the beauty of their product as well.
So those were ultimately the only issues that they had with the property.
But as holistically, this is the least modification possible under this ICMX.
You know, again, ICMX, we could build 60 feet high, have commercial usage in a residential neighborhood.
We did not want to do that.
We could have also tried to have a more extreme modification of the zoning code.
I tried to do an apartment building, and we didn't think that was appropriate either.
So even though it's eight units, it's really eight single-family homes the way it's configured.
So with me, I have Jordan Brody of Metropolitan Group.
Jordan, can you virtually raise your hand?
Sir, when you're acknowledged, would you please give us your full name and I'll swear you in.
One moment, I'm trying to unmute them now.
uh mr notkinson seems like we're having technical issues
so as an officer of court we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony
thank you mr chair all right questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in
this case, please raise your hand. There are no other hands, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Board. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for industrial commercial mixed use on the comprehensive plan.
However, most of the surrounding properties are single-family residential. We feel this proposal
is consistent with the adjacent residential properties accordingly we have no objection
to the granting of the variance thank you MI 2020-001958-2653-61 Salmon Street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you MI 2020-001866
62143-45 South Eisminger Street.
Ryan Patterson has been promoted to panel.
Good afternoon, Mr. Patterson, please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you
Great, good afternoon, Ronald Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N.
1835 Marcus Street, Philadelphia PA 19103, on behalf of the applicant.
Quaring the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Carol, please proceed.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you also emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO
and do you have a letter?
Yes, told it, Bob.
I don't believe I've seen a letter, however.
Okay, thank you.
You may proceed.
Can you view my screen?
Your file, but not your screen yet.
Oh, okay.
No, no?
Okay. Try it again.
Not yet.
Hold on.
How's that?
Is that good?
All right, good.
So, this application, as I mentioned, regards 2143 Eismanger Street.
It's actually at fronts on Jackson Street, as you'll see this photo here is driving west
on Jackson, passing 12th Street.
Over here on the right is the brush factory.
And as we proceed towards the property, here it is here.
You'll see, if those of you know the property, it's an auto repair shop that's legal.
It's been there for decades.
It is surrounded by a number of larger buildings that are zoned IRMX.
This is zoned CMX2.
These buildings, this building behind and the building to the right, which I identified
as a brush factory, are all converted to multi-family dwelling units.
So our application is simple.
It is to construct a two-story addition atop the existing building here, and using that
addition for four dwelling units.
The use is permitted, the dwelling units, our refusal in the CMX2 is for not providing a nine-foot rear yard depth.
Now, as we look at the building, you would think this is the front, but this is actually the side, according to primary street frontage, because over here on our left would be Eismaker Street, and this is Jackson Street, which we're looking from.
So over to the right here is where our nine-foot setback is not being provided, and I'll explain why in a minute.
so this is the extent of the envelope as you'll see if we build and i'll have mr
reckley our architect explain if we build to the line we actually have a natural setback from here
and here to this building here, providing a lot of air and light.
Yet the property configuration is peculiar since it is narrow but deep.
So it's hard to have kind of a viable circulation within the building.
As I mentioned, we have a refusal for the setback.
WE DID MEET WITH LOWER MOIMANCE CIVIC GROUP AND THAT MEETING I GUESS WENT KIND OF WELL.
IT STARTED OFF WITH EVERYONE FOCUSING ON THE USE, SAYING THAT IT WASN'T LEGAL BECAUSE
IT'S NO LONGER PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT AND I HAD TO EXPLAIN THAT IT WAS PRE-EXISTING
non-conforming use. No one really had an issue with the building or the use, but half of
the people were insisting that we remove the order of repair use because they didn't like
it. By the end of the meeting, there was a response by residents saying, that is the
lure of South Philly to have local businesses. We like it there. We take our cars for repair
there and so in light of that we took it upon ourselves to get some signatures from local
residents in the area which is part of my package my exhibit five if i may if you could allow nick
my exhibit five uh if i may if you could uh allow nick corelli with a c c-a-r-e-l-l-y
to speak he's the uh the owner
i'm going to put up a rendering here while we're working on that it's a nice rendering
nick are you there i'm new yes i am ron oh hi nick could you please tell the board uh
your name and spell it please my name is nicholas corelli um
i'm sorry you were breaking up would you start over again please
nicholas corelli c-a-r-e-l-l-i we're infirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do nick i'm just going to ask you a couple questions so you're the you're the current
owner of the property and you operate the auto repair business, correct?
Yes, sir.
And you've heard my presentation and would you agree it is true and correct and that
you would adopt it as if you were your own testimony?
Okay, thank you.
If you could admit John Weckerle with a W, our architect.
And I would mention that as a result of the civic group meeting that we did make
a revision i have a revised plan that i did submit the other day which i will show you it it delineates
and adds an interior trash room on the floor area in here so that was a question of where the trash
will be stored that's accessible for all the units that's correct and then the trash will be picked
up by a private hauler either with a key into the trash room and move it out or be rolled out
uh to so the commercial pickup that's correct and it would be um as needed you know possibly
you know more than once or twice a week so john are you there i am yes okay john uh can you tell
the board your name and address please uh john weckerly boxwood architects 1315 walnut street
uh philadelphia pa john spell your last name please sorry chairman uh w-e-c-k-e-r-l-y
thank you you're swearing to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed ron uh can we see this site plan here yes okay uh john so uh you are
familiar with the property or the architect who uh who drafted these plans yes our office did yes
okay and uh if you could if you want to guide me through here these are the revised plans
that's correct this plan actually does show the trash room uh in plan in plan view where i'm
depicting right here yes sir okay and you want to further elaborate on uh the setback issue
Yeah, so the bold line right to the right of your scope there is the actual lot line.
Our proposal is to the hatched area that's kind of a triangle there.
The existing building is kind of cut at a 45.
Our proposal does include a very small addition to just square off the property to make it a rectangle instead of leaving that 45.
And that's partially just to accommodate the lobby space with clearance to get to the steps to the second floor, as well as the trash room, and also incorporating the required reception area, office, and trash room on the ground floor for the auto repair.
Would you like me to go back to the rendering?
There is a floor plan, I believe, that shows on the next page.
Not on a revised one.
Let me drop out of this one.
one of these john um yeah that one right there that that actually is prior to having the trash
room but it in essence shows you the clearances required to to create the lobby space with an
to create the lobby space with an area for mailboxes and and deliveries and then the workshop
area for mailboxes and deliveries.
reception area shows up as workshop existing office space for nick's uh auto repair utilities
which would be the site utilities coming into the building domestic gas uh you know those type things
and then and then the ada restroom for the for the um for the auto garage as you can see in the
rendering here we're proposing to go on top of the existing structure uh with our with our new
perimeter walls uh you see the existing four-bay garage there um we are proposing rooftop individual
rooftop decks which you can see by way of the pilot houses uh that are presented here um with
with you know a divider uh area in between each each unit and john the facade of the two-story
addition? The facade would be a stud wall construction with R21 insulation with the
brick veneer exterior. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Any questions from the board? No. No. No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
no hands chair your planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan
we feel the proposal will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community accordingly
we have no objection to the granting of the variance
thank you is that ron is it one page revised uh that's correct
mi 2020-001866-2143-45 south eisminger street my vote is yes with the following provisos
revised plan one page approved today and commercial trash pickup my vote is yes with proviso yes for
proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso okay thank you thank you i have the next case
you got the next one yes i do westmoreland oh i'm sorry it's my fault i i jumped i missed
i moved my cape my papers around mi 2020 that's what's that carol i said if it's york street
right yeah number 12 okay MI 2020 that's 001947 1836-44 East York Street and you're still under
oath Mr. Patterson just identify yourself for the record sure thank you Ronald Patterson
Claire Harrison Law Firm 1835 Market Street Philadelphia EPA 19103 on behalf of the owner
and developer good afternoon do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I did. And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax
compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes to all of the above. Thank
you. You may proceed. Thank you. This application regards a property on York Street. It's near
front street but it does not front on front street in 2018 by right zoning
permit was obtained to construct a five-story building here some conditions
before the building was constructed you know this is a view of front street
which is relevant later showing that these vacant lots vacant buildings on
front street making commercial um as i mentioned here here it is here to the right building under
construction uh current owner uh stamm development organization and we'll we'll admit mike stamm
s-t-a-m-m when you have a chance uh put the property under agreement in in november uh and
And the permit contained a commercial space on the first floor of approximately 1,463
square feet with 19 single-family dwelling units above.
STAM organization took over, they do a lot of development in the area, both mixed use
as well and um obtain the construction loan based upon the commercial space being in the first floor
the commercial space being in the first floor, and as you may know, here's a view looking towards
and as you may know here's a
Front Street, that's how far back we are from Front Street, that the commercial space actually
would obtain a higher rent than a residential space. They began actively and aggressively
market the property to have engaged four brokers, which is in our package, which we'll get to later,
But at a certain point, you know, a pivotal point, you need to decide whether commercial is still viable, having received no offers for commercial space, which is why we're here today.
The location not fronting on Front Street, vacancies on Front Street for commercial spaces,
and plus in the midst of a residential neighborhood, at least that end of the block is more in
character and context.
We don't feel that a commercial space would indeed be viable.
And so we filed this application to convert the 463 square foot space to two TWO additional
dwelling units.
On November 19, we did meet with East Kensington Neighbors Association.
and uh here's a letter here from the start of the meeting uh was it was kind of apparent that the
moderator and those running the meeting were were against this uh for whatever visceral reasons they
did not believe and their arguments are laid out here in their letter um there was just really
insinuations from the beginning that this was never intended to be commercial. As you see,
the residents did not think that the failure of the applicant to attain a commercial
tenant for the space was an accurate reflection during a global pandemic. Of course, that's what
they believe or believe. That's not true in fact, which we'll get to. They also said that the
commercial space was poorly designed, I guess insinuating that it was designed poorly so that
it wouldn't be marketable. That's completely incorrect. There was no one who testified
or mentioned any of the contrary that they were a developer. So with that said, I don't know if
Mr. Stom has been admitted. Are you there, Mike? Yeah, I'm here. Mr. Chairman, you want to swear
Mr. Stom in? Yeah, please identify yourself. First and last name. Spell your last name, please. Sure.
Michael Stom, spelled S-T-A, M as in Mike, M as in Mike, 1835 Market Street, Suite 625, Philadelphia, 19103.
Thank you.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed, Mr. Patterson.
So, Mike, could you briefly describe what your connection is with the property?
We purchased the property in May of 2020, and we've had it under agreement since November of 2019 for the owner.
And you've done numerous projects in the city that have both residential and commercial, so you're aware of the dynamics?
Correct. We specialize in mixed-use development.
Okay. And you've heard my presentation, and would you agree that it's true and accurate and you would adopt it as if it were your own?
I would, yes.
Okay. If you want to just maybe briefly elaborate on the history of when you put it under agreement and your marketing attempts, and I can go through and show the letters while you're speaking.
Sure. As Ron alluded to, and I just confirmed, we put the property under agreement in late 2019, in November.
At that time, there were approved zoning for 19 units and one commercial.
We began marketing the property with four brokerages, Delphi Property Group, Compass, Keller Williams, and Metro Commercial.
uh we had been marketing it since november uh via the four national brokerages that have
a pretty extensive uh tenant and landlord rep in philadelphia we've worked with each each of those
repeatedly at some of our other development sites uh at a what we would play our market rate uh
didn't have any success we haven't had any inquiries uh no letters of intent no tours
We pivoted again back in the summertime, back around June, July,
entered an exclusive with Delphi Property Group.
They're one of the leaders in this area for commercial space.
We've had all sorts of signage.
We were on every MLS, LoopNet, every brokerage.
We haven't even received a phone call or one inquiry at all.
We haven't even received a phone call or one inquiry at all, kind of showing the status of the commercial corridor there.
So I think that kind of responds to East Kensington's first point.
The second point about the commercial space being poorly designed, do you have a comment on that and that it's unviable for commercial tenants?
Yeah, look, you know, if the primary frontage back in the approval of 2018 was deemed Jasper Street, as Ron, you alluded to, it doesn't face, this would be different if we're on Front Street.
On Jasper Street, if you looked at the shape of the lot, you know, I think it's 20 some odd feet.
By the time you take the staircases, it's left with less than 20 feet.
It's really narrow.
You know, you're under a thousand square feet.
on top of it the topography when you're at jasper street as you go towards front is like
it's almost minus three so there's really no accessibility to get up into that space
it's smaller than would be viable for any real commercial use um so mike if you look on the
screen uh this is york street where i'm depicting this is jasper this dark shaded area is where
the commercial space was yeah that's correct and then um up here would be the the proposed floor
plan so um ron would you or your client happen to know there's some other taller buildings i've seen
there are multi-families nearby sure we can are any of those do any of those have commercial space
on them that that you're aware of of first any commercial space in them first i would say that
It's zoned differently, but Mike, you have a better understanding.
Yeah, so just, I guess, southwest of that, 2317 to 2325 Front Street, it's a sparing vacant lot.
You know, when we presented to East Kensington Neighborhood Association, it was conveyed to us that there was a, quote-unquote, large mixed-use property with vast commercial space there.
Given that's on Front Street, same zoning, there's no zoning permit, no building permits,
there's no commercial space even remotely proposed there.
So that was inaccurate.
You go across the street, 1817 to 1841 East York Street, a much more substantial and less
irregular shaped lot.
I think it's 20-some thousand square feet.
It is, Ron just alluded to, a zone.
That's the steel podium on the right of the screen.
That is zoned IRMX.
they have a several you know 800 square foot kind of I guess you call them artist studios deemed
yeah being marketed but none of them have been leased but there's no commercial space
in and around the area proposed or existing on this corner other than what you have down on
Front Street, under the L.
All right. They answered my question.
Thank you.
Anything else, Mike? That's all I have,
Mr. Chairman.
I think that's it. I think the only
other comment was, I think it was represented
to us from East Kensington
Neighborhoods Association that there were
a vast amount of
commercial spaces along York Street.
We did an analysis between
Front Street and
Frankfurt Ave. Along
York Street, it's over a half mile.
I think there were two or three commercial spaces in the entire area.
On top of that, you couple blocks and blocks of front street just there.
Of all virtually vacant and commercial space, there's no walkability.
There's no foot traffic.
There's no commercial that's going to, in a non-COVID world, ever remotely take this space.
Couple that with the environment we're in, it's virtually not feasible.
hopefully with repopulating the neighborhood will generate a lot more people who will have
need some services in some of these storefronts yeah i think that's the idea all right thank you
thank you any questions from the board no no no no one else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand chair we have sloan folks he's been unmuted good afternoon mr folks
You're still under oath. Thank you, Chairman DiCicco. Good afternoon. My name is Sloan
Foulkes, the Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinones Sanchez from 508 City Hall 19107.
For the record, the applicant has met with the RCO and garnered a letter of opposition. Therefore,
the Councilwoman is not offering her support, is not offering her support for this request. Thank you.
Understood. Thank you. And anyone else?
Yes, Chair. We have Jonathan Manza. He's been unmuted.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your last name, give us your address, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your last name, give us your address.
Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Jonathan Manza, 1928 East York Street. That's J-O-H-N-A-T-H-A-N-M-A-N-Z-A.
And I'm a community member.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
So I'm a community member right down the street. I've been watching this building be built the entire time I'm here.
I was at that ECMA meeting, and I just wanted to expand upon our oppositions, the two points.
The first one here, they mentioned all the vacant lots and lack of commercial viability here,
but we noted across the street, there's 106 units being built.
Right down the street, there's permits pulled.
I see they're doing borings now for an additional almost 270 units,
So 380 units come into the neighborhood.
Every single one of them have to pass by this corner to get to the L stop at Dolphin and Jasper.
So I think it's a forward look.
We felt it was a forward looking.
The community is going to need these commercial spaces, and we don't want to be stuck.
We don't want to be stuck with something based off of current conditions.
The second point about the architecture of the building, I myself am a trained architect
practicing in the city and just believe that looking at the building elevations and the floor
plans that this building was it's not that it was poorly designed it's just that it was never
designed for a commercial space it's very clearly designed to object to that speculation yeah it is
speculation it is speculation i i can understand maybe how you came to that conclusion but i i
don't i don't can't imagine developers spending all that time and money to come up with a product
that isn't going to be uh viable and then spend additional money no disrespect to ron
hire a law firm to come back and fight for that space it does it just doesn't make sense and if
you heard what i said all these vacant storefronts on on the front street uh i don't think we want
to take people away from maybe opening up some of these stores you're only a block or so away
so my my contention is that the more we repopulate these neighborhoods we've got
better shot at revitalizing these former commercial retail corridors. I'm not opening up for debate,
I'm just giving you my thoughts on this. Okay, anyone else?
No more hands, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan we feel there's no
hardship to vacant land and that the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship to
justify admitting the commercial use accordingly we object to the granting of the variance thank
you i certainly would agree with you if we weren't a block away from what is like the dead zone of
Front Street. But in any event, MI 2020-001947, 1836-44 East York Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Great. Thank you so much.
Thank you. MI 2020-001865, 2017 Westmoreland Street.
Mr. Nockimson.
He's been promoted to panelists.
Thank you, sir. Just identify yourself with a record. You're still under oath.
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Mr. Nockamson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you also emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
Have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
yes to everything but having a letter from the rco okay you can still proceed
all right thank you very much sure all right
all right so i have in front of you a packet of uh exhibits which include eight exhibits for
2017 west westmoreland street uh the first exhibit is the deed to the property showing
that Keys and Deeds Holding LLC owns the property of 2017 West Westmoreland Street.
The second exhibit is showing that there are no taxes due.
The second exhibit is showing that there are no taxes due on this property, so the property
owner is compliant with its obligations as to the property.
The third exhibit is the notice of refusal.
This is an RSA 5 property, and what we're trying to do is put a two-unit dwelling here.
As you'll see from the pictures, it's not uncommon in this part of the neighborhood
to have multifamily usage in actuality next door to us is a two unit dwelling. And the only refusal
we have here is due to the use. In addition to the use, we're actually looking to expand
the rear of the property. But again, given the size of the property, this lot is over 1600 square
feet. We're not taking anyone's light and airway and we have a significantly large lot size.
After that is our application for appeal that we filed with the zoning board of adjustment
along with the notice of refusal and the project information form.
After that you'll see where we are in the neighborhood, we're between 20th and 21st
between Bellevue and West Madison Street.
After that it's photographs of the property.
This is a pre-existing three-story structure and again all we're trying
to do is put two units here. I will note on the left-hand side this is a vacant abandoned structure
and to the right of us is the two unit structure that I mentioned. Here are pictures to the right
of the property on Westmoreland Street, to the left of the property of Westmoreland Street.
Here is the next door which is also a two unit structure which kind of is a twin of ours.
2035 West Westmoreland is also multifamily, 2005 West Westmoreland is also multifamily,
2021 Westmoreland Street is multifamily. I just took pictures of the ones then which are on our
block. Here are our architectural plans. You walk into the front door, there's a vestibule, you turn
right you have an open floor plan with a bedroom for unit number one with a living area a basement
in the rear I mean on the in the in the basement you go up a flight of steps you have unit number
two which is three bedrooms uh two baths a couple things to note there is no roof deck
we are we are squaring off the the building as you can see what's what's dark is what's
pre-existing structure, what's shaded as you can see here, here, here, and here is what we're
expanding to. And as you can see from the from the site plan you'll see the picture we're a rather
large lot. Now we did meet with Toyoga United on two separate occasions. The first time we met with
them uh there was no one in the affected area even though we sent notice of our community
meeting we were asked then to provide like a petition of the surrounding area which my client
canvassed the neighborhood uh and we did you know have properties on the 1900 block of west west
moorland we have one on the 2000 block on the 2100 block and then interspersed throughout
We then met a second time with the community group. And again, there was only one individual
that was anywhere within the effect. I don't even know if they were within the effector area.
They were two blocks away, so I didn't get their address.
Earlier during this listing, it was my understanding that they're asking for
another continuance for a third meeting. I just don't understand why we would have a continuance
other than presenting this for a third time, again, we made extreme efforts to reach out
to the neighbors by walking the neighborhood, by obtaining these petitions of support.
Again, what we're requesting is not out of character for this block or this portion of the neighborhood.
So there were 162 addresses of properties that we notified, and here's our proof.
So that's our presentation in a nutshell.
I have Terry Scruggs, the corporate representative of the LLC that owns this property.
Terri, can you virtually raise your hand?
Terry, can you virtually raise your hand?
No one by the name of Terri has raised their hand as of yet.
Okay. Is Terri your client, I assume?
Alan, would he be on with Clementa?
uh i know clementa's on but like she's separate i know he was having problems getting on
because she raised her hand that's why i was asking okay well have you know maybe clementa
can add some uh something to the situation maybe she said clementa you can unmute yourself
i'm sorry alan i didn't over talk you hello hello yeah hi please identify yourself for the record
name and address?
Terry Scruggs.
Terry, please spell your last
name. S-C-R-U-G-G-S.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Terry, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Tony? Yes. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify? Excuse me. I'm sorry. Any questions
from the board? No. No. Okay. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand. Chair, we have Charles Richardson, who's been unmuted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson. You're still under oath.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to find out, we did mention earlier at the beginning of
this session that you would hold this until executive session. Is that true?
I believe I said that. I think so. Yeah, I'm pretty sure. It's been a while.
Yes, it's been a while. That being the case, I know that Veronica Holman of Tayoga is on
the line at the moment that we would like to probably uh get their opinion in uh before you
guys do do your vote next week and then the councilwoman will make her determination based
on their determination all right the problem i have is i close the record we can't accept any
uh further testimony and i'm trying to move this along so i don't want to have to have a third
meeting. Any suggestions, Tanya or Sharon? If I could understand, is Mr. Richardson
stating after we get testimony from the community that he's going to then put his decision from
the councilwoman on record today? Or were you going to submit?
I don't know whether, let me find out what, let's find out if Veronica Foreman is on the
line right now. Veronica Arnold on. We have a call-in user. You've been unmuted. Hello? Veronica?
Caller, please unmute yourself.
calling user please amuse yourself
so mr richardson while we're waiting let me oh there you go all right good afternoon man
please identify yourself for the record name and address
oh it's not veronica
we're in a firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
please proceed
you've said that
no no just tell
you wanted to testify
we hear you
Thank you.
Thank you.
The application is for a two-family dwelling, correct, Mr. Notkinson?
That's correct.
no no the application is for two units
they'd have to come they'd have to do they'd have to come back and follow they'd have to go
get a variance again they'd have to come in front of the board
but that's all he's asking for if if the board approves you're only approving two
if the board approves it we will only be approving two units excuse me this is Sharon Saleta the one
the one proviso that couldn't be added is the number of residents occupancy adults
so okay okay is Veronica on I understand Mr. Richardson you've been
i'm just trying to get a clear sound you heard i'm unmuted but i do have veronica on i dialed
her from my phone can you can you hear veronica yes i can hear can you hear me uh yes please
identify yourself name and address name is veronica holman h-o-l-m-a-n and i'm from
title the united rco officer and do swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed my comment is there was one person on the zoom
meeting that is a resident of that block 20 hundred of on west warren street and she was
she is opposed
to the proposed plan
for that law.
Has your
RCO taken a position?
Because I believe
that's what the councilwoman is asking for.
We would like to
have the
people on the block
have another
meeting so that they can voice
their opinions
to what it is that they truly want.
I understand, but with all due respect,
you've already had two meetings.
And if only one person took the time
to express his or her opinion,
what good will a third meeting do
is what we're trying to figure out.
Well, one of the concerns was
this being a residential block
And extending the building out to the back, it would cut off the air and the light for the people on the sides of them.
That was one of the things.
The other one was with the young woman that was there, the woman that was there, the homeowner, that this was, they were having people, people were coming in that were single family homeowners.
and she was not happy we're looking forward to more multi-family units on that block
so is it is it would i be accurate in saying suggesting not suggesting asking
is it the consensus that you're opposed to the multi-family
yes if we are we are opposed to the multi-family yes okay so okay that's that's what we're trying
to get it all right thank you mr richardson with that the councilwoman is opposed she stands with
the community understood okay took us a little while when we got there thank you uh planning
commission good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
This building and most of the surrounding properties were built and have been maintained
a single family. We feel this proposal represents an overuse of the site.
we feel this proposal represents an overuse of the site accordingly we object to the granting of the
Accordingly we object to the grant.
variance. Thank you very much MI 2020-001865-2017 West Moreland Street my vote is no. My vote is no.
my vote is no
my vote is no
thank you
MI2020-001925
North 21st Street
Mr. Bertel
Mr. Bertel has been promoted
to panelists he's free to share screen
Thank you. Mr. Bertil, I don't know if I swore you in earlier, but in any event, please identify yourselves by your last name for the record.
Good afternoon. Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Carol?
yes do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
uh yes i do also have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
uh yes to all of the above thank you you may proceed thank you
Okay, good afternoon. As I stated, my name is Steve Bertil, representing the applicant
and owner of 2113 North 21st Street. We're here for variant requests to allow for the
rehabilitation of a blighted and vacant property back into productive use as a two-family household
living with a rear addition at the third floor with a deck at the third floor as well.
just so we get a sense of the property that we're speaking of as you can see here the property is
located the main frontage is on 21st street uh between susquehanna avenue to the north and diamond
three to the south the property is currently vacant and blighted there is the three-story
structure is still standing um but as you'll see in a second uh this property in addition to this
section of the street is in need of rehabilitation as you'll see by the surrounding vacant lots and
homes on the property. This is just an aerial shot. Here is the property in question.
Excuse my mouse. As you can see, the section of the block actually makes up, there's actually more
vacant properties and vacant lots and occupied homes on this section of the street
here's a street view of the main frontage
there's just another angle so you can see the side of the lot you can see it's next to an abandoned
parcel. And here are just two, three views looking towards Diamond Street at the top,
and then looking up the block towards Susquehanna Avenue, as you can see both on the left side
of the street. And this property here, which is occupied, most of the properties are either
vacant structures or vacant lots. So our proposed use is, as I stated, the rehabilitation of
this from a single-family to a two-family dwelling with an addition on the rear of the
third floor. We're not proposing any increase to the building footprint or the building
height. Let me just zoom out so you have a better view here. Here are the proposed zoning
plans that were submitted to L&I. There's two units, as I stated, one bed, one bath,
and one three-bed, two-bath. The proposed rents are, we're single-family using this.
The proposed rents are where single family use in this block in the current condition is not necessarily viable as to the surrounding lots being on vacant.
And in terms of increasing the bringing the building back to the productive use, but also increasing the available housing in this area,
we do believe it's our position that rents, apartments to rents are actually more suitable to actually be used.
It's something that can be more in line with affordability for the area.
As you can see, this is the rear deck that's mentioned in the application.
And this right part here is the rear addition.
The building footprint is staying the same.
And again, the building height is staying the same.
The refusal that we received was, we have no dimensional refusal.
The refusal is for the use only and stated the property is zoned as RSA 5 and as such
the increase the additional unit generated the refusal.
We did meet with the registered coordinating registered community organization on November
16, and they did send us a letter of non-opposition. We did send over 130 notices to near neighbors,
but the coordinating RCO, which is the 32nd Democratic Ward, had their leadership there
and they conferred internally with their board and as such generated this letter of non-opposition.
As such we're requesting these variances or this one variance for the additional use of a second
unit to make the property actually be viable and utilized on the current three and hopefully
spearhead some additional development and use on that block. With me, I have a representative
from the ownership, Sean Fields. Sean, if you could raise your hand.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Please identify yourselves by your name and address.
It's Sean Field. It's S-E-A-N-F-I-E-L-D. The address is 3225 McLeod Drive.
And I represent the Indeed Real Estate Group.
We're infirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Sean, have you heard the testimony that I provided to the board this morning?
I have.
do you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own i confirm and adopt
thank you and is there anything you would like to add nothing more to add at this time thank you
thank you questions from the board no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand chair we have north central philadelphia cdc that's unmuted you hello this
is tina marie russell by your name and give us your address tina marie russell north central
philadelphia cdc 1631 west susquehanna avenue um i i would like you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed our organization was not
notified of this um activity and we would not we did not receive any information from the attorney
so we would like to actually have had time to review this because it goes against
um the ideas that we're looking to do by itself our 20 35 year plan and i'd like to know we can
have a continuance so that we can have time to do our due diligence as well.
Mr. Bertil, you have a letter.
We don't have, the board doesn't have a file in front of them, as Sharon and Tanya have.
So we did get a letter.
I can show you the letter.
So this organization wasn't designated the coordinating RCO, but we did send out the,
So typically our standard practice is in addition to sending out the required notification emails
to the near neighbors in the coordinating RCO, we respond to the email sent out by the RCO
notification email that includes all the representative contact information for the
other RCOs. And we did send notification of this letter that I will show the board.
Let me just scroll back up.
Let me just scroll back up.
The zoning notice was sent out on November 3rd.
Would you make that a little bit larger?
I'm sorry.
Make that a little bit larger, please.
My apologies.
Thank you.
That's great.
And I could also share with the board the email that was sent back to the RCO notification email
that CC'd all the registered RCOs that was provided to us by the Planning Commission.
can i um can i speak could you show me could you show me that letter that email because the letter
we never received and um i don't have any proof here that you sent the letter but the email um
can you have showed me that because i've done searching and searching and i haven't yet to see
anything from anyone so i'm going to go offline mr pertell would you contact
and make contact with her and provide her with that?
Yes, I'm happy to.
I would like to see that prior to you actually being confirmed to do this
because, I mean, if you don't have any proof that you notified all the RCOs.
We have it.
You don't.
And I'm asking him to share it with you.
So you're saying, I'm sorry, just to be clear,
you're saying you see the email that has NCP North Central Philadelphia CDC.
I'm sorry.
We have the letter.
I apologize.
It's a letter, but it doesn't mean that it came to us.
It's just a letter saying that he sent something,
but it doesn't mean he sent it to us.
I believe Mr. Battelle testified that you were not part of the coordinating North Central.
I'm right here.
North Central.
I'm not a coordinator, but we all are considered RCOs.
We all have a voice.
That's why we are affected RCOs, yes?
Because he's actually down the street from the office, this location.
And we're also a CDC.
So, therefore, we do have some plans that we've been working on for different locations in the area.
Understood. Understood. I stand corrected.
Well, once again, I'm happy to provide, her name doesn't come up, it just says North Central.
I'm sorry, I didn't recall your name, but I'm happy to provide her a copy of the email that was sent out.
So the email that was provided by the Planning Commission is the info at ncpcdc.org.
I don't know if they updated that, but that's the email that was provided to us.
But in addition to that, we did, again, we did meet with the coordinating RCO.
We did send out over 130 notices to near neighbors.
um so we would humbly request that the board would make a decision today yeah and not prolong that
i mean i'm curious if this property is a block away from from your office or wherever it is you
had you stayed your meeting it's um it's like it's like four blocks away i think you should
have as a block no no i said several blocks away i'm sorry i must not be clear okay included in
our notice in our package to the board we've also included um documentation of the property being
constantly posted over the past 21 days okay all right very good any questions there's nothing
coming up so okay thank you for that all right thank you i have questions from the board no
anyone else to testify there are no more handshared thank you planning commission
Good afternoon, Board. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan. We
feel this proposed use will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community. Accordingly,
we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-001925, 2113 North 21st Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes okay it's my understanding from a text i just
received from sharon that 1127 north hancock is being continued mi 2020-001963 um so chair
the situation with Hancock is I asked all staff to look in our boxes to see if we received.
We have not. Also, it appears as though it is LLC, I believe.
Also, it appears as though it is a LLC.
I believe that's the same one I'm looking at.
And an attorney would be required for this to proceed.
If you wish, we can promote the owner.
This is actually Sharon Saleta.
I've had emails back and forth with the architect.
Unfortunately, their attorney died, and they are not ready to go forward today.
They acknowledge that.
I explained that it would be continued.
Does that work, Tanya?
Yes, it does.
However, I had back and forth also with the owner, so I just wanted them to understand
from the board's viewpoint what was going on.
Right.
I apologize, Tanya.
No problem.
he's an LLC and he's required they're required to have an attorney all right so so MI 2020-001963
1127 North Hancock is continued last one is Vernon Road MI 2020-000717 1330 Vernon Road
We have Bill Kerr.
He's been unmuted.
No, he has to be a panelist.
He's been promoted to panelist, Ms. Sunkin.
Okay, thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, please identify yourself for the record, spell your name, and we'll swear you in.
I will do that.
William Kerr, K-E-R-R, 40 East Erie Street in Norristown,
1-9-4-0-1, on behalf of the applicants.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Okay, good afternoon.
I'm sorry, excuse me, sir.
Carol's got to read you something.
Yep, you're right.
I'm used to hearing you say my name.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, which would include the proof of ownership, proof of tax clearance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter by chance?
I have done all that. We have the RCO letter. I believe that was sent directly to the chairman. So that should be in your file.
Thank you.
Okay, that did not get into my exhibit packet, but if Sharon needs that or Tanya, I can forward that after the hearing.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Okay, thank you. I'm here today representing a joint venture between St. Raymond's Catholic Church and Human Good East, which is formerly known as Presby's Inspired Life.
They all are or were nonprofits.
Together, they're proposing to construct a 49-unit affordable rental housing building
for seniors that are age 62 and above.
There's a well-recognized need for affordable housing in the city.
Most recently, that was demonstrated pretty clearly by the encampment on the parkway.
So we're hopeful that this project, if it's approved, it would be a small part of a solution
to that problem.
All right. Now what I'd like to do is share my screen.
Okay. I think this is it. Can everyone see that? That's my exhibit packet.
Is that coming up? Yes. Okay. Just have to figure out how to advance that.
Okay. Here we go. Okay. There's the witnesses that I have. The first three will be testify
and the other, or actually Father Walsh will testify, Vidi Anderson will testify, Nancy
Bastian will testify, Pete Tantala, and Mr. Canteen will be here to answer questions.
So the exhibit packet includes a number of items. We have our appeal application. We
were two frontages. So we have photos on Williams Avenue, East Philolena Street. We have an exhibit
that basically illustrates the demographics of the region at tab three, which I'll get into in a
little bit. We have a zoning map. We have an aerial photo, a perspective view of the proposed building,
our overall site plan, a more close-up development plan. We have floor plans, a typical elevation.
There were a number of RCO mailings that went out. These were the latest two, one in September of this year, one in October, relative to the RCO meeting and today's hearing.
um there were a number of uh rco mailings that went out these were the latest two one in
There are a number of support petitions. Father Walsh actually collected 86 signatures of folks in the neighborhood or around the neighborhood who support the proposal.
One of the issues we heard in the RCO meetings on this was concerned with how will this affect property values.
So what we did was we pulled some BRT records for a couple of blocks that are in the vicinity of two existing senior affordable housing complexes.
The Presser Senior Apartments at 101 East Johnson and the Nugent Senior Apartments that are at 221 West Johnson Street.
Both of these have been in place for about 10 years.
And if you look at the BRT records, you'll see that the BRT believes that those property values
of the properties in those blocks have stayed stable and have even increased.
We also have some parking data for senior housing buildings that Presby slash Human Good has been
and is a part of. We've got our tax clearing certificate. Also going to the issue of property
values is an article from the center for housing policy research which uh goes into a pretty good
depth as to the impact on property values of these types of affordable housing properties and then we
have the opa information which confirms that the church does in fact own the property um so what
i'd like to do now is i'd like to go to a different screen um so this is the proposed project can
everyone see that perspective view yes this is what it will look like our architect will get
into a little more detail uh but i wanted to focus on this whoops i went too far i wanted to focus on
this aerial photo so this is this is the campus the the church campus this is third this is vernon
road 1330 vernon uh this is basically the church and the related buildings for the church
this is the school there's significant parking all around the church parking over here there's
an excess of about 100 parking spaces the church and school require 76 per code so we have
significant excess in parking so again this is Vernon this is Williams the 7900 block of Williams
the 7900 block of Forest, and then this is the 1300 block of Philalena Street.
The project is proposed to be constructed in this area of the parking lot at the corner of
Philalena and Williams Street. This other building, this is the former convent for the
parish, which was converted a number of years ago. It's now known as St. Raymond's House.
It's owned, the building itself is owned and operated by DePaul USA, which is another non-profit,
and it's operated as a 28-room personal care facility. The proposal today was originally
conceived by Father Walsh, St. Raymond's pastor. It's based on the age and the demographics in the
area. He believes that there is a need for senior housing. That need was supported by
human good when he contacted them. This is actually some evidence of that. This is basically
Councilwoman Parker's Councilmanic District, the 9th District, and it's broken out by census
track. I don't know if, can you read that? I'm going to try to zoom in. You can make
that a little bit larger. I'm going to try to do that, not seeing the and that's
unfortunately I'm not seeing the continue. But basically the dark blue
illustrates it's basically a map of the elderly population. The dark blue indicates where the
elderly population is in excess of 30 percent up as high as 45 percent. The light blue is 22 percent
to 33 percent and the light color is under 22 percent. So this is actually the location for
St. Raymond's and what this illustrates is that in this area there's a significant concentration
of senior population, which we believe goes to the need for the affordable housing in this location.
the need for the affordable housing in this location so we'll go back to these slides at
this point just a little more about human good again human good is a non-profit
it's an umbrella organization that actually merged with presby together they now own operator
manage 95 senior apartment communities in four states, a total of 7,200 units with approximately
8,000 senior residents. As we originally proposed this application, it was for 49 units and nine
parking spaces, again for 62 and above. It's to be constructed with the federal low-income housing
tax credit program. It will be targeted to seniors whose incomes are primarily in the 50 to 60% of
area median income range so it's a it's a moderate income facility not a low income facility there
will be a few units that would be designated for folks at 20 percent of area median income
and a few units targeted for those at 80 percent of area median income. The city has indicated
support for the proposal in the form of a million and a half dollars in home funding that was
approved for 2020 because we didn't have a zoning approval that that commitment expired but there
is another application that will be submitted within a few weeks to the city by the by the
the team in addition human good itself is going to be contributing a million and a half dollars
in equity to construct the property we're estimating the total total project cost to be
about 17 million so they're and while the human good and the parish are non-profits the entity
which actually owns the parcel will be for profit. So they will be taxable for real estate purposes.
So there will be construction, investment, and real estate tax revenues that will be generated
that will provide an economic impact for the city. Now, as far as the RCO process and the
community process, it's been a little bit protracted. We initially submitted this
application back in September of 2019 to L&I, got the refusal. The ZBA appeal was filed in October
of 2019. Before even the L&I application went in, Father Walsh organized a meeting of the neighbors
and that was held at the church. He received some feedback. After we filed the zoning application,
we had our hearing date, initial hearing date was November of last year. There was an RCO meeting
coordinated by the 50th democratic ward and held on October 29th of last year. Based on some issues
raised at that hearing we decided to continue the November 14th 2019 hearing date. COVID then hit
and our process stalled but in the interim we've made a number of changes to the plans based again
on what we heard. We're now proposing an additional 16 parking spaces on site so we'll have a total
of 25 spaces. Recall I indicated earlier we were proposing nine and we've also modified the facade
so the facade will now be all brick and it will look essentially like that. On September 29th of
this year we held a follow-up meeting with the 50th Democratic Ward and that was the meeting
pursuant to which the letter was issued. Unfortunately they did not approve the
the the project of the 72 non-project related attendees at the meeting uh 19 supported the
balance were indicated as having opposed the project um were based on feedback that father
walsh received from the from the the entire rco process in the community process um he's set up
a neighborhood advisory council um with his church we'll meet with the community um on a regular
basis. To date they've already met three times and it's hopeful that he can resolve some of the
issues and the concerns that the neighborhood has. Are you suggesting Mr. Kerr that this
discussion is still ongoing? Well the neighborhood has raised other issues related to the parish
so Father Walsh has agreed that he's going to he's going to deal with this
these ongoing issues through this neighborhood advisory council
um but we've had significant discussions with the community about this this project so we are
uh we do intend to put the case on today um i have all my this is lined up and uh because
some of the issues again are not related to this project they're related to other other issues with
with the parish okay yeah before before you go any further uh is the councilwoman parker's
representative on by any chance? Hillary? We have Hillary Emerson that's been unmuted.
Yeah, I'd like to hear from Hillary before we go any further.
Yeah, I'd like to hear from Hillary before we go any further.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Hillary Emerson on behalf of Councilwoman Sherelle Parker, Emerson, E-M-E-R-S-O-N.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
The reason I asked you to get on before Mr. Kerr brings on his witnesses,
The indication is that the RCO has voted to oppose this project, but then he mentioned something about Father Walsh creating some sort of advisory committee.
I'm not sure what that may mean.
Do you have any, could you, you know, enlighten us about that?
Yeah, so absolutely.
So just at the outset, as the project stands right now, the councilwoman does not support it because she does not feel that the applicant has done enough to garner community support and address some issues that Mr. Kerr alluded to,
some trust issues stemming from past projects that the church has done that caused some concern
in the community. So because the support by the near neighbors is not significant for this project
right now, there is some support in the broader neighborhood, but the near
neighbors have indicated at meetings and to our office that they are not in support of the
project at this time. Therefore, the councilwoman is not in support at this time. We do understand
that Father Walsh has set up the advisory committee, and they have been meeting, and we
we think that's a great um first step forward um but as I said the um there still seems to be um
the the advisory committee is relatively new so it it will it will I think take time before
the the issues are resolved so the you know we we don't feel that they they have been resolved to
the you know to the point where that we can support the project yeah just the advisory
committee Mr. Kerr is is the is the mission of the advisory committee to address the concerns that
the the community is having about supporting this project I mean if that's the case I'm just
not clear on that I can answer yeah okay Hillary you can give your take and then I will give my
take sure yeah so no the it is our understanding that the advisory um committee is um working to
address multiple issues at the campus for which the community has expressed concern not solely
the senior housing project. That's where I get a little confused it's like
suppose just hypothetically if the advisory committee comes back with some recommendations
as it relates to this project that could be I'm just saying may or may not be acceptable by the
immediate community uh is that something that the advisory committee is that part of their mission
i guess or is i know there's other issues but is is this project part of that issue
this is one of the sorry this is hillary again um this project is one of um i have i have not
attended one of the meetings but i have seen um minutes from a couple of the meetings and this
project has been one of the issues that has been discussed at the meetings. So what I'm getting at
Mr. Kerr is rather than the board make any decision today if this advisory committee's part of its
mission is the deal is to address any of those issues that may have caught may be causing the
immediate community not to support it wouldn't we be better off waiting? Well we've had
three but three community meetings now two with the RCO the advisory committee meetings were
really set up at the suggestion that it came out of the RCO meetings related to other issues with
the parish not not necessarily this building not necessarily this building so it was really an
effort from our perspective to sort of mend some fences and improve relations between the parish
in the community. And that was an effort that was independent of this application. And again,
we've had two RCO meetings, we have a letter. We think we're at a point where we have
significant support but there's significant opposition and we're not sure that we're
significant support, but there's significant opposition, and we're not sure.
that this advisory committee will ever get rid of get rid of that opposition we just think that
some of it is just the folks don't want this in their backyard and that's we we see that a lot
so what I would prefer to do the other issue is we have I indicated the city home funding
that application process is coming up in a few weeks in early January I believe
and then the PHFA application is in February and we need to have some zoning resolution hopefully
a positive resolution for those applications so we're concerned about not moving forward now
what so what I like to do is put put our case on the record today if the board after you hear our
case wants us wants to hold the decision so that we can work further with the councilwoman the RCO
we're willing to do that but we would like to just keep this moving given some of the
the time constraints that we have going forward well again that's what i was i'm suggesting only
because of this advisory committee which for all the good intentions they have i mean to me it kind
of sounds like it's duplicate but but maybe it isn't i i don't know i mean i i'm not at those
meetings um so all right look if we can in the interest of time we do have a 3 30 session this
we're way behind and i know this is important it's not a small case by no means if you could
just maybe summarize it we don't no disrespect but to have all of your witnesses come on i can't
imagine what they're going to tell us that's anything that's that much significant as to
what you've said uh correct me if i'm wrong um they were they were going to provide some additional
um color but i will summarize what i was going to have each of them say and then i will have them
just confirm that that's what they would have said okay be very helpful thank you okay so as
far as father walsh he would would have testified that um that he did in fact hold the initial
meeting before the application was was um submitted to lni he's been in attendance at the uh the two
rco meetings and that in that whole process on a number of occasions he has actually gone around
to the blocks immediately surrounding the property, including the 7,800 and 7,900 blocks
of Williams and Forrest, 1,200, 1,300, and 1,400 blocks of Vernon and Phil Elena. He's
knocked on doors. He's tried to get signatures. He's tried to talk to folks. A lot of folks
wouldn't answer the door. His estimation is that of the folks that he was able to talk
to in those blocks. About 50% of them were in support of the project.
In the, he held the most, there was a meeting, a neighborhood advisory council meeting in
October. Again, they flyered and knocked on doors on all of those blocks. They got about
50 folks who attended on Zoom and 20 who attended in person in the church. And again, he felt
that the support was about 50 percent um amongst those who attended in person while the folks on
zoom his his sense was that more than 50 percent of them supported the uh the project so at this
point can father can you just raise your hand um and i'll just have you confirm that uh that my
my statement is accurate good evening father just identify please identify yourself with
the record and i'll swear you in christopher walsh and father do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr kirk yes good afternoon father
you've been on this call for the the entirety of uh my presentation so far i have okay and
you've heard my statements with regard to the project and your efforts on the project
I am. And are those accurate? They are. And do you adopt them as your own testimony? I do. Okay,
thank you. Next witness will be Vidhi Anderson. Vidhi, could you raise your hand?
hi can you hear me yes please identify yourself my name is vidhi anderson it's v-i-d-h-i
and i'm a development director for human good thank you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes okay miss miss anderson uh her testimony would be
basically that she's been involved uh at presby and human good for a number of years um she's
been involved in you know up to two dozen of these types of uh of affordable housing properties um
she's very experienced with these she believes that these are this is a very
She's very experienced with these.
She believes that this is a very appropriate location, that there's a very significant need in this neighborhood.
She would give you a little background on the tax credit process, a key fact that it's administered by PHFA, which has oversight as far as maintenance, upkeep, the construction.
So there's very high standards, all of which are monitored by PHFA.
So this would be a very high quality property, despite the fact that it's going to be used for affordable housing.
There's also 25 parking spaces, she would have testified as to this chart, which I'm sharing.
These are affordable housing communities that Human Good East owns and or manages.
And let me just see if I can scroll down here a little bit.
What you see is that these are the number of apartments in this column, the number of parking spaces provided, number of residents with vehicles, and these are the ratios of residence vehicles to the number of spaces, the spaces per unit and the resident vehicles per unit.
So if we scroll down, in total, you'll see that they have 2,400 units.
They have 810 parking spaces at those complexes where they have 2,400 units.
Currently, resident with vehicles are about 545.
So they have fewer resident vehicles than they have parking spaces.
And that all of the ratios are, you know, below 75%.
It would be the ratio of resident vehicles for the number of spaces.
So less than 70% of the spaces are filled with resident vehicles.
We need about a third of the resident spaces per unit.
And then the resident vehicles per unit, there's about 0.22% of the resident units actually have vehicles.
She would also testify that this, it's her experience that this development would bring positive impacts to the neighborhood.
It would provide much needed affordable housing and that it wouldn't result in any negative impacts.
So, Ms. Anderson, you've heard all my statements today, correct?
And you've been on for the entirety of this proceeding?
Yes, I have.
And are my statements accurate?
They are. Yes. And do you adopt them as your own testimony? I do.
Thank you. Okay. Then I have one last witness, Nancy Bastian from Cecil Baker Architects.
And I'm going to defer to Nancy. I'm just going to let her walk you through the plan just so you
have a sense for what... Actually, I don't know if we need that at this particular time. And I
No disrespect.
I'm just trying in my head, and I'm open for any suggestions from my fellow board members.
I don't want to shut the door on this either way.
There's obviously community concerns.
The Councilwoman's office has concerns.
But there's obviously a need for senior housing, not only in that neighborhood, in every neighborhood in the city, I assume.
And I know you have some deadline dates as it relates to tax credits.
I think you said one is in January
One is in early January
And I know we have the holidays
Coming up so I don't know how quickly
If we could get back on in early January
That would be great
That's what my next question was going to be
I know we're way out
We're out in February now
But is there any opportunities Tanya
In January
What will we be
Asking for in January
A resumption
of just community input alone uh i would think so because i don't i think mr kerr gave us a
pretty good overview of what they they want to do and the purpose is obviously is for senior housing
yeah i think i would just want to have miss bastion talk about the plan a little bit and
that should be my last witness i think there are three neighbors who want to testify in support
and i assume there are some who want to testify in opposition right but again i'm not sure if
you know sometimes we make obviously don't make the right decisions here that if a if a follow-up
meeting is going to satisfy any any of the opposition i'm not encouraging that i'm just
trying to be fair to everybody so if we can just do a resumption meeting uh hearing
on january sometime how about january the 20th at 3 30 um and if the board wishes or the chair
likes, we can also take testimony via letters.
um likes we can also take testimony um via letters yeah we can do that mr kerr okay all right and
and hillary you still on
no i'll get her back chair okay we'll just we'll let her know so uh it's understood that uh
MI 2020-000717-1330 Vernon Road.
This hearing will be resumed on January the 20th at 3.30 p.m.,
at which time we will consider any feedback related to the RCO's position
and the Councilwoman Parker's office.
Thank you.
This is Hillary, Mr. Chair.
I'm back on, I heard.
Thank you.
All right.
and okay thank you Mr. Kerr and I apologize to other folks who are still waiting to be heard
you will have an opportunity as Tanya said you can either do it via email or when we come back
on the 20th you'd be more than welcome to hear your testimony thank you thank you thank you Mr.
Chair thanks everyone thank you that concludes the two o'clock session oh god I thought today
was going to be easy um it's eight minutes after take a 10 minute break does that work
that's good yes chair work for you court reporter that's what i'm looking at
all righty thanks see you shortly see you around 20 after okay
Good evening, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere,
Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator Ms. Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some
of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual
participants prior to their testimony. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue. I'll repeat. To enter an appearance statement,
call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
with that being said and but before our vice chair calls our first case we'd like to ask if
anyone is requesting a continuance or an appeal excuse me a continuance or withdrawal for an
appeal for this evening's hearing list in the meantime i will read off a couple of cases that
we've already been requested to continue. Page number one, MI 2020-001436, 1446 West
Medro, NEDRO Street. MI 2020-001435, excuse me, 2322 West Tioga. MI 2020-001529,
2120 East Arizona Street.
If the applicant and or an attorney is present for the cases I just called off
and believe those cases are being continued in error, please raise your hand.
And again, if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal,
please raise your hand at this time.
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
He's been unmuted.
Mr. Richardson, you're putting a full day in today.
Mr. Richardson.
This is true, Mr. Chair.
Identify yourself and you've already been sworn in.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, Room 312, City Hall.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312, City Hall.
2232 West Estall Street, which is MI2020-001434.
Asking for a continuance because we, our office and the RCO have received no communication from the individuals.
Okay, that's number four for the board members on our sheet number four.
um excuse me this is Sharon I'm sorry chair I didn't mean to interrupt um we we also received
the request from Swampoodle RCO but we did receive exhibits from the applicant so if we could check
to see if they are here yeah is the applicant of it here for 2232 east s tall e-s-t-a-u-g-h street
chair we have a caller from with the phone number ending at 6845 i'm sorry fatina no
this is clear this is clarence dupree you've been unmuted you can speak to the
continuous request okay uh i have no objection to the continuous request mr dupree would you
please identify yourselves by your first and last name and give us your address my name is clarence
Dupree. That's C-L-A-R-E-N-C-E-D-U-P-R-E-E. My address is 647 West Park Lane. I'm the applicant
and the owner of the building. We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? I do. You've heard there's a request from the Councilwoman's office for a continuance and
addition to, I believe, Swamp Poodle as the RCO. Any objection to continuing this case?
I have no objection to continuing the case, although I did notify them both.
And I have been trying to notify at least Swampuro as well as the other RCO multiple times.
That's contained in my exhibits, but again, I have no objection.
Okay. These are trying times, as you know, and sometimes we're having difficulty connecting.
So it's just...
I'm sorry.
Mr. Chair.
Okay, go ahead, Charles.
Go ahead, Charles.
Okay. Just wanted to let you know the Swamp Poodle is not the coordinating RCO for that property.
It is Tioga United.
So I have to get in contact with them. Swamp Poodle is not the coordinating RCO.
Okay. Thank you for clearing that up.
All right.
I reach out to both of them, Swamp Poodle and Tioga United.
And I have emails from both, but I'll be happy to reach out to them again.
Okay. You can work with Mr. Richardson, the Councilwoman's office.
i think that would be helpful as well sure thank you for your cooperation so mi 2020
i'm sorry i just wanted to ask a question for what i would do um mr dupree do you have any
kind of time limits or concerns about this here property where you really need to get
it scheduled sooner than later no no no okay sounds good thank you so very kindly
Thank you, Tanya. MI 2020, that's 001434, 2232 West Estall Street is continued.
Chair, if you could also confirm whether anyone is here for numbers seven and eight,
I don't have a record of having received exhibits and in case anyone is here to participate,
We wouldn't want them to wait needlessly.
Okay, sure.
Is anyone here for 6415 Harbison Avenue?
Anyone here to testify on 6415 Harbison Avenue?
Only have your hand up if it's for Harbison.
The call-in user, are you here for Harbison?
You're going to mute yourself.
Calling users press star six.
So Sharon will continue this case, correct?
Correct.
Thank you.
And Tanya, has this case already been continued?
Is this the first time?
no this here is from november 2019 so must be heard would be wonderful that's why i'm asking
you okay mi 2020 that is zero zero zero zero six six six four one five harbison avenue is continued
must be heard is there anyone here for five four oh five christian street is there anyone on
who would like to testify on 5405 Christian Street.
Who would like to testify on 5405 Christian Street?
Please identify yourself.
Spell your name.
Give us your full name.
Spell it and your address, and that's where you're in.
Lloyd M. Carpenter.
L-L-O-Y-D.
Carpenter.
C-A-R-P-E-N-T-E-R.
Your address?
5430 Webster Street.
Wearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you the applicant?
No, I'm not.
You are?
In what capacity are you involved?
46 Ward RCO.
Well, Sharon, do we have any exhibits?
No, I do not have exhibits for this one.
Okay, sir, we're going to continue this, and we'll put it down as a must-be-heard.
okay okay okay thank you for your participation mi2020-0000295405 christian street is continued
must be heard i well i did have an attorney here listed um sorry about that um mr gossett are you
here for this case? I am here, yes. Sorry about that, sir. No problem. Are you prepared to go
forward with this case? I am prepared to go forward, Chairman. It's my understanding that
the documents have previously been sent into the zoning board, and I'm ready to go forward.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. When you say they were sent in, were they emailed in?
yes they were okay um can you provide us information regarding that the date they were
sent in and by whom i can't i believe that it was sent in from from the um participating rco i
believe it was sent in a few days ago no from from the actual applicant or attorney must submit
documents relative to this particular hearing proceeding and if we have not received them
then the case would be continued. So, there are required documents to go forward for this hearing.
Right. That would have been the deed. That would have been the tax compliance. That would have
been the letter. Right. You said the RCO. That's not their role. I was CC'd on the actual email
that was sent in. Again, if I could be very clear, the requirement is for the applicant,
attorney or owner to submit the documents was that done i'm not exactly sure who i know that
it was sent in because i was cc but i cannot tell you exactly who sent it in well it doesn't appear
they've been they were sent to the right party so we'll have to continue this case okay all right
MI 2020-0000295405, Christian Street is continued.
Any other requests?
Chair, we have one more.
Adam Levere.
Adam Levere.
Number two on our list, North Howard Street.
I think that must be a technical error.
I did not raise my hands.
We're prepared to proceed with the case in due course.
Okay, thank you.
Only hands up for anyone who is requesting a continuance or withdrawal.
One last time.
There are no hands here.
Thank you.
I know I keep leaving this out, but I would ask it.
no one attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments should be directed to the Board Administrator.
With that, we'll go to number two is our first case, MI 2020-000832-1700-06 North Howard
Street. Good evening, Mr. Laver. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. If you can give us one second we're going to promote him. He's been promoted. Thank you Mr.
Labor do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth? I do Mr.
Chairman. And please identify yourself for the record. Mr. Chairman members of the board Adam
laver of blank rome one logan square philadelphia pa 19103 thank you miss uh canary has some
questions for you labor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
Mr. Laver, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
accuracy
Yes, Mrs. Tenere, I do.
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, which would include proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and hopefully you have a letter?
Yes, Mrs. Tenere, all of that is correct.
In addition, we submitted revised proviso plan and form to Ms. Saleta, counsel for the board.
Great. Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you very much.
Members of the board, I'm here on behalf of 1700 North Howard Street LP, the equitable owner of 1700-30 North Howard Street, as well as its parent entity, Urban Conversions LLC.
urban conversions has appeared before this board before with us are andrew zachroff of urban
conversions and sergio kosha and charles long of kosher moose architecture as uh mrs tenere
asked i have submitted a package with 18 exhibits and revised proviso plans to the board
at this time i'm going to attempt to screen share and up on up on the screen you should see some
examples of urban conversions work in the past as the board may recall urban conversions uh
prides itself on its reputation for creative adaptive reuse of historic properties throughout
our city. Now on the screen I have some photographs of the subject property. This case concerns the
proposed repurposing of a historically designated but unfortunately neglected industrial property.
You see it most clearly in photographs A and B. This is the circa 1865 decorating plant of
gillinger and sons franklin flint glassworks the property is individually listed on the
philadelphia historical commission's register mr labor pardon the interruption could you
enlarge that yes that's good a little a little smaller now okay that's good thank you
oh in the upper left hand corner uh you are seeing the cecil be more frontage
uh where it says road closed in this photograph uh is howard street uh in b we're looking at
howard street c is howard street and i'll show you uh in a while some waterloo photographs uh
wrapping around in the nomination mr chairman to the philadelphia register of historic places
the property was described by the nominator an outside party the keeping society
as, quote, a rare surviving industrial building relating to the glass industry in Kensington.
Here is an aerial photograph of the site, and I'm trying to zoom in a little bit.
You see the 1700 North Howard Street property right there on the corner across from the schoolyard.
The nomination goes on to attest, quote, like many other industrial complexes, the subject
building had its own recognizable presence, as it does today at the northwest corner of
Cecil B. Moore Avenue and North Howard Street.
It is a presence in the neighborhood, as it has been for over 150 years.
Unfortunately, the subject property has been significantly underutilized, as the neighborhood's
industrial past has largely shifted, and residential living has expanded around the site.
The property is now home to the Columbia Silk Dying Company, a business that operates only
on a part-time basis and is voluntarily winding down its operations.
Most of the property is used for storage.
You can see on the screen right now that the historic property fronts on Cecil B. Moore
where the hand icon is and North Howard Street and wraps around to the small street Waterloo
at the back.
and some additional aerial photographs showing in this case Howard Street and you see Cecil B. Moore
again Cecil B. Moore and here at the back is Waterloo. I'd like to note at the moment Waterloo
is Waterloo. I'd like to note at the moment Waterloo Street the small street
street.
with the looming presence if you will of the industrial property.
Now the corner property the main building the larger property is a beautiful classic
industrial high ceiling four-story structure which urban conversion seeks to meticulously
preserved with the help of Kosher Moose architecture for conversion to multi-family dwelling with
limited neighborhood-oriented retail commercial along the ground floor of Cecil B. Moore Avenue,
approximately in this area that I'm showing with the hand icon. I'm moving right now to a conceptual
rendering of the entire development. Remember, if you will, members of the board, the photographs
of what's called the stable and shed, the properties behind the corner structure that
really appeared to be in bad shape.
Well, in place of the derelict stable and shed addition structures, we're proposing
compatible new construction.
In all, 103 residences are proposed for this large site of approximately 24,000 square
i'm moving now to the zoning map which i think is critically important in a review of this case
right here where the hand sign is is the subject property in yellow
it's located puzzlingly in an rsa 5 single family zoning district
unfortunately the leadership of south kensington community partners rco has steadfastly opposed the
project i think it's safe to say based on a principle that the underlying zoning designation
of the property is rsa5 over the course of some six meetings and many months the developer has
tried to refine the project based on stakeholder input as a side note we were sorry that skcp
was unable to participate in the most recent civic design review meeting at which time revised plans
were shared publicly thank you for bearing with me i know this case is taking a little bit longer
but i do believe it's nuanced the heart of the differing viewpoint in principle rests in this
i designation of the industrial complex as rsa 5 single family however an industrial complex has
existed for over 150 years and on top of that we have a historic designation in place an insistence
on a single family townhome concept is not practicable and is at odds with other provisions
of the philadelphia code including the historic designation provisions that apply here
so in this case the proposed reuse of the former industrial structure
and the sensitive transitional additions between the historic industrial factory
and surrounding residences is a tremendous opportunity which has been recognized as such
by both the philadelphia historical commission which fully reviewed this development proposal
and the independent preservation alliance among others. Taking you back to this conceptual
rendering, the plan calls to restore the historic corner factory building that I'm pointing to right
now inside and out. One of the challenges here is that it will involve extensive efforts to bring
the raised industrial floors to street level entry, to actually bring that entire floor down
to street level in addition the plan calls as i mentioned to demolish the dilapidated lesser
buildings that were added to the historic property over the years for example in the
upper left hand corner this lower uh this property here's another in g you can see and in i the lower
or left, you can see the shed edition as it's called,
which fronts on Cecil B. Moore
and also on Waterloo at the back.
Here are some images, conceptual images
of the proposed infill.
Where the white car is, we're looking at Cecil B. Moore
and here on the left side of the screen is Waterloo.
north howard street with on the left hand side the preservation of the historic structure and
the infill transitional the main entrance to the subject property to the residential is proposed
off of north howard street and again another view of old and new together and here
old and new together and here is an example of an effort by the design team
this is North Howard Street to have four units along North Howard Street at
street level to speak directly to single-family homes that are in the
area even with the acknowledgement as I mentioned that there's a significant
issue in the neighborhood with this zoning designation really not being proper for RSA5.
Again, or in summary, we're seeking to create 103 residences, add 35 off-street parking spaces
where no parking is required, 50 bicycle parking spaces, and 3,271 square feet of Cecil B. Moore
oriented ground floor retail commercial. Before we address the zoning refusals, I'm pulling up
this map once again, the zoning map. Consider the underlying zoning. The zoning map shows
IRMX, ICMX, CMX 2.5, and CMX 2 parcels in the nearby vicinity, pretty much anything that is not
yellow. However, let's be more conservative in making the, in suggesting that the parcel should
be, the industrial parcel should be an industrial zoning. Let's take into consideration
the residential nature of some of the homes that sprung up around this factory complex and imagine
an rm1 zoning at this site if this property were more appropriately zoned rm1 a residential
designation 93 residences would be permitted by right we are seeking 103 residences
Moving to the refusal, which I'd like to go through carefully.
Number one, multifamily living is prohibited in the district.
Again, we believe the underlying zoning classification is incorrect and that RM1 is a very safe and
appropriate comparable designation for this type of transitional site.
Number two, retail sales, as we know, are prohibited in the single-family zoning district.
Urban Conversions is proposing limited retail commercial oriented along Cecil B. Moore Avenue, which has been heralded by many as a commercial corridor with existing neighborhood-oriented uses located along it.
We're not proposing big box. We're proposing less than 4,000 square feet, closer to 3,000, as I mentioned.
probably for two separate small-scale retail commercial uses.
Number three, again, we're dealing with a RSA 5 zoning district,
and the proposed height exceeds code requirements.
The white is a proposed massing, and you can get a sense of the neighborhood around here
on the screen. I'd like to mention that the existing condition is non-conforming.
Additionally, the proposed height of approximately 65 feet, which includes at-grade parking with
five residential levels above, is appropriate for the unique nature of the historical site,
which has always been, as noted in the historical nomination, a, quote, recognizable presence in the
neighborhood this is a corner property located across from school with large open space and as
many philadelphia neighborhoods you have factory complexes with housing for the workers uh built
up right around it to put this in close uh in perspective we are in close proximity to irmx
and ICMX districts that dot the area where former or existing industrial has been in
place.
These districts would permit 60 feet by way of comparable example.
The massing of the proposed additions includes sizable setbacks to minimize and in some ways
improve the existing conditions as along Waterloo Street, that small street at the rear, to
enhance the pedestrian level experience both along both Howard and Waterloo. Cecil B. Moore
is not as much of a concern with the wide lanes being across from the school and not having
residential living right there. Although there's no refusal for parking as no off-street parking is
Although there's no refusal for parking, as no off-street parking is required, I would submit that refusals have been generated related to providing parking.
Concerns regarding parking are ever-present in the community. In attempting to address such concerns, parking-related refusals were generated.
With one curb cut proposed off of North Howard Street, the developer has worked to mitigate parking concerns.
the technical parking landscape requirement is not met
however in the spirit of the code through creative treatment along waterloo street and
you see one example here there are differing opinions among rco leadership and neighbors
but here you see a live wall of planning hiding behind it is the parking which is
access not off of waterloo but off of howard street here's another example of uh proposed
treatment this is a hybrid example uh the art is not what it should be it's just uh by way of
example uh proposing local artists murals with recesses for trees actually to be located within
the private property but to make waterloo feel a bit more expansive and then some live planning
as well the current situation is far from ideal you can see that here in the bottom photographs
even not paying attention to the graffiti but just to the massing itself and how little space there
is on on that street so we're left mr chairman and members of the board with a site burdened
by a structure that is subject to historical commission oversight permissible uses are
severely limited at this location within the confines of the existing structure
continued industrial use at this location is not practicable a glance at the zoning map and
the aerial photograph shows that the zoning surrounding the property is solidly residential
and the actual conditions are solidly residential with a mix of both old and newer construction.
I believe that there may be a couple near neighbors who are here today who have concerns
about the property. Two of them that I'm aware of live in new construction, one along Waterloo,
one along North Howard. The neighborhood has changed and it's continuing to change.
common sense would dictate that the proposed multi-family residential is most consistent
with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood rather than the maintenance of this
disintegrating industrial warehouse complex here is a view um a conceptual rendering along north
howard street showing the single curb cut in and out to the parking and also showing at the top the
uh setback top story but i'd like to address parking in addition to providing on-site parking
significant efforts have been made to orient the development to transit oriented minded individuals
to encourage the use of existing infrastructure you see it here in this map within walking
distance of the site the development will be marketed to these people but in addition to
having the on-site uh automobile parking and bicycle storage it really is a terrific example
of uh modern development in partnership with the architectural team we have found a way
albeit at great expense to preserve and enhance the building and to convert the property benefiting
the residential district in which the structure is located the expense is significant and that
That was recognized also, I think, by the Historical Commission.
The ownership cares about the restoration of this property.
The Preservation Alliance weighed in on the development, noting, quote, given the practical
realities of repurposing this site and the sensitive treatment and retention of building
one, that's the corner building, we voice no opposition to the overall concept.
We look forward to a faithful and creative repurposing of building one, a building type that has been all too frequently lost in the midst of a rapidly developing South Kensington.
Similarly, the Philadelphia Historical Commission approved the proposed plans based on the realities of the situation.
And, of course, this went through the Civic Design Review process, which described in
part the project as, quote, well positioned on the site, end quote, end quote, appreciated
the change to the parking garage wall, that's what I described along Waterloo Street, and
the efforts to accommodate more trees along tiny Waterloo Street by relocating two parking
by relocating two parking spaces to the North Howard Street side of the internal parking area.
parking spaces to the North Howard Street side.
So what the developer has done in refining the plans is to carve out some private property
to give the neighbors and the community a sense of more space. I don't mean to suggest members
of the board or any community members who are here today that Waterloo Street will feel expansive or
open it is a tight narrow philadelphia street but we're working to improve it to better it
here you see proposed floor plans at tab tab 7 in your package this is the first floor with
in green on the left two potential commercial spaces along cecil b moore avenue at about 3 300
square feet. You see in white off of North Howard Street, the residential entrance to the proposed
multifamily, along with bicycle room, package, mail rooms, and trash room right at the center
outside of the public view. And as I mentioned before, four residential units right at the
sidewalk level to give a sense of a row house feel, a sense, and the eyes and ears on the street.
Vehicular access is through one curb cut, and this will actually return two to three
on-street spaces to the community due to the elimination of existing curb cuts.
The commercial trash pickup, there was some confusion in the community.
It would be right through the curb cut on Howard Street, internal, out of view to that
trash room, not off of Waterloo Street.
That would be inappropriate.
roof you'll also note the addition of trees all around the property as shown on this plan moving
to a typical second through fourth floor layout you see the various units you see a gym amenity
the fifth floor layout also shows the landscape roof deck at the left which is above the historic
property and adding some green space to for the residents and here is the sixth
floor which is showing setbacks from Waterloo and from North Howard Street
the unit mix for the entire development 40 studios are proposed averaging 507
square feet, 46 one-bedroom, one-bathroom units averaging 646 square feet, 10 two-bedroom,
one-bathroom units averaging 856 square feet, seven two-bedroom, two-bathroom units averaging
1,018 square feet. The balancing act here, members of the board, is to preserve the existing historic
building for its highest and best use, and to meet the demand for residential living
while creatively addressing transportation concerns. We're not in a TOD zone, but we're
close. We're going to make the most of that. We're providing parking where parking is not required.
Not everyone agrees on that, but most of the neighbors are facing the parking shortage that
so many of us in Philadelphia cry over when they can't find parking spaces. This is providing
ample parking, and bicycle parking as well. So 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 as evidenced by the Philadelphia
Historical Commission's approval of the proposal. The proposed variance would represent the minimum
variance to afford relief. The grant of variance relief will not substantially increase congestion
in the public streets increase the danger of fire or otherwise in danger of public health
safety or general welfare it is actually impossible right now to access certain parts of this
industrial complex due to safety issues i did mention that there there are some parts that are
being used but a lot of it is multiple and it is a real danger uh there uh is the developer has
committed to going above and beyond local and state requirements on environmental and there
will not be any adverse environmental impact. This will actually be an improvement. We have
Andrew Zakroff here, we have the architecture team here, and I'd reserve additional time if needed,
but I know the hour is late. Thank you. Do you want to ask your client if he adopts your testimony?
Andrew Zakroff, would you please raise your virtual hand?
Andrew Zakroff, would you please raise your virtual hand?
Andrew's here.
Thank you.
Andrew, good evening, sir.
Identify yourself, name and address by your last name for the record.
Yes, Andrew Zakroff, Z-A-K-R-O-F-F, from Urban Conversions, 1028 North 3rd Street in Philadelphia.
You're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
thank you mr laver mr zakroff i understand that you've been present for the entirety of this
presentation before the board is that correct yes would you adopt and affirm the testimony
that i've offered as your own yes thank you thank you any questions from the board no
no no is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
Chair, we have Kyle Miller.
Hello?
Hello, sir. Good evening.
Identify yourself for the record, name and address.
I'm Kyle Miller.
I live at 1750 North Howard Street.
Where are you from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This isn't benefiting nobody from the neighborhood
besides the investors' pockets.
That's it.
He don't live in the neighborhood.
he's going to build this cash out on it and move on we got to live with the consequences of this
thing being built like i said you can't park on woodloo street the cars right now use that sidewalk
as parking the factory sidewalk once you build there all that parking is going on woodloo
you can't park on susan be more it's a school so you're going to jam all them cars on howard street
which there's no parking already the thing is way too big and they came to the neighborhood
zoning board and they didn't change anything they added artwork and a tree or something or a live
wall thank you anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand
chair we have shelby rico
hello hi please identify yourself name and address uh my name is shelby gercio i live at 1813
waterloo street and would you please spell your last name sure it's g-u-e-r-c-i-o
thank you you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed sure so um i'm here both as a representative of the rco south
kensington community partners as well as a near neighbor um i live one block up on waterloo street
and um i want to say first and foremost that i don't really care about the parking and i honestly
kind of hate that everyone parks on Waterloo Street. But I still feel like we have to oppose
this project simply because it is just too large and aggressive for the location. There has not
been support from a single community member that I've heard from for this project. And as much as
I do appreciate the effort that the developers have put into trying to mitigate some of the
secondary concerns that the community has had um that they're just refusing to budge on the size
of the project the height of the project the number of units in the project um all of those
are reasons why we think it would be best if it just remained as single-family zoning for the time
being. Chair, you're muted. And just to put you on notice, we have about 10 hands here just so
you're aware for this project. And we're going to ask for anything new and different. The lady was
just on Shelby. Had there been any, was there any discussion at the meetings about the number of
units that might be acceptable if it remains a multi-family as opposed to single yeah so um
there had been discussion about it potentially being a bit more palatable as a four-story project
which is i believe the height that it is now and is more in line with the other new construction
units in the area that they keep alluding to um projects of the size that they're trying to do
are definitely you know they're basing it off of projects that exist on second street on
american street and like you just have to face it that hancock or howard and waterloo
And like, you just have to face it that Hancock or Howard and Waterloo are not suited for the same type of construction as Second Street and American Street.
Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? If so, please, if you when you when you begin to testify, if you will limit your testimony to something new and different.
Chair, we have Sloan, folks. He's unmuted.
Mr. Folks, good evening again.
You're still under oath.
Just identify yourself with the record and proceed.
Good evening again, Chairman DiCicco, ZBA Board, Sloan Folks, SLOANE, EFSA Fire, OLKS,
Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinones Sanchez, Room 508, City Hall.
The applicant, having met with the community and receiving a letter of non-support,
the Councilwoman does not support the sparingness request.
thank you thank you very much anyone else who would like to testify please raise your hand
can you raise your hand hi there uh scott letterer here led scott yes i'm sorry please spell your
name yeah l-e-d-e-r-e-r i live at 1711 north howard street you're swearing a firm to tell
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. I will quickly reiterate that
the height of this building is so far beyond the zoning limit as to be preposterous and the height
of the historic corner building is about the same height as pretty much everything else on the block
more or less and if you notice from the renderings that historic building actually gets dwarfed by
the more modern construction next to it which would turn both howard and waterloo into canyons
especially little waterloo street doesn't deserve to become a canyon i will also add something new
which is that the sewer system on this small street has had issues before and there's a ton
of new construction happening already on this block and nearby and we many neighbors are concerned
about all these new residences being added without the sewer system being upgraded to handle the
additional demand. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Laver, refresh my memory. The height
of the existing building? We don't know, Mr. Chairman, the exact height. It's four stories
and it is industrial four stories. So it's higher than a residential. It's probably
40, 45?
I would imagine so, just roughly speaking.
At the highest point of your proposed development?
The highest point, including the setback, is 65.
65, right? Okay.
All right. Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand. Something new and different would be appreciated.
Hi, Kyle Lorenz.
Hello?
Kyle Lorenz.
uh please please identify yourself spell your first and last name and your address please
kyle k-y-l-e last name lorenz l-o-r-e-n-z address 1729 north howard street direct
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do um so i'm in a direct neighbor i look uh across the street at this property every day
um it is an eyesore and i know uh the addition of this property would likely increase my property
value but it is not best for our neighbors we have long-term residents here 30 plus year residents
who rely entirely on street parking both on howard and waterloo that will be greatly impacted by this
this is where they park their car every single day and there's not sufficient parking in this
as we've all heard it's about 30 percent of the units that have it um the existing height on
average is closer to 30 feet our 38 and a half foot building is much higher than it um it will
dwarf us and it will dwarf all of the surrounding neighbors casting no natural light for these homes
with the roof deck on top will also add noise and people looking down at our property
consistently. On top of that, the building is down the street from a school. And as Blank Rome
mentioned, parking would be entering on Howard, the same place that the school lets out. Increased
traffic on Howard Street would mean increased danger to our kids in this neighborhood. Not a
good idea. The fact that Blank Rome thinks that this structure fits into the current neighborhood
is not true. This warehouse structure is small. It does not dwarf residences and does not create
massive volumes of people, including retail and high density housing, which will impact the quiet
and peaceful nature of this current community, which it has right now. I would rather look at
I would rather look at the eyesore that it is right now than have this property come in, although it looks beautiful in the renderings.
the eyesore that it is right now than have this property come in, although it looks beautiful.
And just to add to that, the single on the zoning board meetings that I've attended, which were multiple, everybody wanted it to stay single family.
In order for it to be high density housing, it would have to significantly change to be much lower, much less and much more equivalent between residences and parking.
thank you for your testimony members of the board we're faced with a fundamental issue
in this case and that is certainly from uh a perspective of some neighbors uh solid single
family uh housing is what's desired but the question is is this the appropriate underlying
designation for a structure like this and in the neighborhood like this on a corner like this
on Cecil B. Moore, with the school across Cecil B. Moore, I should clarify.
And that is the legal issue that really becomes fundamental.
Legal, you referred to, you broke up a little bit. You're talking about the historical designation?
The historical designation and the question of the appropriateness or lack thereof of the
underlying zoning. It just doesn't make sense under the Philadelphia code that this property
is zoned RSA 5. How can the city of Philadelphia and the code say you have a historic resource that
has to be kept like this and at the same time provide for essentially town zones? So I have a
lot of respect and understanding, but at the end of the day, it comes down to this legal issue.
I mean if I may say something an eyesore is never good for a neighborhood because
at some point I don't know how long it's been like that it does increase the propensity for crime
it could be potentially a fire hazard if it's not already exactly I just Mr. Laver
I think you know me well enough and this board well enough there's no question in my mind that
The Historical Commission has precedent in terms of that building.
I just was wondering if there's any opportunity to go back and meet with the community to talk about maybe having some reduction in the number of units, which would bring the height of the section of the building that is going to be 65 feet high.
It seems to be, especially because Howard and Waterloo are such narrow streets.
It gives me some pause.
And I understand that. And that really, Mr. Chairman, is why the design team have provided revised plans along the way over the course of six meetings and many months to have setbacks.
And unfortunately, I share the same philosophy. I don't like it when some people are not happy with the plan that's being proposed.
and in this instance it really was an instance from from the moment of conversation and very
respectful conversation I should say with the RCO that was quite professional but from from the
moment we began the discussion it was a matter of principle this is RSA 5 and multi-family doesn't
belong here. Yeah I get that and I you know I'm basically kind of suggesting if you think there's
an opportunity to go back and meet with the community, talk about the main, there's a lot
of issues. Parking's always an issue. I take that seriously, but there's nothing really we can do
about parking. We live in a city and there's limited parking. We're always going to have that
issue. Even if you put single family up, there's no, they may have two cars or a family. You never
know. It's just a massiveness. I think it's a great design. It looks great, but it is a massive
property and again waterloo and howard is such narrow streets uh i got a little bit i think it
causes me to have some concern mr chairman if i may uh can you speak uh board member uh jim snell
maybe i missed it um how long has that uh building been vacant so mr snell um the the property has
It is owned by a family that's in the silk dye business, and they come in on a very infrequent basis, two or three people.
So I can't in good faith say to you it's completely vacant, but for all intents and purposes, it largely is.
They come in a couple days a week.
It's been very emotional for them.
They're a great Philadelphia business that's been around a long time.
My understanding is they're looking to retire, but it's really not productive.
to get to the bottom line here. Understood. To Jim's question, what portion of the building
to get to the bottom line here. Understood.
are they occupying? Oh, a very small amount. You have three buildings here, Mr. Chairman.
You have building one, which is the one that I refer to as the historic building,
and along Cecil B. Moore, you have the shed edition, they call it. It looks like a shed,
and along Waterloo the stables and those two add-on buildings are so dangerous to go in that
we could not get photographs or measurements unfortunately. So my direct question is
on behalf of your client if you want to discuss with your client would they be willing to go back
to the drawing board and meet with the community we're not i am at least not discussing single
family i don't think it's going to work but if it's going to be multi-family something that is
less massive in terms of the shape the size and scope the shape of the building
in addition to the number of units is it something you think your client would be willing to
entertain. Sorry to put you on the spot, but we all get put on the spot. What you're raising as a
possibility is not a shock to me. I'm checking with him right now on that. Candidly, I'm concerned
that we really have had that discussion, but I can't make the decision on what he can.
and well yeah yeah I agree and and respectfully you've had that discussion I understand but
you're here today this board will have to make it will make a decision either to grant or deny
but before we get into that I'm we're asking that on behalf of the board I'm asking that maybe you
go back and see if there's some resolution to this it may not be I don't know I'm not suggesting
there is going to be I don't have a magic number of number of units and the height I think that's
to discussion a further discussion uh you know could be beneficial to both sides but i again i
could be wrong i just try to find that compromise if you could if we if we were to consider that
it would probably involve a reduction in parking um in order to to make this all work um which is a
concerned uh i'm i'm at a little bit of a loss not being in person um
yeah i understand again i'm sorry to put you on the spot but there's no other opportunity for us
to have this discussion let me ask the question very directly of my client and i will uh well
mr zachroff you're you're on the you're you are admitted you've spoken if you would like to
excuse me i'm sorry mr labor to interrupt but um would you like the board to hear the next case to
give you an opportunity we could take a break and come back to you i would appreciate that wonderful
all right all right so any of the folks who are still on who haven't testified just bear with us
a little bit longer and we'll get back to you after mr labor and his client have a discussion
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you.
All right.
So we'll go to the next case.
MI 2020-001531, 2112 Cherry Street.
I would ask that all put their hands down in relation to the previous case so we can get the next case going.
We only want hands up for 2112 Cherry Street.
Fatina, you can promote Sean Ward.
He's been promoted to panelists.
He's free.
Good evening, Mr. Ward.
Identify yourself for the record.
You've already been sworn in.
you're still under oath
good evening mr chairman members of the board sean ward on behalf of the applicant 2110-2112
cherry street llc carol yes do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes have you emailed an exhibit packet with the proof of ownership tax compliance
copy of the refusal or referral and photos and also plans of the property five days in advance
of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes and yes. Thank you and
Thank you, and thank you. You may proceed.
thank you. You may proceed.
Let me share my screen.
Everybody have my screen?
Awesome. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted my exhibit packet, my typical packet, which includes
A1 is the notice of refusal. The application was for a permit to erect a two-dwelling unit
PUD or planned unit development with roof decks and rear garages. It resulted in two refusals.
The first, a two-family dwelling is not permitted in the district, and the second was for height.
38 feet is permitted, whereas pursuant to the review, 48 feet was proposed.
I would submit that the area above the 38-foot height limit consists of pilot houses and elevators.
And we'll get more into that later.
So accordingly, we're seeking variances for height and a number of dwellings.
I would point out also that there are revised plans.
I would ask Sharon to confirm that she received the revised plans and the revised plan form.
I did receive both of those, and the changes are acceptable.
Thank you very much.
A2 is the ZBA application.
A3 is the project information form.
A4, proof of ownership.
A5, proof of tax clearance.
A6 are the site and elevation plans.
A7 are photographs, posting, subject, and aerial views.
A8 is the RCT notice and proof of mailing.
A9 is the RCO letter from Logan Square.
I believe Dennis Boylan, president of Logan Square, is on the conference.
A-10 if it's received or submitted a Council President Clark's letter. I'm not sure if that
was submitted or not but if it was I would ask that that be marked A-10. As far as relevant
zoning history 1990 there was a lot consolidation of 2108 and 2110 Cherry Street by the then owner
And then in 2002, that owner relocated 2110 to 22112th Street.
And then A12 is a zoning map.
A13 is the aerial photograph.
So very quickly, we have the notice of refusal.
Again, the two-family household living is not permitted in RSA 5.
And the height of 38 feet is allowed.
48 is proposed.
Then we have the petition of appeal.
The project information form, copy of the applicant's deed, tax clearance, so you paid through 2020.
The original plan, which was submitted with the application, basically called for, let me try and get this in here.
There are five individual single-family dwellings to the east of the subject property.
It's bounded by 21st Street on the east, Cherry Street to the north, and then the street behind us is Appletree Street.
So basically, 2110 and 2112 are one lot.
we propose what is in essence two single family homes on one lot and so in lieu of a subdivision
into two lots the applicant chose to present a PUD plan those the original plans called for what
we thought was access from an easement running behind the five houses along
2100 through 2108 Cherry Street.
That was disputed, so that's in question.
So at this point, we are going to proceed with
proposed rear entry garages on these two houses.
The owner of this house attempted to convey the easement,
but that easement document indicated that
Written consent would be required by all. So again, we're proceeding without the plan or proposed rear garages for these two units.
The original plan called for a proposed stair access atop each unit, along with an elevator shaft on the top of each unit.
There were some requests made by Logan Square's Planning and Design Committee to make some changes.
One was to have a cornice line along the front and to substitute the solid panel parapet wall with...
and to substitute the solid panel parapet wall with glass
so as to not have the appearance of a solid structure on the fourth floor.
So we have these ready suggestions by Logan Square
was to basically eliminate the solid panels,
at the cornice line and a glass parapet wall, which the revised plans do provide.
And again, on the floor plans, again, they highlighted and made those suggestions, which we have accommodated.
With regard to the actual pilot houses,
so again the uh the the original proposal was they would have a basement there would be a rear
garage a rear deck the kitchen living room with a vaulted ceiling two bedrooms on the third floor
and a master suite on the fourth floor all with elevator access to each floor as well as the roof
deck and the stair access again the rear it was originally proposed to have the two rear garages
with regard to the revised plans
I would point out that because the houses are considered one structure under the zoning and building code because it's one lot,
the pilot house and the elevator shaft, the square footage of same is well over the 160.
It's 63 square feet over the 165 square feet permitted.
If they were two separate lots, they would comply, and therefore the square footage would be sufficient,
and it would not count towards height of the building.
But because it's one lot, it's considered one structure, the aggregate of these structures, again, is 228 square feet over the 160 feet permit.
again the changes made to the plan were to do away with the proposed solid panel parapet walls
and proposed glass so that was changed another request pursuant to the rco meeting
was to recess the parapet back the deck back another five feet the original plan
had the minimum setback as required by the code.
We have since increased that by 10 feet.
Therefore, the proposed parapet and roof deck
are set back 10 feet from the front of the facade of the building,
thereby being further invisible from the street.
Another request was at the rear deck.
The homeowners on Appletree Street
had requested that it be set back three feet
from what was originally proposed so we have included that in the revised plans as well
looking at the rear of the property you can see the garage doors have been since been removed from
the plan replaced with double doors and that and and that area would now be used for storage for
the residential dwellings. Going back to my exhibits. So, obviously, the property was posted,
put the posters in the door, and there is a further picture of it. This is 2112. This is 2110 here.
as you can see 2112 is an existing three-story structure 2110 is a one-story structure which
was I believe built as an addition to 2108 at one point in time but has since been subdivided
and then consolidated with 2112 Cherry Street again you'll see these are the five homes that
I referenced, 2100 through 2108 Cherry Street, and our structures are here.
Again, you have Cherry Street, 21st Street, Appletree Street, the Cherry Street Tavern,
one of my favorite places to get a good roast beef sandwich on the corner.
With regard to the notice, the notice was sent out to all the neighbors.
It included the notice, the refusal.
the notice the refusal and a copy of the actual zoning notice identifying the time date and link
for this this hearing today
here's the list of addresses so there was a substantial number of addresses that were
included 163 pieces of mail were sent out pursuant to the certificate of bulk mailing
This was the link to the Logan Square Neighbors Association community meeting, which was held.
I would also point out we did have, prior to the public meeting, we had a Zoom conference meeting with the near neighbors to discuss and try and resolve any of the issues, which I hope we did.
As far as the zoning history, I mentioned that there was lot line changes.
This is the permit creating 2108 and then 2110-12 Cherry Street.
Here was the site plan pursuant to that.
Another site plan pursuant to another permit.
Again, it was to relocate lot lines to create one lot from two lots.
This was 2108-2110 Cherry Street.
The zoning map, the property is zoned RSA 5.
Again, if we were to subdivide it, the deed clearly indicates premises A and premises B.
However, there is one OPA account number.
Therefore, Ellen and I reviews this as one lot and therefore one structure.
And again, another version of the aerial view.
So, very briefly, in summary, we propose – let me blow this up – we propose a tube-dwelling
PUD, which is considerable in structure.
With regard to the proposed construction, it would be, in fact, two separate attached
structures on one lot with separate deeds of ownership, separate addresses, separate
real estate tax accounts, and separate utilities, all similar to what would be freestanding
single-family attached homes. The PUD versus the subdivision, it would be the same effect. We would
end up with two residential dwellings. The PUD eliminates the time and expense required for the
subdivision. The subdivision would result in the erection of two structures and would comply with
the height and the single-family residential use. However, it would require a variance for lot size.
We can get to that in a second. So with regard to the variance requests, the number of dwelling,
RSA 5 permits single-family use. It does not permit two-family use in a single structure.
The PUD is considered a single structure on one lot. Two separate dwellings in one structure is
considered multifamily. Subdivision would be considered two structures on two lots.
The project effectively proposes two structures on one lot. With regard to the height, RSA 5
permits 38 foot maximum height. The roof deck access structures are permitted and they are
the pilot house and the elevator structures. They would not be counted towards building height if
the pilot house was a maximum 125 square feet and a maximum 10 feet high. If you add the elevator
shaft or access structure you're allowed 165 square feet per structure that totals 114 for
each unit total together it's 228 square feet but since it's considered one structure we exceed the
165 square feet permitted. With regard to if we subdivided, the subdivision would eliminate the
height and use refusals. However, two variances would still be required for lot size. 1440 square
feet is permitted for minimum lot area. And our units at the 2110 Cherry Street or unit A
is 1,189 square feet, 2,112 Cherry Unit B would be 1,194 square feet. So when you look at them
in comparison, 2,100 through 2,108 Cherry Street are all 1,187 square feet with the exception of
2106, which for some reason is a bit smaller at 1173. 2114 Cherry Street is a through lot. It goes
out to Appletree Street. That lot is 1,664 square feet, as are several of the other properties. But
But the four at the end of the block are 936 square feet.
the four at the end of the block are 930 square feet.
So I would submit our lot size would be consistent with what's on the block.
And if we were to go through a subdivision, I would be confident that the board would be inclined to grant the variances for the lot size.
It brings us to the old idiom, six of these, half and a dozen of the other.
Two variances are required either way.
and you know the idiom is explained as the two alternatives are equivalent or indifferent
it doesn't matter which one we choose so obviously two variances would be needed
again if I go to the zoning map you will see
21 14 16 18 20 and i guess 22 are through lots so they are so you know they are larger in size
than the five lots existing to our right and the four lots existing at the end of the block
So based upon that, we do have a letter from the RCO.
They took a position of non-opposition by a vote of 26 to 2 with two abstentions.
Dennis Boylan is present, and I'll let him discuss this.
But at the time he submitted the letter, we did not complete our community benefits agreement
or the development agreement, but that has since been completed.
And again, I'll let Dennis address that.
I do have Reuven Mashaev on the conference.
Reuven, if you could raise your virtual hand to adopt my testimony, I would appreciate that.
While we're waiting for Reuven, you have revised plans?
How many pages?
Hello? Can I speak for a second?
Yes, please.
identify yourself spell your first and last name sir sure my name is Reuven Moshe if it's R-E-U-V-A-N
and my last name M-O-S-H-E-Y-E-V as a big term and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth I affirm thank you Sean uh Reuven very quickly you've
heard my representations to the board yes I do I just wanted to clarify one little thing
As far as the easement rights to the back of the property, for the record, it's still unclear,
and we're in the process of figuring it out because it was written in a little bit unclear way
whether we have the rights or not.
But this has nothing to do with zoning or refusals, but I just want to clear that up for the right.
And I would agree.
The easement issue is separate from the two zoning issues before the board,
and I believe Logan Square was aware of that and attempted to make that very clear to the neighbors.
all right so Reuben you've heard my representations are they true and correct
to the best of your knowledge information and belief yes they are and you adopt them as your
own testimony yes they do thank you very much Sean again how many pages two pages and they
are dated the revisions the revisions are dated 11 24 20 if that makes any difference to the board
thank you uh anyone uh any questions from the board no no anyone would like to testify in this
case if so please raise your hand uh dennis boylan uh logan square neighborhood association
hi dennis good evening uh good evening mr chairman uh yeah go ahead to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do and my last name is spelled b-o-y-l-a-n
just to confirm
a neighborhood development agreement
was reached between the
developer and the Logan Square Neighborhood
Association
and as
Mr. Ward
noted there were a number of instances
where they were responsive
to design related
issues that were put forth
the cornice line aligning up
the movement of the parapet back
on the Cherry Street
side the movement of the deck back on the apple tree street side the developer also agreed to
at the request of one of the neighbors that there's an issue with the tree pit to have
that removed out on cherry street and some bollards removed again was agreeable to that so
our documents are submitted and that's all i have mr chairman thank you thank you very much anyone
else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand good evening mr chair
good evening mr chair uh good evening whoever you are please
jared klein jared klein from blank rome it's k-l-e-i-n the address is 130 north 18th street
in philadelphia hi jared you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed thank you uh good good evening again everybody um i am here on behalf
of three near neighbors, Alexander Vecher at 2108 Cherry, Daniel Gerson at 2114 Cherry,
and William Boone, who's at 2113. And we have some additional concerns about these variances
that I will briefly describe for the board. I know it's been a long day and I'll try and be
as quick as possible. The first item is with regard to the parking, which has been referenced
a few times. I was originally brought into this matter to look at the parking issue and I can tell
you that we disagree with the developer that there's any confusion here. There is no access
behind 2108 to 2100 CHERRY that is on behalf of or for the benefit of 2110 to 2112 CHERRY.
The 1980 declaration of easement was very clear that any expansion of the easement had to be
confirmed in writing by every owner and that did not happen here. I do understand that's not
specifically a zoning issue. However, because the original plans showed parking in the rear
and the revised plan still refers to an access aisle, we are asking the board that to the extent
the board is inclined to grant the variances to include a proviso that specifically says no parking
in the rear um and while we have no reason to think that this developer uh would do anything
mischievous um this property will likely be sold and with the access aisle noted on the plans
it leaves the opportunity open for a a less um for threat developer in the future to simply add
parking back there and not tell anybody about it and so we'd like to have our clients have recourse
through L&I through a specific proviso to any approval that the board issues.
Second brief matter is the revised plans that you calculated were not provided to me or to LS&A
until yesterday afternoon. So my three clients have had very limited time to review them.
And also I wanted to note that the plans do not include any elevations which show how this
property is going to sit with the immediately adjacent properties on either side. Our presumption
is that those weren't provided because it would show the odd nature of this dual pilot house
configuration. But the point is, we haven't seen it. We haven't seen any elevations that would
reflect how this actual design will sit with the properties on either side. And the last comment
I wanted to make is with regard to this two-pilot house setup, I have not heard anything mentioned
thus far in terms of a hardship that would justify the variance that he's asking for.
We certainly don't object to the use of the property as two families. As Mr. Ward pointed
out, there would be two single-family lots. Each could have a single-family house. But I haven't
heard anything that explains why an elevator is required and why a second pilot house is required
for a residential row home type structure. There are thousands of properties throughout the city
that have roof decks that are simply accessed by a stairwell. And I haven't heard any justification
as to why this property is so unique that it needs to have both an elevator and stair access
to the roof so we we think that the dual pilot homes is excessive uh and out of character with
the rest of the block as no other property on the block will have either an elevator or a dual
dual pilot house set up uh and so there are also our houses in the city that do have elevators
there are but all right so it's not it's not that it's that unique right but those properties
presumably could do it without asking for a variance and and here they do need a variance
for the extra space and we don't see a justification for it and with that I would just like the board
or to have my one client unmuted so he can adopt what I've said and I will let other folks speak
for themselves Alex Veccher can you raise your hand please virtually
Mr. Vekker has been unmuted. He's free to speak.
Good evening, Mr. Vekker. Please identify yourself with the record. Spell your name
and give us your address, please. Alexander Vekker, A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R.
Alexander Vekker, A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R, V-E-K-K-E-R.
I'm sorry, could you say that again, your last name?
Vilek and Victor, E-K-K-E-R.
Thank you. And your address?
2108, Charest.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Alex, did you hear my statements a few moments ago?
Do you adopt them as true and correct in your own?
And was there a brief additional amount of information
you wanted to share with the board at this time?
First, I just confirm what you said
that we just looked at the plans yesterday.
We, for example, did not see it further set back
for the deck, but Mr. Ward is saying
there is an additional one.
Maybe we did need to take some more time
to look at this new plans.
We didn't have a chance to do so.
Also, I should add that my understanding that one of the developer's recent projects involved the construction of a townhouse two blocks from us at 2106 Spring Street.
I'm going to object.
What's the relevance of that?
There are multiple failed inspections and multiple code violations.
Irrelevant, not germane to this application, Mr. Chairman.
You're sustained.
that this is not relevant to this case and finally uh we're confused about some design elements
besides the roof uh front steps design um i do not see a reason for current design given the steps
are not consistent with the overall street scope uh i think a much better solution would be
to have the steps in the middle of the property rather than on the side
again mr chairman that the streets department has reviewed these plans
and has approved the front steps uh the the sidewalk is consistent with
the requirements of the streets department
we provide the five foot minimum walk zone along with the two foot minimum
furnishing zone for a seven-foot-wide sidewalk beyond the proposed steps.
I want to go back to Mr. Klein, one of his, I think it was his first question.
Is there any objection to the proviso regarding no parking in rear?
Yes, we would, because if that issue is resolved in the favor of my client through some other
proceeding which is not before the board today um then he would have every right to use the
easement area in the back to access um that that is that is for it that is for a different forum
these five structures all have parking in the rear right and and if and if for some reason
the easement is determined to to carry through to 2110 and 12 then then why should he be uh restricted
from using it if he if he's rightfully entitled to it understood thank you mr mr chairman what
what i'm trying to avoid here is any confusion about what is ultimately approved uh because
the original application referenced parking and the only removal of that was it was a revised
planned so perhaps the board would consider a proviso that said no parking approved in this
application the zoning board doesn't have to approve parking in this application it's
it's i i don't know beyond my pay grade all right when your client takes the fence down
starts parking back there we should call you sure okay okay all right we got that worked out thank
you uh anyone else anyone else uh we got one more person william boone
am i unmuted now yes you are please identify yourself yes yes yep i am william boone b-o-o-n-e
and i live at 2113 2115 cherry street which is directly across the street from the proposed
development we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do mr chairman thank you so we're in the south side of cherry street directly across from
this this development and it will substantially affect our home by decreasing the sunlight on our
house creating an odd view of pilot houses directly in our line of sight and changing the character of
neighborhood. We understand that the developer wants to add two residential homes on a lot after
demolishing the existing 2112 Cherry Street, the home of the late Tully Speaker, and we have no objection to
2112 Cherry Street, the home of the late Tully Speaker, and we have no objection to two new
residences being added to the neighborhood on these lots. However, most of the residences on
this street, for example 2112 through 2130 Cherry, have a 38-foot cornice line with flat roofs hidden
behind. The developer apparently intends to adhere to the 38-foot cornice line for a portion of his
project but we'll add another 10 feet of height with the addition of a roof deck parapet and
various pilot houses for elevators and stairwells. It is these pilot houses that we most object to
since they are too high directly in our line of sight blocking light and view and are atypical
for this neighborhood and unusual and completely out of character for this street. We hope some
accommodation can be made to eliminate these extensions above the 38 foot level thank you for
your time thank you anyone else yes i would like to add something your name i just i just wanted
to clarify and uh mr ward spoke about it but kind of around the building height will not exist 38
feet that is allowing by the zoning code it's only we're talking about the pilot houses and the pilot
houses they step back 12 feet and they're approximately on about three and a half to four
feet wide so it's really not going to impact anything and most of the people probably under
any angle unless you may be on the third floor of the house across you probably barely be able to
see them so they're really not doing any impact the building itself will not be 48 feet i'll agree
from the street line i don't know how you it may be from the upper floor of right right
from the houses on the third floor you'll be able to see but from the street you will not
okay all right that's correct okay what else do we have
okay questions from the board no
planning commission uh hello mr chairman and members of the board this is mason austin
representing the planning commission mason do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do and i would also let uh requested the host allow me to start my video
um to give my testimony um
um we've gone through three planning committee three folks yeah we're working maybe we'll get
a couple more before we wind up tonight you know what if we maybe give it a few more hours we'll
get there um so um this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive
plan and zone for that use while the new well two units are not permitted by right on this parcel
because the parcel could be subdivided into two lots that largely match the dimensions of the
adjacent lots. Planning Commission staff has no objection to the granting of the variances
requested. Thank you. MI 2020-001531 2110-2112 Cherry Street. My vote is yes with the following
proviso revised plan two pages approved today i think that was the only one am i right that's
correct i leave anything out okay yeah and again i will all do respect to the gentleman i don't
think you're going to see that unless you get to your top floor but roof decks are all over
the neighborhood now please thank you okay yes proviso proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you very much. That concludes my business and
I have the excuse. Yes, you may have a good evening. Are we back on Howard or are they
we get any resolution yet? I'm ready to speak to that, Mr. Chairman. Okay, Mr. Laver, let's go back.
We're back on to 1700-06 North Howard Street. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
We appreciate the board's thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Urban conversions is the equitable owner of the property.
The extensive cost of renovation of the historic building, engineering challenges, and environmental remediation of a 150-year-old industrial site pose great costs to this potential development.
We have submitted revised proviso plans in line with more appropriate RM1 standards, not to mention IRMX and ICMX.
The revised plans show a good faith proposal which is responsive to the demands of the historic designation and certain concerns from the community,
out of respect for the board and all parties involved, considering the amount of time that has been spent.
out of respect for the board and all parties involved considering the amount of time that has
been spent in good faith discussions today we respectfully ask the board to please uh
vote on this case uh this evening okay thank you uh i don't remember in the last round if
i asked if there's any questions from the board no i no wow uh planning commit anyone else we
already got the testimony uh planning commission i'm sorry chair yes if i could state that we
halted the hearing for mr labor to discuss and there is two people who have waited all evening
to speak if you don't mind i apologize i thought we were thrilled thank you thank you kindly
patina you can call the next person kristin menzies you've been unmuted thank you hi
Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself with the records, spell your last name, and give us your address.
Yes, this is Kristen Menzies. Last name is spelled M-E-N-Z-I-E-S, and my address is 1725 North Howard Street.
Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you. So as a first grade teacher, I have grave concerns about our local elementary school
with the increased traffic. I just know from personal experience that increased traffic
ultimately has an impact on community. And I worry, you know, what kind of retail is going
to be put into those spaces as well, and what kind of impact that will have on the school community.
um also as a teacher i have my summers off and looking at the renderings of the current
um apartments and single family homes that will be going in my roof deck will be completely
shaded by 12 o'clock noon um which is very disheartening so i just want to voice that
and hope that that makes an impact upon your decision thank you thank you thank you for your
patience now is that your dog it's not my dog no it was kristin's anyone else to testify
it's always me frank anupa you can go forward okay thank you my name is anupa dalal last name
is d-a-l-a-l i live on seven hello we just lost you hello
but it looks like she's gone anupa yep she's gone okay moving on we have gavami ruzba
yes good evening um um my name is ruzba last name is gavami that is g-h-a-v-a-m-i i'm actually
right next door to anupa we are a community of i need you to spell your first name as well
i'm sorry first name is roozbeh r-o-o-z-b-e-h and i reside at 1724 north hope street but we
are a community of eight units with an entrance from howard street directly excuse me sorry sorry
i just need to swear you in i know it's new nobody heard me say this yet you swear to firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth absolutely do yes sir
all right please proceed yes so we're a community of eight buildings uh our height we're directly
in front of the this proposed project our height our maximum height and the time to the top of our
roof is 35 feet and looking from our roof uh the height of this proposed well the current height
of this building is definitely not 40 feet it's less than ours it's probably about 32 to 35 feet
um this building going up at 65 feet it practically you know engulfs us completely
um by you know by by by twice as much doubles the size another issue as a couple of our other
residents mentioned is really just the increased traffic that is going to be on howard street
uh mr chairman you yourself said that both howard street uh hope street uh these are all
very tiny streets coming off of Cecil B,
even the Cecil B at that intersection
coming off of Front and Frankfurt.
These are very, very tiny streets.
Adding 100 units is, you know,
the amount of the traffic that is just gonna increase
in that street is just gonna be,
it's gonna be too much for that street.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony and your patience.
Anyone else?
Chair, we have Heather Roman.
Hello, Heather Roman.
Hi, Heather. Please give us your full name and address.
Hi Heather, please give us your full name and address.
Yes, it's Heather Roman, 1755 Waterloo Street.
Yes, it's Heather Roman.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
So the only, I guess, additional item, because I fully agree with everyone else's statement so far
and opposed to this property, but the only new I would just say that
And they stated that Cecil B. Moore is a commercial corridor, and I do not agree with that.
And I also would state that the zoning map that they showed was very carefully curated to show what they were wanting to present as far as zoning.
So the entirety of the rest of the housing around is still single-family housing, and that's just a very small section for zoning that was shown.
um the only other thing i would just add was that they again did not talk to any of the
neighborhood in advance of proposing this project so we would just i think that's the only other
new items aside from everything else everyone else has said thank you very much for your
testimony and your patience anyone else no more hands here rather than cross-examine mr chairman
there are just two things that i'd like to say briefly the letter from the rco uh acknowledges
that there were at least six meetings i i know i was a little taken back by that statement also
for the record howard street uh according to philadelphia water department records has uh is
50 feet wide which is not considered a small street by philadelphia standards waterloo i
would concede is a small street thank you i apologize i misspoke i thought it was a little
bit more narrow howard street okay thank you uh planning commission mr chairman and members of
the board this is mason austin representing the planning commission um the properties are
indicated for industrial use in the comprehensive plan but were rezoned in 2017 to single family
residential use multi-family housing would be allowed by a right in the retained historic
structure which would be appropriate given the proximity to the market frankfurt line
however the proposal for the rest of the site matches neither the comprehensive plan nor the
zoning and the density and height significantly exceed the number of units that would be permitted
even in nearby multi-family zones accordingly planning commission staff is opposed to the
granting of the variances thank you very much
am i somebody somebody asked me was somebody trying to speak no
okay uh mi 2020-000832-1700-06 north
mr chairman you're on mute we can't hear you frank you're on me i'll try that again
I'm sorry, all day this computer. MI 2020-000832-1700-06 North Howard Street, my vote is no.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is no.
excuse me um if you're going to vote yes on this i believe there are revised plans
is that correct mr labor i was just about to uh mention that well since i voted no who
what does the vice chair then she voted yes does she propose the uh yes that's right
right so we re-vote yes with revised plans consisting of one pages two pages
yes for proviso yes for proviso
my vote is still no and i believe mr holliman's vote is still no my vote is no
thank you okay next case mi 2020-001-530-5027 spruce street thank you mr chairman members of
the board good evening good evening Rachel please identify yourself spell your name and we'll swear
you in I'm sorry Rachel I promoted you to panelists thanks Tanya please proceed good evening chairman
members of the board rachel pritzker r-a-c-h-a-e-l p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1635 market street
suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 we're determined to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes please proceed carol rachel to agree to wait the reading
please proceed carol rachel do you agree to wait the reading of refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes do you also have you also emailed a an exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance a copy of the refusal and referral photos and or plans of the property five days
in advance to of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes okay
you may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. I'll make this brief. So this is 5027
Spruce Street. This is a proposal of an existing structure that is zoned RSA 3 that was previously
approved by this board quite a bit ago for four units. We are proposing a fifth dwelling unit
and are looking to obtain a variance for this fifth dwelling unit and a waiver from the required
parking and residential district. I will show you photos of the property, but it's an existing
structure um located on 50th and spruce with no ability to provide the three parking spaces
um just so that the board is aware there are many other multi-family properties um on this
block specifically because the properties on this block tend to be quite large in nature
for example our property is uh again rsa3 but it's about a 5100 square foot structure on a
2 000 square foot lot and given the additional livable space in the lower level of this structure
we are seeking to add an additional unit to provide a more affordable unit for the neighborhood.
These are the neighboring properties that the board can see. 20, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33, and 41 are
all multifamily despite being RSA 3 properties. And again, our property is the largest on this
block at 5,100 square foot building on a 2,000 square foot lot. We met with the coordinating RCO,
tax clearance, the deed. Again, this is just the zoning map of the area so the port can see.
Aerial photos, you can see how large the structure is compared to the neighboring structures.
We met with the coordinating RC. This is an outside photo of the property.
Just want to make a point to show the storage space right now, as you can see,
um with has um not only windows for egress but there are is a door up to grade as i know um
is important for uh egress and uh fire considerations so we are compliant that
way just want to make sure to show that to the board these are the other units just so the board
can see let me um see if we put the other ones in here these are all the other units five units
um here so as you can see there's a door up to grade so it's not nobody's going to be climbing
out of these windows you can actually access this unit separately um so that was important
consideration and then lastly we met with the uh here's the entrance as you can see
we met with the um i think it was garden court um on october 14th here's the letter uh we had 10
in support, one in non-opposition and did obtain a letter of support from the organization. Here's
our proof of mailing. And we also got letters of support from near neighbors. The owners of this
property actually own a couple of nearby properties. And we had a lot of the tenants speaking
to sort of the appreciation for the affordable unit and how nice of a way that they keep these
properties. And we're excited to see that there was going to be another opportunity for someone
to be able to live in this neighborhood.
So we also had them get some of the near neighbors as well
who also attended that meeting.
I'd like to bring up the plans really quickly.
I'm just going to stop sharing
so we don't have to look at my atrocious inbox.
just to make sure there are no questions about plans on the site and while i'm doing this tanya
if you don't mind bringing up um lorraine wilson drake um who is the owner of the property just so
that um she can get sworn in and adopt my testimony as well we also have the architect
as well if the board has any questions regarding the plans, which I will show right now.
Sure, can she raise her hand?
Yeah, Lorraine, can you raise your hand so you can speak?
I'm here.
A little feedback.
little feedback he has two devices connected can you mute one of uh the devices
She has two devices connected.
i just want to provide the plans for the board this is the existing lot
and then right whenever you're finished you can try unmuting yourself again so the plans
so do you have to have both devices why don't we do this uh if we can't get her on
rachel as an officer of court will stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony
thank you i appreciate that happy to take any questions uh that the board may have
any questions from the board no no
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands.
Thank you.
Rachel, did you happen to get a letter from the councilwoman by any chance on this case?
no um we didn't we did send that information to their office um as did the rco but i don't
believe that we got a letter okay no worries uh planning commission mr chairman and members of
the board this is mason austin representing the planning commission the property is indicated for
single family residential and the comprehensive plan in a zone for that use the present four unit
building was constructed in 2016 pursuant to a variance which was awarded with the proviso
that the building matched the plan submitted.
However, given the support of the RCO and Neighbors,
Planning Commission staff has no opposition
to the granting of the requested areas.
Thank you very much.
MI 2020-001530, 5027 Spruce Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So you want to go through the next five cases
or should we wait until tomorrow?
I think we should wait until tonight at 11.
The midnight hour.
Thank you so much, everyone.
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you.
I know it was a long night.
Thank you.
Have a good night, everyone.
All right.
Thank you.
I'll be honest.
I didn't think.
I thought we were going to catch a break with all those continuances.
Oh, the continuances.
I know.
Well, you know, you guys have been around long enough.
You get one or two cases.
I know.
You never know.
That's okay.
We're troopers, Chair.
I'll see everybody at 9 o'clock at our executive session.
You got it all.
Stay safe, everybody.
Thank you.
Thank you, Steph.
Bye-bye.