your email address and the address of the property at issue with that being said before our vice
chair calls our first case we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal
for this afternoon's hearing in the meantime i will read off a list of continuances that
have already been requested mi 2020-001824 128 north 53rd street mi 2020-000328 4609 hedge
MI 2020-001923-4916 Warrington Avenue.
If the applicant or an attorney is present and you disagree,
If the applicant or an attorney is present and you disagree with the cases that have just been
continued, please raise your hand. And again, I'll repeat, if you're asking for a continuance or
withdrawal, please raise your hand at this time also. Excuse me, Chair. This is Sharon Saleta.
Warrington was actually withdrawn.
oh you're right i got it sorry to mi 2020 does zero zero one nine two three four nine one six
warrington avenue is withdrawn thank you any other requests here we have tina marie russell
she's been unmuted
Ms. Russell, please identify
yourself with a record
you're under oath from earlier today
Ms. Russell, are you here?
I'm sorry, can you hear me now?
Yes, ma'am
Okay, thank you
Tina Marie Russell, North Central Philadelphia
CDC, in reference to
2200 North Lambert Street. Number is 39818 and it's 1037-017. We're asking for a dismissal.
The applicant did not show on the first hearing and she has not been heard from either we reached
out to her than hear from her nor has she reached out to us since um the community meeting that was
held in um august um excuse me this is sharon saletta we have no exhibits for this it was
previously continued on september 30th um and we have an opposition letter from councilman clark
that references the rco opposition um if this is continued we would perhaps make it um must be heard
Yes. MI-2020-0002482200 North Lambert Street is continued must be heard.
Any other requests?
There are no other hands up at this time chair.
Excuse me chair this is Sharon Saleta if you would like at this time to read out
ask if anyone is present here for number eight or number nine i have no exhibits for either of
those cases and they have both previously been continued okay is anyone here for 5419 stewart
street or 5732 catherine we have anyone for either of those cases if so please raise your hand
no hands raised at this time chair thank you mi 2020 that's 000281 5419 stewart street
is continued MI 2020 that's 000251 5732 Catherine Street is also continued. Chair this is Sharon
Saleta again both of those were previously scheduled for 9 30 for rather September 30th
okay so if they could be must be heard yep thank you both of those cases are continued and must be
heard. Any other questions? Okay, before we begin, did we find the gentleman for 150
West Wyoming? Yes. All right, we'll hear that case first. Mr. Lambert, you ready? Yes.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Can you put your name and address on the record, please,
and spell your last name yes good afternoon my name is michael lambert last name is spelled l-a-m-v-e-r-t
i'm here with regards to 150 west wyoming avenue
yeah do you swear for all the whole truth and nothing but the truth
absolutely i do do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do thank you and have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents
including proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or 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 we have all of that and we have emailed it to your office i think my
Yes, we have all of that and we have emailed it to your office. I think my, yes, we've emailed it at least once at once.
Okay, thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you so much.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the board.
I am here with regards to 150 West Wyoming Avenue.
We're asking the board to allow my client to put a barbershop in this particular facility or this particular property.
This building was created initially as a C2 when the district was designated as C2, built as a commercial in the 1930s.
And it's maintained that commercial status for the most part, specifically 41.
It was a tailor shop, 1967 a retail store, 70 a candy, 75 a retail store.
Again, all having two families.
Lambert, hard to interrupt.
Do you have anything to show us?
Yes, I'd like to share my screen now, if I may.
Yeah, and if I can interrupt also, I'm reading where it says this permit is for the erection of an awning sign.
signed accessory to a barbershop on the entire first floor yes yes that is part of that is
part of the request yes but we we really want to make this a there's two of them really the
main thing is really to allow uh the um the client to run this facility as a barbershop
and to put up the awning yes sir okay is there anything wrong with the way this is being uh
described Sharon?
I'm sorry, Chair, I need a minute to go back and check the refusal.
Sure, sure.
If you'd like, Mr. Lambert could continue while I do that.
Please proceed, Mr. Lambert.
Thank you, sir.
I'd like to continue sharing my screen everything. So I wanted to briefly to provide the panel
with my document specifically the RCO that was that was approved. I also have a copy of the
site plan that i just provided um i don't want to go too fast let me know this is the history of the
zoning to show that it was uh it's actually vacant right now and since it was zoned as commercial
before we're trying to ask the panel to just allow it to continue to be zoned as commercial
on the first floor um that's the history keep going
you have seen also the letter of support that's the site plan and we also have
photographs bear with me so that's a photograph of the first floor keep going
that's inside keep going more inside photos keep going all the way through that's the front again
that's the windows and that's a picture of the whole building so those are the photographs keep
going those are all the photographs that we're providing to the board and um essentially at the
end of the day from when we're looking at this we um the community has no issues with uh the um
the barbershop one and two we want to uh keep it in the spirit of the community
because as we said earlier it's for the last 60 70 years has been a commercial district
for the most part and um you know my client has been active in the community for years
um many many years he's owned a barbershop across the street he now wants to buy this property
make the repairs
and take it from there
and be able to open this barbershop
in the near future.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
I did check the application.
It was, the use was applied for.
So the barbershop use is before you.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
Barbershop is part of the application.
Yes, it is.
Yeah, because on our sheet,
Sharon, it doesn't show that.
I know, the wording is very strange.
You should suggest it's on the sign.
No problem.
No problem. All right, Mr. Lambert, if you could tell, I'm sorry, you can summarize. That would be helpful.
All right, Mr. Lambert, if you could...
I'm going to tell him.
Yes. In summary, the bottom line at the end of the day, from our perspective, is we're asking the board to allow us to make this a barbershop in continuance with what the history of this property has been zoned as commercial.
So it does not go against the values of the community.
As we see, the RCO has provided a letter in support.
We have provided a copy of the proposed plans, and we've also provided a photograph.
Do you want to ask your client if they adopt your testimony?
Of course, indulgence.
They're actually on the Zoom.
I don't know if we have to allow them to come in.
I'm not the best technologically advanced person.
So I would ask our clients to check in.
They would have to put their hands up.
Is that Alvarez?
Yes, ma'am.
They've been unmuted and they can speak.
Ma'am, if you can identify yourself for the record, spell your last name.
Yes, I am.
Alvarez.
Please spell your name.
He's A-O-B-A-R-E-V.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
You've heard the testimony that I've provided today, correct?
Do you adopt everything that I've said, and do you agree with it?
Thank you.
any questions from the board no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your
hand chair we have sloan folks he's been unmuted thank you good afternoon mr folks
you're still under please identify yourself with a record good afternoon once again chairman
de Chica. My name is Sloan Foulkes, Office of Councilwoman Maria Quiñones-Sanchez, room 508.
Our office originally submitted a letter of non-opposition based on the community meeting
back in July 16th of this year when we expect the payments to be heard on July 22nd.
I am testifying on the record to reaffirm our non-opposition. Also, that there was a request for a proviso in the letter of support that was sent to the ZBA, and the letter of support, and the proviso at the bottom of the letter requested that the applicant return to the ZBA after two years to ensure that they would maintain the hours of operation
a Sunday 9 a.m to 9 Sunday I'm sorry Monday through Sunday 9 a.m to 9 p.m
with a total of five chairs. Excuse me this is Sharon Saleta but if the board were to add those
provisos would there be a need to return in two years since they would be enforceable?
and he owns it right it's not a lease
yeah mr folks we're going to do the hours of operation i don't know could we limit the number
of chairs um you could probably do that yes limit five chairs and you know they would remain
enforceable for the duration of the variance you understand that mr folks i understood and thank
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Any, anyone else would like to testify in this case?
No hands.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Good evening, Board.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
this property is indicated for multi-family residential in the comprehensive plan
and has not yet been remapped it is clear from the materials presented that the property has
a long history of being used for commercial mixed use accordingly we have no objection
to the granting of the variance thank you mi 2020-000186 150 west wyoming avenue my vote is yes
with the following provisos. Hours of operation Monday through Sunday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Maximum
Monday through Sunday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., maximum five chairs.
five chairs.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Are we going to Lambert Street?
Or was that continued?
We're going to Watt Street, correct?
Number three?
Okay, calendar number 0222, 305 South Watt Street.
This is Sharon Saleta, Councilman Squilla, and the RFCO oppose.
We have Ryan Boland. He's been promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes. Ryan Boland, B as in boy, O-L-A-N-D, 1801 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
We agree to waive the reading of the refusal, but will not stipulate as to its accuracy as we dispute that the one-year rule applies.
Okay. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including 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, as to everything except we never received the copy of the letter from the RCO.
okay you may proceed um excuse me mr if you could um specifically address the one-year rule because
the board will have to both separately on that yes certainly um so the one-year rule does not
apply here because there were some substantial changes made first off the height was reduced
And secondly, the rear setback was also reduced, and we have changed the use here.
This was a single-family home, and it has been changed to a duplex.
So the plans now show that there's a small efficiency unit on the first floor.
I'm happy to go into that in more detail, but that's the gist of why the one-year rule does not apply.
And so I'm here today. I represent Max Richardson. He is also on the line. We are here seeking dimensional variances.
And I think it's important before I go into the presentation to understand what we're dealing with here.
This is what my client sees when he steps out his front door.
So the lot here, the 300 block of Watt Street, it's a small street that's located just south of Spruce Street, just north of Pine, just west of Juniper, just east of Broad Street.
And as you can see, this is what he sees, which is a new building that's going up that's only 20 feet shorter than City Hall.