colin clark uh yes coming in now all right thank you
yes i'm here hi good morning pastor could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
Sure. Sharon Clark, S-H-A-R-O-N-C-L-A-R-K-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel?
Pastor Clark, did you hear my testimony before the board?
I did.
And did you see the exhibits that I posted and presented to the board as well?
Yes, I did.
And do you adopt my testimony and the exhibits as your as your own as if you had testified?
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Just real quick, so can we can we see this sign again?
Just real quick.
I'm sorry.
You showed the comparison.
can you see that yeah okay so this illumination this is just going to be during the day
is there it's it's not going to be at night right uh pastor clark
it's gonna be up all the time yes during the day during the night and illuminated that day and
night yes okay all right um and you said what's around the church there's no to one side is the
social security administration building and and the other neighbor is a commercial auto mechanic
okay all right thank you and that and that that picture right there i just that's on the church's
property that's not on the of course the pavement is wide so but that the sign is on the church's
property not in the right of way correct correct okay questions for our attorney
questions uh no questions questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands chair planning commission good afternoon liz fuselay on behalf of the
philadelphia planning commission the comprehensive plan recommended no change to the cmx2 commercial
mixed-use zoning at this location the existing non-illuminated signage was approved by variants
in 2007 this new variance request will not substantially or permanently injure the
appropriate use of the adjacent conforming property the city planning commission recommends
that the board grant the use variance mi 2026 000 487 5707 mcmahon avenue i vote yes michael
johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes layla bibi my vote
is yes thank you council thank you board okay number 13 mi 2026 000 491 502 west glenwood
Avenue. Pascual Cavallari is Cavalvita is the attorney.
Pascual has been promoted.
Okay. Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell before the stenographer?
Oswald Polavita. P-A-S-Q-U-A-L-E-C-O-L-A-V-I-T-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel, could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yours is Victor Lealazuna to my left.
Okay, and there's...
And he is the owner. I'm sorry.
is sure there's a letter of support from 8 pm but also a letter of non-opposition from
council member Lozada and you also have given us a petition with 80 signatures our vice chair has
a few questions okay good afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days
in advance of this hearing I have and did you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy I do okay thank you you can share your screen and proceed with your case
bear with me a moment
here we go
okay again Pasquale Colavita attorney for Victor Lealizuna who owns 502 West Glenwood Avenue
So we, as Chair has stated, we've received a letter of support.
We've submitted the documents listed within this table of contents, indeed,
the notice of refusal, the application, the PIF form.
There are a set of zoning plans, and I'm going to go right to that one right now.
These have been stamped from a prior recent approval.
uh recent um approval and mr ozuna has continued uh to uh perform uh construction to the property
to at the very least right now it's it's um it was approved for a the erection of a structure
and the use would be for parking only, as you can see on the document that's been shared.
He has been continuously doing the construction on it.
He's received all of the proper permits.
He's got a mechanical permit, a plumbing permit,
and I want to say just a regular construction permit to go along with it.
So what else is there?
And again, 80 petitioners, the photograph of the lot itself with the notice poster, the indication that there's a zero balance on for real estate tax.
As before, I don't know what the issue is, but I don't know if his EIN number is social security number, but there's some confusion as far as getting the proper clearance.
But the board has accepted a zero balance on real estate taxes for the property and it passed and asked that you do the same today.
and here's the letter of support and I can stop sharing this for one moment to
get to share a different screen of what it actually looks like today and right
now that's what it is like and i for some reason struggling with the photographs that were provided
by my client but that that's the lot that is what in essence where the uh construction construction
is taking place i can stop sharing that and show you an additional photograph of what it looks like
inside. Has this been shared? No. No. Sorry. Okay. And right now, he's building the foundation
for that. Basically, it's going to be an office. So here, the request is that it will be for used
cars with the same amount of space that is presently there. There's no change in what is
already permitted. The only difference here is instead of just parking, you will also be selling
vehicles. The structure that is being built on the property, which is permitted per the last
zoning permit, as well as under the present building permit, that there is no change in
the difference between what it's going to look like presently and once this job is completed
and it's just the use and we did not need to submit an architectural plan, but I can
I can either show it to you again, or let's go to the plan.
And if you have any questions on this, but we have community support,
pretty extensive amount of support on it with with all of the with the petitioners
no one opposed it I know it was not the most attended well attended meeting but to me and
and I'm sure the board has heard this in the past usually people show up when there's a problem
if they don't have a problem with it they tend to just let it go and the people that did attend
and did vote in favor of the project so we just we're only looking at my right we're only looking
at the use okay well I'm talking to our council here we we're only looking at the use for this
okay yes that's it I'm looking at the property the building no not at all so why don't you bring
your client on to adopt your test okay let's stop sharing and mr uh liao um did you hear my
presentation yes and could i have hold on hold on could i swear him in first oh sure
Could I have, hold on, hold on, could I swear him in first?
Oh, sure.
State your name and spell it for the stenographer.
State your name.
Yes, my name is Victor G. Leo Osuna.
Spell it, please.
Victor, G-I-C-P-O-R, G is our middle name, Leo, L-E-A-L, and the second last name, O-Z-U-N-A.
All right, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel.
Thank you. Did you hear my presentation today? Yes. Did you observe the documents that I
shared with the board? Yes. Do you agree with the information stated within the presentation?
Yes, sir. And do you adopt that, my words, documents, and testimony as your own? Yes, sir.
questions on the board has the streets department reviewed the the plan and approved
yes that was done at the last this is just a change of use this is not
anything else but the end and on top of everything the building permit has already
been issued that is listed as exhibit give me one moment
And Exhibit 9 has that actual permit itself, which is part which at the last zoning hearing on this, we did get the streets approval in order to move forward with the appeal and the refusal.
So, yes.
All right. Thank you.
That's the long answer.
Other questions.
So you're going to do auto sales?
yes and maybe well this is what i remember um but you have to have a building
correct to correct auto sales so that's why you're doing this
no the the building is already approved we're building i'm saying that you still need to have
the approval for the use for auto sales but to have auto sales you have to have a building
you have to have a one unit structure yes exactly yes okay so just just so um how many
cars do you think you're going to be um selling out of this i let me let me go back and take a
look at the prior permit which would indicate the total amount so there there are only five spaces
six parking spaces that are available so the maximum that he would have on site would be six
at a time okay and then he has some other place where he's gonna have cars as well these are these
new cars used cars what do we use cars okay all right young whatever the proper terminology is
these days all right and none of this is going to take place outside of the confines of the
um property space correct it's not supposed to so the answer i i have to guess of course
yes that is my question yes yes yes so um and then
so then um is there uh some place for people to park who are going to um uh look at the
look at that that area there's there's a significant amount of commercial space
Plus, I mean, they can park in front of the actual because there is a ramp that the streets is approved to enter into the property.
And I'll be honest with you. Do you recall how it's that I helped them with the consolidation of the deed?
So I cannot imagine this is anything less than 45 feet wide on the street, because it used to be 502, 504, and 506 West Glenwood.
But right now, the only address is 502.
But it is a three-lot, odd-shaped property.
So there's, at the very least, 45 feet of street parking in front of the premises,
which i don't i don't i would assume that you can probably fit at the very least three cars
back to back minimum okay 1970s style vehicles okay thank you sure the question um so is the
only entrance on glenwood avenue interested okay all right thank you other questions questions
Other questions questions from our attorney.
from our attorney.
Not at this time, questions or comments in the virtual warning audience? No hands.
Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Liz, usually on behalf of this Philadelphia planning commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning from CMX to commercial mixed use.
To arm 1 residential multifamily.
this location is a mix of residential residential mixed use as well as commercial uses there is no
unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being
used in strict conformity with the zoning code the city planning commission recommends that
the board deny the use variance thank you mi2026 000 491 502 west glenwood avenue i vote yes
michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes
leila baby my vote is yes thank you have a great afternoon all right thank you before we start the
next case i have three cases from this morning we're going to change the date so and i'll do
of them all three at once, 3142 North Taylor Street, which is MI 2025-005-591, 911 West
Huntington Street, which is MI 2026-000471, and 6900 Lindenburg Boulevard, MI 2026-0008111,
one all three will be heard on 12 9 26 at 9 30 a.m and now number 14
mi 2026 000 498 32 22 to 48 richmond street stephanie box is the attorney um
council could you please state your name and spelled for the stenographer
It's supposed to be the morning. It's supposed to be the morning. Oh, sorry. Stephanie, S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E. Last name's Magania, M-A-G-A-G-N-A.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
My client is Richmond Street Donuts, LLC. They are the ground lessee at the point.
All right. And I noticed Port Richmond has had unanimous support and a letter of support from Council Member Driscoll.
Correct. Our vice chair has a few questions. Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have. And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to the accuracy? Yes. All right. Thank you. You can show your screen and proceed with your case.
Thank you. So this site is 3222 to 48 Richmond Street.
We are about 2 blocks from the exit ramp into Port Richmond from I-95.
So this this location kind of serves as an entryway to Port Richmond generally.
It's zoned ca1. You can see a narrow strip of ca1 here bordering the park and the right of way for Delaware Ave.
kind of adjacent to the residential zoning behind us historically the site at least in recent memory
has been used as a Wawa up until about 2024 Wawa sold the property in 2024 to the current owner
it's sat it has sat vacant and since that time it's a challenging site for several reasons it's
pretty narrow and has struggled to kind of find exactly what the right redevelopment for the site
So it has become a nuisance in the neighborhood. Honestly, it's kind of a source for some vandalism, trash, debris that that we've been aware of.
And we've been working with the council's office in connection with this redevelopment to kind of bring a new option for this site.
This application specifically proposes to redevelop the property, demolish the existing building, and build a new one-story structure for use as a takeout restaurant, and specifically a Dunkin' Donuts with a drive-through as its primary use.
This is an elevation drawing kind of showing what that building is going to look like with different points of contact throughout the building for your primary order point, as well as the pay window and the pickup window, which we'll get into.
We are seeking several forms of relief here. The primary one is a special exception for the use. Takeout restaurant requires a special exception in CA1.
As a general matter, because this use is limited to the drive through, there is no seating indoors.
And as a Dunkin Donuts, our peak hours are primarily in the morning as compared to some other similar drive through takeout restaurants where you'd have several peak points throughout the day.
similar drive-through takeout restaurants where you'd have several peak points throughout the day
so as a broad matter we believe that this not only will this not be more detrimental than expected
for this type of use but in certain ways less so and certainly an improvement on the property we
also have two dimensional variances that we are seeking one is for the location of the speaker
order point that is required to be 50 feet from adjacent residential properties we are 44 feet
We have a six foot difference. We have worked closely with our neighboring properties behind us, particularly on our landscaping buffer that I'm going to show you momentarily.
But we can also control the volume on that speaker to make sure that that impact is minimized.
Because of the configuration of the site, there's also a variance request for the side yard and rear setbacks from the stacking lanes.
We have a five-foot rear yard setback in the back, again, where we have a pretty dense landscaping buffer and a zero-foot setback on the side that borders the Sunoco that is next to us, where there is a landscaping berm at the corner of their property.
So, functionally, there is a divide between the two uses, but our stacking lane will abut their side yard as well.
As I mentioned, we've been working on this project since its kind of inception closely with the council's office.
we met with propac on may 4th we have their unanimous letter of support that we're happy to
include as well as a letter of support from councilman driscoll who has said who's been
involved here's a copy of our initial site plan as you can see the plan was approved by the planning
commission for purposes of landscaping we have two entries and two exits here on the original design