block here you can see an aerial photograph and if if you follow the my cursor as best you can on
the left again that's shack and maxon and running all the way along the side of the street are those
front-loaded single-family homes and here's day street on the on the right where the trees are
this is the former uh residence which was um uh demolished and there are now two new
construction homes there suitable for growing families
in this next photograph you can see a view from Shacken Street I have an objection Commission
um are these photo these photographs I'm not seeing authentication of them who took them when
Mr Labor your response
um Madam Chairman and members of the board the photographs that I'm sharing with you
are a combination of public records and photographs that my client and or the the design team have
taken common in hearings before this board to share photographs like this okay yeah okay so
we all love that madam chairman and members of the board the the photograph here shows a view
from Shackamaxon Street along Wildey Street.
We are on the left seeing the single-family homes.
These are the older construction.
And in the background on the left, in the distance, you can see
and in the background on the left in the distance you can see day street and again the subject
property also on the right side of the street um it's covered by by your photographs here i don't
know if you can see it but just to the left of mr mcadams up on the screen you see the tip
of a garage just to give you a sense that even on the right side of the street if you will
we have some parking as well but most importantly i really wanted you to see
the the view of shakamaxon along wilde and here we have some photographs that have been
uh taken by uh our development team and we are looking towards shackamaxin from day if you will
along will do street with the older single family on the left and the under construction
completing construction uh single family homes the subject properties if you will on the right
you can see the homes with parking long existing parking and we'll just go through these relatively
quickly let's move around the corner though so this photograph is not the most current this is
before the new construction homes went up because we are on day street facing towards
will d street which would be on the left and this corner here that's vacant is the site of the new
construction homes that you saw a moment ago but what i wanted you to see is that just adjacent to
this site on day street we also have the subject that's before the zoning board today the off street
accessory parking for other homes and if you look at the next photograph taken from public records
as i mentioned a mix of public records and also our photographs this is from
the stormwater photographs from the philadelphia water department but you can see
that condition that i mentioned off of day street just beyond the subject properties
the proposed zoning site plan on the left we have um existing and on the right we have proposed
now with existing uh we are showing the most recently constructed new construction homes 209
and 211 east willie street left 209 right 211 and because of uh lni's review of these matters
in requiring the documentation and confirmation we are not showing uh any parking there although
i have highlighted what is there if you walk if you go out to the site as i did and that is
existing curb cut here uh on the lower left just to show you as i had shared from 1987
87 the entire block face was like that, but on the right.
Here's the documentation and confirmation new single family homes as proposed each with the 2 cars out front each with a curb cut.
This presents a plan that is consistent with the conditions along the street.
this plan conforms to what had previously been approved by this zoning board of adjustment
what had previously been a port approved by the department of licenses and inspections
and what had previously been approved by the streets department albeit many years ago for
this entire side of wilde street the notices of refusal are they were each each case was
each application was reviewed by a separate zoning examiner however each examiner
independently i presume issued the same three refusals for each of the two properties
refusal number one surface parking is prohibited in the required front yard
this board previously determined that there was hardship at this property
for this specific use and granted variance relief we saw that before so there is a record
of this board finding hardship for the same issues indeed there are existing curb cuts
there is an existing curb cut on the site
refusal number two proposed parking may not be accessed from the front street
that is true however there's a particular hard show
that is true however there's a particular hardship at this location along this block
every other home from shaka maxin to day street has documented front-loaded parking
the narrowness of the street and the existing curb cuts prohibit viable on-street parking
refusal number three the last of them the proposed stall depth is 16 feet instead of code required 18
feet for a standard parking space i would submit madam chairman and members of the board that this
is de minimis the 16 feet meets compact car parking pursuant to the code depth in the zoning
in the zoning code as current i have never seen a letter from a coordinating rco
that actually speaks directly to the grounds for granting variance relief as the letter from
fishtown neighbors association does which i'm sharing with you right now i can't argue this
case better than the own community does fna states that the proposed front yard parking
matches the existing streetscape specifically the homes at 201 through 207 east will do street
which have long existing front yard parking as as fna states and i know mr everett or i believe
mr everett is here to speak at the appropriate time directly and not through me fna also notes
that the new homes match the setback of the adjoining homes and the rest of the block
we're not talking about anything different and fna notes that given the existing context of the
block the need for off-street parking in this specific narrow street area and the applicant's
willingness to work with neighbors the community supports this proposal this is the letter before
you fna also notes that the applicant specifically seeks two spots per house to accommodate families
and the discussion part of the discussion at the community level was how unusual it is
to find residential new construction that is geared towards family living room for kids
room for elders who might be part of the family unit etc
district council member mark squilla vice chairman of the city council streets committee
uh submitted a letter of support for both of these um variants requests writing i stand in
support of the variance request and the addition of two parking spaces per residence
so we've heard from the coordinating rco we've heard from the long-standing district council
member who happens to have a particular knowledge of issues like this but what about the the near
neighbors where do they stand on this they stand in support uh mr siebert has spoken with uh as
many of the his near neighbors as possible and the near neighbors who are immediately adjacent
along east willdy street the ones who actually have been have these homes that were approved by
the board back in 87 uh have submitted their support as have some near neighbors around the
corner so we have will d street we have shack and maxon and that's now in the record as well
so madam chairman and members of the board we truly believe that the authorization of
variance relief will not alter the character of this neighborhood or district or be detrimental
to the public welfare and furthermore the photos reflect that this proposal fits the neighborhood
we have prepared this map showing examples of similar parking nearby
which we understand is not determinative but it does speak to context and it all fits in
to this story that I heard loud and clear that this fills a need in the community.
Not that this should be policy. No one is saying that this should be policy in the city of
Philadelphia. No one is saying that the code is wrong. No one is saying that streets department
regulations are wrong. What we are saying is there are unique circumstances that
What we are saying is there are unique circumstances that warrant this relief.
Here we are right next door along Wildey Street.
This Shack and Maxon is on the left, giving you an example of how people have used these homes for the last 39 years.
Here we can see some other examples from that map nearby in the neighborhood known to those who.
i think he showed us a lot of that that's happening in the area so we're good with that
so in sum to conclude and thank you for bearing with me the support of the coordinating rco and
the district council member the support of the most immediately impacted neighbors speaks to
the granting of relief being of benefit to the public and within the spirit of the zoning code
the proposed variance before you would represent the minimum variance to afford relief and
represent the least modification possible of the regulation at issue the grant of variance relief
will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets increase the danger of fire
or otherwise in danger of the public health safety or general welfare in fact we're taking
some traffic off the street with a low impact use this is not public parking that is in and out it
is vested neighbors who care about their community care about safety there are no light and air
issues this will not adversely affect transportation or unduly burden water sewer school park or other
public facilities there are no environmental issues we have architect carrie jackson yans
available virtually mr siebert as you know is here and we are pleased to uh answer any questions
but the board may have let's um bring your client on to adopt your testimony okay mr siebert
kindly come up the seat and be recognized by uh the chair
hi can you state your name is phillip for the record sure henry siebert s-i-e-b-e-r-t
okay and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay thank you go ahead good afternoon mr siebert i know that you've been present uh
physically in the city of philadelphia zoning board of adjustment hearing room were you able to hear the testimony that I offered fully and clearly today?
Yes, and would you adopt and affirm it as your own?
Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nissen.
Now, if I may have the opportunity to cross-examine would that be now, or would that be?
Yep. Yes. You can share a microphone with this attorney. Yeah, move up. Mr. labor. I think your client will use the microphone.
Mr. Siebert. Hello.
um mr siebert um as a developer and as the developer who is the applicant here for both
209 and 211 east wildy street you obviously submitted a lot of plans over over time
and those plans started as early as january of last year
is that right you have to affirm in the microphones get your kid i believe so
Was there a plan submission among the plan submissions? Was there one in January of last year?
I don't remember the date. I don't remember the date, but.
Probably, and also Mr. Siebert as part of this process, did you, um, take meetings with any buddy from the city from one of our departments in the city?
i did yes which action as to relevance
yes um
mr c this this testimony i'm trying to elicit is relevant to the review that my client undertook
to determine appropriateness that is to say safety of this project okay yep madam madam
Madam chairman and members of the board, this is not a development review committee of the streets department.
We have 3 refusals before the zoning board of adjustment.
I failed to see what refusal this inquiry is leading to.
Okay. Yep, we're gonna allow it is my what is questioning. So go ahead.
Continue Mr. Siebert.
You met with the streets department, correct?
Correct.
Who was present at this meeting?
i'm not sure of the names but councilman squilla was on the call and mr siebert your
application as it stands now calls for the installation of one further curb cut
as well as three more parking spaces than are at the...
three more parking spaces than are at the location as it stands i'll defer to you adam
mr madam chairman and members of the board the application speaks for itself
we we have proposed uh the replacement of the prior non-conforming zba granted uh
uh front-loaded uh curb cuts with two new curb cuts yes there had been one curb cut at this
particular location we'll we'll stipulate that okay okay mr siebert in this meeting
you said that you would offer to have only one parking space for both 211 and 209 respectively
correct i don't recall stating that
you don't recall offering a condition so material to your application correct okay once again
objection as to relevance that is relevant uh go ahead you want to continue on are you done with
the question i have no further no further uh cross-examination testimony for mr siebert thank
you sir uh is there another i i have a a follow-up um which rather than um questioning i'll i'll just
state we will we will stipulate madam chairman and members of the board that the streets department
through its own review process uh had a series of concerns regarding this site and we disagreed
with those concerns we engaged in good faith discussions with the streets department the
streets department issued um uh sr approval letters as they're called uh which allowed
called Mr. Siebert and the development team to proceed with the processing of the application
through L and I the streets department issued certain conditions uh to those letters the
development team did not agree to those conditions so uh there is a different clearly there's a
difference of opinion uh here which we actually tried to address uh when we heard on the Eve of
this hearing that council from the streets department was going to appear i have one recross
if i may have one recross question mr siebert in the meeting i was referring to
did you offer to place a deed restriction on the property or properties
limiting the properties to just one accessory parking space each i don't recall that
And if you had done that, what would that mean for the supposed hardship of not having 4 total parking spaces?
Mr. Seabird is not a lawyer to speak to legal grounds here.
Okay. All right. You could. I am. Okay. Do you have any other summations or?
So, Mr. Labor, do you have any additional witnesses you are going to call for your presentation?
uh not at this time ms emerson okay and did you have any other remarks or things you were
were you going to present as part of your presentation no we would just reserve the
right if uh the streets department has more we we may have no absolutely okay so let me
make sure you were done before we okay moved on and then mr kniffin can um give his his remarks
i believe you have a witness to call as well i did yes thank you go ahead commissioners good
Good afternoon. I am here. I am counsel to the two streets department, and I'm here today
on their behalf to address aspects of this project that were within their purview for
review. In particular, it's those aspects that touch on the city's public right of way.
commissioners as you know under the city's home rule charter and under the city code
the responsibility for reviewing and approving these items in the right of way including the
installation of moving of or modifying curb cuts and access from the street to accessory
parking generally rests with the streets department in this case in ordinary course
uh the applicant submitted uh such a request as a prerequisite to their lni approval
my client undertook a holistic review of the circumstances of traffic engineering
my client undertook a holistic review
of a number of technical aspects and made a fact-specific determination
that the proposal in its inclusion of four spaces presented an unsafe scenario and so
So recognizing the applicant's difficulty, but also recognizing the need for safety, my client issued a conditional approval that was sufficient in providing those concerns and meeting the needs of safety.
And I do want to address briefly Mr labor's opening Mr labor points to um a 1987 ZBA approval
which a stencil which which carried a street signature as well however Mr labor has not shown
a permit uh allowing curb cuts per se from streets on that on those two lots or
than that one lot but more importantly he has shown no evidence that there ever was
a significant step toward building or the building of a curb cut and without both of
those things mr labor cannot show the applicant cannot show vested rights the vested rights to
allow them to build these curb cuts and so the changes to the zoning code as recently as 2012
are in full force when it comes to these two laws