all right thank you thank you craig thank you
yeah so we're gonna we're gonna keep we're stopping right now because i have to still have two cases
i i believe there may be a neighbor also waiting i i craig i know but the issue is we got a couple
other cases and i i have to get it done before lunch time thank you craig craig when we come
back for the resumptive hearing i'm going to open it up to the public again we we greatly appreciate
that thank you very much mr i just want to see if the the planning commission wanted to put
their testimony or they wanted to wait for the resumption hearing we can wait for the resumption
hearing okay yeah all right thank you all right thank you all right seven
Number seven, MI-2025-002-161, 1653 South 23rd Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
And Mr. Chair, this morning there's been some correspondence between the RCOs involved in this matter and Mr. Anastasio regarding a continuance.
I asked that the RCOs come on.
Okay, sure. We'll bring the RCO on, too.
Yes, there's Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze, as well as the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
Correct.
Thank you.
Morning again.
Good afternoon.
So we're looking for, who is it, Hillary?
Which one?
So there's two RCOs, and I see two hands raised.
Okay, sure.
So that may be from the two RCOs.
okay okay chair i'm going to allow both parties to speak okay thank you
dr chinchilla you have been allowed to speak please unmute yourself
yes hi good morning good morning could you please state your name and spell for the
personographer uh dr chinchilla ch-i-n-c-h-i-l-a last name j-o-n-e-s-i-a do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes are you are you re-questioning
a continuance um yes and i am not the actual rco but i am requesting a continuance due
to the fact that uh the residents on uh south 23rd street were not notified of any meeting
um of the initial meeting um also uh we did not get notified uh that uh mr verne was
uh proceeding today uh without any revisions being made um he's proceeding with the same
things he had before and we want a chance to actually have a meeting none of the residents
have met with mr verne and so that's why we're requesting a continuance so that we can meet with
him find out what he's trying to do and to my understanding when uh the refusal you guys gave
him the refusal he has not made any revisions at all right all right um mr anastasio could you uh
Yeah, I mean, the respond, please, on your position, whether or not you want to continue.
Of course. I mean, I have no opposition. I mean, but to clarify the confusion of the last
person who spoke, we met already last year. Notice was sent. Of course, we have proof.
We've been doing this for a long time, but I understand the RCOs changed whatever happened
there there was one RCO that was on it then now the new RCO was on it happy to oblige no problem
presenting to another group thank you okay so um we're going to continue this case right to 7 22
26 at 9 30 a.m thank you mr chair sure thank you very much number 16.
number 16 mi 2025 006 494 53 east pastorius joseph consul is the attorney this is a lamping property
michael johns is going to um recuse himself
you were waiting for some things for the show mr. chair we have we've received everything that
You were waiting for some things for the show.
we're requesting yep so this matter is ready to go thank you i made it happen how's everyone doing
hey joe console made it happen could you name and spell for the stenographer yeah joseph console joseph
h last name console c-o-n-s-o-l-a um no rco summary but there was a meeting february
2025 right yeah it would seem fine we i don't know we emailed and called a million times and
they haven't gotten anything our vice chair has a few questions i think she just walked away one
minute how about our secretary has a few questions oh there she is five days in advance of this
hearing yes and do you waive the reading know the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do
okay thank you for sharing your screen and proceed with your key
my screen
Joe Consul here
for 53 East
Pastorius Street
with me representing
Chivetta Property Group is
Doug Fath
and he is available for
adopting my testimony
again we're here for 53 East Pastorius Street
and first
uh you guys were within a few minutes of the estimated time from that email yesterday so
congrats to ian that was pretty amazing seriously it's not us but go ahead okay
um kissing somebody's butt uh okay i want to know for the record um yeah okay we established all
that i got in everything we needed from the land bank uh and the different resolutions showing my
clients um uh agreement with the city and what they're what they're planning to do so we're
We're seeking to subdivide this single 3,000-square-foot lot into two 1,500-square-foot lots.
On each lot, we're proposing to erect a semi-detached single-family home.
We have refusals based on lot width.
That's 20 feet being offered versus the 25 feet required for the RSA-5 resulting lots.
Lot area offering 1,500 square feet versus the 2,250 that are required.
Side yard setbacks were offering five feet versus the eight feet required, and a lack
of off-street parking, which is required in the RSA 5 district.
We believe that given the layout of the other properties on this block, which I'll show
you in a second that these variances are appropriate and represent the absolute minimum necessary
modification to develop these sites in a way that mimics the existing neighborhood and is in line
with the affordable housing initiative that these properties represent. So first I'll show you what
the other houses look like that are on this side of the block. There's a lot of empty lots and
and there's one there that's being used
as kind of like a hangout space,
but it's like two together.
It's another one, two together,
empty lots on each side.
So what we're offering is to take our lot
and effectively divide it into two lots that mimic that.
There's the proposed on the left
and as it exists on the right.
Okay, and there's our refusal here's the lot itself to give you an idea of what the block
looks like there's a lot of empty lots like i said you can this photo actually helps you see
what we are attempting to mimic with what we're doing the two houses together with yards on the
side other documents our application tax clearance
legal descriptions and then i have the various council resolutions and letters which i don't
think we need because they've been they've been reviewed by by uh board attorney and so i think
that should be good um do you have any rendering what it's going to look like
I thought that I did. I was having trouble pulling it up. I might be able to call my client, Doug, to assist with that as well.
I thought that I did. I was having trouble pulling it up.
Doug, are you available?
Doug, Faith has been promoted to panelists.
Hello.
um could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer sure uh doug faith spelled d-o-u-g
last name f is in frank as an apple t is in thomas h is in harry right do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do okay could you um actually i i found
it um mr faith would you um so far adopt the testimony that i've given as your own yes okay
Okay. Would you describe, I found the document I was looking for, but would you describe the
document on the screen and how these properties are going to sit, how big they'll be in beds and
baths and things like that? Sure. So they are, I mean, they're going to match what's on the street.
So these will be three-story homes. You'll see up top, there's the mansard roof in terms of
the the exterior and then these will be uh three bed two bath homes around 1400 square feet
okay i'm nothing further for my client and open to questions questions from the court
questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see chair i have one hand up sure sure stacia last name starting with m i'm going to
allow them to speak thank you very much hello can you hear me okay i can could you please state your
name and then spell for the stenographer sure my name is stasia montero that's spelled s-t-a-s-i-a
last name Montero, M-O-N-T-E-I-R-O. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Are you a neighbor? Yes, I am. Please start your conversation.
Okay. So once again, good afternoon, all members of the floor. My name is Stasia Montero. I'm
testifying as a near neighbor to 53 East Pastoria Street. I live across the street at 46. And I'm
uh here today because um i've seen you know notification about this development and um
there are a few concerns that i just wanted to elevate here um one is about you know the
structural density that's being proposed um increasing the sort of footprint of the
structure as it's approved um we are already experiencing um the consequences of that as
There are three row homes developed across the street. The images that we saw that showed a lot of vacant land are out of date because, yeah, right across the street, there are three residential homes that were developed on a parcel that was subdivided into three lots.
And that was reviewed by the ZBA in March of 2022. That was deeded originally as 54 East Pastorea Street. Additionally, at 48 and 50 East Pastorea Street, and you can see them there.
So next score where it looks like a vacant lot in that picture, right now under construction are six residential apartment units on two lots, 48 and 50 East Pastorea Street, which was reviewed by the ZBA in June of 2024.
And that was originally zoned for two single family homes.
So we're already having increasing density in this location, and that is impacting our quality of life, both in terms of parking, which, as discussed, is a requirement for the 53 East Pastoria Street lot.
um and then also um in terms of the dimensions um we find that the apartment building that's
currently being developed at 48 and 50 which as i mentioned is directly next to my home
um using the maximum um amount of space in the rear um including on the third floor which is
not consistent um with the ways that the homes are being developed are current existing um in
that location so it just creates like more of like a looming sort of you know feeling in terms
of the structures and then of course increasing the density means that there's more demand for
parking so this is a relatively narrow one-way street and you know eliminating requirements
where there typically aren't requirements for parking for these types of homes just seems like
it is actually out of character with what's happening across the street.
is actually out of character with um what's happening across the street so the pictures
So the pictures that were.
that were shown um did not seem to have the existing driveways um which are on like the
i guess if you're looking straight on the left side of the property to the left
and then there's also a driveway um yeah to the left side of the properties that we're looking at
now um and it's a little hard to see in this angle for some reason but there is indeed a driveway
there. And there's indeed a driveway to the left of the structure we're looking at currently
behind that tree. So, yeah, I mean, there is a sort of existing characteristic. There are other
homes that are similar on the same side of the street as this that have driveways. So, yeah,
I just don't really see why we're eliminating or why it's being proposed to eliminate that parking.
And then finally, I just wanted to issue a concern about the level of engagement with
directly impacted residents. As was mentioned originally, this was scheduled for an RCO meeting
on Wednesday, January 28th. That presumably was canceled due to the major snowstorm that week. I
actually called the applicant attorney's office that day to verify if the meeting will be held.
I received no response, and I really didn't want to miss the conversation, so I did travel to the
meeting location under the IC conditions and found the building was completely locked. I received the
The subsequent letter postmarked February 13th regarding the meeting schedule on February 25th. And as you may recall, there was another major snowstorm that week. And so it's unclear to me what the level of engagement was with directly impacted residents that date or otherwise.
And as was mentioned, the RCO has yet to submit a summary letter. So it's unclear to me if they understand what the perspective is of the neighbors who will be most impacted.
Yeah. And then finally, I'll just mention that I do see that the Planning Commission, there's a note to the ZBA that the subdivision would be disapproved due to the lot within lot area.
So I think the concerns that I'm sharing, which I'm not alone in, I have been talking with my neighbors about this, are consistent with the recommendation that I see from the Planning Commission here.
So, yeah, I mean, I think that if we are able to give an option for broader engagement of neighbors who will be impacted by this, as we are already experiencing the compounding effects of heightened density on this block, that would be the most prudent way to approach it.
So I do wonder if we can make that happen.
All right. Thank you very much for taking the time to close.
Thank you.
Mr. Counsel, do you have any comments?
Briefly, we had an in-person meeting in February. We had good engagement. They did vote in favor
for us. We can't get in touch with them. And my client, Doug, could address the other issues
regarding who they are and what they're developing on that property and why it sort of necessitates
what they're seeking to build. Doug, are you able to do that?
Yeah, sure. So this is part of the turn of the key program. So the mayor and Philadelphia's initiative for 1000 homes for hardworking Philadelphians. And so, you know, we've built hundreds of these homes out of that 1000 and not just what we're building, but also, I believe all 1000, even ones being built by other developers, you know, are pretty similar in fashion.
and don't have any parking.
And so the reality of it is with what we're building
and at the affordable price point,
adding parking, doing different things,
it increases the cost.
And it's not something that from a budget standpoint that works.
And it's none of the other thousand homes
that I'm aware of are built that way as well.
And so we're kind of conforming
with what's been um laid out as uh part of the homes that are being built um as part of the
program which has been you know an amazing program making a tremendous difference you know for for
people the average rent in philadelphia is 2200 a month both of these homes the average payment um
for principal interest taxes insurance be around 1400 um and so it's it's a uh you know
it's a win for philadelphia and just one thing um are any of the properties that she was sort of
having issue with developed by your organization the other ones on the block that she was speaking
about no that is not us okay um yeah nothing further for planning commission
thank you chairman and good afternoon david effecto with the city planning commission
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-3 residential
single-family zoning at this location.
single-family zoning at this location. The city rezoned this neighborhood in 1980 and a council
The city rezoned this neighborhood in 1980.
supported map change. Both of the proposed lots are well below the minimum lot area required in
RSA 3. However, our other RSA 3 lots behind these properties are also undersized and
compliant RSA 5 lots exist across the street. The proposed development is part of the city's
turn the key initiative the city planning commission recommends the board grant the
proposed dimensional and parking variances thank you so mi 2025 006 9494 53 east pastoria street
i vote yes sir ogasta my vote is yes it's another graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams my vote is yes