You are live.
Thank you. Good morning.
Thank you.
You can begin, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, 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, Lakeisha Dandy, and our Board Attorney, Saleta, are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual meetings, 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, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Third, 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 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 i would also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat
all your comments should be directed to the board administrator
uh before let's see let me make sure i got everything here okay the following case on the
930 list has been continued has been requested to be continued that's number three on our list
mi 2020 that's 002190 1645 west cabot street is there anyone who would object to this case
being continued? If so, please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you. At this time, I would like to ask if anyone would like to have the case continued
or withdrawn to please raise your hand. Anyone who's requesting a continuance or withdrawal,
please raise your hand at this time. Chair, we have Leo. Leo, you can unmute yourself and speak
to a continuance. Yes. Good morning, Chair, members of the board. Happy New Year. It's
been a little bit. Leo Moldahill. Happy New Year to you. Address is 2424 East York Street,
Suite 111, Philadelphia, 19125, although not for long because I'm shutting down my office and just
going to be working from home. So you'll be getting a new address soon. Do you swear to
Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mostly, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Members of the board, I'm here today on behalf of 3615 North 15th Street.
We had a community meeting for this.
I did not post the signs for the hearing as I got abdominal surgery earlier this month, and it kind of slipped my mind.
So I'd request that this just be relisted.
We already have a letter from the community here.
we already have a letter from the community here uh i just didn't get the materials to the board
I just didn't get the materials to the board.
and i didn't post the sign um as a result so my apologies no problem so number 12 on our list mi
2020 that's zero zero two one three one three six two five north 15th street is continued thank you
members of the board you all have a good day you do likewise thank you do my best take care feel
better. I'm trying. Good. Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal? Please raise your
hand. Here we have a Mr. Jack Hubert. Mr. Jack, you can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance.
I think you already continued it, but I didn't know if he needed me to hang on for a date. This
is number three on your list for Cabot Street. The case will be continued. Okay, so I'll just
get something in the mail thank you have a good day yes you also
we have a miss clark miss clark you can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance
good morning miss clark please identify yourself with a record name and address
good morning mr de chico and members my name is jocelyn clark the address is my address is 22
3230 West Ontario Street, 19140. Would you please spell your first name? J -O -C -E -L -Y -N.
Ms. Clark, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed. I would like to continue my hearing for a later date because I did not get
all the documents to the zoning board what is the address of your the case you're speaking to
2230 west ontario street
okay mi2020 -002194 -2230 west ontario is continued is this the first continuance
for this yes okay yes thank you anyone else continuance or withdrawal
no more hands chair
i'm sorry one more hand chair sure sure sure no problem
mr pierre you can um unmute yourself and now speak to a continuance or withdrawal
good morning mr chair members of the board france pierre councilmember johnson's office
that's f -r -a -n -t -z last name pierre that's p -i -e -r -r -e i am uh inquiring in regards to
hold on one minute france do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but
the truth yes i do uh thank you uh please proceed and what case are we talking about
1714 washington avenue i saw that there was no exhibits received i haven't received correspondence
from this uh applicant it has just want to check sharon has in this case already been continued
it's number four and yes it was previously listed on october 21st no exhibits so okay uh mi 2020
that's 0002791714 washington avenue my vote is to dismiss my vote is to dismiss dismiss
dismissed dismissed you thank you mr frons no problem thank you
any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
No more hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, do you start with Duval?
MI 2020 -002588, 100 West Duval Street.
MI 2020 -002589, 102 West Duval Street.
MI 2020 -00257231 West Duval my vote is no on all three my vote is no on all three
no no to all three no to all three I think with that we can begin the regulars list
Thank you. Calendar number 2187 -1105 East Passchonk Avenue.
2187 -1105 -East -Pashonk Avenue.
Sorry about that.
I have to speak in Bork.
May you please raise your hand if you were for this case?
Anyone available for 1105 -East -Pashonk Avenue?
Yes, they just raised their hand. They're coming in as a panelist now. You can unmute yourself.
Thank you. Hi, this is Tara Ko. I'm an attorney.
Hi, Tara. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. My name is Tara Ko. Last name is K -A -O. And, oh, sorry. Let me start my video. I didn't
realize it was off. And my address. My address is 931 Arch Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA,
19107. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Do you also
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed
the exhibit packet with the required documents, 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 um we did meet with rco we received a letter last thursday
uh afternoon and was not able to mail the packets but i did i i it was very last minute but i emailed
everything that you had listed uh yesterday i apologize for the late submission so we do have
the packets um via email i sent it via email but not mail i was not able to mail it in time
miss salata
um we did receive everything it was submitted late but yeah yeah i do apologize for that
we can go and there's a letter of non -opposition from councilman squiller
we did receive that um also like on late thursday last thursday so um we can go forward right
i did i received documents what was submitted late was the deed which was a follow -up document
okay so we can go forward proceed thank you thank you very much i'm not sure if the the owner is
here. So I represent Dr. Bin Wen. He is the property owner. He also operates a PT clinic
in the first floor of the property called Optimal Physical Therapy Gym. He has over 10 years of
experience in physical therapy. And he opened this office in Pashyunk. He moved here from 600
Washington Avenue in 2017, and he serves the community, and I think there's a great need
for something like this in that community. His business is growing, so here he proposes to
add in a... Excuse the interruption. Do you have any exhibits?
I don't have any exhibits except whatever I submitted.
Are you able to share any of what you submitted? Oh, of course.
yeah that way as you speak to what he's looking how do I do this okay because I always
give me one second I still I'm trying to figure this out okay let's see if that works
that's good we have do you see the refusal yes we do okay okay great um all right so uh
so i was going to explain that this property is uh just give me one second i lost my my place
So he owns the business in the first floor and also is the property owner. He proposes to build a rear extension to his office.
And he did hire a contractor to do the work. And unfortunately, the contractor, without his knowledge, did not receive the required permit.
so right and it's already actually completed he wishes to basically legalize and get the
proper permits and the uh the the permits for the already existing now now erect uh addition to the
back uh the issue was that um the issue why we we got a refusal was because um this property has
it's because um this property has multiple street front changes uh the front facing excuse me
multiple street front changes, the front
excuse me counselor yeah go ahead do you have any drawings uh i do let's see if you can um
if i get the right can you see the the drawings does it pop up yes okay great um this is the
drawings. So he already, his first floor already, he already is a permission to do a multiple
practitioner for physical therapy. He wanted to just add about 425 square feet addition to his
office. And I do have pictures of that. And this property has multiple street frontages.
The front is Pashunk Avenue and the back is Franklin Street, which is a residential street.
And the front of the property is on CMX 2 .5, which allows for multiple practitioner use.
But the back is actually RSA 5, which triggered the refusal and also what used to be an open space.
And then so the refusal was for two reasons.
The first that the proposed use of group practitioner is expressly prohibited in RSA 5, which is the back area.
And then the plans propose a zero minimum, zero open area, whereas 25 % is required.
It used to be a backyard open, basically unused backyard.
And he now has an addition to his office.
I can give you, show you some pictures.
So the front of the office is pretty busy street past Yonk Avenue, and it goes all the way to the back to Franklin Street.
This is the rear, and as you can see, it conforms to other properties, whereas none of them has open space.
And actually, a lot of them do have a business reaching to the back, just as his business does.
And there was non -opposition.
the only, there was a big problem with this trash can that he put in to put his trash in is now
removed because that was one of the concerns of the, of the neighbors. So this is the addition
in the back. So he needs space for equipment, for treatment with his patients. And now the,
the back trash bin is removed. And another issue is that, you know, it doesn't look very pretty
in the back and he will can you and he will uh clean that up and get that fixed uh answer your
question i need to interrupt where is trash going to be stored so he does have a basement so he can
store it in a basement i told him i was like that that is a viable solution about the tenant the
tenants in the apartments the tenants in the apartments um generally it's uh trash is once a
week so they they couldn't put anything in the back anyways because they have no entrance to the
So they would just have to put their trash out once a week and store it in their apartment.
So this rear addition would not cause any typical concerns because it's not going to be a new use.
It's just going to be the same business.
There's not new tenants, so it's not congestion in the area.
It's not going to have congestion in the street or in the sidewalks.
Also, it does not increase the number of occupied units in the property, and it will not impair, you know, the light and air.
It's only one addition, as you can see in the picture, and he does not plan to build up.
So, you know, it is already built, so it would cause unnecessary hardship to the applicant if this is not granted, the appeal is not granted.
And, you know, I think he's been doing this for many, many years, and he wishes to continue
his business here, and he needs the space for his medical office.
And we did meet with the RCO, the community, and there was non -opposition, but for those
couple neighbors that did not like the trash can and that it was unfinished.
and they also mentioned that he they saw that he had his patients running in their residential
street he will refrain from doing that all right any questions from the board no no
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
No hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Morning, Chair Chico. Members of the Board, Ian Hegarty, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Ian, just spell your first and last name for the stenographer, please.
Yes, sir. Ian, I -A -N, Hegarty, H -E -G -A -R -T -Y.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
So for this case, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial and residential zoning that are on this property.
The through lot and the split zoning present somewhat unique conditions, and we feel the proposed use is unlikely to create unreasonable adverse impacts.
And so we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020 -002187 -1105 East Passyonk Avenue.
My vote is yes with the Proviso commercial trash pickup.
My vote is yes with Proviso.
Yes with Proviso.
Yes with Proviso.
Yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Calendar number 0654, 1455 North 29th Street.
um i have no exhibits for this case and it was previously listed on july 21st and october 21st
uh can we hold this at this time uh can we hold this to the end of this session
i have a hand raised hold on
mr turner um are you here for this case you can unmute yourself this case and um
hello we can't hear you you need to increase your volume and please identify yourself with a record
yes um putting up my volume
yes my name is frank turner um i'm uh i represent a read and lively development
mr turner is still a little bit weak okay um i've turned everything up as much as i can
and i'll just that's good that's good that's good great and let me set my video um
so i can't get the video to come on the zoom it's different than
Okay, here we go.
He's coming back as a panelist.
Okay, there I am.
Thank you.
I apologize about that.
So there aren't really any exhibits.
Sir, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Absolutely.
My name is Frank Turner.
um my address my office address is 30 south 15th street 15th floor philadelphia 19102
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do and do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes is there any way you can increase the volume because we can barely hear you right
that's what um i've been told what reporter can you hear him i'm trying to uh um is there a way
you can get closer to the microphone yeah i believe so here is that is that better yes that
is a little bit better okay i'll just try to speak up if that's okay have you emailed the exhibit
packet with the required documents proof of ownership tax compliance i'm emailing that to
Ms. Saleta currently. Well, it's due five days in advance of this hearing, and what is due
is the proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos and plans five days in advance
of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? The letter from the RCO
should have been sent, and there was an RCO meeting, and I believe that we have the support
of the RCO. My client, the owner of Reed Lively Development, should be logged on here.
Travis Lively, and let's see if I can see him here.
Ms. Saletta, what documents do we have?
Well, I will check my email now, but until this morning, I had
nothing and the case summaries went out indicating that we had no exhibits.
chair call chair we can um continue this case um um i can i can yeah i think we need to continue
i can yeah i think we need to continue this case i do too we're gonna we're gonna give you a
this case i do too we're gonna
an extra time which is unusual because it's already been continued but given the circumstances
we will continue this case um i believe i can get all the documents to you guys but i yeah but we
have other case we just can't wait for that so we'll have to continue it five days in advance
be recorded five days before your hearing date you can um send it and somebody will reach out
to you with a continual date. All right, thank you. All right, so MI 2020 -000654 -1455 North 29th Street
is continued. Calendar number 2195 -1740 Blava Street.
Ms. Harvey, are you for this case?
Yes. Good morning. My name is Sharon Harvey.
My last name is H -A -R -V -E -Y.
My address is 140 West Maplewood Avenue, Philadelphia, PA -19144.
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 wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes. We emailed the packet five days in advance, but the RCO packet got kicked back twice.
The other ones did not.
I just sent the supplement for the tax clearance and the letter from the RCO.
and i cannot get my video okay okay you may proceed now we can't see it i just promoted
to a panel that she's coming back in and she'll be able to um start her presentation thanks
location hello yes ma 'am you should be able to um share your screen and um start your video if
like okay there okay i'm sorry i uh mr chair um this vice chair am i free to uh proceed
yes you may proceed okay all right so can i share my screen okay all right where are we
Blavis Street is in the 13th Ward, and we are here requesting a variance from the refusal.
The property is a funeral home, and we have posted our notices.
The variance that we are requesting is to conduct commercial business in the neighborhood, which is listed as a RSA 5.
I provided a copy of the deed.
And the floor plans.
The building is a house and it's two stories.
this is the basement first floor and the second floor the uh building the first floor is a
reception area um the mortuary service area and yes we don't see the uh drawings you don't see the
drawings okay okay do we see them now because it says i'm sharing my screen oh no oh there
is that better yes it is okay i'm sorry all right uh the uh basement first floor second floor
uh the first floor uh is the entryway reception area lobby and the waiting area
the second uh first floor also has um the embalming area behind those curtains
and then the second floor consists of a conference room
And then the second floor consists of a conference room and a office.
The property is located, again, on a residential street.
However, it is the only house on that particular block.
Sorry.
This is the exterior front view.
This is the exterior side and rear view of the property.
And this is a photo of the backyard, which faces Cuyahoga Street, which is a warehouse.
This is the rear view of the backyard.
And it's a small backyard of less than 100 square feet.
The property located directly across the street is a parking lot in which my clients actually lease the space.
from uh of the the parking lot uh and i think there's a copy of the lease in the property
uh in the packet uh my clients also provide uh security in the form of uh they have a lighting
uh in the front and side of the building and they also have security cameras inside the the
establishment and uh and the exterior of the uh of the property and they also can monitor the
property when they're off -site. They operate the business on nine to five Monday through Friday
and by appointments only. The surrounding properties, again, this is a view from across
the street and this is a view from 17th Street looking towards 18th Street and this is a side
view of my client's property right there the two adjoining properties right next to my client this
is my client's property here the two adjoining properties are owned by one by the redevelopment
authority and one by the city of philadelphia and from since 80 1984 and 1970 this is what the lot
Hezbollah. Going back towards 17th Street, this property is actually the rear of a property
located on Cayuga Street. And then this property also is next to that property, the rear of
Cayuga Street. The only other property on that side of the street is 1714 through 20,
which houses a couple RVs and this large lot is the rear of this building on Cuyahoga Street
and this is a view of 18th Street and there is a commercial or a closed garage also on 18th Street
my client's property is located here this is an aerial view of the property
uh they and all these are other abandoned or owned by uh commercial entities this is just
another view this is this is the subject property uh we received the refusal um or mortuary services
and religious assembly my clients only perform uh mortuary services they are not asking for any
religious services um they uh uh perform uh uh embalming of uh services and prepare the uh
person's body for uh service at either church or uh uh cemetery uh they see clients at the
business and then um they then arrange to have the body picked up take the brunk back to the
mortuary and then uh prepared and then move forward um for final disposition your your
application says for 20 seat seating who's sitting there i'm sorry who's who's sitting there if there
are no religious services there there are no religious services and they never they applied
for this before they hired me so they so this is what was before uh uh l and i but they never had
any plans for any religious services because the building is just too small uh and so but also the
refusal is because uh this is a rsa 5 uh residential and non -commercial building uh
Ms. Harvey, is it safe to say that this is going to function more or less like a funeral power?
So you're going to have people who are there once the body's prepared, sitting, if family members and whoever will be sitting there for a certain amount of time, but there's no religious services.
So you're going to have people who are there once the body's...
That's correct.
There will be a viewing.
Not at that location, no.
But once the body's prepared, the family will come in and view it, and then it will be moved out.
but it's not like somebody can sit in view and just 10 or 20 people sit or sit there well that's
what that's why the vice chair was asking because the application says with 20 seating right there's
no seating there's no i don't know if that'll make a difference either way but i just want to
make sure we're clear on the fact yes and as far as the uh two required parking spaces they do have
a lease and they lease the parking lot across the street which holds up to 15 cars but they never
have more than three or four people in the building at the time um and then the other one
it's it's uh the proposed multi -principle uses is prohibited in the zoning which is it is zoned
for residential and non -commercial all right if you can summarize it would be helpful uh we request
that the variance so that the mortuary services can be performed at the location. It would cause
a hardship on my client's part because they have actually renovated this building that has been
vacant since my client bought it in 2017, but it went to share of sale prior to that. And so we
request that the variance be granted we have the rco letter i don't know if i said that how can i
i can't stop sharing this screen and share i have another screen where is that
the rco letter um can you see that i can't say them we do have an rco letter um well as an
officer of the court will stipulate that there is a letter and we may have it in our file. Okay
and not opposing the variance and we do have to tax clearance. Excuse me this is Sharon Saletta
we do have letters from Passiunk Square and from Councilman Squilla in non -opposition. No it can't
be that case. You're still on Passiunk Avenue. I am I'm sorry.
no there's no one here okay and my client is here able to specify you want to get your client to
adopt your testimony get a client's full name and i will swear your client in okay just one second
i'm sorry oh all right right running i'm sorry uh we're on two different levels of my client and
So, let's run downstairs.
Well, if your client's not available, again, as an officer of the court, we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony.
All right.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, I have a Mr. Charles Richardson.
Mr. Charles, you can unmute yourself and be ready to swear in.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
Can you hear me?
Now we can, yes.
Okay, Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312, City Hall.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed. I have a question for Ms. Harvey. Back in 2019, we had reports that were actually complaints that your client had opened without having the proper licenses and things along those lines. Have they taken care of their license issues with L &I?
as far as i know yes uh the license issue was that they did not receive a variance
to be able to operate but they were already operating at that point actually in fact they
had uh placed on that city lot next door they had placed a screening uh that had different
they had placed a screening that had different photographs of things in the neighborhood.
photographs of uh things in
And they actually had taken a photo of our office showing Cindy Bass's district office as though we were actually endorsing it.
And that's where we got a lot of complaints because it was like, how can you endorse this place because of the fact that they're open without any licenses and things along those lines.
In fact, the 13th Ward at the time was one of the major complainants because they'd received a lot of complaints as well.
So since that point, I do see that you have a letter from the 13th Ward where they are supporting.
So we will have no opposition to it at this point, but just wanted to find out whether or not they had taken care of their licensing issues that had been existing.
Okay. So as I said, the only licensing issue I know of is that they haven't received the variance so that they can't get a permit to operate.
but they were already operating though yes they and as i said i wasn't initially this is a
legalization yes yes all right um any other anyone else would like to testify in this case please
raise your hand i see no more hands here thank you planning commission
thank you cherry chico members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends uh sorry
ian haggerty philadelphia state planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing residential zoning at this location however we would recommend that the board
approve the variance uh with the proviso that no religious assembly use be permitted at this
location thank you mi 2020 that's zero zero two one nine five one seven four zero blavis street
my vote is yes with the proviso no religious services at this location excuse me chair this
is sharon saletta um so it isn't strictly limited to religious services could it maybe the proviso
There'll be no viewings or funerals related services.
Okay, so noted.
Yes, with all the provisors.
Yes, with provisors.
Yes, with provisor.
Yes, with all the provisors.
Thank you.
Calendar number 0707200 West on Cannon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have a Mr. Kurt.
Mr. Kurt, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, members of the board.
Good morning. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Yes, my name is Justin Crick, K -R -I -K.
Address is 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 630, Philadelphia PA 19102.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive and stip?
Have you sent in the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, copy of the refusal and referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing?
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, to all. Did I swear you in?
Yes. Okay. I swear and affirm again. Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. Members of the board,
I'm going to share my screen for you. We are here to discuss the property at 200 West Duncannon
Avenue. The property is located at the corner of West Duncannon and North 2nd Street. I'm
here on behalf of the owner applicant maria diaz who is a member of 200 jjs lounge inc
record owner of the property the property has been refused uh for use as a rooming house uh for
it's in an rsa5 district um uh i will state this is a fairly old application dating back from the
end of 2019 that was postponed for various reasons due to covid um but uh so technically
my client made the application herself technically this is also a legalization
the meeting I will state that the meeting did hold with the RCO back at the end of 2019 however
the conditions presented to the RCO at that time have not changed we did receive a letter of
support for them which I'll show you as they had some conditions or provisos and notable
information you know about the conditions of the property at the time the first floor of the
property is actually already legally used for commercial purpose it is a rest of a bar lounge
um 200 jj's lounge uh that's been operating for quite some time um
200 jj's lounge that's been operating for quite
the refusal is already stipulated to geographical orientation of the property at the corner here
one of the refusals was also for parking but i think it's notable that because we have this
whole corner and you'll see in some of the pictures uh there is some ample parking in
the area and we don't anticipate that the that the residents are are basically taking up any
significant space with parking. From a satellite standpoint, you can see that they have the
frontage all along the corner here as well, although parking spaces aren't strictly provided.
Here is a photo of the property, maybe recognizable to some people as it's quite distinctive in color
for people driving by. And this is the rear of the property, which will show why this rear
balcony is somewhat important and just for note at this point there is commercial trash pickup that
would be for any resident or residents along with the commercial use on the first floor
again this is located in an rsa5 district but has already has the approved first floor use
interior of the property we have a few photos to show stairwell going up and i'll do it this way
the hallways, one main hallway, which then leads to most of the rooms on the side.
There are smoke detectors and fire extinguishers that we had in place and that remain in place
and that the RCO wanted to make sure did remain in place.
Each room is approximately 10 by 12, roughly.
You can see that the individuals, again, this is a legalization, so they are already living
in the space um albeit the the client when she filled out the application herself didn't know
the terminology to place that um and again here's the rear of the property
and more evidence of the posters and the fire safety a copy of the deed and i'll jump to real
quick, we did continuously update tax clearance certificates. This one was issued within the last
week. But what I think is most notable is when the meeting with the RCO occurred, and again,
there's been no change in circumstance or condition of the property, there was full support
of all board committee. Apparently, I'm not sure that anybody else attended that,
but no opposition and not even a non -opposition. I am fully prepared to comply with the letter from
the council or I'm sorry from the RCO to the councilwoman's office and then also to the RCO
indicated the conditions of the property and did request that it have a proviso for two -year
variance if that is to be upheld which which I'm not sure that it's it's entirely relevant at this
point considering it's been an operation without any further problem with the neighborhood but I
would request that that be from today's date, and we would gladly, you know, continue to inform the
RCO and allow them to conduct any inspections that they need. So for those reasons, we would
ask that the variance for technically the legalization of the four -unit rooming house be
approved. Is there one kitchen for each unit? Each unit has... Like a little kitchenette? Yes, yes.
on that question could you go back to the photographs because i only look to me like
there was only one kitchen and one bathroom there is one bathroom i i have my um i have my client
actually on here maria diaz if she can raise her hand uh she can testify better as to the
conditions inside of each of the rooms miss diaz if you're available
looks like there may be a refrigerator in each of the uh bedrooms but i only see one kitchen
i have no um miss diaz um
all right well in lieu of that just for a moment uh yes anyone else any other questions from the
board no no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
yes mr charles richardson
can you hear me yes okay you're still on the earth mr richardson but please identify yourself
thank you mr chair uh charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312
thank you mr chair uh charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city
hall councilwoman doesn't normally approve rooming houses in the district uh she you know
preferred to have uh regular housing if at all possible uh in so much that the uh rco
is not is uh has has come out with uh support she will have no opposition to the granting of
the variance with the provisos. Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
I see no more hands, Chair. Mr. Crick, did you find your client yet? I'm not. She was on the
phone earlier with me and said that she was on this call. I advised her as to how to raise her
hand or how to be promoted. I don't know why. Let's move on. Planning Commission? Yes. Ian Hegarty,
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Chair Chico and Board. The comprehensive plan recommends
no change from the existing residential single -family zoning at this location.
We believe the applicant's claims hardship is an economic hardship, whereas use variances
require the applicant to demonstrate that the development is somehow restricted by unique
physical circumstances or conditions of the property, regardless of whether it's a legalization.
We believe also that the proposed variance exceeds the minimum variance necessary,
and further that the proposed use has the potential to be detrimental to the public
welfare by causing an overcrowded condition, and so we recommend that the board deny the variance.
I'm sorry, Chair. Ms. Diaz, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, Ms. Diaz. Please identify yourself with a record name and address. Spell your last
name. It still says she's on mute, Chair.
i'm not sure if you just want to move on but still saying yeah well what i'd like to do is
um yeah i think we need to move on anyone else i i think it's basically an overuse to be
personally personally that's just my personal opinion yeah nobody should live like that
MI 2020 -000707, 200 West Ducanon Avenue. My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Thank you.
Calendar number 0224 -2330 North 29th Street.
I see no hands.
Anyone here for 2330 North 29th Street?
Has this case already been continued?
Excuse me, Michael.
oh michael meacham is the pro se owner of the property who appears on a d okay good morning
hi it's good morning sir please identify yourself with the record spell your last name
michael meacham m -e -a -c -h -e -m 2330 north 29th street and my uh you know my address to my house
yeah if you can get a little closer to the mic or increase the volume that would be helpful
can you hear me now a little better but a little bit better michael meet him m -e -a -c -a -c -m
um you swear and affirm to tell the truth i'm sorry carol i got ahead of you you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes all right do you also
agree oh go ahead just close it to the microphone it would be helpful yes do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yeah wait i'm not asking him that um
have you emailed the exhibit packet five days in advance of this hearing consisting of proof of
ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and plans of the property and have you met with
the rco and do you have a letter yes yes you may proceed well how are you doing i'm good how are
I'm sorry, I'm about to promote Mr. Michael to the panelists so he can share the screen.
While we're doing that, Sharon, did we receive any exhibits on this case?
While we're doing that, Sharon, did we receive any exhibits?
We did.
Okay, thank you.
Hello?
Are we sharing?
Yes, we can see.
if you could just make it a little larger on the screen.
One second.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
We're trying to share, but it's giving a...
I'm really trying to share this is not I'm not sure what I'm doing it correctly here.
You're actually sharing right now.
We can see the document is just small if you can just large in it.
Trying to see the option to just to make it larger and I'm not seeing that I apologize.
I apologize, but we did send the documents, and good morning, my name is Charmaine Meacham.
The documents were sent in five days in advance, and I did send the updated letter from the ROC,
from the meeting, RCO, I'm sorry, from the meeting.
If someone could just please explain to me how we can enlarge this, this would be great.
I'm trying to, it's not enlarging for some reason.
do you have any pictures yes we do they were emailed then and received the receipt was confirmed
as well can you show the pictures yes i can um i'm trying to share the screen are you able to
see anything on the screen? Yes. Okay. Are you able to see this here? Are you able to see this?
Yes. Okay. Okay, great. Okay, here are the photos. This would be the front of the building.
Entrance, the first floor will be. We're not seeing that. We're not seeing that. And again,
I'm not sure if it's your the volume but you're not coming through that clear I'm
not sure if the stenographer is able to hear you sorry yes I'm able to hear her
are you able to see the screen now and yes what we see is the table of contents
okay what about now are you able to see this page here with the image no
No, you have to stop screaming and share your screen again.
Are we sharing now?
Are you able to see the photos?
Okay, thank you.
Okay, so this is the building, 2330 North 29th Street.
Here in this photo here, we have the apartment entrance.
It's currently, it currently had.
We lost your photos.
We lost the photos.
I'm so sorry.
Just share your screen again.
I'm trying in one second.
How about now?
The third picture we have, this is actually the first floor, we're requesting a variance
for the commercial space for a barbershop.
This is the front entrance, this is the front view entrance, this is the rear entrance to
the left of the screen we have a restroom that is already existing and this is the rear
area where shampoo bowls will be installed.
This is the existing restroom on the first floor of the commercial space.
This is the rear yard, this as well as the rear back yard, such as the portal here.
Now we're going to go into the side of the apartment.
These are the stairs leading up to the second and third floor apartment units.
Second school apartment unit, this is the living and dining room space of the second unit, the kitchen space of the second unit.
Second floor apartment units.
This is the living and dining room space.
As well, this is another view of the living and dining space in the second unit.
This is the existing restroom in the second unit, this is bedroom one of the second unit, this is bedroom two of the second unit.
This is actually the doorway between the two bedrooms.
excuse me ma 'am i'm sorry um but the court reporter can you hear her
okay she's coming in kind of faint i'm kind of straining to hear her
Okay, ma 'am, you have to speak a little louder.
Okay, sorry, would you like me to start over?
No, I think you pick up from where you are, but just speak a little bit louder, please.
Okay, these are all of the images of the property that we just shared.
So is it a second floor and third floor are separate units?
Yes. I'm going back to the initial photo here. Here is the actual building. And here, as you can
see, this is the entrance for the commercial space on the first floor, which we're requesting
to establish a barbershop. And here is the entrance for the apartment, the two units.
Okay. All right. I understand there were some provisors, I believe, Sharon, on behalf of the
rco there are i believe the only two that would be enforceable and zoning related are
trash stored indoors and commercial trash pickup
all right um questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand yes chair strawberry mansion hi can you hear me please identify
yourself with the record name and address bonita cummings strawberry mansion community concern
director rvco good morning miss cummings do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Yes, we're in non -opposition with 2330
North 29th Street, but the Sturray Mansion community is experiencing a severe trash
problem from apartment units that have not accommodated for their tenants. So we do need
to just have those provisos preferably all of them to just assure we have a total property
management plan particularly a trash plan trash stored indoors and during their commercial phase
or their construction phase that trash is not delivered to the street corners which we're
witnessing and seeing from many of the developments that are taking place so primarily our concern
here is just making sure that the renovation once completed the tenants will not abuse the trash
system and use the trash system as the street. Understood but according to our legal counsel
Ms. Saleta that only two of the provisos that were requested by the RCO are enforceable.
Excuse me, Chair.
This is Sharon Saleta.
I just did text you the actual provisos that the RCO is requesting, if you'd like to review them.
I mean, I know that, you know, it's because the process, to my understanding, is also health, the health, welfare, and safety.
And I don't think that any of the provisos are outside of the guidelines.
But, of course, I'm not the attorney for the zoning board.
So we do need to get a handle on the trash and to have an understanding of the trash.
And I think we all get that.
And I certainly sympathize with that.
I have problems in my neighborhood as well.
But again, according to council, we can have a proviso that says commercial trash pickup
and that all trash from all the units must be stored inside.
For all floors.
This is all floors.
all right okay thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case
no more hands here somebody either has a radio or television on the background
no more hands here
if you can mute that that would be helpful planning commission
thank you chair ian hegarty on behalf of the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends zoning map change at this location to cmx2 and the variance
conforms to that proposed zoning district and so the city planning commission would recommend that
the zoning board grant this variance. Thank you. MI 2020 -000224 2330 North 29th Street
my vote is yes with the following provisos all trash trash from all units to be stored indoors
and have a commercial trash pickup my vote is yes with provisos yes for provisos yes with provisos
calendar number 0379 248 geiger road
Karen, did we get exhibits?
No exhibits.
I'm sorry?
We did not receive exhibits and it was previously listed on October 21st.
And no hands, Chair.
you're you're muted chair yep sorry about that uh mi 2020 -000379248 geiger road my vote is to
dismiss. My vote is to dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Calendar number 1010 -2608 West
Dauphin Street. The attorney is Jeffrey Young.
Mr. Young, you can unmute yourself.
Great. Good morning, members of the board.
Good morning, Mr. Young.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, Jeffrey Young, 3900 Ford Road, Suite B, Philadelphia PA, 19131.
I am here today on behalf of the applicant.
And we have the property owner, excuse me, Mr. Sam Tarrou, who is on the line as well.
Okay, and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive and stip?
I do agree to waive the reading.
However, I cannot stipulate to its accuracy, which I will get into during the presentation.
Okay, have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal,
referral, photos and plans, five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yeah, so exhibits have been mailed, emailed, excuse me, to the board. We have not met with the community organization. Our RCO is the Charbury Mansion CDC. However, our community meeting is actually scheduled for tomorrow evening.
The CDC did not want to schedule a special meeting
ahead of their normal meeting time,
but they have agreed to allow us to proceed with the hearing
and we asked the board to hold its decision
until after correspondence from the RCO.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
There would have to be a follow -up hearing scheduled in that case.
Resumption hearing, right?
And that, Mr. Young?
I'm sorry, I said it one more time.
we'll have to do a we'll hear the case but we'll have a resumption hearing okay uh once you
completed you know your meetings or whatever so we'll hear the case now and then we'll do
the resumption all right thank you okay you may proceed thank you thank you
again members of the board uh jeffrey young here on behalf of the property owner mr sam tyru
here for 2608 West Dolphin Street.
Here, first exhibit, you'll see that my client
is the property owner.
Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt.
This is Sharon Silvita again.
Given that there won't be any time saved
since the resumption hearing will have to be scheduled
at a point when the continuance
would likely have been scheduled,
are we sure we want to divide this into two points
and go forward today?
we can do the whole case at one time right yeah the only thing we're missing is yours
we can do the whole case at one time right yeah the only thing we're missing is the rco
it's exactly so if you were to continue it you would be able to have the rco input that's in
the same hearing and that really that really wouldn't cost you any additional time since
there's going to be a second hearing in any case exactly yes so if after our meeting tomorrow if
If this meeting is continued and the RCO submits its letter to the board, will the board be
able at its next hearing to continue the hearing to vote the matter?
No, they won't, but they wouldn't have in any case.
We would continue it.
Attorney moving party, you would contact Ms. Sunkit.
Yeah, I think that's a better way to go, Jeffrey.
That works.
Time -wise for everybody.
Got it.
Thanks for the suggestion, Sharon.
So we can do attorney moving party, correct?
That's right.
Mr. Young?
All right.
Very good.
MI 2020, that's 001010, 2608 West Dauphin Street, attorney moving party.
Calendar number 2174 -2720 South Fairhill Street.
did we get any exhibits i did not receive exhibits um we do have a letter from councilman
squilla in non -opposition and that letter refers to rco support but no it's i believe it's the
first listing and i have no exhibits is anyone here for 2720 south fairhill yes i have a marcy
they put their hand down chair all right so we can we'll have to continue this correct
not i'm sorry here you go oh i'm sorry hi this is marcy zammar z -a -m -m -e -r here representing
2720 South Fairhill Street, Philadelphia DPA. Are you an attorney? No, I am not. I am
the contractor. Well, no, the applicant and or his or her attorney has to testify.
I didn't realize that it had to be an attorney, so I just... Or the owners, unless it's an LLC
or an LP is it is it a corporation it's a private residence that a small addition was built on the
rear and we were denied just for a minimal refusal right so the question again is this is privately
a private home and the applicants have a deed shown that they're the owners correct yes well
they would have to testify. Unfortunately, the owner is a senior citizen, retired veteran,
not able to attend, and his daughter is a health care worker, and she was also unable to attend
due to, you know, work commitments. Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. In any case, we are not
by law permitted to go forward unless either the applicant, the property owner, or an attorney
representing the property owner appears and in any case we did not receive the exhibits for this case
i was under the impression all of the exhibits were submitted via the rco um no the rco would
never submit the exhibits it would be the applicant okay and the approval letter did
come through from councilman's councilman's office and the rco uh approved it as well
yeah but again we still by law we're not uh we needed the owners to testify uh what i might
suggest is you speak to the owners and have them contact mr councilman squilla's office
you may be able to have some attorney or someone help them through this process so we're going to
have to continue this okay i would ask that it be continued like as quickly as possible this has
been ongoing like for the whole calendar year of 2020 and um there's a lot of draft coming into the
to the homeowner into the property it's just a very small 96 square foot addition we we understand
that and uh we're not trying to be difficult but by law we have certain guidelines and we have to
follow those and ma 'am i have a question everything you've testified to do you swear or affirm to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you so uh staff will work with the
So staff will work with the applicant to see about getting a date as quickly as possible.
applicant to see if they're about getting a date as quickly as possible
Thank you so very much.
And I'll be notified, I assume?
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
So MI 2020 -002174, 2720 South Fairhills continued.
Calendar number 2184 -3716 Avalon Street.
This is Sharon Saleta.
The owners are appearing pro se.
Their names are Rachel and Michael Garozzo.
Garozzo.
Got it right the first time.
Thank you.
Okay, sir, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Michael Garozzo, G -A -R -O -Z -Z -O.
Is Rachel there to also?
Yes, I'm here.
Rachel Garozzo, G -A -R -O -Z -Z -O, 3716 Avalon Street.
Okay, and do you both swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
We do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal referral photos plans 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 good morning board good morning
thank you for letting us present our uh petition to have a driveway widening uh for our home
we are screen sharing right now uh this is our uh denial we had originally met with the zoning
board or not i'm sorry with the uh rco who uh denied our original request and we came back
a couple of months later with a proviso plan, and that was voted in favor of widening the
driveway. We had originally requested, you want to show the picture, the original plan?
Okay. Original plan. So this is the original plan that we had requested.
where we have the existing driveway.
We had requested a widening of the driveway by 10 feet
and a two foot widening of the driveway
to the opposite side.
Excuse me, excuse me?
We need to see exhibits.
We don't see the exhibits.
You don't see the exhibit?
We're working on it.
I selected, oh, I didn't click the share.
Can you see it now?
So this is the original plan that we had submitted.
It was over the borderline that we were permitted by zoning by six feet, I believe.
Six or four.
Six feet.
and therefore the uh civic association decided that the request was too big
uh and therefore we had to or we thought to revise our plan to change our driveway
to the proviso plan which we will show now you know just a second
which is this. So we, in essence, we got rid of the separate walkways on each separate side of
the driveway and requested that the driveway just be widened to a double -width driveway.
We have one photo that we can show you of the house and the driveway.
so the driveway as you can see is we will we are replacing this driveway
and we want to widen the this up this first line is where we are allowed to go to
and this line is where we want to go to based on the proviso plan the first line would be a six
foot addition and but we wanted to add a full eight foot wide driveway so that it would match
the width of the current drive and this is a pretty tall hill it's a four or five foot hill
that used to have a tree on it, and we intend to flatten that all the way down.
uh that used to have a tree on it and we intend to flatten that all the way
We also will grade this appropriately to our neighbors here, so that there won't be an issue with having to build a retaining wall or anything.
We also have a letter from our neighbor on that side of the driveway,
which is here. This was from our neighbor at 3714 Avalon Street, which was submitted
to the Civic Association to express her approval of the original plan without the proviso.
So she was okay with that, however, with the proviso, it's less than what we had originally
requested and she is also an approval of that plan.
The Civic Association did submit their letter asking or advising that it was voted in the
affirmative for us to be allowed based on the proviso plan.
And this, we're having trouble with the.
Yeah, the menu on the top is a problem.
You wanted to show the documentation on the RCO.
I think we have that in our file.
It should be.
Yeah, we're okay.
I can also say, and it is explained in the letter, that I am a member of the board of the Civic Association.
And I was still voted down.
It voted no on the original plan, and that's why we submitted a proviso plan, because the
main gist was we wanted the driveway widened, and we'll make do with that, as hopefully
the board will vote in the affirmative for us.
That's about it.
Very good.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Ian Hegarty on behalf of the Philadelphia
City Planning Commission.
The proposed variance doesn't,
it appears to be minimal in nature
and we have no objection to the variance.
Thank you.
M .I. 2020 -002 -184 -3716 Avalon Street. My vote is yes.
Excuse me, Chair. It's yes with proviso. Revised plans, one page, please.
Oh, sorry about that. Yes with proviso. One page. Approved today.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
calendar number 21895423 grays avenue
mr masters you can unmute yourself
hi good morning steve can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
please? Sure. My name is Steve Masters, M -A -S -T -E -R -S, from the law firm of JustLaws,
621 West Mount Airy Avenue in Philadelphia. I represent the applicant. Thank you. Do you
swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you also
agree to waive and stip? We agree to waive the reading, but we do not stipulate to the accuracy.
we will explain that in as part of our presentation okay have you emailed the exhibit packet five days
in advance of this hearing consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos and plans and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all of your
questions it's all been on time and we have a support letter from the rco thank you you may
proceed great let me share this all right um good morning again um chair to chico members of the
board um steve masters here for um the applicant um kasim nadjo um we're here on a um somewhat of
an unusual use application. This is for a live poultry butcher shop that will be operated
according to Islamic law. We're in an I -2 zoning district. This is how
We're in an I2 zoning district. This is how the operation will work. Customers, there will be
live birds that will be stored at the location. Customers will come in, purchase a single live
bird. The butcher will then kill that bird by hand, prepare it, and deliver the processed meat
to the customer at the same location. The methods used to kill the animals in a live poultry
butcher shop are not in any way intensive. They're killed by hand without any mechanized
system at all. And at most, a few dozen birds and other small animals will be killed throughout a
single day. All of the birds that are killed are going to be sold on the premises to retail
customers. So none of them are transferred to other retail outlets. There's no shipping. There's
no intensive transport. So the refusal, let's look at that. The refusal is for two use refusals.
The first one is that the L &I classified this as an intensive industrial use. And you've just heard
that this is a hand, a hand use. There's nothing intensive at all. And in fact, it may not even be,
may not even rise to the level of general industrial, but we're in an I -2 district and
general industrial is as of right. So that, that, that part of the refusal is an error. And we
submit that the slaughter operation is actually permitted under an I -2. The second refusal is
for the retail sale. And the retail sale of these slaughtered animals, we contend should be permitted
as a religious accommodation, because as I said at the beginning, this is a religiously
operated and mandated type of an operation. And under the federal statute called the Protection
of Land Use as Religious Exercise 42 U .S .C. Section 2000 CC, the city and the zoning code
must accommodate religious uses. But even if the board were to say, well, we don't know about this
religious use thing, we're going to look at this as a variance. The variance is the least
modification possible because the live animal storage, the slaughtering is permitted and the
sale of it on site is the least variance possible to allow this use to occur. Now, we received very
extremely strong support from the community on this um and here's the um the letter from
coordinating rco southwest district services um and you'll see their their summary here uh everyone
in attendance um supported the the um the proposal um we do have also an agreement that was entered
into between the near neighbors and they're not exactly right next door to this property members
of the board, because this is an industrial area, and you'll see in a second the photos that show
that there is no one who would, who is living in this immediate area, but the neighbors nevertheless
asked our client, and he agreed to do a whole series of steps to improve the quality of life
and the security for the area, so there's going to be security cameras, there's going to be support
for a children's playground and a tennis court he will do some local hiring he will give discounts
to senior citizens and he's going to clean up the area surrounding his his shop and i'll show you in
a second that it's it's um profoundly blighted and the community is very very excited to have
um the possibility and and more than the possibility but the certainty that this blighted area will be
abated because of this new business um so let's look at um some of these photos here so let's make
this a little smaller so this is the is the space um where the business will happen um farther back
there is a abandoned trailer truck tractor trailer that is um in dumped in we're not
steve we're not seeing that you don't see that huh oh you're not seeing what we have at a provisor
Huh. Oh, you're not seeing me?
All we have are provisors.
Oh, all right.
Yeah, let's see here.
You're not seeing any photos?
All right, let me stop sharing and share again.
How about now?
All right, so you see this...
Is this trailer?
This is the area here.
No, we don't see anything.
Do you see this letter from the RCO?
Mr. Chair, can you see the agreement that I'm sharing now?
You had that up before.
That's gone.
All we see is Steve Messer has started screen sharing.
So I keep starting and stopping.
That's not good.
You know, maybe you can verbally, orally summarize.
Yeah, sure.
So sorry you can't see these photos though,
because they're quite,
I was pretty stunned going into this block.
I'd never seen a part of the city
that was blighted in this manner.
So the structure requires a significant amount
of repair and renovation that Mr. Ngo is prepared to do
and to bring life and a semblance of normality
to this block that has just a tremendous amount
of abandoned cars and tires
and a profound amount of blight.
Is your client with us today?
He is.
Mr. Nujo, can you raise your hand
so that you can be added to the presentation?
There you go.
We've got pictures now.
Oh, you do?
Okay, great.
wow all right so all right here we go so this is the spot uh behind this truck is where he's going
to uh have his store um we're gonna go past there now now this is the building that he's going to
operate in obviously it needs some uh significant repair work that he's prepared to do um this is
the interior of it uh but it's in terms of the shell of it it's quite it's quite a good size
and and very appropriate to what he intends to use it for. These are our plans. His space
is this area on the on the far left. These existing parts, it's one, the parcel is one
address but it's many different spaces and so his face is on the far left here. And here
Here we have the photos of the zoning poster for today's hearing, and this was his presentation
to the RCOs, our tax clearance, and our lease, and we have an amended application for appeal,
and our project information form
and our RCO notice
and proof of mailing.
Mr. Ngo, has he
been made part of the proceedings yet?
Ah, great.
Good morning, sir.
Have him spell his first and last name, please.
do you want me to spell my name yes first name is kassim t -a -s -i -m last name is najo n -a -j -o -h
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
thank you mr masters yes mr joe you've heard my testimony um and seen the exhibits
that we have submitted to the zoning board today do you agree with that testimony and do you adopt
it as your own yes uh we we rest mr chair of the board unless you have any questions you
would like thank you any questions from the board no no
no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
chair I have Andrew Goodman Mr. Goodman you can unmute yourself
good morning good morning Mr. Goodman please identify yourself for the record
Andrew Goodman, G -O -O -D -M -A -N, here representing Office of Third District Councilmember Jamie Gaudier.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Thank you very much.
Members of the board, the council member has no opposition, so the variance is being requested at this address this morning.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission. I'm sorry, anyone else would like to testify?
No more hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair.
Ian Hegarty on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing industrial zoning at this
location and we would agree that the proposed variance is the minimum necessary and that
the retail sales use is compatible with adjacent uses and the Lower Schuylkill -Vaster Plan.
so we would therefore recommend that the board approve the variance.
Thank you.
Sharon, were there provisos, and if so, are any of them enforceable?
Mr. Masters, would you be able to pull up the letter, the RCO letter?
Yes, I thought you might want me to do that.
Let's go back to that.
sorry i saw a bunch of stuff about community involvement and all those as you know mr
ministers are not enforceable but i don't want to leave anything out that is enforceable yes
this is the uh agreement is it is it popped up on your screens also uh at this point yes okay
This is the agreement between the near neighbors and our clients.
The letter from Southwest District Services didn't have any provisos in their letter,
but they basically asked our client to meet with the local neighbors and to make an agreement.
So we have a total of eight provisos, the cameras, financial assistance for a playground,
local hiring, the senior discounts, relocating cars that occupy the pedestrian way,
active engagement in block parties. These are all basically, not to interrupt you, but
community benefits agreements, they're not really considered provisos for us.
Is that correct, Sharon? None of that. That is. They're appropriate for a private agreement not
to be added as provisos okay all right so let's move on uh calendar number 2020 -002189
5423 grays avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
okay thank you calendar number 2179 704 north 23rd street
all right thank you members of the board thank you
no hands chair this this is sharon i have no exhibits but i believe this is the first listing
um mr chair you're muted thank you mi 2020 -002179
704 North 23rd Street is continued.
I believe that completes the 930 list.
Do we, any other unfinished business?
No, we do not.
We're good.
We're good, Chair.
That's it.
All right, everyone, thank you and see you back
at two o 'clock, thank you.
Thank you.
All right, take care, everyone.
Bye -bye, see you soon.
DPZ Zoom, we can pause the recording.
Let's go live, please.
We're now live, Chair.
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the zoning
Thank you, good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustments.
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. Also, board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy, and our board attorney, 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 hearing,
to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Third, 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 will repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'd also like to remind everyone that please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
that, any comments should be directed to our Board Administrator who happens to be Miss
Lakeisha Dandy. Before we begin, I'd like to ask if there are any requests for continuances
or withdrawals on the two o 'clock list. If so, please raise your hand.
chair i have a mr richard mr richard you can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance
yes good can everybody hear me yes sir please identify yourselves by your last name for the
record name and address thank you mr chairman it's richard weitzman w -e -i -t -z -m -a -n uh i'm the
attorney for the applicant. My address is 3 North 2nd Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia,
19106. I am here with respect to the property at 4146 Peachin Street.
Okay, that's number 10 on our list. You're asking for continuance?
Yes, we've been in continuing communication with the RCO and just need a little more time to
finalize things. Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. Mr. Whiteson, I believe that you have submitted
a request to amend your application. Is that right? Yeah, correct. I did that this morning as
well. It's really more for clarification, something the RCO pointed out to us. The ultimate variance
would be the same for three units, but they wanted to make sure that the relief would correspond
with with the way the property is set up sure i was asking because if that's the case and you're
waiting for l and i to get back to you with um a revised refusal we might want to continue this
board might want to continue this as attorney moving party so that you can contact the
administrator once you have the refusal ah gotcha okay yeah actually i think at this point i need
leave i need permission to amend before i think i can submit l and i yes that's right okay okay
so attorney moving party works for you weitzman it does yes all right mi 2020 does zero zero two
seven eight one four one four six pechin street attorney moving party would anyone else like to
request a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand thank you i'm going to drop off everybody
thank you stay well
yes we have Mr. Jarrett
Mr. Jarrett
yeah Jarrett I was going to ask you
I was waiting to see about withdrawals
or continuance I understand you had a request
yes so
this is for I believe number four on your list
let us swear you in please identify
yourself of course Jared Klein
from Blank Rome 130 North 18th
Street Philadelphia
swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth
Yes I do. Please proceed. This is I believe number four on the board's list. It's 1731 West Hunting Park Avenue. That's correct. I had a calendaring snafu on my end.
I had a calendaring snafu on my end, so I did not submit the materials to the board
within the five days.
I did submit everything to Ms. Saleta and the board this morning, and this application
has broad community support and is part of an affordable housing plan that has some tax
credit timing sensitivity, so I would ask the board's indulgence to allow the case to
proceed today.
so noted we'll do that thank you thank you very much mr chair anyone else requesting a continuance
or withdrawal excuse me this is sharon seletti can we just get mr klein to confirm that the
property was posted yeah i'm sorry i forgot to ask that yes yes the the property was fully posted
and we have photos of the posting and the materials that i sent in to miss selena thank you
Sharon. Anyone else? Am I good to go? This is Rachel Pritzker. Hold it, Rachel. I just want
to make sure. Is anyone else? Yes. Ms. Pritzker, you can speak to a continuous. Thanks. Rachel,
r -a -c -h -a -e -l pritzker p -r -i -t -z -k -e -r 1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103
and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you so this is for 5138 gainer road i have sort of a unique request this is for a
daycare center to be opened up we can't get in front of the rco until february the 16th i believe
but wanted to know if we would be okay in order to kind of keep the timing so that this business
can actually open if we were able to present the case today and then do a resumption hearing just
for RCO input after the 16th. Ms. Pritzker, since you will have to come back anyway at the same time
and this will not save you any time by proceeding today and there's always the possibility of
people wanting to testify
as a result of the RCO meeting.
Can we get
whatever the next available date
would be?
If that's what you recommend, that's fine with me.
In the interest of time,
like Sharon says,
you get a resumption here, somebody
else may come in who wants
to be heard, maybe not be supportive
of your application.
that's fine we're going to wind up a full -fledged hearing anyway that's fine
just wanted to get on the calendar as soon as possible because we kind of are running into an
issue with you know this is a business trying to open and you know the timing of the process
doesn't always align with that all right so sharon you uh um we don't have a date but she
can work um Ms. Pritzker can work with Tanya and uh or Lakeisha okay thank you any other requests
no more hands here thank you uh before we begin Carol we have an add -on okay uh do I do is there
do i do sure's lane first and then the add -on yes okay calendar number 0853 231 sure's lane my vote
is yes with proviso of plans consisting of one page stamp today yes with proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso and the add -on next case yeah this is a resumption hearing
we had asked we had asked all parties to go back and ask the commerce department
councilwoman's office to see if there's any way they can work out some
okay so it's calendar number zero nine four five 39 65 lancaster avenue
and frank i guess you'll swear everyone in uh yeah i hear some people talking in the background
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board good afternoon please identify yourself and we'll
swear you in sure thing meredith ferliger f -e -r -l -e -g -e -r 1500 market street suite 3500 e
here on behalf of the property owner and applicant sam development llc
we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i certainly do and just for visual effect i'll just bring up a picture of
Once again, the property, I think that you have ample detail at this point, but just so you have something to look at while we give you an update.
once again the property um i think that you have ample detail at this
So we took the board's request and we did go back and we met with the Registrar Community Organization, which for this property is PEC.
We did also meet with the representative of the Commerce Department.
Fortunately, we were able to hold a meeting with all the parties together to really get a good meeting of the minds.
I'll note that my client is continually grateful for the additional assistance that they are willing to provide.
However, the content of the meeting was largely the same as all of the prior meetings that he had held with other community organizations.
It really just amounted to more of a brainstorming session about the type of tenants that might be interested in the space.
Effectively, they were asking my client to wait indefinitely for a tenant that may or may not ever arise for the space.
We did not, my client did not leave that meeting feeling any more hopeful about the prospect
of finding a commercial tenant at this space.
So we are going to continue to request that the board grant this variance.
I would be happy to submit my full testimony that I had given at the hearing two weeks
ago if that would be helpful to you.
But I do believe that we had provided ample justification, given the unique location of the property, in conjunction with the immense attempts that were made to find a tenant at the space, which unfortunately, it's not looking like it's going to happen anytime soon.
Okay. Anyone else to testify?
Yes, Chair, I have Adam.
Adam is probably my client.
Anyone else?
Sorry, this is Adam Perlman.
I just had my hand raised.
Just hang in there, sir.
Just hang in there.
We've already got your testimony last time.
um questions on the board we have a mr goodman oh okay mr goodman good afternoon
good afternoon identify yourself you're still under oath from this morning
yes andrew goodman g -o -o -d -m -a -n representing third district council member jamie gaudier
i'm sorry i'll proceed um so yeah we did we did participate in a meeting i mean we do know that
people's emergency center because they have the unique kind of capacity of being both a registered
community organization and an organization that provides small business support on lancaster
avenue we do know that you know that they that they did they did look into other potential
tenants but you know obviously two weeks is two weeks is tough not enough time we did meet and
there were even though some potential resolutions were discussed no resolution was reached
So our testimony, the council member's testimony remains the same as it was two weeks ago on the 13th.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else?
Yes, Chair, I have a Mr. Kevin Brown.
Brown, please identify yourself with a record name and address.
Can everyone, hello, can everyone hear me?
Hi, this is Kevin Brown. I'm with People's Emergency Center.
we are the we are the um the rco in charge of the community zoning right and you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do please proceed um as
mr goodman mentioned i was also uh at the meeting on monday where we with the commerce department
was also involved and they are willing to help mr perlman uh find a viable candidate through
their network that may be able to utilize the retail space. And I pointed out to Mr. Perlman
and his team that, you know, his space has only been a viable option for the last eight months.
I know that he started building the project three years ago, but it's only been for the last eight
months that it was available to actually be rented. And I pointed out that during the last
eight months, we've been obviously in lockdown, which directly impacts retail ability. And so I
I just would like for us to consider that in this
and that changing the zoning
changing the zoning will really directly impact the plans we have for this retail corridor and
will really directly impact the plans we have
for this retail.
so I urge the board to really consider to not do that at this time. Thank you. Anyone else?
No more hands, Chair. Thank you. I think we got the planning commission last time but I'll ask
Again, Planning Commission.
Thank you so much.
David Fecteau, F -E -C -T -E -A -U, with the City Planning Commission.
David, do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial mixed use.
We can see that the applicant could have a reasonable argument for requesting a residential unit on the Mount Vernon Street side of the property,
but we cannot support removing commercial space from the corner of 40th Street and Lancaster
Avenue. We recommend against granting this variance. Thank you. I'd like to close the
record and have the board render a decision at next Wednesday's executive session. That's my
recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you like me to submit my full testimony that I had
given would that be helpful yes it would be thank you will do any objection from the board
no not at all okay no all right thank you thank you all
calendar number zero three five four one one one zero one griner road
We have Ming Ling. You can unmute yourself.
Hi, good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Sure. First name is Ming Ling. Last name is Ling, L -I -A -N -G, and my address is 11101 Grano Road.
and that's philadelphia philadelphia philadelphia 19116 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do have you emailed the exhibit packet within five days
in advance of this hearing including proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos and or plans of the property and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
Yes, I do.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Ma 'am, you are mute. Can you unmute yourself?
Miss, you're still on mute.
I'm so sorry.
I do hire a company to help me to present. I didn't see him here. It's Yateng Chen.
Is he an expediter?
I'm sorry, I'm not very good in English.
Okay, well is he an expediter?
yeah okay the expediter can't present the owner has to
so i have to present you mean yeah and i'm sure you'll do well
i'm sorry this is sharing he can help you with the um bringing up the documents and that kind
of thing but yes you have to present. Okay um I bought the house the garage was removed
and I got the violation that I need to rezone it.
you have any pictures do you have any pictures can you show the pictures sure
Can you see, sir?
this is only from on the front door and here's a garage
the garage door was really moved maybe what the house
you have floor plans
Can you see the first picture?
Can you blow it up?
I have to step back for a minute.
The area where the garage once existed, what is it being used for?
It's a storage room.
storage okay
tom i don't know i had to step out so i don't know if you got your
question answered tom yes okay are there any other questions from the board
no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission good afternoon mr chairman members of the board
david fecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends this property
for single family use we believe allowing the existing condition to continue will have no
impact on surrounding properties we have no objection to granting this variance
thank you mi 2020 somebody's going to say something yeah i was somerton civic supports
this yes thank you mi 2020 that's zero zero zero three five four one one one zero one
greener road my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
well i have to step out for a minute i'll get back in all right okay calendar number
one two zero zero eleven twenty seven west winga hawking street
attorneys verne anastasio
verne you can unmute yourself thank you
good afternoon can you put your name and address on the record verne yes of course
verne anastasio 1315 walnut street suite 1006 philadelphia 19107 and it's verne v -e -r -n
anastasio is a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do. Do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed an exhibit packet five days in advance of this hearing
five days in advance of this hearing consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance
consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal referral photo and plans and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
uh yes of everything but i don't have a letter i don't know if they submitted one
because uh they did not send me one okay you still may proceed thank you thank you
okay can you see my exhibit here yes good all right great 1127 west winga hocking
i represent shelly johnson who's here today and sherry will be speaking after my presentation
the application is for three family dwelling in an existing structure it is zoned rsa3
this is the row of homes it's right across from fairmount park
i'm going to show you this is a a property that has a complete 100 above grade basement
and a side door my client would like to use this as a a nice size apartment and then of course the
second of the first floor would be an apartment it's already an apartment and the second floor
the top floor is also already an existing apartment this was the history of this property
is very much like the history of all the properties on this block. It's always been
multifamily. All but two properties on this block have received variances throughout the years
for two and three family dwellings. As you can see, they're ample in size. There's no overcrowding.
um the smallest one is 570 square feet the property has been in general disarray for quite
a long time my client has spoken to the immediate neighbors they're just excited that they're
actually going to be doing something with it as you can see the windows are sort of shot out
uh it's uh been in major disrepair so it's it's that corner property where the signs are in the
window? It's this property right here. Okay. We also move those signs, but just for the record,
we move those signs to the front lawn. Here's the side entrance. As you can see, it's, again,
already two, you know, broken up down to two, and we would like to have the third. Here's the
entrance to the apartment, to the proposed apartment in the above ground basement.
there's a driveway there's a garage in the back that would be used rehabilitated and used for
trash storage each unit would get a 42 gallon plastic rolling bin where folks could put their
trash because nobody parks in that it's in fact as you can see how narrow it is it looks like it's
it hasn't been used in probably 40, 50 years. There's a front step. We have some interior
photos. Again, the property has been vacant for as long as anyone on the block can remember.
And it's in major need of some help. So my client, it's been vandalized. There's been a fire.
it's it's been pretty much a blight on the community as you can see there's a full full
entrance to the basement that would be uh completely rehabbed and what are the homes
like on the block they're all multi -family except for two um throughout the last since the 60s that
little by little each and every property has gotten a variance for either two family or
there's a couple three families as well and with that i'm going to show you my
well you already yeah proof of posting is and here's somewhere sorry there's like 114 documents
here well here's the tax clearance the tax clearance you've met with the rco we have met
with the RCO, and I do not have a letter from them, but we just recently met with them.
Who is the RCO?
One second, please.
It should be in my packet here, but I don't happen to see it.
That's a 42nd Democratic Ward.
um and that's who we met with i thought i had the proof of posting here i can send that over
And that's who we met with.
uh separately uh madam vice chair has the rcos is there a letter from an rco in in the file
did they send anything over or should that be a question for miss dandy
oh this is sharon i just checked if they did send one they did not copy me on it
they did send one no i have no record of having received it if it only went to the rco mailbox
um i wouldn't know that i see okay yeah i wasn't copied on any letter either
we have um mr richardson and um logan community i don't know if that's the rco
I need to introduce my client first, please.
Their hand not raised. You want to tell them to raise your hand?
Sherry? Sherry Johnson?
Good afternoon.
Hi, Sherry. Could you please state your name and address for the record?
Sherry Johnson, 224 West Penn, Philadelphia, 19144.
okay and did you hear my presentation to the board today yes excuse me one second miss carol
you want to swear around yes i do do you agree to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes thank you miss johnson did you hear my presentation before the board today
yes okay and was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes all right and would
you adopt it as your own testimony if need be? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to close my
case, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you. And is there anyone else who's going to testify?
Not on our behalf. I understand that Logan RCO is here, as says somebody from
the council office. And it was the Logan RCO that we, in fact, met with. Okay.
you cannot mute yourself okay hi this is um tina marie russell but before we talk we are
we have um some little neighbors who would like to present as well
mr richardson uh you cannot mute yourself
Good afternoon. This is Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Thank you. And I think you've already been sworn in from this morning.
Yes, Madam Vice Chair.
I was going to let Ms. Russell and the other folks go first because of the fact that they were not able to submit a letter,
but they can give some idea of what it is that they are looking for
or what they will accept with regard to this property.
So I'm going to cede to them first,
and then I'll come back and give the councilwoman's opinion.
Okay, great.
So that would be Tina.
Ms. Russell, yes.
Ms. Russell.
Yes, okay.
Can you hear me?
I'm going to hear you, right?
I can hear you. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name? We lost her. Can you hear me?
hello hi can you hear me is this tina russell yes it is i hear you okay can you put your name
and address on the record and spell your last name please
wow i'm sorry you have to um mute yourself again
tina marie russell r -u -s -s -e -l -l
and your address please
right now we're working out of 1631 west susquehanna avenue
okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do okay you may proceed okay so um first i was looking for the rest of the community to be on
board they are on the line um they're pretty much unclear about how to use zoom so if you see
anyone's hands raised please let them in um so we did have a community meeting on the 22nd
and um and in attendance um there was about four people on that line before
And in attendance, there was about four people on that line.
For myself is five, and the applicant and the attorney was six.
So we had a total of six people.
One was for a, so the question on the table is do we want to have a triplex or a duplex or a single family?
So with those questions being answered, three people said, including the person immediately next door to the applicant, agreed that they would have, they would do not want a triplex.
One person said they do not mind a triplex, but they were not immediately affected.
So two of three people said they're immediately affected, said, yes, they would like to have no triplex.
They would like, but they would concede and work with the applicant and have a duplex.
So to the direct question of whether or not the community agreed to have a triplex, the answer would be no.
That includes the RCO as a consensus with the community.
But they would like to concede and work with the applicant and would like her to reduce the capacity to a duplex.
And if you want, I could read the letter, and I'm sorry if you couldn't get it.
There's just so much complications going on with the computer system today.
but I stipulate uh Ms. Russell's so there's no reason to read the letter I stipulate to your
position I'm sorry who's speaking that's Mr. Anastasio the attorney I understand that but
I would rather just still read the letter very well because I'm going to commit it to record
okay okay thank you okay so um I'm gonna read a short version of it um so the appeal number
002766 calendar 002766 for a petition for a three dwelling multi -family household living
was the denial approval for a two -story multi -family single double duplex was something
that the community would consider and would provide those the proviso would be the trash
containers be kept in the back for all units and the reason why they said that is because there was
some some question about a organization of business taking out the trash rather than the
tenants the owner works with the rco to secure at least two contractors and employees from the
community owners provides that the owner would provide the name phone number and email the owner
of the property as well as the property manager that was talked about from the applicant to the
RCO to ensure communication access and the owner participates in the community cleanup programs
that are held within the community. The reasons why they felt that because they felt that when
they searched the deed versus another document that was presented there were two different names
on those documents so we wanted to make sure that they had a direct line of communication
to the applicant. The applicant provided no hardship for use change as for a triplex as
opposed to a duplex. The area in question is oversaturated with both legal and multifamily
homes. As the attorney indicated, over time, there has been a saturation of duplexes into the
community, and there's few triplexes, but they are on the other side of Winger Hocking, but not on
this side of Winger Hocking. In the community, especially those two poor, lonely, single -family
homeowners would like to who are now seniors would like to remain um um threat free of having so many
um too much saturation if possible um the local community has had a steady increase in properties
that are both legally and illegal change into single family multifamily homes through my search
of records i found that a lot of people used to have um access to rental um that was the compliance
but over time their rental agreements have lapsed and so we wanted an air for those areas have been
having issues with trash and there's very much a concern for them as well as there was a motorcycle
club that was up the street and that was a big nuisance they couldn't the community especially
the seniors could not handle how to deal with that situation um the granting of this overuse
is a request uh will set a terrible precedent for additional applicants to and we just the
community decided, I'm trying to make this real fast. So that precedent of creating a third
triplex on this side of Winger Hocking is what they are protesting as opposed to what's happening
on the other side of Winger Hocking. Because once it was single families, then they turned to duplexes
and now they turned into triplexes. They're trying to reduce that. That is a detriment to the
community. So it's against code number 14506. And we ask them to, in summary, the mission of the
The ZBA board is to protect the community from failing to the consistent assault from property owners who want to buy, recharacterized as the single family Logan character and structure.
This is being done by the negative impact of restructuring and overpopulating, increased trash output and consistent and existing social is an existing.
increased trash output and consistent and existing social is an existing negative social impact to the communities.
So with that being said, we would like to have the zoning board support the community and their their village and their desire to work with the applicant and have this be a duplex and not a triplace.
Okay, again, I'm going to ask Mr. Anastasia, what are the homes like on the block? Are they mainly three units or duplexes?
mostly duplexes there are a few on the other side of wing of hawking that are triplexes
and you know it's our position madam chairwoman uh that you know this property has been a blight
on the community for a very long time uh we believe more not less quality new newest you
know new construction uh uh household living is needed in the neighborhood and that's why we would
proposed three however that being said um and of course it's up to the board's discretion
um two units is is better than none um and it's certainly we could certainly make it work but we
would you know respectfully request the opportunity to breathe some new life into that property
uh and bring it up to speed and the owner would maintain the what would or could be the third unit
if it's empty say it again would the owner maintain that third unit if if it remains empty
the owner would maintain all the units of course okay
does the board of it does the board have any questions and then mr richardson um excuse me
this is sharon saletta i just wanted to say because there are no plans for this um proposed
use or requested to be legalized use it would simply be a proviso maximum two units right
thank you miss lena
okay does the board have any questions no no charles richardson
councilwoman supports the community and as such uh she will support a duplex but she will not
to support a tri -flex planning commission good afternoon madam vice chair members of the board
this the comprehensive plan recommends a single family use for this property we do not believe
that there is a hardship that would require converting the existing two -unit building into
three units we recommend granting we recommend against granting this variance thank you calendar
number one two zero zero eleven twenty seven west winga hawking street my vote is yes to two units
maximum yes for proviso can i add a provide can i add an additional proviso to store the trash
in the back i think with that list of requests that's probably the only one i can
asked to be enforced miss saletta is that correct um i'm sorry i didn't see the list of requests
um i think tina's tina someone said trash in the back property manager sure that can um trash to
be stored within property lines okay and trash to be stored in property lines but we can't force
the owner to participate in the neighborhood cleanup. Is that correct?
It's certainly our intention to be an active member of the community. So if that helps.
The owner said she would participate with the community effort to employ people within
the community which would reduce violence in that area as well she did indicate she would do that as
well yes she did but i don't think we could attach those requirements to a permit but
attorney soletta would probably know better no you cannot they are not enforceable by l and i
okay the only one that is maximum two units and trash stored in the back
excuse me verne would that be the rear yard where it will be stored
it can certainly be stored in the rear of the property yes okay thank you just so i get the
language right thank you okay thank you okay everyone's voted i don't think so i'll i'll
vote again. Yes for Proviso. Yes for Proviso. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
okay thank you thank you calendar number 0322 1400 south 7th street
the attorney is michael phillips
good good afternoon uh madam vice chair members of the board michael phillips 1500 market street
suite 3400 philadelphia pa 19102 good afternoon do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do you also agreed away the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet five days in advance of this hearing
and does it have the proof of ownership tax compliance refusal and referral photos and or
plans of the property, and have you met with your RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes. This is a continuation. Chelsea Dalcy, who is the owner, was at a prior hearing in October,
but without counsel. All of the packet was emailed previously, and I re -sent it to Ms.
Soletta in the CBA earlier this week.
Okay, you may proceed.
And Michael Phillips here on behalf of Chelsea Dalsey, who is the owner of 1400 South 7th Street.
We are here seeking, I'm just going to share my screen.
we're here seeking variants solely for an addition above an existing garage on what is a two -bedroom
two -bathroom single -family home at the southwest corner of 7th and Reed Streets. Ms. Dalsy
purchased the property in 2016. This is a rendering of what the property would look like.
Here is a current photo of it here this yellow building on the corner. As you'll see there is an
existing garage that has been there since 1938 when it was installed by I believe there was
variants in 1938 to permit it. Ms. Dalsey is simply looking to build a one -story addition
above the garage and then remove her existing pilot house which is really cramped in and has
been causing significant issues with her roof and have a stairway leading from the second floor
up to a roof deck and this is a rendering of what it would look like in the future.
The refusal that we received is simply just for rear yard depth. Seven fees required,
none is proposed, as we are building directly above that existing condition.
Ms. Dalsey and her prior representative did meet with the community back in October.
The individuals in attendance voted one to nothing in favor,
but Pashank Square did ultimately oppose the granting of the variance.
I was not at that meeting, so can't attest to why they voted that way,
but Ms. Dalsey is here and will be able to testify as to her hardship.
We'll just zoom in on the proposed plans.
Again, this is the existing first floor layout.
Now, Ms. Dalsey, as I mentioned, purchased the property in 2016.
She had a new roof that was put on with stucco work, and there was significant damage done by the contractors to the roof as a result of the way the pilot house existed.
It was really cramped, wasn't really roofed in correctly, and it caused significant damage to her home.
So her entire roof needs to be rebuilt at this point in time.
and due to the size of the house we're talking about a 680 square foot lot she wants to
both include a bedroom so it becomes a three bed two bath and she can eventually have a family
here in the home and also make this condition with the existing pilot house safer
for her. In terms of how it would impact the surrounding properties, you'll notice that
her property fronts 7th Street. The neighboring property over here fronts Reed. So this is a
party wall here. There's no light that it would or windows that she would be impacting. Any windows
would be on a party wall. There is an existing three -foot alley right here. Also the neighboring
uh alley right here also the neighboring property here at 1402 already juts out um beyond uh miss
property here at 1402.
dalsey's and again uh with this uh parapet right here we're talking about about five and a half
feet that she would go above that and then um would just connect uh here um so uh with the
rebuilding of the roof and you know currently the the property is vacant and been gutted um
Ms. Dalsey is living elsewhere right now while she's awaiting the renovations to the home,
and then she intends to move back and live here as her primary residence.
Again, this is the proposal of what it will ultimately look like.
Here is the home at 1402.
Here is the Reed Street property that fronts Reed.
And again, this is going right over the existing garage, only to the second floor.
We're not proposing to go all the way up.
We would eliminate the pilot house that is currently right here, and she would access the roof through the outdoor stairs.
And this is the third floor bedroom.
That's the master bedroom that she would exit out to lead up to the roof deck.
So Passing Square is a no?
The individuals in attendance, it was only a one -nothing vote.
I believe Passing Square went five to two on this.
Again, I was not at that meeting.
I did not represent Ms. Dalsey at the time, so I cannot attest to why they voted that
There were questions about the legalization of the garage and whether that was a legal
garage, and it was legalized in 1938 and has been there ever since.
Have you met with the councilman?
No, the councilman sent a letter just to the same effect of the community, just following
what the community said.
Opposing it?
I would like Ms. Dalsey to be able to put some testimony on the record about the proposed change.
And again, I don't see why this would be controversial given the real minimal impact this would have both on any neighboring properties and the small scope of relief that's being requested here.
And she would be permitted to do this if there were, I guess, setbacks seven feet, but due to the fact that we're at a 680 -square -foot lot size, she really doesn't have much square footage to work with here.
And making this a three -bed, two -bath would allow her to eventually raise a family here and make this her forever home.
Can you ask your client to raise your hand?
Chelsea, can you raise your hand?
Ms. Chelsea, you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in.
Can you hear me?
Chelsea, I'm just going to swear you in.
Ms. Carroll?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Chelsea, you heard my testimony a moment ago. Was everything I stated true and accurate?
Absolutely. Okay, and do you agree to adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes. Okay, and can you just explain for the board in your own words the current condition,
what happened with the contractors and the need to replace your roof, and why you're here seeking
uh this variance uh for the uh the second floor addition and roof deck sure um when i bought the
house in 2016 um i guess the previous owner had put on what was supposed to be a brand new roof
um and what we found out when the building inspector came through was that they were
scammed basically and there was an extra roof put on but not a roof replacement and removal
so the first thing i did after i bought the house was completely rip off the roof and have them put
back on they left the pilot house in place which had been done by those previous roofers who also
installed a really steep incredibly dangerous staircase inside the house to get to the roof
through that pilot house um just when i had this roof collapse and we pulled everything back and we
saw that the pilot house was part of the problem um and i already put we've gone through two roofs
in two years so far um you know the idea of making one flat roof that i could put a safe roof deck
above and not have to worry about this for a while because i intend on i love this neighborhood i love
the house or what i'm hoping the house will be um and i want to stay you know i don't have to
worry about this going forward so um the fact that the house is completely gutted from the
water damage and it's been sitting like that um also made it a great time to if i was going to
put an addition on which is something i was hoping to do um when i had a family i realized this might
be the best time to do it.
And that was really where the motivation was for all of us.
And that was really where the motivation was for all of us.
Mr. Phillips, if I can interrupt, I apologize.
I was having audio problems.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions.
The party wall of the first house on Reed Street.
It appears that there's an air conditioning unit.
Is that air conditioning through the wall or is it through,
is that a window air conditioning unit?
would you happen to know that from here it looks like it may be in a window
and i'm wondering if that that if it is a window which it appears is that window facing
the rear of 1400 or 1402 south 7th street so i believe in chelsea correct me if i'm wrong i
believe it is a window would be an illegally constructed window because that is right on the
party line if it is with the air conditioning unit coming out I believe it is more so like
it straddles the line between 1400 and 1402 but Chelsea if you can just speak to that briefly
yeah that is a window it is there's one that's that whole side is solid except for in the rear
and then that one window that's it literally is kind of in the middle so I don't I can't even
tell you exactly where it falls on the line but it's it almost falls slightly on this on my third
we're a little bit off because they have a raised basement or their basement ceilings are higher so
it's like a little bit on the third floor and a little bit on 1402 but it is some of the faces
my property yeah i'm somewhat familiar but there is an alleyway so it's really not in a budding
party wall yeah all right you got the alleyway uh the depth of the deck uh not the top roof uh
coming out of the second floor what is the depth of that deck as it goes out to the property line
sure so that depth uh out to the property line uh is uh 13 uh approximately 13 feet
i'm just trying to maybe i i don't know if there's anybody else who's testifying what the
objection is i mean it's not unusual roof decks are i mean i live a couple blocks away so roof
decks are everywhere in that neighborhood i'm just curious of what is driving the opposition
and if there's anyone on i'd like to hear what the opposition is
i didn't mean to get in front of you carol but i that's okay audio was down again
so is there anyone else to testify in this case i don't see any hands here
all right planning commission good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman
members of the board this comprehensive plan recommends this property for single family use
we do not object to granting this variance okay thank you uh mi 2020 -000 -322 -1400
or South 7th Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Good luck. Thank you very much members of
the board. Calendar number 2748 1731 West Hunting Park Avenue. There are no exhibits with this case.
this was mr jared case he's coming back in as a panelist
carol this was one earlier we there was a problem with the uh
exhibits being sent and we said we'd like we'd we'd overlooked that because of extenuating
circumstances okay you've already been sworn in yes i have thank you very much uh good good
afternoon again members of the board Jared Klein from Black Rome on behalf of the applicant the
opportunity services center I'm going to share my screen and as I mentioned earlier this application
has some broad -based community support and I know the board has a long agenda so I'll endeavor to
be as brief as I can the application is for 1731 West Hunting Park which is on the corner of Hunting
Park and Clarissa Street and the application is to erect a new detached structure that's
going to be used as 41 age -restricted senior affordable housing units with 14 off -street
parking spaces. The refusals that we got are for the use, the number of parking spaces,
and for the structure height. I'll show some more contextual images of where the site is
located in in a moment um but it is located near the wayne junction septa station and a variety of
But it is located near the Wayne Junction SEPTA station and a variety of walkable retail areas that we think works well for having a parking variance granted.
I'll jump right to the conversations we had with the community association and then walk through the plans.
There are a variety of letters of support in the materials that I submitted to the board.
This one is the Nicetown CDC, which notes that they extend their full support to our efforts to bring safe, quality and affordable service -enriched housing.
We have a letter from the 13th Ward RCO, which was the coordinating RCO that had a vote of 7 -0 in support.
And we also have letters from, bear with me, the Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of Philadelphia,
which has its location close to this property, as well as a letter of support from the Mastery
Charter Schools Network, which also has a location located very near this property.
Moving through, these are just the photos of posting.
You can see that we put a variety of posters surrounding the lot on the existing fence line.
And to jump into what the actual plans will be, these are the site plan. This is going to be the
newly constructed building here. There is an easement drive aisle that will be accessed coming
off of Hunting Park to allow cars to get back into the area where the parking would be. Here
are some basic elevations showing the different frontages and sizes of the proposed structure.
And these are the floor plans. This is the ground floor that's showing the mechanical and interior trash storage and utilities here.
There's accessible units on all floors. There's a hearing and vision impaired unit on the ground floor and the second floor.
And then on the bottom here, we have some lobby, office and meeting space.
That extends to the similar footprint to the second and fourth floors. Again, accessible units on every floor.
just to orient the board this is the aerial view of where the subject property is it is this this
parcel here and it's a CA1 zoned property with some RSA5 that's separated by some train tracks
right here so we're not actually adjacent to any of the residential parcels there's a rail line
that runs here and on Hunting Park Avenue there's a variety of different zoned uses
The rest of the exhibit packet contains the standard materials, our notice to the surrounding
community, our tax clearance showing a zero balance, and the deed to the property.
And, you know, as I mentioned, this is an upgrade to the area serving a really specific
housing need that the neighborhood needs, and there's a lot of support and buy -in for
what we're doing here.
I would ask Angela Steele if she's available to raise her hand so she can briefly adopt my testimony.
Ms. Steele, you can unmute yourself.
Hello?
Angela, can you state and spell your name for the record please?
Yes, my name is Angela Steele, last name S -T -E -E -L -E, and my address is 169 Hansberry Street,
philadelphia one nine one four four you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you thank you uh angela did you have an opportunity
to hear my presentation a few moments ago yes i did and do you adopt everything that i said
is true correct in your own yes i do thank you very much uh mr chair we have the architecture
team that's on the call as well i don't think it's in the best use of the board's time to have
them run through the plans in any more detail but if you have questions we're certainly happy to
Thank you. Questions from the board? No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand. Mr. Charles Richardson. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself.
Mr. Richardson, just identify yourself with the record. You're still under oath.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Councilwoman loves senior housing and definitely supports this variance.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else to testify?
No more hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The comprehensive plan recommends residential mixed use for this property.
comprehensive plan recommends residential mixed use for this property we submitted a letter for
We submitted a letter for the...
the applicant's financing application indicating that the affordable senior residence complies with
the comprehensive plan therefore we ask you to support granting this variance thank you mi 2020
that's zero zero two seven four six one seven three one west hunting park avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you very much and i uh thank you i appreciate
the board's willingness to hear this case in light of the you're quite you're quite welcome
thank you carol the five and six are five and six together okay calendar number 2118 2105
ellsworth street and calendar 2116 2107 ellsworth street
um good afternoon um good afternoon can you put your name and address on the record and spell
your last name sure sarah aldenford s -a -r -a -h -a -l -d -e -r -f -e -r 1500 jfk boulevard suite 800
Philadelphia. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Do
you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. And have you
emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents five days in advance of this hearing?
They would be proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the
property. And have you met with your RCO? And do you have a letter? We email the packet of
exhibits five days before and they included almost all of the required materials except for
proof of our tax compliance which we provided to the board yesterday okay so you may proceed
thank you um uh good afternoon uh my name is sarah aldifer i'm here on behalf of the owners of 2105
Ellsworth Street, which is 91C LLC. Their principal is Richard Baumann and the owner of 2107 Ellsworth
Street, Maidcon LLC. These principals were, it's Jason Couture, who's sitting right next to me.
I'm going to go ahead and share my screen with you.
okay so the properties are located here on the north side of ellsworth street between 21st and
22nd street which is the neighborhood of the city um there there are two sides of the twin
and photos of the property are exhibit 11 a and b which are on page 38 of the pdf
2105 is this side of the twin, which currently has a driveway and parking.
And then 2107, scrolling down to exhibit B, is the other side of the twin, which also has a driveway for parking.
These are two separate properties, and each of the lots are 42 feet 10 inches wide by 68 feet 3 inches deep.
Our proposal is to subdivide each of the existing properties into three and erect single -family homes thereon,
for a total of six homes for the project but three homes on the exist would be would come out
of the existing lot at 2105 and three homes would come out of the existing lot at 2107.
um as i stated earlier there are different owners for each lot and we're not proposing to subdivide
these in a manner that would change the that would cross the existing lot line between 2105
and 2107 the lots would be subdivided within the existing lots um the the properties are in the
rsa5 zoning district um and we have refusals which i'll show you at exhibit one um our refusals for
each of the newly created lots there are two refusals um one for lot width we're proposing
14 .278 feet wide lots where 16 feet would be required and we're proposing lot area of 974 .5
square feet where 1440 square feet of lot area is required um our original plan what we met with
the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition Zoning Committee and our region
Point Breeze Community Development Coalition Zoning Committee and our original plans that
we presented are Exhibit 3 which I'll show you on page 15 if you're following along at home.
I think the best described is the rendering which is actually page 18. This is what
we originally presented to the zoning committee. The zoning committee in response to that had a
number of comments excuse me the zoning committee had a number of comments and we made a number of
we made a number of
revisions to the plan accordingly um so they wanted us to bring down the height of the building which
wasn't by right height they wanted us to change the facade to include more in more interactive
free facade and they were concerned about um lot coverage and stormwater runoff so in response to
the comments from the zoning committee we're presenting today a revised plan which is on page
which is on page 27, Exhibit 7. To best show that, I'm going to scroll down to the rendering
of the revised plan, and I'll just give you a quick summary of the changes we made.
We reduced the height overall from 38 feet to come in at a total height of 34 feet 6 inches,
which is a below bi -right height. We increased the proposed rear yard depth from 17 feet 1 inch
to 21 feet 3 inches, which also resulted in an increase in the proposed open area from 25 %
to 31%. We also changed the size and location of the front steps and added planters in the front
and then scrolling up to the revised site plan, we've also provided in the rear for
porous pavers to deal with the issue of runoff that the neighbors were concerned about.
In this design, we've tried to design the homes in a way that fits the context of the neighborhood,
but by also changing the overall aesthetic and providing a more traditional look with the window
sizes. And we've also designed the homes in a way that we believe they're going to appear
as if they were a traditional row home size, and they're going to look wider
from the street than they actually are. I'm going to show you guys now. We did a shadow study in
response to comments about potential effects on the on the neighboring properties on that share
the rear yard which the neighboring property space altar street um the top row is the shadows that
are created by the truck that would be created on the longest day which is the summer solstice
And you can see the shadows created by our property here.
And then also at the bottom, this shows the shadows created at 8 a .m., noon, and 4 p .m.
on winter solstice, December 21st.
After we had a community meeting with Point Breeze Community Development,
who have decided to oppose this project,
Their letter is at Exhibit 2, page 11.
The vote was from the board of the zoning committee, zero in support, one opposition.
From the community, four in support, seven in opposition.
They stated that their concerns were not providing parking, sunlight, the overall height of the building.
And then they had a set of concerns, and also they had a concern about the density of the project.
We went and we discussed the project with the surrounding neighbors, and I've presented for you at Exhibit 17, which is page 123, a breakdown of petitions that we got signed by the adjacent neighbors.
Apologies, I could not get this to scan the correct way, so I'm just going to rotate this for a moment.
um and i've mapped out for the board's convenience uh the properties where we have petitions so the
uh the properties where we have petitions so the light blue property is 2105 elsewhere street
light blue property
the dark blue outline property is 2107 elsewhere street and then the properties outlined in red
are all the properties where we were able to obtain letters and petitions of support and
those petitions then follow in the packet. So with that I'd like to have my
client testify. Mr. Cutaire, can you identify yourself for the record please?
How you doing? My name is Jason Cutaire. Jason, would you spell your full name please?
I'm sorry, J -A -S -O -N -C -U -T -A -I -A -R.
Do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Sarah.
Mr. Kuter, you're a member of Macon LLC, is that correct?
And Macon LLC owns 2107 Ellsworth Street?
Have you heard my testimony?
Is it true and correct?
Do you adopt it as your own?
Is there anything else that you would like to add to support your application?
Yeah, so I went around for the past week to talk to all the nearby neighbors in support.
So out of all the support letters, they were actually all the people who answered their door and were willing to sign the petition.
there was about 16 homes that were either vacant or no answer and I had four people who just
refused to sign anything they didn't say they supported or opposed but they just wouldn't sign
so you know out of everybody that I was able to talk to I got a high percentage of signatures
with the petitions to be closed.
How many pages?
How many revised pages?
Two pages.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
Yes, we have a call -in user.
Will the caller please identify him or herself, spell your full name, name and address?
Yes, Tiffany Green, Concerned Citizens of Point Breast, 1518 South 22nd Street.
We're not going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, always.
Please proceed.
I wanted to testify because this particular project was a real concern to the residents.
at the meeting, being that this project here was initially a city project of moderate income homes.
It was a different type of project, was a different type of design, more suburban -like,
where the house is a more ranch -style type home with a parking driveway on the side,
and federal funds were used for this particular project.
And so it's a real concern right now because what he wants to propose would definitely have a negative impact on the whole character size of the block, particularly the neighbors behind it, will be impacted in terms of shade and light and everything like that.
The concern we have is that Sarah, at the meeting, we asked them to make the changes and come back and present at another meeting. And they opted not to do that and take their chances at the ZBA. We are not aware, we have not seen any of these revised plans. We have not seen the shadow report or anything.
And so I ask that the commission please maybe have the developer come back to a meeting with the community again
and show these new plans and show this shadow report and let us have more conversation about the project.
They don't seem to want to work with the community or make any real changes.
To put three houses on one property that was designed in a suburban type of design is really an overuse of the property.
And it doesn't really, like I said, fit in with it, with the character of the property.
are you suggesting that the changes that we looked at today that were according to council
were the decisions that were made based on community input lowering the height of the
buildings some of the other structural changes in the on the front and facades of the building
uh some of the other structural changes in the uh on the front and facades of the building
the community group is not aware of that no we're not we've never seen it and if you look at the uh
the uh summary meeting page that was sent in the summary page sent about a coordinating rco and
ourself we agree you know we we we oppose the project and we say we know why uh too dense why
so many houses on one property we say lack of parking and that's how it was left we are not
familiar with these new uh designs or shadow report that they have there could you shed some
light on that i don't respectfully disagree with um uh miss miss green's uh representations which
are you know in my view factually incorrect these plans that are being presented today the revised
plans were presented at the uh point breeze community development coalition meeting there
was discussion at the point threes community development coalition meeting of um where they
would like us to proceed with a second revised plan and change the number of units um into a
by right plan which we declined to do um however these plans were presented to the rco and these
were the plans that were discussed with the neighbors at that meeting um and then with regard
to Ms. Green's comment about the context of the neighborhood, I would like to note that the ZBA
granted a similar variance for 2124 Ellsworth Street, and that permit is included in our packet
it at exhibit 16, page 104. Let me just rotate back. This was the permit and variance granted
for 2124 Ellsworth Street, which is across the street and on the same block as this property.
And it is a slightly more expensive variance, where here, variances were granted for minimum
lot with a 14 feet which is 0 .278 feet narrower than what we're proposing and for a minimum lot
area that's slightly smaller than the lot area we're requesting um and also they have no open
area in their project whereas we're providing 31 .1 open area so in with regard to any uh
contestants about this fitting in with the character of the neighborhood this fits in with
what was granted by the zba um in 2019 yeah but there you are you want you're proposing three
houses on one particular lot which the requirement is 1440 and each one of your houses is like like
900 900 something square footage which is small very small and then on each one of you want to
add on the roof three -story rooftop deck and all these houses are suburban type
of style and if the Commission would look at the Google Maps and see how this
project was structured you know you see that this is definitely a mismatch in
terms of the community I we I have no knowledge of those new plans or strategy
and and I do not remember you presenting them at the at the at then we asked you
to come back did we not and we asked and you said you wanted to take your chances at the zva
what we said was we were we had made a variety of changes already and the changes that were being
requested where you would like us to break was that was not i was that point Greece community
development coalition said they would like to see a by right plan here so um you know with all due
respect i think we're just going to have to you know you've said i believe miss green said what
um her view of the meeting is um i that is not my that is not what in my mind happened and my
client willing to testify to that and if somebody from um point three's community development
coalition is here i would love to hear what their input is as to what plans were presented at the
Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case?
Yes, I have a Philip Harris.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself with the record. Name and address.
Good afternoon. Philip Harris, 2106 Alter Street. Can you hear me okay?
Yes. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I am here today to present opposition to the plan.
I did have the opportunity to meet and speak with Jason and shared.
I did have the opportunity to meet and speak with Jason and shared these concerns with
him probably a couple of days ago, but I'd like to read my opposition for the record.
Again, Philip Harris, lifelong resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, my family and
I reside at 2106 Alter Street.
Our home is located behind the property, and we are writing to express our opposition to
the proposed re -subdivision and redevelopment of the property for the plans as submitted.
The plans submitted, as you know, have a requirement of 16 feet wide. They're looking
for a narrower one, I guess, by almost a foot or a foot and a half, over a foot and a half less
requirement, and the square footage also pointed out by, sounds like, Point Breeze Development
Association. That represents approximately 30 % less square footage on a lot than expected.
Our opposition is based on the loss of neighborhood and community character. We bought into this
property five years ago and loved the open green space and that would totally take us in the
opposite direction. And we see a 300 % increase in density, six residential units replacing
two residential units, increased traffic congestion due to the density, insufficient or really
no all street parking in the plan, which exists today, increased competition for street parking,
more likely cars associated with the additional density and saturation of the homes.
Destruction of green space I think I touched upon already. And a very important concern I guess for
our area is the increase in pervious area for storm runoff. Currently there's existing drains
that are in those backyards of those two properties and our understanding of the plan
those drains would be removed that would uh cause additional water to run into our property
oh i'm sorry
please proceed mr harvis oh i'm sorry was i cut off i think somebody else was talking they had
their mic open so please proceed you left off about the uh water runoff uh yes concern because
are removing the drains. Yeah there's two drains that would be removed and that would
increase the water runoff I guess into our yards and threaten our basements and the water in this
area seems to be I'm not sure how close you are to a river but it gets saturated very easily so
that's a that's a very huge concern. I did I'm not sure if my neighbor from 2104 joined the call
Carolyn Walton, but she gave me a signed opposition letter
and I also have verbal opposition from
Sir, not to interrupt you, but you have to speak for yourself
Okay, good enough
Mr. Jiggle, there's another neighbor, she's on Zoom
We're going to get to whoever has their hand up, thank you
Mr. Harvish, have you concluded?
Just to finish up, and I would
suggest they look at 20, the development of 2103 Ellsworth and use that plan as a guide and we
wouldn't have a problem if they pursue that design. That would help maintain the character
and green space of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify?
Please raise your hand. Both are waiting for people to raise their hand just to address
two issues raised by Mr. Harris. First, you know, taking them in reverse order on the issue of
stormwater um we're providing forest pavers um and we've in and we increased from our original
plan to our revised plan the amount of um rear yard area so it's coming in well below we would
be allowed to build by right and providing extra open area um in addition this is an rsa 5 zoning
district so parking is not required and that would actually initiate another variance if we attempted
to proceed with the plan that included parking.
Anyone else to testify?
Please raise your hand.
Mr. Chairman, I've been, as we've been on here,
I've been receiving messages from a woman named Amber Alda
who has been trying to raise her hand to testify.
and she's an immediate neighbor in the area.
I don't know if the board can see her in the queue.
Yeah, she just raised her hand, but I have a Ms. Johnson on the line.
Yeah, she just raised her hand,
but I have a Ms. Johnson on the line.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson, you can unmute yourself.
Aisha Johnson, you can unmute yourself.
okay miss amber you can unmute yourself and talk yes hi uh my name is ma 'am please identify
yourself for the record first and last name spell your name and provide us with your address
hi my name is amber al hadif um a -m -b -e -r a -l -h -a -d -e -f -f my address is 2103 ellsworth
You swear and firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, ma 'am. Please proceed.
So just to introduce myself, I am the immediate neighbor to this project on the east side.
And so the construction would occur directly adjacent to my property.
I found out about this project maybe a month, six weeks ago.
I was at the RCO last month where Sarah and Jason did propose their updated plans.
I share all of the concerns of the community that have already been, you know, been described from a selfish perspective.
You know, it's hard to swallow construction immediately next door to your property.
But I think we're also overlooking a very important point here. And that's that this area of the city, in particular Ellsworth Street, is increasingly popular. It's going to be increasingly developed. And so I think it's important to point out that, you know, whether it's these developers or other developers, I think that we are trying to fight the fact that there's development in the neighborhood and not necessarily the issues at hand.
And so I just wanted to kind of point that out and also just mention that I aired some of my concerns last month at the RCO.
And since then, I've been quite impressed by Jason has met with me multiple times.
We've met in person, actually outdoors at the property to try and assuage my concerns about the development that's happening right next door.
And so while, you know, I completely understand all of the concerns about development, parking, green space, and the issues surrounding, I do think that if we are going to have development in the neighborhood, I appreciate that there will be development by someone who has been responsive to me.
So all of my concerns, he responds to really immediately provided me with a cell phone and and has been proactive in making sure that, you know, while I may not be happy with the project going on next door, I am convinced at this point that he is not trying to make my life more difficult by by having his project be where it is.
and I appreciate that.
Just some things I think it's important to consider
moving forward with this project.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Anyone else?
There's another neighbor.
She's texting me saying she's on Zoom,
but she's not being acknowledged.
Does she have her hand raised?
the only hand i have left is aisha johnson um she's available to talk she just has to unmute herself
now i have a um a randolph
yeah that's her and uh and i'm telling her i'm technically telling her to unmute herself now
good afternoon ma 'am please identify yourself for the record first and last name and your address
thank you my name is annette randolph my address is 2012 ellsworth street i live and i am the cap
black captain on this block also i have my husband dennis randolph that is sitting beside me
okay do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do. Please proceed. Thank you. First, I just want to say that I've been on this block for 61 years at this home. And the house that they're trying to put up down on the next block, the six houses down there, we need the neighbors. We do not accept those six houses. It would be cramped to the T.
and as far as the gentleman that said that he went to the neighbors he did not go to no neighbors
he did not and as far as the lady um that was sitting there with the gentleman
And as far as the lady that was sitting there with the gentleman, we explained it to her
that we were against the six houses and she said, she was supposed to come back to the
meeting.
We were on that meeting with her and she was supposed to come back.
She did not, she did not come back to us.
she did not um everything that we put before her no she did not come back there was we we we got
nothing we got nothing no absolutely nothing and if you put those six houses there in that spot
there they will be smaller than smaller and it is nothing on that block or on my block that looks
nothing like that at all at all and the lady who just spoke that lived on that corner there
she was in agreement with us and so I don't know what happened I don't know what happened with the
conversation from her and the gentleman but that gentleman did not come to the neighbors with no
paper after we spoke he did not and in fact he was not even at the meeting um when we were on
the meeting on the line so everything that was said is not true and my husband is right here
and he also listened on it that is not true
anyone else we're going to wrap this case up shortly anyone else something new and different
no more handshare thank you planning commission good afternoon david effecto city planning
commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends these properties
for single -family use the proposed lot line changes will result in lots that are approximately
970 square feet although this is undersized according to the zoning code these lots are
roughly the same size as the house lots across Ellsworth Street. We do not oppose granting these
variances. You answered my question. I was going to ask you about that lot size issue. All right.
And they're actually building it below 38 feet, which is a buy right. Apparently they have taken
under consideration many of the community concerns. Maybe not all, but sounds to me like significant
adjustments were made that's my opinion anyway calendar numbers 2020 -002 -118 -2105 Ellsworth
Street and MI 2020 -002 -1116 -2107 Ellsworth Street my vote is yes on both with the proviso
revised plan two pages approved today. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso. Good luck. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. Calendar number 2757
2626 -30 Cedar Street.
good afternoon hi rachel can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name sure rachel r -a -c -h -a -e -l pritzker p -r -i -t -z -k -e -r 1635 market street suite 1600
Philadelphia pa 19103 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes and have you emailed the exhibit packet five days in advance of this hearing
with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos and or plans and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter yes thank you you may proceed okay i'm going to share my
screen um also want to call up um Jeff Tubbs and Ian Smith who is our architect um just so that
they are ready and prepared to go as this should not be a very long matter okay
Okay, so this is, while we're doing that, this is 2626 Cedar Street.
Just going to go through the exhibits. Essentially, what we're asking for are variances for
lot area. We are doing a subdivision of the existing lots, lot line relocation, and then
four single family homes are being proposed. These lots are slightly
four single -family homes are being proposed. These lots are slightly smaller than the code requires.
However, I'll have Ian show that we did a study and similar to other cases, these lots are sort of
in compliance or identical to the existing small lots on this site. This is also generally for
some of these issues were also related to the small size. However, again, they're in compliance.
I want to see if Ian can go through the plans for the board. I just want to highlight that we did
meet with the RCO. Taxes are paid even 2021, a little bit early. And this is the site. As you
can see it's a corner property. There's an existing structure here that's going to be
demolished but four new single -family homes and this project was supported by the community. So
as you can see this is sort of the aerial shows the existing site and sort of the
full site as well that we're looking to put these homes on. This is the posting requirements.
um just get down to the rco the rco is old richmond civic association
we met with them on i believe the 17th they have three in support of the near neighbors
and issued us a letter of support additionally we have a letter from councilman squillett's office
in support of the project um as well you know the hardship would be that complying with the code
would really provide out -of -character large single -family homes and given the corner lot
we believe that the way that we have laid them out is more in compliance and obviously was
something that was supported by the community. So I'm going to just have Ian share the plans
and then take any questions and go from there. Okay so you want me to bring up the plans? Yes please.
is okay i had to promote him to panelists he's coming back in i guess i didn't share my screen
let me share my screen yeah and a summarized version would be helpful will do i'll do my best
I apologize for not being absolutely prepared
to get right into this.
While you're doing this,
can you put your name on the record
and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
My name is Ian Smith
the Vian Smith Design Group, located at 322 East Thompson Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
19125. Okay. All right. Thank you. So what we're looking at here is our site plan. It shows four
individually separated properties facing East Albert Street. Cedar Street would be to our right
hand side. And you can see that the lot arrangement as the rear yards are in the back.
We've also provided a deeded easement that complies with building code with regard to egressing from the rear of the property out to Cedar Street.
Moving on. The buildings are below 38 feet. I think they're clocking at 34 feet, 6 inches. That's what this drawing shows.
um the plan layout uh you know as it stands is uh basement sort of uh amenity space for
potential uh guest room and living area plus a flex space first floor is your main living area
with living room dining room kitchen second floor has two bedrooms um one uh uh traditional bath
layout, laundry, and an office slash den or bonus space indicated in blue. The third floor plan I'm
just going to zoom in on. Here is the master bedroom suite at the third floor. And then above
that, a pilot house leads to a rooftop deck area with the anticipation of providing 60 % green roof
area, even though we do not need the bonus. Okay. These are renderings of the project.
we're trying to identify or sort of show or break up the massing of the collection of these
single -family homes with differentiations in color, some different views. I'm going to
some different views. I'm going to get through this pretty quickly to get to our analysis,
get through this pretty quickly to get to
if I may, right here. So what we have, our proposed site, I'm just going to zoom in on,
is right here with the diagonal hatch indicated in white. And what we've tried to do with a
gradation of colors is show what lots are very close in size to our lot and what size lots are
bigger. The green lots are smaller and growing into a close size to the lots that are proposed
and the brownish or reddish lots grow and exceed the size and area of our lot. Dimensionally not
the same but you can see here how it's been how it is distributed throughout the site so you can
see that probably about 80 % of the surrounding lots are less than our lot size and probably
like, you know, 25%, you know, 20, 25 % are greater than our lot size. And I think this is well within
the character of this sort of Fishtown, East, Northeast Philadelphia neighborhood. And yeah,
Thank you.
Happy to take it.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Rachel?
Besides Jeff, just to swear in my testimony, or if you want, if you don't want to wait for that, then.
You'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
no hands at this time thank you planning commission good afternoon david effecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends these
properties for single family use the proposed lot line changes will result in lots that are
undersized according to the zoning code however these lots are comparable to lots on both cedar
street and albert street we do not object to granting these variances thank you very much
mi2020 that's 0027572626 -30 cedar street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is
yes my vote is yes my vote is yes carol before you start on number eight did we ever get any
exhibits sharon we did not um it's the first listing we did get a um mary jones of councilman
Clark's office did forward a letter in opposition from a neighbor.
Anyone here on case number 2020 -002753, 2717 Parrish Street?
I have Alan.
Hello?
Yes, Mr. Chair, Alan Ockamson of Ockamson.
Hey Alan, how are you?
please identify yourself for the record yes alan knockamson a -l -a -n last name knockamson
n -o -c -h -u -m -s -o -n one two three south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do not yet received any exhibits we did send our office sent it on friday
um i'm sorry i will check again but i had a record of not receiving them um
again i will check yeah i mean yes no of course if you say that you submitted them i
accept that you did yes you're prepared to go forward uh yes i am okay
Carol we're ready and you just promoted him to panelists he's going to come back in
he's been sworn in Carol okay you can ask about stipulations hi Alan do you agree to wave and stip
I do and do you also um have you well we talked about the exhibit packet
you may proceed all right thank you I'm going to share my screen
This is Sharon again. I have located the exhibit packet. I apologize, Mr. Mockinson.
Oh, no worries.
I'll share my screen.
Hi. So you'll see our exhibit packet.
Front page is just showing a rendering of our project at 2717 Parish Street,
This property is owned by general people, Edgar and Andrea Ortiz, who moved to the Fairmont section of Philadelphia recently and are looking to put in addition, as you can see right here.
recently, and they were looking to put in addition, as you can see right here from this rendering,
when they purchased the property, they did not realize that they needed to obtain
permits, or they understood that the contractor would obtain permits for them.
So this is part of a, you know, in response to a violation. So you'll see in our packet materials,
The first exhibit is the deed to the property showing that Mr. and Mrs. Ortiz own the property.
The second exhibit is the tax clearance certificate showing that they're in good standing with the city of Philadelphia in terms of their property.
The third exhibit, as you can see, this is an RSA 5 property. This is a two -story structure. It has full lot coverage on the first floor. We're asking for an addition on the second floor to match that, and we're receiving a refusal as to that because of the minimum rear yard depth of the property.
After that, it's our application for appeal, showing that we filed an application with
this board on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Ortiz.
And after that, you'll see where we are in the neighborhood, we're in the corner of Parish
and Pannock.
And after that, you'll see, like from Atlas, where we are, again, we are at the corner
of Pannock and Parish.
We have full lot coverage on the first floor.
You'll also see that there's full lot coverage at 2711 and 2709 Pennock.
I would point the board's direction to 2715 and 2713 and 861 North Pennock Street.
These are the individuals or the property owners that would be most affected by this project.
We have a letter of support from 2715 and 2713.
Originally, there was a misunderstanding with regards to the individuals at 861 PENOC.
They originally submitted a letter in opposition to this board and to the coordinating RCO.
They have withdrawn that.
I have a copy of that letter as well.
After that, you'll see again from Google Maps where we are in the neighborhood.
And then here are photographs of the property.
As you can see, this is a two -story structure.
This is facing Parrish Street.
This is facing Pannock.
This is not the current conditions of the property.
This is, again, you'll see current conditions later on.
You'll see from the right of the property on Parrish, to the left on the property on Parrish, to the right of the property on Pannock, to the left of the property on Pannock.
And then you'll see from the plans, again, more pictures of the property.
And then you'll see the, you know, from the site plan, the two -story addition.
So this is, you know, what the current condition is.
Again, my clients, you know, engage a contractor.
My clients are a young couple who have a child.
They're looking to put a room, an extra room in their house.
Their understanding was that they were going to, like, this was going to be submitted, you know,
by way of permits and everything else it was it was really like shocking to them of what happened
they didn't do anything maliciously you can see that there's an alley right here between the
Pennock property 861 Pennock and the rear of their property of at least three feet
and you can see that it's you know 15 feet long the property uh where the addition would be
and then you can see from here this is what they're looking to do they're looking to put
a bedroom into here for their growing family oops sorry got a little ahead of myself here
So we met with the Fairmont Civic Association, and as you can see from the vote, there were nine people in support and three people opposed.
And then of the nine people in support, three were in the affected area.
Again, we had the neighbors from 2715, which were next door, and 2713, who were at that meeting in support of this project.
Even though we had 75 % of the people at that meeting supported the project, the coordinating RCO still opposed it for no apparent reason other than the fact that they didn't want this to happen.
Again, during the meeting, they didn't even want to take a vote.
Again, during the meeting, they didn't even want to take a vote.
Because I've had, you know, I actually live in Fairmont myself.
So this is not the first time I've been in front of this group.
I've had issues with them in the past in terms of not taking votes.
And I said that you're required to take votes.
You're supposed to take votes of the people at that meeting.
And you're supposed to take votes to specify people within the affected area.
And as I indicated, the people within the affected area, 2713 Parish and 2715 Parish are in support of this project.
Now, they did provide us a letter after the fact of the 861 North Panock, the one that kind of crisscrossed, like that's next to us where that alley was.
There was a letter of opposition.
I think there was a misunderstanding because we did reach out, as I indicate to all my clients, reach out to the people who are most affected, especially when you have a situation like this.
So that's why we got a letter of support from 2715 and 2713 Parish.
We did meet with the neighbors at 861 North Pennock.
I don't know where the miscommunication was.
So after the meeting, they submitted this to the Fairmont Civic Association.
And the Fairmont Civic Association basically based their opposition on the fact that 861 North Pennock was against it.
But we did meet with the people.
My clients did meet with the people at 861 North Pennock after the meeting.
And today, we received this letter from them saying that they're withdrawing their letter of opposition to this project.
And then here's proof of our mailing for 2717 Parrish Street, showing that, you know, for this project, we met on December 3rd at 7 p .m. via Zoom.
And the 139 addresses we mailed the notice to, as well as proof of mailing to these addresses.
I have my clients on the line, so Edgar and or Andrea, can you virtually raise your hand?
Are you there, Edgar?
Andrea?
I'm sorry, what's the name?
Ortiz, should be the last name?
Or is it their last name?
Mr. Ortiz.
Hi, this is Edgar Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz?
Please identify yourself with the record
first and last name and your address.
Edgar Ortiz, 2717 Parrish Street, Philadelphia,
via 19130.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Edgar, you heard everything I stated
today.
Yes. And is it true and correct?
Correct.
And would you adopt the testimony
as your own? Yes, I would.
questions from the board?
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
yes i have a mr lawrence mr lawrence you can unmute yourself
really uh my name is lawrence reynolds uh representing the fairmount civic
would you please spell your last name r -e -y -n -o -l -d -s address is 2633 aspen street
I'm sorry, I got ahead of myself. Do you swear in a frame to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do so.
Please proceed.
Just to clarify, again, the board of the FCA made its decision primarily on the contact that we received from 861 Pennock Street, in which they indicated their opposition to the addition.
A second point, we were concerned about the construction without having permits, but the primary one was the 861 Pennock Street.
If that resident has withdrawn their opposition, I guess we would have to say then that there's no reason for the FCA to oppose it.
But that was the primary reason for our concerns.
Understood. And thank you. Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify? Please raise your hand.
No more hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission. Good afternoon. David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman,
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. David Fecto, City Planning Commissioner.
members of the board. The comprehensive plan recommends this property for single -family use.
Since the applicant built this addition without the benefit of a permit, we are going to oppose
granting this variance. Understood. Thank you. MI 2020 -002 -753 -2717 Parish Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you
calendar number 2758 3018 midvale avenue
Mr. Bertil?
Yes, he's being promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Hello, good afternoon.
Hi, could you please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Steve Bertil, B -E -R -T -I -L.
Claire Harrison Harvey in Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street, Street 14, 100 -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?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet, which is required five days in advance of this hearing, consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of the above except the letter.
I don't have the meeting summary report or letter from our most recent meeting with the RCO representing any votes.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY SUBMITTED THAT DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD, BUT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT
AS OF YET.
WE DO HAVE A LETTER.
YOU MAY PROCEED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN.
IS THE BOARD ABLE TO SEE THAT?
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN.
My name is Steve Bertil. I'm here on behalf of the owners of 3818 Midvale Avenue. We're requesting a
variant release to allow for the legalization of an existing partially constructed garage structure
with two accessory parking spaces and an accessory dwelling unit proposed use on the second level.
Just to give Mr. Chair and the board a bit of background, the owners of the property, Benicia and Darren, are a young couple who purchased a home back in 2019 with the intention to make this their forever home, their dream home, if you will.
So this, as many of you know, it falls in a desirable neighborhood, and as such, their intention is to grow a family here and spend the rest of their lives here.
Pursuant to that effect, the owners wanted to create an additional living space on their property for their aging parents when that time, well, for a place for their aging parents to stay when that time came.
And as such, pursuant to that, they began to construct an accessory dwelling unit structure above a proposed garage.
Admittedly, the owners got ahead of themselves for this project and started the construction without all the necessary approvals.
L &I rightfully issued a stop work order and the homeowners have since submitted all the
documentation needed for their approvals and it's here for a variance request on to our
refusals which I'll get to in a second.
Both the refusals are dimensional in nature.
Just to give a little context of the property at hand, you can see here the property that
we're referring to is on Midville Avenue, directly in the middle of the block between
Stokely Street to the north and Fox Street to the south.
to the south. The property is zoned as are, say, one. Now, the property itself with the structure
on the property zone as
RSA 1.
is actually two separate parcels, which is not uncommon, as you can see for this block.
Many of the homes or the addresses, I should say, are assigned to one larger parcel and
a rear parcel that opens up into a shared driveway, but it's the one continuous or
or contiguous sort of plot of land except it's two separate tax IDs.
So we're here regarding the rear of the property where the garage structure is located.
And so if you have a sense of location of structure, the dimensions, try to zoom in
here. Is the board able to see that? I know it's a little... Mr. Chair, are you able to
see that? Yeah, if you can make it a little larger, that would be helpful. A little larger.
So this is the structure in question. This is the location of it. As I stated, it is
It's a two -story garage structure with two accessory dwelling parking spots and a accessory dwelling unit on the second level.
It sits on this rear parcel.
The two refusals that we have are for the minimum setbacks from property lines per the code.
except three garage structures need to be generally three feet away from any property
line on the site. This structure is three feet from all property lines except for the
property line that is adjacent to the neighboring property, which I'll discuss in a little bit
more detail when we get into the neighborhood context. And in addition to that, the height.
As you can see, the height of this structure is 21 feet and the by -right height is 15 for these accessory parking structures.
In terms of the neighborhood context, before we get into the individual structure,
The block itself that this sits on, the aerial of the block, or I'll call it a block cluster,
sort of the rectangle facing on Midvale, Queens, Stokely, and Fox. That block cluster in itself
has 26 homes in the block cluster. 15 of those homes have rear garage structures or some sort
of accessory structure in the rear um in fact this aerial has some tree blockage so here's a better
sort of lot line aerial as you can see the the gray shaded sort of rectangles and boxes and
the rear of the properties are all the accessory structures that are existing on this property so
it's not uncommon for um an accessory structure parking structure to be constructed these this
purple rectangle that you see here is actually the shared driveway. The purple represents an
easement area for people to come in and out. What I want to bring the board's attention to
of the accessory structures that do share the driveway is that you can see that many of the
accessory structures are actually built along the property, the adjacent property line of the
structures where three of the sides are three feet away, over three feet away from a property
line, but one of them isn't. And that's essentially the same thing that's going on with our structures
I just showed you, which created that refusal, which as you can see, is not uncommon for
these structures to be built along the property lines or very close to them, closer than three
feet. In addition to that, as I stated, we received the height variance for having the
property being 21 or having the structure be 21 feet instead of 15 feet. Along the shared driveway,
there are at least two other properties that have two -story garages at 22 feet, one at 3010 Midville
and one on 3025 Queen. Both of those properties have rear structures that are two stories and
then also are 22 feet in height, which is one feet higher than our proposed height.
in height which is one feet higher than our proposed height um as i stated there are multiple
um structures our proposed structures you'll see in the second has an exterior stairwell which or
is will the proposed is to have an exterior stairwell that was an issue with some of the
neighbors um but as i'll show you here there are multiple
these are just some of the properties the structures that are existing that are over 20
over 15 feet some 22 those are 15 feet you see as you can see there's two floors windows
some are used for offices some are used for storage i'm unsure but what i wanted to bring
attention to the board is showing that there are exterior stairwells on these structures.
There's one there. As you can see to the right here, there's another exterior stairwell,
which will become an issue with the RCO, which I'll discuss in a moment. The homeowners did go
around to adjacent neighbors to obtain signatures of support for the project.
This is a copy of the petition of support that the homeowners went around and talked
to neighbors to get the sign.
In addition to that, this is just sort of an aerial mapping, a representation of the
signatures on this document and where they where they actually reside in relation to the property
in question which is uh the one that's highlighted in blue here um the green are the areas of
signatures in addition to the in addition to the petition support that was circulated
We did receive a letter of non -opposition by Councilman Curtis Jones.
We met with him and his staff and discussed the project.
And while he understands that the homeowners did jump the gun by starting the project without the permits,
say they've done everything thus far to make sure that all the proper approvals are in
existence. In addition to that, well, let me get into the community meeting. We did meet
with the RCO twice. We met with them and the RCO for this property is East Falls Community
Council. We met with them on December 15, 2020, then again on January 20, 2021.
Now at the initial meeting, there was a lot of concerns raised, some issues raised that
essentially fell into four separate categories that I want to address them currently.
So the first is just the expected issue, which is neighbors having a problem with the fact
that these homeowners started the project without receiving laws of proper approval.
That's obviously a valid and understandable concern.
Inherent in that is, well, how do we know it's built safe?
So, the homeowners obtained a structural report, a structural engineering report to confirm
that the construction thus far has been the code and I should zoom out a little bit so
you can see the whole thing here, so that the construction thus far is the code and
safe to continue construction. I'll flip through. Here's a side of the, as it currently stands,
there's a photo of the foundation, measurements, basically all the evidence that was
assessed by the structural engineer to make sure everything was built to code and everything was
safe. In addition to that, there were sort of questions regarding issues with the height,
just the design and the context and fitting within the context of the neighborhood,
and basically the style of the roof. Now, in regards to the design between the December 15th
Between the December 15th meeting and the January 20th meeting, the homeowners did go back and meet with their architect and their contractors to discuss what's feasible, what changes can be made that won't essentially require demolition of the project.
I'm hearing
Some of the comments made from the community members were essentially like changing the roof, taking it down six feet, things of that nature, all of which would essentially require tearing down the structure or moving it three feet away from the adjacent property to the left, which again, when you consider the foundation and everything that you have to do, would essentially require tearing down the structure.
And so what the homeowners in conjunction with their hired professionals came up with was some alternative materials, because admittedly the homeowner was looking for a more modern look for the structure, and that didn't go over well with the community.
And so we went back, decided to scrap the modern materials and come up with an alternative that utilizes period materials that are utilized in the other two -story structures that exist along the shared drywall.
And so we put together some renderings using the material that we believe are in use and would fit more within the context because we're, you know, we're taking the position of the community that there's a way to fit into a context of the community without having just identical duplication of what's there.
there. And we think material materials is a great way to do that. So the first option
that we came up with was utilizing a stone based siding in the wood composite. So here
is a composite with siding, stone base and wood composite doors. There is a second option
that we came up with, which is utilizing entirely stucco and then wood composite doors. Here
is a rendering of the stucco. Now this looks kind of just like drywall, but this is actually
to represent stucco. And the last one was just using completely brick with a stone base
and wood composite, which is a rendering of that. Now, all these materials are utilized
in other accessory garage structures, both along that driveway and along the neighborhood
as a whole, but that didn't seem to be enough neighbors or some comments were made that that
that was enough. They essentially want us to change the mapping in the design of the roof,
which would essentially require us tearing it down. And in addition to that, there was some
comments made regarding the accessory dwelling unit. It was mischaracterized this structure
as an apartment building. So we propose having a proviso that states that the accessibility
dwelling unit cannot be rented to the public at any time. In addition to that, we propose
having a proviso that also says that we are required to use the materials that we propose
in the alternate period materials that we proposed, but they didn't decide, the group didn't decide
on any of the three options because they didn't want any of them. But if they would have decided
and if they, we would have, as we proposed, we would have been more than happy to have the
provisos that we stick to those materials so there's no concern about someone sort of pulling
the wool over the community's eyes. Mr. Burchell, if I can interrupt you for just one minute to put
the record that we we have received letters in opposition from the east falls community council
and from neighbors kevin cassidy suzanne penn ellen purry nancy pontone william hefner francis
and francis bourne thank you mr bertill i have a question it's carol tenary where's the front of
the house? So this isn't actually the house. This is the rear driveway. This is the garage
structure with the accessory dwelling unit. And so do you mean the opposite side of this
and so do you mean the opposite side of this structure because that's what i was about to show
structure? Because that's what I was about to show you.
you this isn't the actual home uh you're muted mr chair this is a freestanding structure in the rear
uh are you look do you want to see the actual house in front of that carol yeah it yeah yes
you want to compare what it looks like from the front to back i assume yes
Do you have any photographs of the house?
Yes, I have to.
Let me just stop sharing and I'll bring it up.
I have it up on Google.
And I'll reach you there.
We can't figure out with the two garages how they can get out of the car and into their home when I can see no entrance.
Okay, that would be better reflected with the aerial, but I'll show you the front of the house now.
Are you able to see that?
The Tudor is the front of the house?
It's the one on the left.
It's obstructed by the trees.
But this is, again, these are two separate parcels.
The house is on one parcel.
The rear parcel is an entirely separate parcel.
And so the garage structure, when you leave the garage,
The intention is a walkway to the right, which I can show you here.
Okay, I understand now.
Let me bring it back up here.
Thank you very much.
as you can see here this is just the structure you're looking at and to access the home
um you would be just walking up this path now again the intention here is for the the second
floor to be an accessory dwelling unit. So generally speaking, the person here wouldn't
be making that walk. But if you're parked here, the intention was to have a path here
to connect with the existing path and to access the home. And that's why the left side of
the structure needed to be closer to this property line as opposed to three feet in
opposite direction. But again, that's part of the course with these garages. If you look at
the other garages along the driveway, most of them are closer to one of the property lines on one
side. And I imagine for the exact same reason, so there's clear walking paths on the opposite
side of the structure and so the the homeowners believe that yes the structure itself and i just
rely better than showing existing conditions here's the existing condition it's open it's covered in
these materials for protection obviously it's not going to be green there's a lot there was
a lot of comments about it being a large green structure that's just to protect the materials
And the homeowners believe that there's a way to match context that doesn't mean exact duplication.
We believe that if we utilize the materials that are utilizing the materials that are neighboring structures that are similar to this, that it will fit within that context nicely.
But they did want a different look to their accessory dwelling unit structure with the parking.
um but everything else from the from the height is not dissimilar to what's around there from the
location it's not dissimilar to what's around there and therefore we're asking various um
reaction for various approval for the distance from this property line and um to allow for the
height of the structure and so i have with me um one of the homeowners uh mr darren hardiman
who can
affirm and adopt my testimony
if necessary. I don't know if the board
wants to take outside
comments before that.
We'll swear him in and get him to
adopt your testimony, then we'll ask for
outside comments.
Can you say the name again?
Darren Hardiman.
He can unmute himself.
I've unmuted
Good afternoon sir
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with a record first and last name. Spell your
Please identify yourself with a record
First and last name, spell your last name
last name. Darren Hardiman, H -A -R -D -I -M -O -N, 3018 Midvale Avenue, Philadelphia, 19129.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Bertil?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Hardiman. Did you hear the testimony that I
provided to the board this afternoon?
I did.
Do you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own?
Thank you, Mr. George.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I believe the rendering showed a hip roof.
Is that correct?
Or a flat roof?
It's flat.
I didn't hear your first statement you said first, but I heard you say flat roof.
What you built is a flat roof, correct?
Yes, this is what you're looking at.
Am I still sharing?
What you're looking at up on the screen is the existing structure.
And it's a flat roof.
This is flat, yes.
And the rendering that you showed, wasn't it a hip roof?
Well, this is, the roof is pitched.
I don't know if you guys can hear me if I'm still unmuted.
The roof is pitched down toward the rear of the property, so it's not 100 % flat.
Okay, but I'm trying to find out if the rendering had a hip roof.
No, it's the same roof as the roof.
Flat roof? Okay. And the other garages in the neighborhood have a hip roof or a flat roof?
The other garages in the neighborhood have A -frame roofs.
Right. There are different variations of A -frames. I'm not sure if A -frame is the same as hip.
I'm not right on that terminology, but there are different variations of A -frames.
You got a picture of existing in the neighborhood?
Yes, I do. It's one of them. So here, oh, no.
though. They're pitch. There's one and you can see it. This one's an A -frame at the edge
and then it has, I don't know if this is what you mean by hit through. There's another style.
Okay. Okay. They're mostly pitch. Okay. Pitch. You're saying pitch. My apologies. I couldn't
hear. Okay. They actually blend. They actually blend with the homes.
that's it for me
any other questions from the board
I'm sure we have other folks
to want to weigh in so please raise your hand
I have a Mr. Wise Mr. Wise you can unmute yourself
good afternoon can you hear me
Yes, Mr. Wise, please identify yourself with the record, spell your last name, provide us with your address.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Corrin Wise, C -O -R -E -N, last name W -I -S -E.
My address is 100 North 18th Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia PA 19103.
That's my office address.
I'm a practicing attorney.
I am not appearing as an attorney, but I am a member also of the East Falls Zoning Committee.
okay okay let me stop you for a minute just need to swear you when you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir thank you sorry for the interruption but
of course um so yeah i'm i'm a member of the east falls uh zoning committee um i believe on the call
also is hillary langer who's our who's our chairperson but i just wanted to lend a couple
points uh from the the legal side regarding this application um first mr bertiel stated that uh
the refusal is based on the height refusal which the code provides is 15 feet. That's for a gabled
roof. Section 148031A states that a height limitation for a flat roof is actually 10 feet
and I think we've already sort of gotten into the character of the neighborhood and the
garages in the area. So that one inaccuracy I wanted to clear up. Also the refusals stated and
the refusal was waived but I do think it should go into the record because the application was
originally stated and I believe you should see on the refusal that this is for an accessory garage
and accessory storage to the main property which when I got involved as far as the
committees concerned, the applicant had
uh come forward and stated that that was either a mistake or a misrepresentation or miscommunication
come forward and stated that that was either a mistake
or a misrepresentation.
but uh that's another inaccuracy that was found uh in the process also the plans that were
submitted I believe uh positioned the as built structure um inaccurately and then there were
some revised plans but uh so that was another inaccuracy that was was a part of the application
um the uh you'll hear from i believe there's probably some neighbors on the call so you'll
hear from them about made by the homeowner as to why it was being built whether permits were needed
uh and so forth um but as far as the application itself um this was built without permits that's
that's clear it's too tall it's too big and it's too close to the property line which is impacting
on privacy of neighbors. It's also very much out of character with the other garages, the accessory
garages on the block. If we were here before this structure had been built, we'd be talking about
hardship. Mr. Bertil never mentioned the word hardship. There's no hardship. The only hardship
that anybody could claim is self -created by this homeowner because they decided to build without
permits and ask for forgiveness after the fact, which I think you'll hear neighbors reference
comments made by the homeowner to that effect. So from a legal standpoint, the analysis of an
application for a variance, there has to be some hardship as to why the applicant can't comply
with the code, and here there is none. The fact that it's been built and they don't want to take
it down obviously that's onerous and burdensome but that's on them uh i think at the end of the
testimony you'll believe as many in the community believe that that was that was a intentional
choice by the homeowner uh and uh with that i'll conclude my comments and leave it leave it to the
rest thank you for the time mr weiss um i want to ask you a couple of questions uh they're
hypotheticals but i think they they they go to the heart of this issue there are other houses in that
area that do have detached garages with storage or dormers above them is that correct yeah i think
the code permits accessory garages um they do have to follow the dimensional right and storage
above i think is is fine i do not believe and i think that if this application had been submitted
I'll leave it to the zoning board or council to confirm.
But I believe if it was applied for as an accessory dwelling, that I don't know if that's permitted.
So that might have been another refusal that was not included based on the inaccurate application.
So there are a number of objections, I'm sure.
But I just want to see if we can drill this down to the objection.
Or let me rephrase that.
Now, if this structure were to be built in a similar fashion as the other detached structures in that neighborhood, do you think there would still be opposition?
If this, I mean, if they were building it as the other garages, we wouldn't be here.
They would be doing it illegally.
so well even putting aside what the mistakes that were made building without permits and all the
approvals it's the design of the structure that i'm asking the question is it designed to the
structure that is driving the opposition because it is it is it is quite enormous to look at when
you compare it to the other structures i i just it's it's yeah i mean it's massive the just and
i guess the other question is going to be to the the to the the owner i know you obviously you're
trying to get something approved here without having to tear the structure down could there
not be modifications made to this structure at least to the upper floor that's the question for
Mr. Patil yeah that was well that was in my in my recollection that was discussed but it wasn't
as Mr. Patil stated they didn't want to get into that because they can't take down the second floor
essentially that's a you know demolition of the structure I don't know I can't I don't know if
you can't take down the second floor or modify it I'm that I'm not sure but excuse me this is
Sharon Saleta can I ask a question I think I may have missed something here is there in this garage
structure a dwelling unit yep that i don't believe that was anywhere requested in or addressed in the
refusal i think that should go on the record i think the refusal needs to go on the record because
I think that should go on the record
I think the refusal needs to go on the record
because the plans are for a dwelling unit
originally it was for
elderly parents but then there was testimony
at the hearing that the parents are not
incapable
I mean it looks like
it looks like the intention was
changed over time
Mr. Chair if I can clarify some things I think
I can clear out some
some of the statements Mr. White
said some of them are
actually incorrect and some I think is kind of clear on.
Firstly, there was no revised plans submitted.
The plans that are presented on the board
are the plans that were submitted to LNI.
What I think Mr. Wads is conflating
is that in our initial conversations
with the RCO leadership, we provided him
with a different copy of the plans,
which was subsequently corrected and they received the correct copy. And that was the discrepancy
between the plan that you're seeing now, which is the plan that was submitted to Eleni that shows
that the garage structure is within three feet of the neighboring lot line, and then the plans that
was initially obtained by Hillary, who's the RCO president, that showed that it wasn't. So that
was the description there but there was no revised plans submitted these are the plans that were
submitted to the board and excuse me mr bertill reading from i'm sorry but reading from the
refusal it says the application is for erection of a detached detached structure garage on lot
with existing semi -detached structure for use as two accessory interior parking space
and accessory storage there's nothing about there being an actual dwelling unit in the
accessory no sharon doesn't it say accessory storage for single family dwelling no that's
the storage for single family household living i don't believe that that means the main use of the
lot it's not for a separate dwelling unit no the the application was always for a separate dwelling
you i don't know why well this would have to go back because i expect you would get another
refusal for this because it's rsa one and that would make it a multi -family
well no again this is a separate parcel okay not on the same parcel as the single family home
so this would not be a multi -family um it would be just in the uh it would just be a single family
use above the garage which is probably why they worded it that way but this is again these are
two separate parcels, two separate tax ID numbers, two separate OPA numbers. It's contiguous so from
an area it looks like one lot but the reason they were the applicants were able to submit
it this way is because they were separate parcels. Are there separate zoning lots?
is this on a separate zoning is 3018 midvale a separate address than the main residence
so technically speaking it's rear if you um if you look at the
i don't mean to rise mr bertill i don't mean to interrupt what is the address of the main
residence the main residence is 3018 midvale avenue okay and the address on the refusal
is 3018 Midvale Avenue.
You know, sometimes when things are separate parcels,
they're still considered a single zoning lot by L &I.
So I would ask that if the board is inclined to approve this,
that we at least get a clarification from L &I
that there is not another use refusal required.
I'm happy to help.
I don't know how, if I can be an assistant in facilitating that,
But I can obviously reach out to the examiner and get them to provide that clarification directly to Ms. Saleta or however you want that to happen.
So I'm going to ask a similar question, maybe phrase it differently than I did.
Has there been any attempt on behalf of the owner to look at possibly changing the design of the building, reach the second floor at least, the second floor, to make it more conformed to the rest of the block, the other properties on that block?
Yes, there has.
So between the first meeting and the second meeting, that's all the owner was doing, was looking for alternatives and changes that they can make in conjunction with the professionals that they've hired.
And it's just something that wasn't feasible, just the cost of it and the essential teardown of the building.
Now, I'm, you know, I can get the owner can speak to it, testify and put on record the conversations that he's had.
testify and put on record um the conversations that he's had but we they came to the conclusion
Like we
that if they can change the material from the modern materials that they were going to use on
yeah with all due respect materials one thing absolutely but but the size and the scope of that
structure i still i'm look i'm not in a little bit about construction i don't know what the interior
that looks like it seems to me and i again i could be wrong that they're certainly going to
you would have to do some demolition to the second floor to soften that look i mean it looks like a
i don't know it just doesn't really fit the character of that community the way i can see
the way i see it and just the thought that it was built to put elderly parents up there to climb up
steps that high it doesn't sound right it it was built without a permit it it really doesn't blend
in with that neighborhood it's all wrong there are i mean i want to be clear that the there are
living there are other second floor units on that um in the area on that driveway in fact
I'm sure there are. I'm interested in this unit.
Yeah, well, I think you showed that in some of your photographs.
You showed that there are...
Some are offices, some are storage, some actually had someone living in there.
Which, again, you know, I can put the homeowners on and they can testify to that.
Well, I'm sure there are a lot of other people who'd like to discuss this,
but we're running into a time issue here.
we have several more cases on the two o 'clock list um are we voting this hopefully um respectfully
i would request if we could it seems if i could obtain if we could obtain the clarification um
because i want to make sure the board has all the facts of what's going on if we can obtain
the clarification from ellen i so they can confirm that this is a separate parcel in a separate um
single -family accessory dwelling use.
I would ask for some time to be able to do that
before the board makes a decision.
And then if, you know,
I don't want to speak on behalf of my client.
Again, they're here to speak themselves,
but I'm sure if the board,
if the client realizes that the board is inclined
to deny this request because of the second floor,
maybe the cost that they feel like
was too mitigating to actually do anything,
um maybe that's something they need to take another look at um and they can come back and
see if there's anything they can do with that second floor that's kind of where i've been going
yeah it could be taken down uh i'm gonna this time do it with permits though yeah well absolutely um
i don't want to the question to the board is about do we do a resumption hearing and see
they can come back with some modifications uh yes mr chairman why don't we do that all right
chair i know that there are our neighbors here to testify um if you do a resumption hearing they
could yeah i guess testify at that point but i i would also like to um contact l and i to get
clarification on what was considered and what was refused right so that'll give us time if we do the
resumption, correct? That's correct. All right. Do we have a date, LaKeisha,
for a resumption hearing? Give me one second, Chair. Sure.
Poor and wise, Mr. Chair. Just one comment I'd make is if we are rescheduling, I'm sure a lot
of people are appearing. It's not as inconvenient as appearing, taking a day off work and coming
downtown but uh maybe some note on the record if if uh those in opposition or those in support
or you know if you just want to put something on the record as to who's who's here uh you know
to your discretion my suggestion yeah uh i'm not sure how many people there are it looks like
significant number uh sharon is there a way we can get maybe mr weiss who sits on that board to
submit uh individual uh letters from those folks that are on the line now who may not be able to
appear at the next hearing i believe we we do have letters from those individuals um
if they have registered as being here today that would be good and i'm not sure that mr weiss
could unless he is saying that he actually represents them well i i just was going to
ask mr weiss for clarification if he's acting as counsel for the art because this is that no i think
he said it the answer he's not acting as counsel no just a member of the committee but i if we're
rescheduling. I know a lot of people are on and are passionate about it and have taken the time.
uh and are uh passionate about it and have taken the time and uh as if we were sitting uh in the
hearing room you would normally say you know who's here in opposition note on the record that
there's 18 people that came down uh and hopefully everyone can make it to the to the next hearing
but if they can't at least you know we we uh at least uh made some note about their presence
so again on behalf of the board i want to apologize to the folks who've been waiting
i i know it can be somewhat frustrating uh but we have a whole list of two o 'clock
hearings yet and then we have a 3 30 list uh so since we're going to resume this
to a date certain uh when leticia gets back to us with that date
February 17th at 2
February 17th
MI2020
002758
Midville Avenue
this hearing will be resumed on February
17th chair
17th at 2 o 'clock
at which time the board will consider any
feedback related to the RCO
RCO and the
council person. Mr. Chair, and will we be able to, will the applicant be able to present any
alternative? Yes. Yes. And you'll have to do a reposting so neighbors are aware of it.
Understood. Thank you. Again, thank you, folks. We know you can be frustrating, but
we have to continue on with these hearings. So let's go to number 11, I believe.
yes yes yeah whoever i am today calendar number 2752 4317 ludlow street i'm going to stop sharing
it's me again hi rachel
Rachel, name and address on the record and spell your last name, please.
Rachel, R -A -C -H -A -E -L, Pritzker, P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And the documents are in on this?
Ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos and plans five days in advance of this
hearing.
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
And you're already under oath?
I can't remember who I'm saying.
It's okay.
So this is 4317 Ludlow Street.
I'm going to share my screen.
This property is zoned CMX3. It is in West Philadelphia on the 4300 block of Ludlow.
The only refusal that we generated was for a minimum of two accessory parking spaces
were required for eight dwelling units in CMX3 where no accessory parking spaces are
provided. As you can see from the street view, our project proposes the demolition of this
existing structure where this tree is in the way and for eight units with no parking there's no
precedent of curb cuts on this side of the street on Ludlow and typically you know for
off -street parking accessed by a front street we would have to get a curb cut knock the tree down
set the building back to provide maybe one spot. I don't, I'm going to pull it up on Atlas. I have our
long property. I have our architect on the line as well. So he can kind of go through as we've
tried to go through sort of multiple iterations to try to get parking. It's this property is 18
feet by 86. So I think we would add a minimum need a 12 foot curb cut in order to fit two cars. I
think we would need to do a 24 -foot curb cut. Again, usually front -loaded parking is typically
not supported on a block where there's no precedent of that. That's all that we're asking
for for this project. There was a lot of opposition from the community, not necessarily around
the parking. Some was around the parking, although we had tried to sort of explain that
setting it back and providing parking spaces was very difficult on this site and would make this
property more out of character. Most of the concerns were honestly around density. I think
most of the concerns were honestly around density. I think there was a big project that was just done
there was a big project that was just done.
across the street that the community was or at the corner here that the community was
not very pleased with so but again setting this back especially in consideration that we sort of
are right next to this corner and providing two accessory off -street parking spaces knocking down
this tree which the community did not want to see knocked down however you wouldn't really be able
to provide off -street parking without knocking this down and again setting this back. Underground
parking is not feasible on this site and so we were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The project is also proposing affordable units or more affordable units in the moderate income
to workforce housing price point as this owner does with all of his properties. I just want to
get to the taxes, had him pay up to 2021. Here's the rest of the payoff for 2021 taxes. So we're
in compliance. Here's the ownership. And I think what probably would be the most effective is to
have the architect just walk through the plans quickly and also the iterations that we tried to
do to get the parking and sort of the issues that we had with that for the board. Again, we're just
looking to get approval to waive the off street requirement for parking and again it's due to the
fact that we would it would bring it more out of character and also we maybe get one spot at most
and then we provide a building that was set back and and again out of character with with the
surrounding property so I believe our architect is on the line if he can raise his hand that would
be great. Is it a rich villa? Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Way to be sworn in. Chair,
Chair, you're muted.
I think the Chair is just having some technical difficulties.
Ms. Cowell, are you available to -
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
And did you put your name and address on the record?
I put it on the sign -in.
Can you just put it on the record, please?
I'm sorry.
Richard Villa, Ambit Architecture, 412 South 2nd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19147.
Rich, can you share your screen and kind of talk through the plans we have now versus
the iterations that you and the client tried to go through before this in order to try
to accommodate parking?
I'm stepping up.
Can everyone see that?
No, we just see your name.
How about now?
Could you enlarge it?
I guess I can.
so the uh parking plan that sort of sort of worked but really didn't work was that
you would pull off the street we'd have to have two tandem spots
and then have a stairway and then a unit in the back um and then a space in the front for meters
and things like that um but this was denied as well because tandem parking is not necessarily
allowed um and so it just became really difficult to make that to make any parking work on that site
unless it was one spot but then we would still have to tear down the tree
and seeing as the entire block of Ludlow there on that side is all CMX3 it would be the same
issue for any development on that side of the street. The proposal is in lieu of this parking
area that's two units per floor one bedroom units that are as Rachel said in the affordable
rains and uh you know we actually sit on the edge of an alley so we have a rear e -rest and a front
door which allows us to really make those uh those units work and rich even when we reduced the unit
count we still had that issue with parking correct because it was originally contemplated at what seven
units it was originally complicated at seven we still needed two parking spaces so at eight we
still need two because it's a three for ten there so got it excuse me what is the size of the
Excuse me, what is the size of the smallest apartment?
smallest apartment
Oh, the smallest is around 400 square feet.
400 square feet?
that's an efficiency it's the top floor where we need to have a second means of egress so if you
look at this unit it's the smallest but the one below that is wider it's the full width of the
house and you know it's about 30 feet deep but they're all they're all one bedrooms one of them
small but it's still a one bedroom one bedroom 400 square feet yeah that's the smallest there's only
one of those thank you all right um okay do we want to bring um travis on rich is there anything
else that you wanted to point out? Not really. Okay. Just hang on if there's any additional
questions. I just want to get Travis on as well. Yep. You guys hear me? Yep.
hi travis seal for srd1 lp uh representing the owner here
miss carol yes yes he was about to do it um can you swear on me sure do you swear or firm to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes I do. Travis I just wanted you to kind of talk
through a few things first would be sort of the iterations that we went through to try to make
parking work in addition to reaching out to try to find accessory off -street parking just so the
board can understand the context in which we work through to get to this point. Yeah absolutely yeah
And like Rachel mentioned, we kind of are in a bit of a between a rock and a hard place here in terms of trying to meet this parking requirement within the code.
Initially, we, you know, we did not want to take down the tree.
We did not want to have curb cut and front loaded parking.
So we pursued the option to provide offsite parking on a non -accessory lot that is leased.
We worked extensively for several months and going as far as coming to an agreement for a couple of spots that were within 1 ,000 feet.
It turned out they were actually accessory, not non -accessory.
So that was not a route that would work because of that technicality there.
And so we really went to great lengths to try and fulfill this.
And then ultimately, we looked towards the design that Rich just showed with the front -loaded parking
because our goal is to always conform to the code because it just makes the most sense.
And that also, per the reasons that Rich discussed, was not feasible
because of technical reasons relating to the curb cut.
I also just do not think that aesthetically it's a good choice or in keeping with the block.
So that brings us to here, and we just don't see a way around this hardship
aside from requesting relief through a variance just to eliminate the the on -site parking
requirement on this parcel um i just want to add is it correct that um we reached out to
lni and also what was required not only for the off -street parking was to actually get the owner
of that parking lot to get a permit for accessory off -street parking spaces and that that was they
they weren't willing to do that. So we were kind of in a standstill as far as that was concerned.
For non -accessory. Correct. Sorry, for non -accessory. Yeah. Okay. And then the other
thing I wanted you to go through is just talk through the price points, because I did mention
that this is more affordable. So I know that Mr. Holloman did mention kind of the small size of
the 400 square foot unit and just kind of wanted to give some information on the affordability of
those units. Yeah, and per what Rich mentioned, that trailing unit is kind of an aberration in
size due to that egress corridor requirement on that floor. The other unit should be, as he said,
in the 640 square foot range, which is the healthy size for a one bedroom. It's an 18 and a half foot
wide lot with windows on three sides. So we're going to have some great layouts, I think, there
as well. And as far as the affordability goes, these units will be renting between $11 .50
As far as the affordability goes, these units will be renting between $11 .50 and $13 .50 a month, which per the AMI standards, that would put them at between 50 and 80, sorry, between around, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but 55 to 70%, depending on the exact dollar amount there, for the household size that would correspond to that unit.
So it's definitely under the 70 % AMI.
We're trying to push towards 50 % as close as possible, but we're not quite there.
Regardless, this is a non -subsidized project, and we hope that it does provide more housing at a reasonable price point in the area in keeping with the greater intention of the CMX3 zoning and being able to build what we can there.
Another question. If you had less units, would you still need two -car all -street parking?
I'm sorry, say that again? If we had what?
Less units.
No. Per what Rachel mentioned, it's not a function of the units here. It's a function
of the curb cuts and uh of the lot width and everything and you just it's just very difficult
from a dimensional and um technical standpoint to put in parking whether it's tandem or side by side
oh that wasn't my question that wasn't yeah i was gonna say oh i'm sorry i almost missed her
look uh mr hallman's asking that if we were to do less units like reduce it to seven units or six
units would that take away our need for for off -street parking and i had asked rich that and
he had said no with seven units because we looked at that we would like if we got rid of that 400
square foot unit um we would still need two parking spaces um if rich is still on he can
corroborate that my my uh dealings with l and i with zoning is that if we hit three we're going
need one parking space so it's usually three for ten but in for some reason in the every time i put
it in in cmx two or sorry cmx three the third unit uh triggers the first parking space
okay thank you and mr hallman we did look at that um in order to do the seven units and that's what
originally got rejected after our first iteration because again we would need tandem which would
still generate another refusal um and also i don't i don't know that that's the best way to
lay out parking on a lot like this but i leave that to the architects um that's sort of our our
proposal and um again um it's just a it's just a variance for accessory off -street parking to be
waived um and happy to take any any other questions that anyone has
any questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand we have a ang sun
hi good evening uh please identify yourself for the record name and address
Hi. Good evening, Chairman. My name is Aung San. Last name is spelled as S -U -N. My address is 10
South 43rd Street on the same block as this project property. Do you swear and affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Please proceed. Sure.
I'm the president of this West Philly United Neighbors RCO.
This project property is within the boundary of my RCO.
The coordinating RCO's Cruz Hill Community Association hosted this virtual meeting
on December 16th, 2020 at 7 .30.
Besides the coordinating RCO,
there were three other RCOs presented.
And also we have about 20 community members and neighbors,
including 10 members from my RCO attending that meeting.
During this virtual public meeting,
all the community members,
including those near neighbors who reside within 250 feet of this project property,
strongly opposed the above reference zoning proposal.
We didn't find any hardship for the owner to provide at least two accessory parking space.
Certainly, the owner can provide a minimum of two accessory parking spaces.
Certainly, the owner can provide a minimum of two accessory parking space if he wishes to have eight dwelling units on the block.
He can either do this underground garage or put those parking on the first floor.
Or he could reduce the number of those units to like three or four, which only requires
him to provide just one parking space.
And I have to point out that almost every house on the same block was two -story row
homes, including this existing real home, this existing property. It's a single -family,
structurally sound single -family home. We didn't find there would be any reason
besides the developer want to make profits by demolishing this property to erect eight units
over there that doesn't fit the character of this block and also this property share a party wall
with the next door neighbor the next door neighbor they are immigrants from Bangladesh
they couldn't attend today's meeting because they don't speak good English so the demolition
of this property may cause safety concerns to the near neighbors.
So with all the community members attending that RCO meeting do not think the erecting
of these eight units there fit in the neighborhood.
And we do think it is a disrespect to our community.
I'm sorry, we say that, repeat that, reduce it?
We think it is disrespect to our community.
So all the near neighbors attending this, attending that RCO meeting, including neighbors lived at 4307 Nautilus Street,
including the neighbor who lived at 4309 Lugano Street, including me who live on the same block,
and also including another near neighbor who resides at 11 South 43rd Street strongly oppose
this proposal. All the four RCO presidents who attended that meeting strongly oppose this
proposal and every for every RCO attending that meeting all the four we send a letter to ZBA
to oppose this so we have four letters sent to ZBA to oppose this strongly oppose this proposal
to summary that I just want to point that point out that there is no necessary hardship for
providing those two accessory parking spaces all those hardship was created was self -created
by the developer and he should know he should anticipate the self -directed hardship before
he purchased that lot before he purchased acquired that property from a city it was a
for closed property. This basically is kind of a typical very classical gentrification case.
So as an RCO who represents our community, we support our community and the neighbors who will
adversely impacted by these wearerings sought by this owner. So we strongly request all the board
members and Mr. Chairman to deny, to reject this application. Thank you so much.
Your testimony. Anyone else wants to testify?
If so, please raise your hand and provide us with something new and different.
we have a justin kaplan hi this is justin kaplan i recommend representing the convening rco the
spritile community association my name is justin kaplan j -u -s -t -i -n kaplan k -a -p -l -a -n
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes sir, I do. Mr. Kaplan, please proceed. This variance is a request to over -utilize a parcel
This variance is a request to over -utilize a parcel and undermine the intent of the zoning district.
and undermine
An 18 -foot wide lot is difficult to conform to CMX3 standards.
Additionally, and even more importantly, this is going to destroy an intact row of houses intact on both sides, primarily single families, no multifamily occupations on the block.
And additionally, I don't want to be too redundant as Mr. Ang was pretty concise.
So we'll just say that we strongly oppose on those grounds.
Thank you.
What else?
Mr. Lewis, you can unmute yourself.
Yes, good afternoon.
my name is Louis Baum, L -E -W -I -S -B -A -U -M as in Mike. Your address, sir? 4724 Hazel Avenue.
I'm a member of the West Philadelphia United Neighbors.
You're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Please proceed. I would like to
to confirm and underscore what Dr. Fung had said in his testimony.
When we look at the picture of that street, we see a number of two -story row homes.
And you have to ask yourself, how could this possibly be CMX3?
But due to the way the city did zoning, I believe in 2012 or thereabouts, that's what we wound up with.
So the people who bought this property knew darn well that they would have to deal with the requirements of CMX -3, which would include those two parking lots.
it is not a uh an unnecessary hardship to have an expense
and plus this is a uh a hardship that's been brought on by themselves but um we have to ask
what use could this property be made if it were being used uh by right and i guess the answer is
a three uh a three family apartment building is the most that you can build or maybe a two
um so that's that's getting closer to what should be there anyway the eight family is
ridiculous in that lot uh i thank you very much for the opportunity to speak
thank you is anyone else something new and different please
we have a Seth
my name is Seth Zeginger
S -E -T -H -D -E -G -G -I -N -G -E -R
4316 Ludlow Street
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
please proceed
I don't have a whole lot to add
as you can tell by my address
I'm directly across the street
um the character of the block has been i mean i moved there in 2004 it's a single family
two -story intact 19th century row homes and it seems like a shame to just uh destroy intact
blocks of fully utilized homes just to you know honestly to line somebody's pocket um
in addition there's obviously parking concerns parking's already tight in the neighborhood
I understand development will move forward, but that's why we have zoning rules about parking, not to mention other things such as, you know, trash and just density in general on a block that has, as far as my memory goes, just been families.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Can I ask Seth a question?
Seth, you know your property's on CMX4, correct?
And you have a rental license at your property that's been active since 2019?
yes i do okay so you rent it out to someone or you rent that house i rent that out to someone
i also live in the neighborhood i lived there for 14 years okay just as related to 4316 you
don't actually live at that address currently but you rent it out to someone else that is correct
yes okay i lived there from 2014 to 2019 understood understood just wanted to is this
Is this Councilwoman Gauthier's district?
councilwoman got the age district yes chairman is there anyone
Yes, Chairman.
Is there anyone from her office?
Is Mr. Goodman on?
Yes, I'll allow him to speak now.
Please.
Good evening, Mr. Goodman.
You're still under oath.
chair you're muted
is mr goodman there
doesn't seem hello yeah andy hello mr goodman apologies for that i was having some microphone
issues. No, I'm always having those. No problem. You're still under oath. Just identify yourself
directly, please. Yes. Andrew Goodman, G -O -O -D -M -A -N, Office of Third District Councilmember Jamie
Gaudier. Councilmember Gaudier stands with community organizations and near neighbors in
opposition to the variance being requested this evening. In the interest of brevity, we certainly
affirm the testimony as given previously, and we'll skip over those portions of our testimony.
Our only additional point, since the applicant referenced it, is we do want to address the topic of the affordability of the housing units.
We wholly acknowledge that the applicant is under no obligation to, you know, provide affordability of a certain level.
But we request that because some of this data was not accurate, we ask that, you know, we be reflected into the record as correcting this.
The rent tables presented and published by the City of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
will refute that this is within the 60 % AMI range.
And in fact, in the 3rd District, what is truly affordable is closer to 40 % AMI.
Again, the applicant is under no obligation to set their rents in a certain way,
and it's not enforceable at the moment anyway,
so we just ask that our correction be reflected into the record.
And that concludes our testimony.
yeah i don't believe he said 60 i think he was giving a range and i think i had more so said
moderate to workforce housing so um i don't want the us there to be an assumption that we were at
the 60 i was giving averages okay i thought i thought i saw that in the letter and i thought
i heard that in testimony i appreciate i appreciate that no worries thank you that concludes our
testimony thank you for your consideration the last the last point mr chair if i could just
address some of the comments that were being made as to the hardship created it's a cmx3 lot that's
how the city has it designated that's um there's a ton of properties zoned a certain way that are
unable to comply with the code regardless and so that's why we have this forum additionally um
single family homes are not permitted in cmx3 so if we were to demolish this structure this structure
which by the way does have structural issues um because it's been uninhabited for quite some time
as it went through foreclosure, which as this body knows is a very long -winded procedure.
You know, the ability to demo it is, you know, the right of the developer, and he wouldn't be
able to construct a single -family home as it's not permitted in CMX 3. In addition to the fact
that if he was required to do parking there, again, it would still be out of character
with everything else on the block. So I just wanted to mention that.
Understood. I mean, obviously, well, not for you to decide, but the zoning should have been
corrected a while back um yep understood all right yes i also just want to add that there is
in the city atlas database at least there's no reference of any l and i code violations on the
property that might you know that might indicate structural uh structural hazards so just well
whatever the point is you guys have your work cut out for you on remapping that's for sure
indeed we do yes sir good luck all right anyone else uh planning commission
good evening david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends commercial mixed use for this property however we have
recommended a lower density zoning district we're going to support the civic on this one
and request opposition to this variance um and this this is somewhat you know kind of like a
catch 22 for me you got you can't you can't do address the parking though not the density because
we don't have a refusal for for density we just have a refusal for parking so that would be
helpful for them because typically what i've heard is the planning commission is not supportive of
front -loaded parking um and so i would be curious to hear the perspective just specifically related
to the parking refusal.
You know, we, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead, David.
All right. So, you know, we typically are, but, you know, there's no parking on the side of the street.
All right, so, you know, we typically are,
but, you know, there's no parking
on the side of this.
And so, you know, I don't have an issue with with a couple of parking spaces here.
That's news to me. Thanks.
Every case is different, Rachel. Yep.
Anyway, you guys are this is for me, it's very interesting.
I think I want to take a little more time on this because you can't build the way it's zoned.
and you can't build single family on it.
You're only, you're forced to build multi.
The parking, basically you're forced into that as well.
I'd like to recommend that a board
unless there's any objection that we close this,
close the record on this
and the render decision next Wednesday.
Hey, sorry, I have a comment that I'd like to add.
We don't know who's speaking.
I haven't been sworn in yet.
i'm i'm sorry rachel i apologize name uh pauline berkowitz my address is 5120 malcolm street
philadelphia pa19143 is that within 250 feet of the property
no but i am a member of the phil united neighbors that's not the coordinated rco here
and we we've heard testimony from your representative yeah i mean if you ma 'am if
you just want to give a five five sentence five sentence two sentence i think i know where you're
going so just get yourself on the record we'll allow that in sure um i just wanted to speak to
the affordability um issue and using the language of affordability i think is extremely misleading
i'd like to back to the testimony yeah i think we're going to have to object to that sustained
i agree thank you thank you ma 'am no disrespect thank you uh we're going to move on so the record
is closed on this case it's mi 2020 -002752 4317 ludlow street the record is closed and the board
will make a decision at next wednesday's executive session thank you calendar number 2944
5145 Delancey Street.
I have a Carrie with their hand up. Yes, she's the attorney.
she's been promoted to panelist
she's going to come back in
you're with me
Carrie, Carrie, Carrie
Carol we do have a letter of support
from the RCO
and the First Corinthian
Baptist Church
Hi, Carrie. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. Good evening. Carrie Nace, N -A -S -E, Poust, P -O -U -S -T, attorney with the law firm of Fox
Rothschild, address 2700, Kelly Road, Suite 300, Warrington, PA. Here this evening on behalf of
the applicant. Okay. Do you swear? Did I miss something? Was that just Ludlow Street?
what about gainer was earlier earlier um rachel agreed to a continuance or turning moving party
i think it was okay carrie it's a little out of out of order so do you swear for him to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do do you agree to wave and step i do have you emailed the
exhibit packet with the required documents due five days in advance of this hearing that include
proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans, and if you
met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, I did mail in the exhibits. We did meet
with the RCO, and a letter from the RCO is included in the packet that was submitted.
Okay, you may move forward. Great, thank you, thank you. I know this has been a very long
hearing. I will try to keep this very short and to the point. In front of you here is the index of
the exhibits that were submitted to you, a copy of the notice of refusal application, the completed
project information form, portions of the agreement of sale. My client is Selena Oliver. She's the
owner of Promise and Possibilities Learning Academy. She does have an agreement of sale to
purchased this property is indicated the copy was submitted to you. Also as Exhibit 5 is a copy of
Also, as Exhibit 5 is a copy of the Certificate of Tax Compliance, 6 are photographs of the
the Certificate of Tax Compliance.
zoning notice, and 7 are photographs of the property, 8 a floor plan, 9 an affidavit,
10 is a letter of support from the RCO, and 11 is a letter of support from Corinthian Baptist
Church.
So this property is located at 5145 Delancey Street.
You can see here there's an aerial on screen. It fronts the Lancy between 52nd and 51st.
This property, when my client entered into the agreement of sale, the owner had indicated that
this property was actually zoned CMX3, which would in fact allow a child care facility by right.
However, when we went in for the zoning permit, L &I informed my client that the property had been
rezoned at some point in time to RSA 5, which does not in fact allow a child care facility.
For the record, we are looking into the ordinance that rezoned the property and
there is some question as to whether or not the property was in fact rezoned as the maps
attached to the ordinance are not quite clear. Nonetheless, we are here this evening requesting
a variance to use this property for a child care facility. The property is currently improved with
a house of worship on site. The structure is intended to remain. I have here in front of you
photographs. This is the front of the structure that fronts on Delancey Street. Here is a side of
the property facing 52nd Street, and then this is the area along to the rear. My client is not
proposing any type of site improvements, only interior modifications to allow this building
to be constructed or utilized as a child care facility. The property has been used as a house
of worship, a dance school, and actually a home school satellite center for students attending
PA leadership charter school for quite a few years, and there is a history of children being
educated on this property. Ms. Oliver currently operates a family care facility approximately
eight blocks away at 5920 Edison Street and has been part of this community for quite some time.
She has operated that facility for over 10 years. However, she is limited to the number of children
that she can serve there she is interested in expanding the facility and in order to serve more
children within the community she is looking to purchase this property the proposed child
care facility will be fully licensed and regulated by the state as i indicated she is proposing to
make certain interior renovations included in your packet and as shown here is just a very rough kind
a sketch in terms of the floor plan showing how the different areas would be broken out into
different rooms for the children. The child care facility is proposed to operate five days a week
Monday through Friday from 6 30 a .m to 6 30 p .m. Meals will be served as well as snacks as
two as well as two snacks a .m and p .m. As such cooking equipment will be installed in the building.
Based on the square footage of the building, which Mrs. Oliver is hoping to serve up to 60 children, and it's expected that initially there will be approximately nine employees, which again are anticipated to come from the surrounding community.
The number of children is dependent on the square footage, which is governed by the state when she gets her license.
We did meet with the RCO. We had a very good meeting with them. We got a lot of good feedback
from them in terms of the area and some proposed uses. One item that was suggested is there
is a community garden on Delancey Street. We have reached out to the individual that
currently is maintaining that, and we're looking to collaborate with them in order to provide
a community garden that the children can go and utilize as well. Again, the West Philadelphia
Economic Development Council did issue a letter of support, which is in front of you here,
dated January 6, 2021. And we also did receive a letter of support from First Corinthian Baptist
discharge as well. We do believe that there is some hardship here in utilizing the property
due to the rezoning and the fact that this type of structure really does have
due to the rezoning and the fact that this type of structure really does have limited
limited reuse abilities for uses that are otherwise permitted in the RSA 5
district. If I may, Ms. Salina Oliver is with us this afternoon. I would ask that
we unmute her and that I could bring her on. I'm here.
please identify yourself with a record first and last name hi this is selena oliver
good evening uh do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you miss pals thank you miss oliver you were uh in attendance this evening during
the presentation I have just given to the board? Yes. And is the presentation that I had just given
true and accurate? Yes, it is. And do you believe or would you agree to adopt the statements as
though it was your own testimony? I do. Great. At this time, I'd open it up to the board. We're
happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding the uh requested variants thank you any
questions from the board i have no one else would like to testify in this case please raise your
hand mr cow are you for this case yes good evening sir please identify yourself with a record first
and last names by your name? Kyle Sampson, S -A -M -P -S -O -N, president of the West Philadelphia
Economic Development Council, which was the coordinating RCO. Mr. Chairman, this was an easy
one. You're swearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Absolutely.
This was an easy one. This was an easy one. This applicant will provide a great service and a great
addition to the community we had the RCO meeting a tremendous amount of support for this project
and we urge you to support it thank you very much excuse me this is Sharon Saleta Andrew Goodman had
to leave the meeting but he did email to say that councilwoman Gauthier also supports the project
thank you thank you uh planning commission
good evening mr chairman members of the board david fecto city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single family use we have no
objection to granting a child care center at this location thank you mi 2020 -002944
5145 Delancey Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you my vote is yes
I thank you I gotta apologize Cerise I never asked if you needed a break
we have one more case but this case is going to be continued because we didn't get the
exhibits until this afternoon so it's impossible for us to go forward
calendar number
I'm going to call it off Carol
MI2020 -001121
Caster Avenue
will be continued
that completes the 2 o 'clock list
I believe or no
yes it does
that means we will be back here at
I don't know
545 I give you 11
12 minutes something like that
does that work
oh my gosh yes
see everybody back at 5 45 thank you
and i assume uh we're ready to go live and then we'll give lakisha a few minutes
we're actually recording now chair oh okay
all right so uh good evening 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
ms carol tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board members mr thomas holloman and mr james
snell board administrator lakeisha dandy and board attorney sharon saletta 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, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Third, 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.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must...
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 make an appearance statement call google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue and 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
And I would also like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to our Board Administrator, Ms. Lakeisha Dandy.
Having said that, I will read off a list of continuances and withdrawals that have already
been brought to our attention.
MI 2020 -002521.
1 -300 -South 50th, that's 5 -0 -Street, is withdrawn.
Number five on our list, MI2020 -000332 -2100.
Excuse me, Chair, I'm sorry, but did you call out 1 -300 -South 50th as withdrawn?
i think it's i think it's continued that's continued i already had it as continued i
thought i saw that in your recent um no it's number five number five is withdrawn okay my
apologies i'll go back mi 2020 dash zero zero two five two one one three zero zero south 50th street
is continued. Number five on our list, MI 2020 -000332, 2104 North Franklin Street is withdrawn.
And number nine on our list, MI 2020 -000369, 6053 -55, Castor Avenue is being continued.
and excuse me with castor avenue the um you might want to call mr sabatina yes the we received
exhibits but not until 505 on monday so because he does have another case as well number four
yes he's um here you can unmute yourself sabatina please identify yourself with the records where
you in hello can you hear me yes please identify yourself and we'll swear you in john sabatina
uh here referee which what property i'm on here uh hold on before you just spell your last name
for the record s -a -b -a -t -i -n -a and you're swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do our question has to do with 60 53 -55 caster avenue yeah we did we did not get
the exhibits until today? And we got them Monday at 5 .05, at which point we had already completed
the summaries and sent out reports to the council representatives and the planning commission and to
the board members saying that there were no exhibits in this case, meaning it was likely
being continued. So it arrived three days late. I'm going to need to continue that case.
I'd request a very, very short continuance.
Well, we'll work that out with Lakeisha.
And are you prepared to go forward with 1541 Adams Avenue?
Yes, I am.
Okay, so we'll get to that in a minute.
All right.
Anyone disagree with any of the continuance or withdrawals that have just been read into the record?
And if anyone would like to request a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand.
Sheriff, I could also mention that number seven on the list, the RCO has requested a continuance.
We also have no exhibits and it's been previously listed twice. So if you could call to ask if
anyone is here for that case. Okay, I was going to get to that one. All right. MI 2020 -000703
2806 North
Water Street. Is anyone in attendance
for this
no hands chair no hands are up my vote is to dismiss
No hands, Chair.
No hands are up. My vote is to dismiss.
my vote is to dismiss dismiss
anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand
i have alan
good uh good evening mr chair members of the board
hold on one second okay uh just identify yourself you're still on the road from
yes alan occamson of knockamson pc 123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa
19109 i am uh i am addressing uh 31 uh 100 and 102 west of all street it was my understanding
that this matter was going to an executive session
and that there would be a decision at the 3 .30 listing?
No, that was not the case.
It was announced at the last hearing on January 20th.
It was first going to be voted after the morning session.
After the executive session, that was then delayed until 3 .30.
It was then delayed until 9 .30 this morning
so that the chair could participate the record was closed the votes were done at the beginning
of the 9 30 session no no and i understand that um it was it was our understanding when we appeared
last week originally it was a 9 30 and then then 3 30 it was our understanding that it would be
voted upon during this session the 3 30 session not the 9 30. well since the record was in any
case would you like the board to revote it now no no no what i'm asking so and again i know this
is highly unusual um but this is a matter that's been in front of the board previously for you know
a much greater use um i i did send a letter after the record was closed when i discovered which was
not considered by the board because the record was closed no and and i gathered alan can i interrupt
to we have 330 cases to hear can we take you last um actually no i don't think you need to take him
last it was voted this morning if he is unhappy with that vote he can request reconsideration but
the matter is concluded all right okay alan okay thank you all right any other requests for
continuances or withdrawals yes we have um mr sone folks mr folks good afternoon good evening
good evening uh chairman de chico members of the zbe board sloan folks s -l -o -a -n -e -f -s and fire
o -l -k -s office of councilman maria canada sanchez room 508 city hall we're in the firm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do, sir. I have two cases that our office wishes
to request continuance for. The first is case number one, MI -2020 -000241, 1227 Adams Avenue.
We are requesting a continuance because the applicant has not met with the coordinating RCL.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. We also have no exhibits, and this is the second listing.
any objection to us dismissing this case no sir okay mi 2020 -000241 1227 adams avenue my vote
is to dismiss my vote is to dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss next case sir my next case is
case number 8, MI -2020 -0025203349 I Street. Again, the applicant has not met with according
to RCL for community meeting. We have not received any exhibits. I believe it's the first listing. If
we could confirm that there's no one from the applicant present, representing the applicant
prison anyone here for 33 49 i guess is that i street yes yes
anyone here for 39 33 49 i street no hands chair
no exhibits nothing i this is a little out i'm going to vote to dismiss
i vote to dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss okay okay mr slump mr folks thank you chairman thank
thank you chairman thank you okay calendar number are you ready frank yeah yep calendar
you okay calendar number are you ready frank
one on number 0107 1410 aldeen street
anyone here for 1410 aldeen street
they're all sending no hands my vote is to this uh mi 2020 that's 000107
if i can interrupt for just one minute um this is the first listing and we have a letter of non
oh wait i'm sorry it is this is a second but we also have a letter of non -opposition from
councilman o 'neill so of course your call but it was previously listed or already got a continuance
correct it did yes spice they can always ask for reconciled all right my vote is to
mi 2020 that's 0001071410 aldean street my vote is to dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss
Smith. Calendar number three strike that calendar number 0370 1541 Adams Avenue.
Mr. Sabatina just identify yourself with the record you've already been sworn in.
John Sabatina
address 7720 Caster Avenue second floor Philadelphia PA here representing
1541 Adams Avenue. John before you go uh Sharon we've not received exhibits
we have we do have exhibits on this they were submitted prior to the last listing
Okay, because it says no exhibit. All right. Yeah, John. John, please proceed.
Yeah. Well, hang on. Let me get my exhibits up.
Maybe if you can get a little closer to the mic, that would be helpful also.
All right.
Coming a little foggy.
Hang on.
I'm trying to share your screen.
I'm trying to share the screen.
Where's the button for sharing the screen?
I'm not sure.
I'm sorry, he's coming back in as a panelist now.
Okay, sorry about that.
Okay, as you can see, there's a list of exhibits, we have them all.
Do I need to enumerate them or should I just go through them?
I think you can go through them. Thank you. Tax clearance.
A1 is the refusal. A2 is the deed.
Realty transfer tax statement, certificate of tax clearance.
certificate of organization there's a corporation commercial activity license
photographs here's the photograph of the posting here is the property
as you can see it's we have a temporary fence around it the lot has been paved
and cleared you know before my client did this it was a overgrown lot with trash and
the various debris on it
there's a site plan
As you can see, it's right off of Kensington and Adams Ave. There's a zoning map.
As you can see, all around it is commercial. Matter of fact, right budding up against it
is commercial property. The whole area is a lot of commercial properties. Here's an aerial view.
a lot of commercial properties. Here's an aerial view. You can see across the street,
you can see the cars parked from various car repair facilities in the area.
The notification to the RCO, community meeting letter, certificate of mailings, quite a few
mailings. And that's about it. John, do you have any exhibits showing what fencing or if there's
any fencing and lighting or whatever? That is the fencing I showed you. That's a temporary fencing.
Yeah, well, will there be a permanent fence? No, it's what the whole application is for a
a car lot and uh it's later to be determined whether or not uh they'll actually try and fence
it in okay that's what i was asking i didn't know if you had any drawing so will there be
a office like a trailer office or anything on site here again that should be determined
so air ingress and egress i assume is to be determined yes
um we we try we they cut down several huge trees uh that were bordering the lot uh which will give
them access from uh uh kensington avenue uh as you can see there you know there's nothing
you know, right here on Kensington Avenue, they can leave from there.
That's what they're talking about.
These are, yeah, here you go.
All right.
Do we have anything from the RCO?
Excuse me?
Do we have a letter from the RCO?
I believe they did submit a letter to the board.
Is this the letter that they submitted?
You should have it.
I guess they should have submitted it to you.
Karen and or Lakeisha, do we have a letter?
I don't know that it's my job to submit their letter, but here it is.
one of their comments is that cars currently parked on a sidewalk up against a temporary fence
obviously once we occupy the property there won't be these cars parked on the sidewalk
and you can see right here there's cars parked along there on the street
uh questions from the board no no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand mr folks you cannot meet yourself again good afternoon good evening chairman chico members
of this ABA board, Sloan Foulkes, Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez, Room
508CNR.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
The applicant has met with the RCO and has garnered a letter of opposition.
Therefore, the Councilwoman is not supporting this various request.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
No more hands, Chair.
MI 2020 -0003701541 Adams Avenue. Just before I vote, show me that some of those other
photographs about what's in close proximity. There are other...
Yeah, that's another across the street. This is down the street.
Okay. All right. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you thank you members of the board may i be excused oh yeah did we ask you
hold on the last case castor avenue yes you you want to continue you're asking for a continuance
yes you you you want to continue you're asking for a continuance uh if i can't uh hold it today
uh if i can't
and we submitted everything excuse me chair you have already announced that this is continued
right okay yeah but i remember john said that he was he did have the exhibits we'll continue that
john okay can i get a short short continuance on that please i'll work that out with lakisha
calendar number 1145 21 59 north 21st street
We have a Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Okay, thank you. Ms. Clark, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can
you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Alicia Clark. My first name is E -L -I -C -I -A. Last name is C -L -A -R -K. And the address is 2159
North 21st Street. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet in five days in advance of this hearing with proof
of ownership, tax compliance, copy of the refusal and referral, photos and plans of the property,
and have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes, I've sent all that paperwork in.
Okay, thank you. You may proceed. Okay. Let me share my screen.
Okay, can you see my screen?
Not yet.
now can you
uh yes because you can make that a little larger all right let me see
this is the letter that i got from the community can you see it she actually screenshotted it with
picture. That's good, thank you. Okay. Also, let me go back and show you.
okay here's one picture of the building
this is the side of the building where the arrow is pointing that's the building right there
All right, this is the next picture.
This is the front, I'm sorry.
this is the front of the building
here is the clearance the tax clearance letter
um the site plans i don't know can you see that is that big enough for you
that's good thank you okay
here's the deed
Here's the refusal.
And here's the notice that was sent out to 164 of the residents in the area, letting
them know about the meeting that we had with the community.
Is there anything else you would like to see?
Any drawings of the floor plans?
Let me see if I have those.
Here we go. It's going to be three two -bedroom apartments.
Can you enlarge that a little bit, please?
Yes, I can.
It would be three.
Yes, three two -bedroom apartments.
two bedrooms on what first floor second i can't make it out it's not clear um let's see here's
bedroom this is the first floor here's bedroom number one bedroom number two two bedrooms right
there in the bottom corner uh second floor bedroom number one is up in the front and
bedroom number two is in the back and on the third floor bedroom number one is in the front
and then there's bedroom number two back here in the back also. Where will trash be stored?
Trash will be stored in the backyard. There'll be trash cans and there'll also be recycling
cans. We also have a private trash company that we'll be picking up on Mondays
and we'll also be putting trash out on Wednesdays
and that's the day that the city picks up.
Okay, and everyone has access to the yard, correct?
Yes, everyone has access to the yard
and that was one of the concerns of the community also.
Questions from the board?
else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair you planning commission yes this is ron bednar city planning
ron spell your last name please and i'll swear you in last name bednar b -e -d -n -a -r
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you ron please proceed this property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city
plan the proposal is uh not uh out of character with the block therefore we have no objection
to the granular variance thank you very much mi 2020 dash 001145 2159 north 21st street my vote
is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Number 7. 7.
seven uh does that continue to bust my sheet um number seven that was dismissed
thank you go ahead
and that leaves us with is number eight
dismissed that was dismissed i didn't mark my other sheet i'm sorry i think that you're done
that's it concludes the uh the six o 'clock list
all right any unfinished business no nope all right thank you thank you board thank you staff
everybody behind the scenes thank you thank you have a great night everyone
they say good night now be safe bye -bye
Thank you.