James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That concludes my business to listen.
Thank you.
MI 2021 004832, 3135-49 West Montgomery Avenue.
We don't have the RTO in hand right now.
Attorney Jeffrey Young.
Mr. Young?
Good morning, members of the board.
Jeffrey Young here on behalf of the applicant of the property.
Mr. Young, could you spell your name for the court reporter?
Yes, J-E-F-F-E-R-Y, last name Young, Y-O-U-N-G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Howellman has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading. However, I cannot stipulate to its accuracy, and I will, in my presentation, I will explain why.
According to our records, did you submit a RCO letter?
We, our RCO letter was not given to us in time, in enough time for us to submit it with our package.
In my package, I did submit proof that we had the RCO meeting, and I do have letters from the RCOs now.
Please receive.
Thank you.
May I share my screen?
I'm sorry.
This is Tanya.
May I ask a quick question, Chair?
Mr. Young, if it's okay with you after the presentation, could you send the letter to the RCO box so we can have it for our files?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you kindly, Mr. Young.
again members of the board my name is jeffrey young i'm here on behalf of the equitable owner
of uh 3135 uh through 49 west montgomery um as well as uh 3133 uh west montgomery avenue
um the owner of the the properties uh mr joseph williams um is on the line uh today
it's a table of contents uh just to talk about what we have uh here in our packet um we have
the tax clearance uh the agreement of sale for 3135 uh west montgomery uh the deed
uh the agreement of sale for 3135 uh west montgomery uh the deed for 3133 uh west montgomery
um area map the zoning map refusals pictures uh the subdivision plans uh zoning plans elevations
our site plans uh ground floor plans floor plans pictures renderings um the notification letters
sent out to the community um our certificates of mailing um like i said we have proof of the rco
meeting at the time of the submission was due. We also have had some more information from flyers
from preliminary meetings and emails from preliminary meetings that we've also had with
the community. So we've met with the community more than once for this particular project.
Again, so the refusal states 3135 through 49 West Montgomery, but the actual plan is for 3133 Montgomery and also a consolidation of 3133 with 3135 through 49-Montgomery Avenue.
uh here's a tax clearance uh from my uh client mr joseph well dr joseph williams excuse me
um here's an agreement cell uh for 3135 through 49
and here's the deed uh to my client dr joseph williams uh for 3133 uh west montgomery avenue
it's an aerial map of the neighborhood just to show where the property is in conjunction
we're on the northwest corner of 32nd and Montgomery
and the zoning map here just shows that the property is on RSA 5 again showing the location
on the northwest corner of 32nd and Montgomery avenues in the strawberry mansion section of the
city uh here uh the refusals um again to to get to uh why i had to uh cannot agree to the accuracy
um it's because of the address location um again our address here states 3135 through 49 west
Montgomery. However, because of our zoning plan consists of a lot consolidation, it includes 3133
West Montgomery Avenue as well. So I just wanted to get that on the record and put that in front
of the board that this project also includes 3133 West Montgomery Avenue. Again, we're refused
For some dimensional issues for our lots, the main one being the minimum lot area, also some dimensional standards for some rear yard depth and front setback and for a roof access.
to give the board a picture of the property currently um it is a vacant lot uh it's a
formerly a uh church that was demolished by the city of philadelphia
uh because it was uh is dilapidated and blighted um conditions
and this is a view of the lot again looking toward the southwest corner
of 32nd and montgomery um this is a view looking north um onto the property
as i mentioned uh we had uh the surveyor was approved by the city to consolidate the lots
um as you can see here um it consists of 3135 through 49 montgomery which is this one uh big
lot here and also premises A which is 3133 Montgomery and our proposed subdivision here
you'll see it includes 3133 Montgomery as well and this was approved
by the survey district if I can find that stamp there there you go this was approved by the
the survey district. In our zoning plans, again, our zoning plans include the 3133 West Montgomery
Avenue, as well as 3135 through 49 West Montgomery Avenue. What we're proposing to build is 14
single-family homes on these lots. The homes are 34 feet in height.
um the homes are 34 feet in height um so lower than what the court requires um again each home
single family homes um consisting of approximately being a little bit more than 20 feet wide
um also with uh two car uh rear uh garages access through a curb cut um on the 32nd street side
Now, in regards to that curb cut on 32nd Street, as I mentioned, this property was a church, so there were no formal homes here.
It's not taking away. Our curb cut does not take away parking from any residents.
And in fact, our curb cut, our 122 foot wide curb cut will be potentially adding or taking away, excuse me, 28 cars from the street.
there's a sense of our zoning plan again we're 35 feet high at the roof line
with a 22 foot wide drop out in between so the properties will be fronting on
west montgomery avenue and also west moore street
currently on moore street there are about eight residential properties on the opposite
side of Moore Street. Here, again, is just a plan so you can see the lot lines. Our lots
are a little bit more than 1,000 square feet. And we do, again, we are not, we do not meet
the dimensional standards for RSA 5 lots. However, given that we are subdividing these
lots and the adjacent if these lots were not um subdivided into 14 uh lots uh each lot consistent
from montgomery to morse would be a total of 1600 square feet um and under the cool um meeting
certain dimensional standards we're allowed to subdivide the lots um if they're under uh if
they're uh 1600 square feet um or over um if they're used for single family use um as well
uh which we are uh compliant with again this just uh shows uh the plot plan um for the uh
the first floor garage area um again two car garages are proposed of a 22 foot wide
wide drive aisle um and the garage level will uh be on the the first level of the homes
um these homes do include basements uh we are proposing to put uh trees all throughout the
perimeter of the development to provide some greenery for the street and the neighborhood.
This is a typical floor plan for each of the units. Basement level, first floor level again
with a bedroom, two-car garage, second floor open concept living room, kitchen combo,
And then the third floor will have a two bedrooms and two bathrooms.
The roof will have access to mechanicals throughout the entire roof.
To give a sense of the board of what was here, this is the church that was formerly on the site.
As you can see, it has beige bricks.
What we're trying to do in the design of the units is to keep some of that traditional
look and also blend it with the modern.
So we're going with beige bricks for the corner property and with a combo of beige and red
brick for the interior units.
and this is a view looking northwest of the proposed site
and here is a view of our proposed drive aisle and garage
these are the rear of their properties this is the deck off the second floor level
to give the homeowners a sense of some outdoor space and some some backyard living
and here's a rendering from above now as you can see this rendering here you know one thing that
was contentious at our community meeting I'm sure there are members on the line who the members of
the community on the line who will want to speak more into detail about it is the roof access
As you can see, the roof access that we have now is through this, the roof access structure here that meets the code requirements.
But our proposal for the roof is to put all mechanicals, all HVAC, and solar panels throughout the roof.
But our proposal for the roof is to put all mechanicals.
70 to 80 percent of the roof will be covered in mechanicals.
There will be no living or recreation space available on this roof.
The roof will be totally dedicated to mechanicals and solar panels.
Again, here's a letter that was sent out to the community.
Here is my proof of mailing of those letters.
This was a, at the time, like I said, we did not have our letters from the community,
but this is proof that we did have the official RCO community meeting.
um this was a flyer that we sent out excuse me this community this rco community meeting was held
um uh in february on february 24th i believe it was um and uh we also had a preliminary
community meeting which we flyered the entire community on um for on january 27th
and we also this email shows that we've had preliminary meetings
uh with the community dating back uh to april now uh we do have a letter uh from the strawberry
mansion uh cdc um that are opposing the project because of our proposed um roof access um however
as i mentioned to the board our roof access um is only for uh the the uh solar panels the
mechanicals the HVAC systems that would power our facility. As they mentioned in their letter you
know there were no no solar panels displayed at the at the meeting and that's because for zoning
purposes solar panels are not do not need to be included in the zoning plans however when we have
our building plans. Those HVACs, those mechanicals, those solar panels will be shown throughout our
building plans on that roof access. And in this letter, they mentioned that the vote was, and as
you can see, there was a close vote, 11 in favor, 10 in opposition. That's from this letter from my
account at the community meeting that the vote was asked to take place in the chat of the Zoom.
And based on the chat of the Zoom, what I sent, I sent an email to the community right after that
meeting to correspond what I saw. And what I saw from that meeting was 11 people in support
and seven in opposition. I've included their names, their addresses of the folks that I saw
in that chat who voiced their opinion about this particular project. And as you can see,
all of those who are in support of our project are near neighbors. And most of those who are
in opposition to the project are not near neighbors. We also have a letter of support
from the 32nd Ward, who was an affected RCO in this area.
And with that, you know, I conclude my presentation
and ask my client, Dr. Joe Williams, to get on the line.
Mr. Williams, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
mr williams please unmute yourself
can you hear me yes mr williams could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
dr joseph williams j-o-s-e-p-h-w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s all right do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth yes i do thank you counselor
one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Williams, have you heard my testimony? Yes, I have. And do you
stipulate to the accuracy of my testimony? Yes, I do. And do you adopt my testimony as if it was
your own? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
questions or comments from the virtual audience? Chair, we have Tanetta Graham.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Tonnetta, T-O-N-N-E-T-T-A.
Last name is Graham, G-R-A-H-A-M.
And I'm the president of the Strawberry Mansion, CDC, who was the court name.
Wait one minute.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Hello, everyone. As I mentioned, my name is Teneda Graham, and I am the president of the
Strawberry Mansion CDC, which was the coordinating RCO for this project. As mentioned earlier,
the project did have several communicating meetings with the community that was arranged
by the Strawberry Mansion CDC. And during those both sessions, you know, there was some give and
take um in terms of what the project looked like and we did see some uh some of our feedback was
incorporated however on the we had three meetings total uh so in our two introductory meetings um
it was portrayed uh the rooftop deck and the rooftop access was portrayed as for residential
living um survey mansion uh it has a neighborhood conservation overlay which prohibits uh roof deck
access and roof decks um that was made clear to the uh developer um and during the the current
meetings the roof decks kept occurring at no time during these three meetings um well i'm saying
during the two meetings there was a mention of the roof deck the access for utilities or solar panels
given that zoning does not require them to be on the plan they were never it was never stated to
the community until the meeting of February 24th that the roof decks on the roof access was needed
for solar panels and utilities. That being said, we asked for a continuous to further discuss this
as our overlay, which was in place, I think, in 2021, which was publicly supported. There was
some opposition to it, however, given all the opposition, the various meetings held from the
planning commission, the various meetings held for city council hearings. City council unanimously
passed our overlay to protect our community and it was signed by the mayor. So we respectfully
asked the developer to have a further discussion so that we can ensure that no rooftop living would
occur should a homeowner, because these are units that will be for sale, decide that they don't want
to have solar panels solar panels are not a requirement for this project so the suggestion
was that if you're going to have include solar panels that you can include them in your
construction and then that we could work on some type of provision where there would not be there
would be limited um it would limit any kind of future access to residential living as we are
working to protect the overlay that we uh we develop ourselves along with the planning commission
And like I said, it's been passed by city council and the mayor's signature.
So other than that, the other issues of the project, we had no problem with the variance.
The other variance that was required for the setbacks and for the minimum lot area, we
just would like not to have our overlay be disrupted by any roof deck or roof deck access.
Thank you very much.
any other comments from the virtual audience yes chair we have mary jones
proceed mary good afternoon members of the board mary jones from council president daryl clark's
office could you say spell your name please for the court reporter m-a-r-y-j-o-n-e-s
Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Rasheed?