is this coming up now no not yet because it keeps saying share screen yes so you will have to have
your documents open first before you hit that uh share screen button all right let me try to open
it no i think you have to go out first right yes you need to yep there you go you need to unshare
and then open the documents and then and then share you're still sharing your screen prior to
having the documents open let me see
is it working now well yes okay so i'm just going to go down it so that was the appeal
yep that's the refusal saying it's not zone the whole block is just residential except for this
property and as i was stating this property is continuous use from whenever it was developed
has always been some type of warehouse storage the only zoning activity and as you notice on
atlas it's you see all the owners were all a roofing company all businesses that just
all businesses that just use it for basic storage. Nobody's running a business out of it. It's just
use it for basic storage nobody's running a business out of it
for the storage. And then the building description, it comes up no matter where you look,
industrial warehouse, masonry. That's because when you'll see the pictures, it's only three
garages in the front, a lot, and then some structure that's not adapted for overnight
accommodation, which is a garage-type area for additional storage.
And, you know, these are the little dimensions.
There's not much to it.
So when you'll see the three garages, one's used for an entry, a little lot that's open area, and then the garage staff building.
And that's what my client runs his business out of.
And then I showed you that prior zoning history where the only thing that they asked to build were three garages in the front, sort of just to make it instead of a wall in the front, they just put garages.
which is granted 1948 nothing else has ever been done with the property since then
and then when my client bought it he saw that other businesses were using it and that's why he
got it and then so then you have a letter of support this is an RCO letter in support
the deed showing my client bought it in his corporate name and then
let's see do you have any pictures of the property yeah let me I'm trying to open up a picture here
let me just see okay
try to open this up
all right all right so you see this first picture yes the fourth garage is there but
this is from the inside a lot area you sort of see right here right looking out so the only way
to ingress and exit this property is you open up the one garage here and it sort of takes you right
in right all right let me stop that i i got to keep opening them up individually so hold on one
second
All right, sorry, let me get a, but that's, sorry, that's the same one.
All right, that's a picture looking from the outside in, and you'll see the second structure here, which is more of a warehouse.
okay type let me stop with that one um just give me one when the front of the building where
where it's yeah i'm sorry yeah let me just go down to that sort of had a number there
front of building okay let me open that one up
okay so here's the front this is what they did in 1948 that's fine that's fine thank you
brick and you see that and then that's the front okay so so so what is your client here
yes he is so why don't we get your client on he'll adopt your testimony yes basically what
you're saying is this property's been here since 1948 and the central roxburgh civic association
supports it yes that's all it's ever been used for and like i said the business he doesn't see
clients there doesn't do anything there it's just for storage so there's no additional traffic
Let's get your client on.
Paul Messa, hit the raise hand button.
Mr. Messa has been allowed to speak.
Yes, hello.
This is Paul Messa.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Paul Messa, P-A-U-L-M-E-S-S-A.
Great, thank you.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Council proceed.
Yes, Mr. Messa, you just heard my testimony.
Do you adopt that as true and correct?
Yes, I do.
Have anything to add?
No, I don't.
Well, I'll just say that we don't have customers or anything there.
We work remotely.
We just store in that building.
And just briefly, how long have you been in business before we got this code violation complaint?
Well, at that at that property, I was there since 2016. I incorporated in 1998.
No, I got that. I just want to know if that's how long you've been there before we got this complaint in 2022. Is that correct?
So I got that. I just want to know if that's how long you've been there before we got this complaint in 2020.
Yes, since 2016.
16. Thank you.
Okay. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have Mr. Hiram Patel. He had his hand raised. I have allowed him to speak at this time.
Sure. Sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes. Hi, my name is Hiran Patel, H-I-R-E-N-P-A-T-E-L. I hope you can hear me.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Yes. So I live directly next door at 421 and 423 Markle Street.
and um basically to begin with the fact that they say that it's strictly used for storage is
categorically false um the business property recovery 9-1-1 is a property recovery business
that from when you have fire water damage and what happened that's a 24-hour business that
business is registered to that address the employees he has at least six to eight employees
they come here every day six days a week they run four vans out of here so it's not storage
okay this is an active commercial business on a completely residential street so that's the
problem this it's an rsa sir sir listen to me did you attend the central roxford civic association
meeting i was not able to attend that for prior obligations okay all right so you're you're you're
against the variance? Correct. Okay. Thank you for calling in. We appreciate your time.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Further answer, Mr. Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the RSA 5 single-family zoning at this location. However, the proposed use is
consistent with the physical configuration of the existing buildings on the lot, as we've seen
in testimony from council. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant
the use variance. We would just ask the board to consider a proviso that states no outdoor
storage of materials or equipment be permitted. MI 2022-003-157-425-27 Markle Street. I vote yes,
with proviso no storage of materials or equipment outside carol tenary my vote is yes
with proviso thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso james snell yes with proviso
thank you council thank you so next one we'll hear three together
MI 2022-003-190-3929 Fairmount Avenue, along with MI 2022-003-186-3941 Fairmount Avenue,
and MI202-003-188-3931 Fairmount Avenue.
Meredith Farrell-Lagger is the attorney.
We have, let's see here.
Recommendation of support from the Mantua Civic Association.
Ms. Ferliger will be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Thank you, Jason.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the three properties?
Certainly.
My client is 617 Brooklyn Associates, LLC, which is represented here today by Burkeem and
Gladen.
And he is the owner of the property via deed in September 21.
You'll note that the refusals do still list the old owner.
Could you, our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Meredith.
is have you do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to their accuracies
i do for all three okay have you emailed the exhibit packet for all three consisting of
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet for all three, consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above, and that would apply to all three properties.
Okay, great. You may proceed, and your screen's already up, so that's good.
Good morning, board members. Again, Meredith Verlager with Dilworth Paxson. The three properties that are before you today are located at 3929, 3931, and 3941 Fairmont Avenue. The exhibit packet in front of you has 17 exhibits that I will walk you through.
Allow me to first orient you to the location of these properties.
As you can see here on the aerials at Exhibit 10, the properties sit between North 39th Street and Union Street in Mantua, West Philadelphia.
This block contains a mix of vacant land and vacant structures, several existing structures, as well as a few newly erected buildings.
Now the arrows that I have here show you the general location of the three properties that
are before the board. 3929 and 31 are both the infill section here, and then 3941 is a little
bit farther down the block. You'll also notice the 39th and Olive playground, which is just to
the rear of these properties. Turning to the photographs at exhibit 17, you'll again note
the general mixed condition of this particular block. This first photo shows 39, 29, and 31
Fairmount in this vacant area here, which does sit next to an existing three-story home, a row
of three-story homes, as well as dilapidated structure to the left. The next photo shows you
the general vacant land area that does include 3941 Fairmount Avenue to the left.
Looking east, you'll note the mix of existing and this new three-story structure.
Now, if you refer to the zoning map here at Exhibit 9, you will see that these properties
are all now zoned RSA 5, having been one of the many blocks that was previously zoned
RM1 prior to the 2017 Mantua rezoning, which is included at Exhibit 4. Now, these three identical
proposals are shown on our zoning plans at Exhibit 6. I'll just leave one up on the screen. Like I
said, they are identical. All three of these proposals propose the erection of a new three-story
structure on each of the lots. Each of the new buildings will contain two dwelling units.
The elevations are shown here at Exhibit 7. Now, it's somewhat hard to tell on the elevations.
You can kind of see this white line here that is supposed to represent the porch. You can see it a
little bit better on the zoning plans, but these have been designed to be consistent with the
existing homes on the block, which are all three stories and include front porches. So you can see
here where it notes that it will be aligned with the adjacent properties, there's a front yard
setback, and there will be a porch. Each of these bi-level units will be roughly 1,700 square feet
with two or three bedrooms and three bathrooms. Consistent with the design for these quite large
units these units will be sold as condominiums the lower unit will have access to the large rear yard
while the upper unit will have access to the private roof deck so each of these units is
designed to have its own exterior space now regarding the refusals each of the proposals
received only one refusal each for the proposed two-family use no dimensional variances are
requested and in fact these proposed structures not only comply with the provisions of the code
but are quite a bit smaller than the code would permit for these lots further to the developer's
goal of remaining consistent with the surrounding three-story character of this block. Now we do
submit to a hardship given both the history of the properties as well as the context of the
neighborhood and this block. In regards to 3941 Fairmount, that property we were able to document
has never contained a single family use. Let me zoom out a little bit, but as you can see up on
the screen right here at exhibit 13, this property was a three-family dwelling dating back to the
This property was a three-family dwelling dating back to the 40s, and amusingly enough,
this history even shows that back in the 40s, a variance was sought, and the presumable attorney
at the time even noted the existence of other multifamily properties on this block even back
then. There was no history available for 39, 29, or 31, which both have appeared to be vacant land
for many decades and do not appear to have ever contained a single-family dwelling in any recent
history. Erecting a new single-family home on each of these lots would also represent quite a
deviation from the predominantly two- and three-family dwellings that currently exist on this
block. As you can see up here at Exhibit 14, this map identifies the multifamily uses on this block
of Fairmont Avenue, which are predominantly a mix of two and three family dwellings.
Now, this map, I only identified multifamily dwellings on this block of Fairmont Avenue,
but my memorandum of law that I included at Exhibit 11 includes a long list of additional
two and three family dwellings on the surrounding blocks on Union Street, as well as on North 39th
Street. Now, these two condominiums proposed for each of the dwellings here will represent a
natural blend of the existing multifamily with the several single-family homes that are on this
block as well. We submit that the number of proposed units is the least minimum. For comparison's sake,
if this property were still zoned RM1, the RM1 zoning would permit up to four units per property
based on the lot size. These duplexes are less dense than many of the surrounding occupancies.
We submit that these proposals will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air. As described in detail, these homes were designed to align with the
existing homes on this block. A full analysis is provided in my memo of law at Exhibit 11,
and I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail. Now, with respect to the community,
we did meet with Mantua back in September in a meeting that included several of the near
neighbors that live on this block. That discussion resulted in the overwhelming vote and support
that's in your packet at tab 16, and I'll just bring that up on the screen. And I do believe
that at least one immediate neighbor is on today hoping to express her support for the proposal.
So at this time, I would ask for the administrator to look for Brahim Engladen to adopt my testimony.
He's been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Hi, good morning, everyone. My name is Brahim Engladen, I-G-H-L-A-D-E-N.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. Brahim, have you heard all my testimony presented to the
board today? Yes. And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would
you adopt it as if it were your own for all three properties? Absolutely. Thank you.