Thank you. And, Lakeisha, we're ready, correct?
No, we're going to have to wait three minutes.
That's right. Sorry, I got ahead of myself again.
Yeah, I do.
Sorry, Lakeisha.
You're fine.
Thank you.
like you can start, 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 Board Attorney, Ms. 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 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, and that the recording will be available to the public on the web or otherwise.
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'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 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.
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.
With that, I will read off a list of requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 930 list.
Case number one, MI 2020-003074.
1200 Intrepid Avenue is being withdrawn.
Number eight on our list, MI 2020-0030455513 Pemberton Street is continued. MI 2020-003043
5423 Larchwood Avenue is being continued. If anyone disagrees with those cases that either
been withdrawn or continued uh in error please raise your hand at this time only if you disagree
with the cases that have just been read to be continued or withdrawn raise your hand at this
time we have no handshare thank you is there anyone who would like to request a withdrawal
or continuance for the 9 30 hearing list if so please raise your hand at this time
we have mr sloan folks you mr folks good morning good morning chairman de chico and the zba board
my name is sloan folks s-l-o-a-n-e f as in fire o-l-k-s office of councilman maria quiona
sanchez from 508 city hall you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but
the truth? I do, sir. Thank you. Please proceed. I would like to request continuance on case number
seven, MI-2020-001263, 3901 North Reese Street. As of this morning, we still have no record of
um as of uh this morning we still have no record of there being a meeting with the uh
there being a meeting with the
our coordinating rco um okay let me check sharon we have no exhibits no exhibits and this is the
second listing okay uh mi2020-001263-3901 north reese street my vote is to dismiss dismiss
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Hey, Mr. Folks.
Thank you, Chairman Chico.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 930 list?
Please raise your hand.
We have Ms. Hillary.
Ms. Hillary, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, Ms. Emerson.
Please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
good morning mr chair um members of the board hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman cheryl
parker another witness i'll swear i'll tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do um i'm here on number 10 on the list 71 35 rising sun avenue um i i attempted
to reach out to the applicant that heard from her early on um and case was continued back in
december and then there were a couple of uh permits by right permits issued for the property
in her name so i wasn't sure if she was still continuing with her request for the zoning
um hearing or not but i have not heard back from her and i just wanted to see if
she was on on the rco meeting has not occurred to my knowledge
did we get any exhibits no exhibits no exhibits it's previously been listed
yes mi 2020 that's zero zero one nine four four seven one three five rising sun avenue my vote
is to dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss i'm sorry can we just make sure that that person
it's not here oh sorry about it is there anyone here anyone here for seven three seven one three
five rising sun avenue thank you time
mr daniel are you here for that case
no i'm not
okay no hands all right thank you anyone again if there's anyone who's requesting a continuance
or withdrawal for the 9 30 list please raise your hand thank you mr chair
mr daniel can i mute yourself and speak to a continuance
good morning sir please identify yourself for the record first last name and spell your last name
Daniel P. McElhatton, MC, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N.
I'm an attorney, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do, sir.
Thank you, Dan. Please proceed.
I submitted to the council and to the administrator an email yesterday.
My client, who is a protestant, this is on 428 West Thompson Street.
it's at the end of today's 9 30 list we've had two extensive hearings on it um the end of last
week my client received an email from the owner of the property uh indicating they were going to
proceed by right and that they didn't want to put along the process i'm just trying to excuse me
i'm sorry can i just ask that you call um leo mulvihill attorney leo mulvihill
and promote him as well i believe um he may have a response to that mr mulvihill are you available
i am all right please identify yourself i'll swear you win certainly this is leo mulvihill
amazon michael ul v as in victor i h i l l address one four four one east oxford o x
f as in frank o-r-d street philadelphia 19125 thank you swear in the front it's all the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth thank you thank you please proceed good morning members of
the board mr mackleheadon's representation is correct i've had extensive discussions with my
client and at the time this is going to be a withdrawal by the applicant to proceed by right
with a different design. Okay, Mr. McElhatton, this case is being withdrawn. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Mulvihill. Thank you. So MI 2020-002-446-428-30 West Thompson Street is withdrawn.
428-30 West Thompson Street is withdrawn. Any other requests?
We have a Mr. Goodman. Mr. Goodman, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Goodman. Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Thank you. Andrew Goodman, A-N-D-R-E-W-G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of
third district council member, Jamie Gaudier.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Here to request a continuance for what I believe is
agenda item number 11 on your agendas.
MI 2020-003087-800 South 60th Street.
Our office has no record of an RCO meeting taking place.
Thank you.
And Sharon, we don't have any exhibits either, correct?
No exhibits. It's the first listing.
And there was no RCO meeting, Mr. Goodman?
Not to our knowledge, no.
This could be a dismissal, couldn't it?
Usually it's the first listing. It would be a continuance.
Okay. All right. MI 2020-003-087, 800 South 60th Street.
that 6-0 street is continued if you'd like you can make this a must be heard sorry continued
must be heard thank you you're welcome i just wanted to make sure we to ensure that there was
no one here for that as the applicant is there anyone here for 800 north i'm sorry 800 south
60th street aside from mr goodman no hands chair thank you anyone else requesting a
continuance or withdrawal for the 9 30 list no more hands chair okay uh that leads us to the
add-ons. Oh, I'm sorry. We have a Ms. Blunt. Ms. Blunt? Ms. Catherine. Good morning, everyone. I'm
calling regarding 5513 Pemberton. Will that continue? Yes, one second, ma'am. Please identify
yourself for the record. Yes, my name is Catherine Blunt. I am the co-chair of the 46th Ward RCO.
And your last name is, how do you spell your last name?
Yes, B-L-U-N-T.
Do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do swear.
Thank you.
And what you're calling about 5513 Pemberton Street?
That case is continued.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, ma'am.
Have a good day.
You do likewise.
Any other requests?
no more handshare okay thank you we'll go to the add-on list mi2020-002477
1624 north 26th street my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
By 2020, that's 0003401530 West Champulse Avenue. There's a request for reconsideration.
There's also a letter from Councilwoman Bass in support of a reconsideration. So my vote is yes
to reconsideration and rehearing. Yes to reconsideration and rehearing. Yes to reconsideration
and re-hearing. Yes to reconsideration and re-hearing. Yes to reconsideration and re-hearing.
Thank you. Hold on, Thompson is done. Sharon, do we now go to, we hear the
case for 3948-50 West Gerrard, correct? That's correct.
Okay, so we'll hear a testimony on MI 2020-002-482-3948-50 West Girard Avenue.
I understand there's some revised plans, but whoever's presenting, please raise your hand now.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Adam Lieber of Blancroam.
I'm glad you're swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
i do mr chairman please proceed thank you adam laver of blank rome one logan square
on behalf of david goldstein the owner of 3948-50 west gerrard avenue and 3962 west gerrard avenue
and 39 62 west gerrard avenue members of the board a full hearing in this single issue special
members of
exception takeout use case was held on february 17th of this year at that time revised proviso
plans were presented which took into consideration certain community feedback that had been shared
in an initial community meeting. At the February hearing, representatives of Centennial Parkside
Community Development Corporation, the coordinating RCO in this matter, appeared and expressed
opposition, unfortunately, to the proposed takeout restaurant with accessory drive-thru.
At the hearing in February, support from individual neighbors was also entered into the record.
The board permitted us to return to the RCO and the community in an effort at further
dialogue, which we appreciated.
A virtual community meeting was held on Thursday evening, March the 4th.
At the meeting, Centennial Parkside CDC Zoning Committee Chairwoman Lorraine Gomez turned
the floor over to Sergeant Jihad Ali.
Sergeant Ali ran the meeting.
Concerns were raised at the meeting about, quote, bringing different types of people into the neighborhood, end quote.
Regrettably, the RCO's position was conveyed to me, and I appreciated the frankness, that there's a fundamental opposition to the proposed use before the board.
And so where we had hoped to engage in some dialogue about potential changes that could be made to serve everyone's interests, that wasn't a possibility.
And we respect that.
Girard Avenue, as the board knows, is a major arterial roadway.
In some ways, it's an east-west version of our north-south Broad Street.
And a request was made at the community meeting from my client, David, who's with us today to engage a traffic study to offer a traffic engineer to offer professional guidance and possibly recommendations concerning the subject location at 40th and Gerrard Avenue.
Gerrard Avenue is a significant right of way with traffic challenges with or without the proposed use.
We engaged Kevin Savage, a registered professional engineer with Dynamic Traffic, who worked expeditiously to perform a full traffic study at this location, resulting in the issuance of a transportation impact assessment and recommendations, which became available yesterday, which we've shared with the board.
We are prepared to share these findings with the board and the community at this time.
Before moving to that I'd like to screen share briefly however and just go
over some background. Here you see where the hand sign is the subject property at
40th and Girard. You also can see four lanes of traffic on Girard with the
trolley at the center. You see the School of the Futures large campus across the
Street which houses the school and we also learned that the community meeting
houses church worship services at other times here to the right of our site where
hopefully you can see the hand is a former synagogue which is actually
interesting a bit of L&I history it's still registered as a synagogue use of
course that carries through to the church that occupies it now the revival center the revival
center also earns some owns some vacant land next to the church and there's vacant land along this
entire block unfortunately pockets of vacant land across 40th street from our subject property at
the corner, you'll see in a moment, is a cell phone store, a nightclub, and a Chinese takeout
restaurant. Here are some additional photographs. And here you see the Chinese takeout restaurant,
the nightclub, and I said a cell phone. It's a cell phone and dollar plus store. And here
in the background is our subject property. Of course, we're here before the board for
special exception relief. It should be noted that Golden Dragon and Encore are non-conforming
and that they would require special exception relief as well. Here is the subject property
in its former use. It was an eat-in and take-out restaurant, Spiro's Corner Restaurant,
It was a eat-in and take-out restaurant, Spiro's Corner Restaurant, beloved by some in the community.
And you'll see the signage of that restaurant showed delivery, pickup, and clearly it was in the style of the diner.
Here is our notice of referral just to refresh the board's recollection.
The proposed take-out restaurant is a special exception to the ZBA, one referral.
And the board previously saw, and these were entered into the record, the proposed upgrading of David's property, nine apartments above which are permitted by right.
The main corner section of the property is a larger commercial space for uses as permitted in the district.
We've had difficulty leasing that space as we have for the smaller proposed takeout as well.
A couple more images, and here you see the proposed revised plan that had been shared
with the board at the last hearing.
Here we are, not at our site, but just showing you 4430 North Broad Street, a similar type
of roadway with a takeout and drive-through use.
We're not proposing a Taco Bell. This is illustrative only. And here we are moving to actually Broad and Girard. So another section of Girard that shows a takeout use with much wider curb cuts than what we are proposing, as previously mentioned to the board.
This is across the street at Broad and Girard, again, just illustrative.
And here, for the record, is a support letter from Mr. James Brown, whose work prevents him from attending the hearing today.
But he mentions, and this was submitted for the record, that AVIT's tone of communication and partnership with a predominantly African American community are appreciated.
And he notes the job creation possibilities by this proposed use.
at this point in time i would like to call mr savage our traffic planning engineer to speak
to the transportation impact assessment that he performed in this case mr savage if you would
please raise your virtual hand so that you may be sworn in
Mr. Kevin is available.
Hi, yes. Can you hear me?
Yes. Please identify yourself for the record.
First and last name. Spell your last name for the record.
Kevin Savage. Last name is S-A-V-A-G-E.
We're going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Laver.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Savage, for being with us today.
Sir, you are a licensed engineer in the state of Pennsylvania, is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And did you prepare a transportation impact assessment at the subject property?
Yes, I did.
Thank you.
I'd like to turn your attention, if I may, to page 13 of your transportation impact assessment,
which has been submitted to the board, and specifically to your conclusion.
Would you be kind enough to read the first sentence of your conclusion to the board?
Sure. Based upon our traffic impact study as detailed in the body of this report,
it is the professional opinion of dynamic traffic llc that the adjacent street system of the city
of philadelphia and penn dot will not experience any significant degradation and operating is there
an excuse the interruption is there an exhibit with that yes there is please bring it up please
sure one moment
I don't mean to make you, uh, give you motion sickness, I'm just
moving to the page
that Kevin was reading from.
Please reread that sentence, if you would, Mr. Savick.
Please reread
that sentence if you would, Mr. Savick.
Sure. It is the professional opinion of Dynamic Traffic LLC that the adjacent street system of the city of Philadelphia and PennDOT will not experience any significant degradation in operating conditions with the construction of the project.
Thank you, sir. And prior to the issue...
Excuse me, counselor. Is there a diagram for the site traffic flow?
excuse me yes mr holliman one moment
mr savage um mr holliman a member of the board has asked
be pointed to a diagram. Could you please suggest the page in your report that would be helpful?
Yes, it should be figure five, which I believe is five pages
further along than your cursor is right now. Thank you. Mr. Holloman, I'm moving forward in the
report here. Here we are to figure five site-federated scripts. It may be helpful at this
point in time for mr savage to just provide a brief overview regarding uh his report and what
he observed at the site and then i'll follow up with some specific questions enlarge that a little
bit please yes thank you sure please proceed mr savage thanks mr letter so as part of our
transportation impact assessment, we had a chance to review the adjacent roadway network and the
proposed layout of the site. And as part of that transportation impact assessment, we looked at
traffic data at the adjacent signalized intersection and along the adjacent roadways.
And from that, we were able to develop what we call no-build conditions. So those are,
current conditions without the construction of the project.
From there, we surcharged our site-generated traffic onto the adjacent roadway network
and, again, performed an analysis to get what's called our build conditions.
And then from there, we were able to compare the no-build conditions without the project
to the build conditions with the project.
and we found that there's little to no change in operational conditions at the signalized
intersection and on the surrounding roadways. The site driveways operate with good levels of service
and also as part of that transportation impact assessment, we provided three specific
recommendations for incorporation with the project. Please pause for a moment, I'm going to bring
those up so that the board can see them. Sure. Please proceed. There you go. Go right ahead,
Mr. Savage. Sure. So the first recommendation is to restrict the egress driveway along West
Deroid Avenue to a right turn egress only movement. So this would not allow for left
turns out. Secondly, we recommend installing an audio or visual warning device at the egress
driveway to warn pedestrians of exiting vehicles. And third, we recommend installing pedestrian
push buttons at the adjacent signalized intersection and also working with the streets department to
upgrade or update the pedestrian timings to provide adequate walk and flashing don't walk
times at that intersection. Thank you, Mr. Savage. And Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
when Mr. Savage shared his initial findings with David and with me, which actually came to the
conclusion that this site was suitable for the use, David and I said to him, what would you
recommend above and beyond this analysis to really improve the existing situation
and future situation at this site and in this neighborhood. And at our request, Mr. Savage
provided these recommendations, which you see before you. And we would ask the board
If it is inclined to grant requested relief, special exception relief for the proposed takeout use, that these be considered provisos to any zone.
that these be considered provisos to any zoning board of adjustment relief.
Mr. Savage, I think it would be helpful for the board just to underscore the type of usage
that this site might see in terms of in and out traffic.
Could you speak to that for a moment?
So based on the size of the takeout restaurant, especially being the small size,
we anticipate uh approximately uh 25 entering and 25 exiting vehicles during the morning peak hour
and a little bit less about 20 entering and 20 exiting during the evening peak hour so that
equates to about one vehicle in or one vehicle out about every two to three minutes thank you very
much sir thank thank you counselor yes mr holliman um we we of course have mr savage available for
further questions. We also have Mr. Chandler and members of the board, Veronica Blum, the commercial
real estate broker who had worked unsuccessfully to market both of the commercial spaces at this
site. She's prepared to testify if the board wishes to hear from her. And in addition to Ms. Blum,
we have a couple near neighbors who would like to speak in support of the project.
But I defer to the board regarding timing and the additional testimony desired.
Why don't we bring your supporting witnesses, the near neighbors, and get them on the record?
Very good.
I would like to call then Ms. Latia Jones of 3962 West Girard Avenue.
Ms. Jones, would you kindly raise your virtual hands
so that your opinion as a near neighbor
may be recognized by the board?
Ma'am, identify yourself, name and address.
I don't see no hands, Chair.
Anyone else, Mr. Laver?
Well, I'd be happy to.
Mr. Charles Simmons of 4216 Parkside Avenue.
Sir, if you're with us, would you kindly raise your virtual hand?
I see Mr. Simmons is on mute.
Mr. Simmons, would you kindly unmute, if possible,
so that the chairman may ask you a question and swear you in?
it seems like we're having some technical difficulties so as an officer of the court
Mr. Labor will agree that Mr. Simmons and Ms. Jones would be testifying in support of your
application yes Mr. Chairman and that is in addition to the letters of support that have
been submitted by others who are unable to join us I regret that these individuals due to
technology are not able to participate, but I thank you for allowing me to put that into the
record. And again, we have Veronica Blum only if the board wishes the commercial real estate
broker. I don't think we need that just yet. I'll leave that up to the board. I'm going to ask the
board if they have any questions. No. No. Okay. With that, is there anyone else who would like
to testify? If so, please raise your hand. Hi, I had inadvertently raised my hand earlier.
I apologize. Please identify yourself, spell your first and last name and provide us with
your address. Certainly. My name is Alexandra McFadden. It's A-L-E-X-A-N-D-R-A, McFadden,
capital m c f as in foxtrot a d d e n i'm the president of centennial parkside community
development corporation and i'm also a neighbor i live in east parkside and i've lived here uh
for the better part of the last 30 mumble mumble years okay you swear in the firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed miss mcfadden um so i
submitted my letter of a protest against this property. I emailed it. I'm not sure which date.
So I hope that you've received it. And I'm speaking on behalf of Centennial Parkside.
But first, I want to say that we've been working with Mr. Goldstein for the last three years,
as of April, regarding this property and how to get tenants into it. And one of the challenges that
we found with his initial and subsequent market rate, his requests for prices are drastically
there's requests for prices, the prices are drastically higher, I think maybe by $8 to $10
higher.
per square foot higher than what the market actually will bear, if you look at similar
locations in West Parkside, et cetera. But I want to focus my testimony on three particular issues.
I recognize that there was a traffic study done, which we have, of course, not seen since I believe
the date that it was completed was the 22nd or 23rd. And one of the things that our last meeting
that we said that we would love to see a traffic study, because according to the marketing that
Mr. Goldstein has been doing, it says that the traffic count is 19,000 cars per day.
This also does not account for... Pardon me. I just, an objection for the record. No disrespect to
McTadden just for the record must have generated those statements. I couldn't hear everything you
said Mr. Laver, but I don't remember hearing it. You said 19,000 cars a day? Yes, on the real estate
on the real estate, what do you call it, the listing, it says the traffic count is 19,000.
That's how many cars you're saying past this intersection? Yes, that's what that's according to
what Mr. Goldstein has been putting his his his real estate agent at least has been has been
advertising. Yeah um and um so there are three things that we are um most that we most that
we're most concerned about um the first is substantial increase in congestion um so that
intersection is really five it's a it's three streets so it's uh 40th street a major artery
Girard Avenue, a snow emergency route, and Parkside Avenue, another major artery. And they
all kind of combine into one unholy union right there. And additionally, there is a school across
the street, the School of the Future, and they have about 500 kids there. And we have across
the street, I want to object to something Mr. Labor said, it is not a dollar plus. It is in
fact an empty building and has been vacant for many years. And Mr. Goldstein owns that building
as well. So I'm surprised that he doesn't know that it's vacant. And one of the, and then there
is the, the, the old Spiro's location. It is a high pedestrian location, which is according to
Vision Zero, a high injury network street. We've had two pedestrians hit by cars in the last three
years. I believe there were no fatalities, but it is a very dangerous intersection, especially
with Parkside Avenue, the traffic turns left. There are trolleys, there are buses, there are two bus
routes that go across that intersection, and again, the 19,000 cars, which is, it's a weird
situation because during the year, the school year, for instance, it's not necessarily
high traffic during the middle portion of the day, but when it's summertime and the
the zoo, the police church museum, the park,
and the man music center are all activated.
We're looking at, we get 2 million visitors.
So it is an extraordinarily high traffic area.
I, my house, there's an empty space.
So I hear all of the accidents that happen on Gerard Avenue.
I've heard on numerous occasions, several times per week,
accidents that happen because of people making turns
that are just very, very terrifying.
I've seen them. I've almost been involved in them. So we're concerned about, number one,
pedestrians. We have a number of people who are seniors, who have disabilities, and also children
who will be crossing the street. The street is so dangerous that we have police presence to ensure
that the kids can cross the street without being hit. And I mean, kids are going to be kids. They're
high school students. They dart to and fro a lot. And the fact that they're going to come to any
sort of building and when you add in the additional of a drive-through that's just one more place for
more children to be hit by cars and I don't think any of us want that. The second thing that we are
very very concerned about is increased air pollution. As I mentioned we see more than two
million cars, two million visitors to the zoo and the other attractions per year. There is a
tremendous amount of idling that happens. And when you have a drive-through, that's only increasing
the amount of idling. And I recognize that they're saying, you know, only 50 cars or so per day. But
when you add the amount of cars that will be stopping, as construction occurs on Gerrard
Avenue, it's a very high construction spot, apparently. We are going to see more cars that
spot, apparently, we are going to see more cars that are stuck, trapped. And I know that many of
that are stuck.
the people in my neighborhood, we have asthma. I live near one of the most beautiful parks in the
world, and it is difficult to breathe on many a summer day because all you smell are car fumes.
The third, and not final, but just to keep it as brief as possible, we look at the benefits to our
neighbors and also i'm very surprised that um mr brown uh voted uh in that wrote a letter in favor
because when we last spoke he was actually opposed during our community meeting so i'm really shocked
that he changed his people have opinions they changed it maybe something he saw in the revised
plan that he made it uh palatable for him yeah but in our in our first meeting we had i don't want
Let's not let's discuss your okay. He changes mind is fine. But we had 44 people who were we
had 44 neighbors who came to our first meeting and there were 44 oppositions. At our last meeting we
didn't take a vote but our two RCOs, Zendale Parkside, we are the coordinated RCO and East
Parkside Residents Association are both opposed to this, in part due to the benefits to our
residents. Number one, the idea of another takeout restaurant in our community, we have several.
As Mr. Labor showed, we have a Chinese food restaurant. We also have Encore. We have a
number of delis and other quick food places that sell sandwiches and hot foods. We don't really
need another takeout restaurant. What we would love to see is something that shows the character
and culture of our neighborhood. We've been talking, we've been in long talks with several
entrepreneurs like, let me see, Mark Lamont Hill from Uncle Bobby's,
Janine Cook from Harriet's Book of War, etc. Have any of those folks you just mentioned,
have they had any conversation with Mr. Laver's client? No, but just to serve you, which is at
57th and Girard, they have. And for whatever reason, it fell apart. And I don't know what
that reason was. If you can summarize, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. We have a list of
other folks that want to spend. I'm sure. And one of the challenges that we have with a lot of the
fast food restaurants that have been proposed, including Popeyes, are that these will not pay
family-sustaining wages. And moreover, they're not going to attract more businesses to our
business corridor. It makes it very difficult for us to say to other places that we are a
neighborhood that welcomes walkability and environmental justice and democracy when we
have yet another place that is not showing our neighborhood to be fun and interesting. And we're
looking at places like Brewery Town, we're looking at places like West Parkside, and unfortunately,
the proposals that we've received are not in that character. Again, we've been working with
Mr. Goldstein for three years, and none of the places that he's, except for Justice Erview,
have been are in any way remotely appealing to East Parkside residents. So I have to wonder,
who is this drive-thru for? This drive-thru isn't work. I'm sorry, Chair, if I could interject that
we call time i hate to be disrespectful i understand ma'am we didn't start the case
the full listing yet thank you okay well i'm gonna thank you very much so let me let me ask
you this ma'am is the what is is is the fact that it's a drive-thru restaurant is that driving the
opposition yes okay all right thank you if it were a window we would love it mr mr chairman
members of the board um out of true respect for ms mcfadden um i i have uh hit my lip from uh
objecting repeatedly to statements made uh which are in many ways inflammatory and um
pure set uh but uh her position itself is is one that uh as i stated earlier
unfortunately had to agree to disagree. I am concerned that at the first meeting
there was reference made verbally and in correspondence submitted to the board
that there were 44 neighbors who attended and 44 opposed. I realize it's difficult for RCOs to
count votes and opinions particularly in a virtual setting. I observed as a participant
that there were some who were in support at that meeting.
So I question that,
but in the interest of time and respect for everyone,
I don't wish to cross-examine anyone at this point in time.
cross-examine anyone at this point in time. I do see that Mr. Simmons, who I wanted to speak earlier,
I do see that Mr. Simic
appeared to be able to unmute. I don't know if the board wants to call him back or not.
Mr. Simmons, are you available?
Your hand is up, but you're still muted.
That's a shame. There we go. There he is. Hold on. I think he's on now. Mr. Simmons?
Yes. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your last name and
provide us with your address. My name is Charles Simmons. S-I-M-M-O-N-S. Address,
4216 Parkside Avenue. Thank you. You swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Laver. Thank you, sir,
for being with us today. Could you please share your thoughts as in your neighbor regarding the
proposed uh use and the request for special exception relief that's before the board
well i've been living here in parkside for almost 11 years also i'm the vice president
of the east parkside association also uh i'm a member of the rco committee
um also i am a member of the sixth war division as a committee person my observation of traffic
i i live in the area there's not a lot of traffic at all with school i'll be down at the corner
or 4th and Gerard,
there's always police officers
there.
There's no heavy traffic
at that location at all.
At nighttime,
there's no traffic, heavy traffic
at all.
I walked the whole entire
East Parkside area in my neighborhood.
The location that Mr.
Steinberg is trying to
develop
I think is a beautiful thing.
they put in business in our community also developing jobs for our our youth
thank you thank you very much anyone else
yes chair we have a mr scott mr scott you can unmute yourself
While we're waiting for him, we have Ms. Logan, Ms. Logan, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, Ms. Logan, please identify yourself with the record.
Yes. Pastor Lorraine Logan, 3938-40, West Gerrard Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104.
You swear and affirm will tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I affirm.
Thank you.
Yes. I have my church and I have been in the area of Gerrard Avenue for eight years now.
and I'm I just listened to the testimony of the last gentleman and I'm not sure what it is
that he has seen but I am at our building many days of the week different times of the week
whether it's a Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday or Saturday and the traffic is
horrific every single day. We have congestion because of the Philadelphia Zoo, the School of
the Future. There are several churches that are just corners away from each other, as well as the
restaurants that are there. And then we have our residents that are in the neighborhood. We have
had parking issues since I've been there for the eight years, and it's only gotten worse. There is
not a day besides the pandemic where there is not an hour where there's not consistent stop and go
for me to get from 39th and Gerard to 76 east or west literally could take anywhere from 10
to 15 minutes on any given day including Sundays because the zoo is now operating heavily heavily
on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
We have had parking issues and congestions,
We have had parking issues and congestions, whether we've had services, whether we've had funerals, whether we've had weddings.
whether we've had services,
To put a drive-through in this particular location will be total chaos, along with the existing chaos that is there.
I am actually on the block of the proposed restaurant drive-through and just looking at the accidents that we've witnessed,
the accidents that even some of our church members have been involved in, that would not
be a good fit for what we are already fighting and are up against. And then considering, I saw
the draft, there are nine spots that they are considering in that parking lot. Where will the
employees park versus the customers? Once again, they will be parking on residential street parking.
where does the residence park at this particular time to bring up Popeye's in particular because
that's the only store that I have heard mention of it is not the best restaurant because it brings
a certain type of people that's that's that's that's speculation there okay that's that's fine
but to bring it there if we consider any drive-through whether on coming through on 40th
street. Those are two lane streets. One goes up, one goes down. What if, hypothetically,
there are 20 people trying to get into the drop through? What does the traffic do? Can we get
past without going into the wrong lane to go around cars? So I'm not really sure if we have
considered all of these other adjectives to just a simplicity of coming up with an approximate
number of 20 cars during 10 o'clock. Who's to say that it's going to be 10 cars, 20 cars, 50 cars,
a backup with the congestion that we are already currently dealing with that has not been resolved.
So I'm not sure where people are getting their information from if they're not involved in the
community, if they're not living there to actually see what we go through on a consistent basis
every single day. And with the world coming back to normancy or the new norm, we can only imagine
what this area will look like once we are back at 100% to the schools, to the recreational centers,
to the police touch museum. So in my opinion, because I am a living witness as to what really
happens on Gerard Avenue, it's just not a good fit for us. Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
Mr. Lieber?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a few quick questions for Pastor Logan.
Pastor Logan, thank you for being with us today.
How large is your congregation?
Pastor Logan?
Pastor Logan, you're still muted.
You have to unmute yourself.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our congregation is about 150, but on a given Sunday, anywhere from 75 to 100.
people will come because we do have some that work every other Sunday. So we have a mixed
organization that comes into our church on Sundays. Thank you, Pastor. And do you have
many members who are coming in from other locations throughout the city and beyond?
We actually have members from West Philly, North Philadelphia, Roosevelt Boulevard, Chester,
Delaware and New Jersey that attends our church we're kind of like the center of of the area where
they come from north south east and west it does sound like you're you're pulling people in from
many locations and and uh it parking must be a real issue right now for worship services
OK, so the Philadelphia Zoo has been kind to us. We were able to utilize a small lot at the School of the Future entrance up until a year.
no two years now um there is another church that rents out the auditorium and they had gained
access to two of the parking lots where we only had access to one so our congregants um
they come a little later because they leave out at 12 our service starts at 11 30
so we actually have a gag time in our service time while people are trying to find parking
spaces we do we have been able to utilize the block um with the church we actually had to meet
with the pastor of the church to ask him to stop uh as
of the church to ask him to stop as a courtesy to allow his members to leave our parking spaces,
which were directly in front of the lots that we own. The gentleman that owns the two properties
next to ours all way up until the corner, they actually used to take our spots as well because
they started a little bit earlier than we did. And as a courtesy, I met with him just so he can
that is congregation to be friendly, knowing that we have parking issues, not just with that,
but the individuals that do not like to pay for zoo parking, they actually park on our streets
so that they can avoid paying the $10 or the $15 of zoo parking charge. So we've had,
they will work with them on Saturdays. I don't mean to cut you short. I think you made the point.
I appreciate what you're describing about an existing issue.
One last question, Pastor.
You've made some public statements regarding concern,
regarding bringing in a, quote, certain caliber of people to this location.
Could you describe what you mean by that?
Ma'am, you're still muted.
You need to unmute.
I'm so sorry.
When I when I think of certain restaurants, certain restaurants bring certain people to the restaurant based on taste, based on need, based on recipe.
i noticed that if there was a chick-fil-a and this and this is really about the drive-through
but i will answer your question uh attorney lavar um they will bring uh a different type
of people there and people of color in particular which i am a person of color
they like chicken i like chicken too but where are we going where are we going with this testimony
I'm not sure, Mr. Adams, and I would like for him to bring me, because he's been very
strategic in what he's been presenting.
I wanted to share with the board that I think that there are some improper concerns being
brought into the discussion, but thank you, Professor Logan.
I have a question that may have been asked the last time.
How many employees, how many people would be employed at this, if this were approved?
How many people will be employed there?
The hope, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, is to employ from the community that have people.
I understand that. What's the number of employees?
At any one time, six to eight.
Six to eight? Is it 24-7?
There's no intention right now of that.
We're trying to market the property to a suitable, respectable business that will be compatible.
It really does, Mr. Chairman, and don't forget, and I put this on the record at the first hearing, David has nine residential apartments right above this, so he can't cannibalize himself by having something that doesn't work well.
But I do understand that one of our witnesses, Latia Jones, is trying to speak if the board is willing.
Chair, this is Tanya.
If I could mention, we still have four hands up for this case.
I know.
I mean, we haven't even gotten to our regular list yet.
um it's your call chair but i do see andrew goodman representing the let's get right thank
you thank you mr goodman i don't want to buy anyone but we are really stretched out on time
here mr goodman uh you're still sworn in from earlier today just identify yourself for the
record yes andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n here representing the office of third district
Councilmember Jamie Gaudier. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. The Councilmember stands in opposition
to this special exception application. In the interest of brevity, I will try to summarize
and only add new data points. So the topic of congestion has been the main focus of conversation.
I think it's important to state here that this evidence of congestion is not just anecdotal.
In fact, Mayor Jim Kenney's Vision Zero initiative has data to back this up.
This property sits at the intersection of three corridors that are already listed on the city's high injury network.
As this board may already know, 80% of all traffic deaths and serious injuries occur on just 12% of...
80% of all traffic deaths and serious injuries occur on just 12% of Philadelphia streets,
and these precise stretches of 40th Street, Girard Avenue, and Parkside Avenue are all
three streets that are part of this 12%. I'm happy to share my screen and enter this map
in as an exhibit if the board would like me to, but suffice to say this has been a target
of the mayor's initiative to eliminate traffic fatalities and the proposal for a business
with a drive-through that will inevitably create new and unpredictable traffic patterns will run
counter to those priorities. We can talk about, you know, provisos that might mitigate that burden
all we want, but our office would argue that if we have the chance to actually prevent that burden
from presenting itself in the first place, that we should take that chance. I'd also like to add
here that there is a conflict with SEPTA uses as well. This intersection sees more than 1,000
and SEPTA riders per day,
which is a count that's higher
than most regional rail stations.
Would we put a drive-through entrance
right next to regional rail tracks?
I don't think we would,
especially in a case where the majority
of these riders are youth attending
the School of the Future in West Fairmount Park.
Granting this special exception
would cause unnecessary congestion
and put these children at greater risk.
Lastly, as already has been stated,
this is the first time we've seen
any transportation impact assessment.
So I cannot speak to the contents of that report, but what I can say that we've been in communication with the office, the city's Office of Transportation, and I'm happy to enter that communication into the record if that would be appropriate.
But our communication with that office has shown that not only are these driveways not yet approved, but that the streets department would deny them based on the proximity to this busy intersection.
And so with that, I will leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, and thank you. And if you could submit that, we'd like to, because I'm going to close this hearing down and allow the board to have some discussion and make a decision next Wednesday's session.
So whatever material you have, Mr. Goodman, if you could submit it to Sharon, that would be helpful.
I will gladly do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about leaving the record open indefinitely. I understand.
I'm sorry, say that again.
I'm concerned about leaving the record open indefinitely. I have no objection to what the board chairman just suggested in terms of Mr. Goodman submitting an additional exhibit, but I just like to clarify that that was the chairman's intention simply to allow Mr. Goodman to submit the exhibit. I think that this could become overwhelming.
um excuse me excuse me chair this is sharon saletta we if something new is going to be
submitted the record can't be closed there would have to be another hearing um i mean if
if mr goodman has this information now he can email it to me now and i can move the vote
perhaps to the end of this session yeah i have it here too that'll be a good suggestion thank you
thank you sharon we'll do that right now thank you so mr labor we will uh take this matter up
at the end of this uh 9 30 session and uh mr goodman you'll share that information with mr
labor correct absolutely well yes thank you i'll copy everybody who was on the original
um refusal notice a referral notice rather in this case we'll hear this uh at the end of this
session. In conclusion, my final statement, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, is there has
been one expert licensed certified traffic planner who has presented testimony and information to the
board. We can see that there are existing issues at this location and we respectfully would suggest
that the proposed recommendations which go above and beyond will not only improve existing
conditions, but make for a safer environment. The issues that have been discussed are really
not specific to this use. They're endemic regarding greater issues in the community.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
No. No.
We're with public testimony to the Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair DiCicco. Ian Hegarty, H-E-G-A-R-T-Y, for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
We're infirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
City Planning Commission believes that the grant of a special exception at this location will cause detrimental impacts, including congestion on Girard Avenue.
More importantly, inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and the zoning code, which support pedestrian-friendly commercial corridors and areas zoned CMX2.
More importantly, inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and the zoning code.
Because of the property's locations, the impact would go beyond that which might normally be expected from the proposed use.
The two illustrative examples exhibited by council demonstrate the reason that drive-throughs are subject to special exception review in neighborhood commercial zoning districts.
They create an unwelcome and unsafe environment for pedestrians, and that's our primary concern.
We would recommend that the Board deny the special exception.
Thank you very much.
Like I said, we will take this matter up at the end of the 930 session.
With that, we will go to number four on the add-on list, the resumption hearing for MI2020-002, 479, 435 South 56th Street.
mr anastasio i believe is the attorney uh west philadelphia economic development council sent
a letter of uh opposition they claimed there was no proper notification and i believe we were
waiting for feedback from the rco and councilwoman got the a's office good morning mr anastasio
please identify yourself for the record good morning vernon anastasio 1315 walnut street
suite 1006 philadelphia pa 19107 uh representing the uh owners of 435 south 56. we're in the firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you sir please proceed
may i share my screen yes thank you thank you
mr chairman we met with the west philadelphia economic development council
and as a result of that meeting on the 23rd of the month they sent a letter of no objection
as a recommendation we were able to meet with several of the neighbors and the residents who
participated they expressed no opposition in fact it communicated that it's been a long-standing
vacant building and they look forward to my client breathing new life into the project
you're if you can just briefly go through your exhibit that would be helpful oh sure
i want to close this in the interest of time and mr goodman are you still there
yes mr chair yeah good morning uh again good morning again you're still under oath
um mr anasazio is now i don't know if you've seen a letter of support from the rco
a letter of non-opposition yes we've seen non-opposition yeah i'm sorry all right do
you want to get on the record now because i'm not sure if you have any other cases it's up to you
sure i'm happy to now um yeah andrew goodman g-o-o-d m-a-n office of council member jamie
gaudier council member has no opposition to the uh to the revised plans attached to this
variance application so just ask that the provisos be entered accordingly thank you
thank you mr anasazio thank you mr chairman i believe i already went through our packet but
if you'd like me to do it again i could do it really quick you can just maybe just read us
the revised revision to put the revision on the record sure um the revision eliminated the need
for zoning relief as it concerns the pilot houses and everything else still stands the maximum
occupied area exists already it's a pre-existing condition the rear yard issue is a pre-existing
condition the the um the germane issue uh basis of this variance was the multi-family use
and the community supports the four-family dwelling is there any change in the plan
changing the plan because we've removed the need for relief in the pilot houses
okay is it one page is it one page yes i've already sent it over to attorney saletta
Sharon did you want to say something I was just asking how many pages just one page okay thank
you yep I sent that separately I uh to attorney Saleta I sent the revised plans as one pdf and a
second pdf of the proviso sheet uh separate from the binder thank you very much thank you so you
uh separate from the binder thank you very much thank you so you met the requirements the
You met the requirement.
councilwoman's office and the rco weighed in uh there's no opposition uh any questions from the
board no no no you planning commission
thank you chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
we have no opposition to the proposed variance. Thank you MI 2020-002-479-435 South 56th Street
my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan one page approved today. My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Thank you all. Thank you.
Carol, number two, on the regular list.
Okay, calendar number 3086, 1231 Federal Street.
Mr. Miller is coming in as a panelist now.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Miller.
Where are you?
can you put your name and address on the record please and spell your last name
yes uh is my is my video showing
no uh would you give me just a moment um maybe it'll come up now
yes my name is andrew miller my address is 15 st asaph's road ballack henwood pennsylvania
one nine zero zero four give me just a turn are you an attorney sir yes i am
okay go ahead i'm sorry give me just a moment i'm sorry i'm having camera difficulty it'll take a
I have a second.
I swear I'm in, Carol.
Mr. Miller, can you hear me?
okay there you go almost
did it come up no but you can still hear me right oh yes i can okay you gave me your name
and address you spelled did you spell your last name there you are good morning i apologize
do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do do you also
agreed away the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed
the exhibit packet with 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. Okay, thank you. You may proceed. Thank you very much. By way of introduction,
My name is Andrew Muller. May I please the Board. I represent the owners of 1231 to 33 Federal Street,
1231 Federal LLC, and Peli Partners LLC. This is a non-conforming use. We are not seeking a
variance. We are not seeking any relief from existing code. Instead, we ask the Board to
recognize a long-standing non-residential use in a residential neighborhood sir can you share
your exhibits i'm sorry for interrupting yep i'm absolutely happy to do so and uh i'm sharing screen
now is the sonographer are you able to hear mr miller
yes i can hear okay
well that's a great looking family are you are you able to see my screen
got your family you see the family they all look great well thank you and i apologize for that
mr millard okay that's what i was going to suggest okay thank you very much okay uh
Now, very briefly, this property has historically been a plumbing supply, warehouse, and sales location.
This photo from the City Archives is from 1960, and it shows the property.
Are you able to see my cursor?
yes okay that's the property and it's two addresses on federal street
That's the property, and it's two addresses.
it's these are the earliest photos that we've been able to locate um the
photos of the condition and after uh it was a plumbing supply warehouse it became a shirt
factory uh we believe in approximately 1987. it was a we're not able to see the photos mr miller
i'm going to show those next
these are the photos of the existing conditions you rotate the screen please i'm sorry not at all
thank you very much these are the interior conditions on the property and as you can see
it's remained industrial it's remained commercial there is absolutely no residential use at this
property and i'll i'll scroll quickly through the photos so that the board can get the sense of
the conditions on site mr miller could you go back to the three three photos before that
yes the exterior right there yeah right there so the board look i know this because i live a block
away that's why i'm doing it if you look at this going to your left there at one time where i
believe there was a storefront window when it was acme plumbing uh and there has been a there was a
conversion at some point in time into the light commercial i believe is that correct well uh the
The garage door still exists, but there was always a garage door there, is what I'm getting at.
That's correct.
The only difference I would take with you, Mr. Chairman, is that my understanding of the category in which a shirt factory would fall would be industrial.
Okay, industrial.
I'll accept that.
I think the use, if you consider where industrial falls and commercial falls, I think industrial is a more intense use.
Okay, I'll accept that.
I just, it's not residential, it's what I'm saying.
It has been used for residential.
That's correct, and we can't find any record that it ever was.
My client purchased the property, and let me take you through the photos, and then I'll show you my next exhibit.
it. The property is currently being used for storage of construction equipment and appliances
and you can see that here. If I'm going too fast please slow me down.
And on this photo, we can see where the storefront window was filled in to the left of the door, as the chairman was pointing out.
I apologize that some of these photos are tilted at 90 degrees, but I think the board
gets the sense of what the conditions are on site.
now my client purchased this property in
January of 2018 prior to purchasing the property an L&I certificate was issued
showing the records of L&I indicate plumbing supplies and auto body shop
We're not aware of any auto body shop use, but that was the use that was recorded by L&I.
Unfortunately, I'm not able to locate any documents in the archives concerning this property.
So other than this indication from L&I prior to purchase, and as you can see at the top right, it shows that the zoning classification is RSA5,
but the use is obviously not residential.
The property.phila.gov site also shows, this screenshot was taken in November.
The property.phila.gov site.
It shows the current use as industrial warehouse and masonry.
now we presented
would you like me to stop sharing screen those are my exhibits yeah if you're done with the
unless we need unless the board wants to go back over any of them
no okay so we presented to the rco and um i i think that the rco uh viewed respectfully they
viewed this as a variance application and it is not we don't seek any changes to the property
Instead, we ask the board and the city of Philadelphia to recognize the longstanding, non-conforming use.
It's irrefutable that the use at this site is not residential and is longstanding, non-residential, commercial and industrial, and that use has not been abandoned.
were my client to testify the principal of my client his name is Jay Agnes now Mr. Agnes is
a businessman in South Philadelphia he's a resident of South Philadelphia and since his
purchase of this property he's used the property for storage of his equipment of his supplies
and his daughter who's a recent graduate of the of Drexel University in the fashion design program
And she's used the property as a design studio and as a photo studio for her projects, both while she was a student and since her graduation.
There has been absolutely no residential use.
So all that we see today is for the board to recognize the nonconformity, to recognize the grandfathered use as a wholesale distribution and storage warehouse.
in the neighborhood. Now, we have heard from the RCO that there were rumors of use as an Amazon
warehouse, as an Amazon Depot, or as a GoPuff Depot. We don't know where that came from.
We have not entered into any arrangement with any such user, and the future of this property
remains uncertain. At present, Mr. Agnes is utilizing the property for his own purposes.
He's offered it for a lease. He's offered it for sale. And if there's a future use that requires
zoning relief, the applicant will come forward. At the present, we seek to change nothing.
We only ask for recognition of existing conditions. Thank you very much.
thank you um questions from the board no no no no anyone else like to testify if so please raise
your hand i have a mr andrew mr andrew you can unmute yourself how do you do my name is andrew
albergo and i live directly behind 1231 federal mr albergo play your last name please a l b e r g
o i live at 1226 annon street philadelphia pa 19147 do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed i heard mr miller and i agree
with most of what he said uh the reason that um i contest this is that was once appropriate for
community will not always be appropriate for that community at one time there's many active
warehouses in our neighborhood including my own home which is directly behind the property
it's no longer like that there are no longer any active warehouses on federal and and or latona
the process of putting in a commercial an active commercial warehouse will most likely generate
commercial noises that will diminish the enjoyment of the neighboring residential properties
specifically my own since we share a common wall literally the wall between our two properties is
one brick thick and the properties are like right against my bedroom and my office finally the noise
issues will be exacerbated because in this new economy business hours are no longer limited to
the traditional eight to four.
so the noises may irritate the neighbors into the evening and early morning hours.
So the noises may irritate the neighbors
into the evening and early morning hours.
In conclusion, the applicant should be required to address these concerns before an approval is made.
Thank you.
Any suggestions on what you'll be asking the applicant to do to mitigate those noise issues?
Hello?
Mr. Miller has a parent.
Yeah, Mr. Albergo, you mentioned noise issues, potential noise issues, and you said that the applicant, paraphrasing, should address those. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations or requests?
I have two suggestions, sir.
One is that he could frame and insulate our joining law in order to diminish the noise coming through.
Secondly, if you are going to approve it, you could do it on a one-year term or not a long-term approval.
One that has to come back will be possibly eligible for us to revisit it to see how the warehouse is affecting the neighborhood.
I don't really have a problem with the warehouse, especially I think Mr. Agnes is a responsible member of the community and I have no problems with him personally.
I just think that if he does sell it, the likelihood of it being used as a warehouse could be problematic for me specifically and us as the neighborhood.
So even though he's a responsible member of the community, the noise issues would be a problem.
So two ways we could address it. One is the limitations on the use in terms of the time.
another way is put in insulation and frame the walls another way is we can revisit this again
in the near future let him be a warehouse and then see how he handles it being a warehouse
a fully active warehouse because i don't believe it's a fully active warehouse right now
as i said it's really only his daughter in there using it as an art studio does that
answer your question sir yes it does thank you thank you
and mr miller before you address that i want to find anyone else to testify in this case
please raise your hand. Chair, we have a Mike Gumbel. Mr. Gumbel? Hello, can you hear me? Yes,
please identify yourself with the records by your last name and provide us with your address.
Mike Gumbel, G-U-M-B-E-L, 924 Greenwich Street, 19147. Nine where? I'm sorry? 900 block of
Greenwich? Yes, 924. What is your affiliation with this property? I am here representing the
RCO, Patch Young Square. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. You swear and affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. Chairman,
members of the board, the applicant came and met with us in January of this past year.
We are strongly opposed to this. We voted 9 to 0 in opposition. As Mr. Albergo and
chairman mentioned the character of the neighborhood has changed significantly. It once used to be a
walking neighborhood. It's now riddled with cars and warehouses themselves are just not used in
residential areas. We're concerned about the traffic congestion that it will bring. As you
know, Federal Street is a pretty major east-west street and so we have serious concerns about
trucks and other vehicles pulling up to load and unload throughout the days and evenings.
Aside from that, if you, the pictures that Mr. Miller provided, I think if you were to look at
those, there's really no reason why that warehouse could not be converted to several residential
units. So we don't have any, we would like to see that rather than using it as a warehouse
or a wholesale distribution
because it helps with the character
of the neighborhood itself.
And with that, I rest.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller, you have anything,
comments on that?
If not, I'll move to the next witness.
And this is exactly the point
of a nonconformity.
The purchaser or the owner
of a property that has a nonconforming use
has a property right
and that property right and of ownership in that property is recognized by the code
and it's just as valid as each of those witnesses interest in their own homes and the code does the
residential provision of this code under a non-conforming use does not apply so this isn't
a situation that most RCOs are accustomed to, where there's negotiation because a party
is asking for relief from the code. We are not asking for relief from the code. We're
We are not asking for relief from the code.
We're asking for recognition of a longstanding use that is inconsistent with the code.
I ask you for recognition.
So while I respect the positions that have been taken by both of the other witnesses, I submit that the only issue that's relevant before the board is whether or not the use has been abandoned.
and they've offered no evidence of an abandonment of the use.
So if the board finds that there hasn't been an abandonment,
then we're entitled to recognition of the nonconformity.
Thank you very much.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
Mr. Miller, are you in the alternative requesting a variance?
We are not.
Did you file this application as a variance request
or as an appeal against LNI?
uh we we appealed the uh decision of lni refusing the use um i'm afraid then that we may need to
reschedule this and have the law department someone from the law department and from lni
appear to weigh in that's that's where your appeal is against lni uh i i'm familiar with
that property I know that has not been abandoned and the RS5 was actually put in place back in
1989. I'm familiar with that because I ran the Civic Association those days and it was only put
in place if there was abandonment so we could we the community would have a say in what would be
proposed to be built going forward. So again the best of my 75 years of knowledge about that block
it's always been commercial. That property in particular has always been commercial.
So Sharon, you're saying then we need to continue this?
If it is indeed an appeal against Illinois and not a request for a variance, then yes,
we have to give the law department an opportunity to appear.
um chair are you muted um no i don't can you hear me yes all right mr miller
um we were hoping to resolve the case today um and um can i suggest an alternative can we um
can you hold this until um close the record for right now hold it until for discussion in next
week's executive session. I will go through all of the legal memoranda in the meantime and you
can announce following the executive session either a vote or that another hearing is going
to be required. Mr. Miller, in the event that we do not need another hearing, we're not sure of that
yet, Ms. Loretta will let us know. Mr. Albergo, the neighbor who was talking about there was only
a one brick between his property and and your client's property which is not unusual in that
block if it would be possible i would suggest that maybe your client speak to mr albergo
maybe there's some way of putting up some framing and some insulation that would address mr albergo's
concerns but it's not it's not mandatory i'm just putting that out there as a gesture of goodwill
Okay, and do you need your, is your client there?
Do you want to get your client on the record?
Sure, Mr. Agnes, would you please unmute?
Mr. Agnes, are you available?
Yes, he keeps disappearing.
One second.
He's back.
Good morning, Mr. Agnes.
Can you hear me?
Yes, please identify yourself, spell your last name.
My name is Jay Agnes, J-A-Y-A-G-N-E-S.
You swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller?
Thank you.
Mr. Agnes, you heard my testimony on your behalf.
Yes, sir.
Do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Is there anything that you'd like to add?
Yes, my family has owned and operated a construction company in South Philadelphia for 103 years.
company in South Philadelphia for 103 years. We're good neighbors. We've bought, sold, and developed
We're good neighbors.
many properties in the area. I think our track record speaks for itself. I know many people in
the neighborhood, which I respect, and I'm hoping they respect the things that I've done for the
community. And I am a good neighbor, and I will continue to be a good neighbor. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the board? No. Karen, do we go through the whole process
or I guess the planning commission or do we wait?
Excuse me, Chair, were you speaking to me? Yeah, do we ask for the recommendation of
planning commission or do we wait until uh you have a discussion with uh l and i um you can
ask for the recommendation of the planning commission however if we determine that it
is strictly an appeal against l and i um that wouldn't be necessary but why don't we get it
on the record there's no harm in getting it um okay i was just on the phone with miss sunkett
it confirmed that the form at least that was used
was a variance request.
So we will discuss it next week.
Thank you, Mr. Hegarty.
Hegarty.
Thank you, Chair Chico.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
If this is to be considered as a variance,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing residential single-family zoning
of the location.
However, the proposed use is consistent
with documented previous uses on the property and so the city planning commission would recommend
that the zoning board grant a variance in this case. Thank you. So Sharon again we're going to
close the record. Yes close the record and discuss it during executive session following the
executive session it will either be voted or another hearing will be scheduled in order for
LNI and the law department to weigh in. Okay thank you. Mr. Miller you understand where we're going?
yes thank you very much all right thank you so MI 2020 that's 003086 1231 Federal Street
the record is closed the board will be discussing this case set and make a decision at next
Wednesday's executive session next Wednesday being what March 31st I believe correct here
okay thank you next case calendar number 3085 1421 hope street the attorney is vince defino
good morning mr defino do you have a letter of support from south kensington community partners
yes can you put your name and address on the record please
Sure, my name is Vincent Anthony Dufino, I represent United Holding Group and my address
is 2541 South Broad Street.
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?
Yes, yes.
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?
Thank you.
I mailed everything except – okay.
The tax compliance I have available now because there was like a small outstanding balance, but it's a zero balance now, so I have that.
that's the only thing that's not wasn't in the package but I have that so if you
could share I could go through the exhibits am I coming up on the camera
no hello
are you did you there you go
there you go there I am see that
all righty I wanted to show you the view of Broad Street over here
I didn't want to make you jealous guys but I have to but anyway
we have all the funeral homes up my street here
so if you share I could go along with you but
here's where this thing started out the history on this thing is we started this back in november
of 2019 it was going to be a single family residential with a front-loading garage
It was going to be a single-family residential with a front-loading garage.
We met with South Kensington.
They were very much opposed to the front-loading garage,
even though the neighborhood had several of them.
So we discussed it with them, and they said, you know,
we wouldn't be opposed to a duplex.
If you want to do a duplex, my client thought it was a great idea.
So, we put together plans for a duplex.
We were coming to a hearing, and then we realized that either we had to amend the application or refile.
So, we just refiled on this one.
Sir, excuse me.
We need exhibits.
We need exhibits on the screen.
Yeah, I'm trying to see what's going on here.
So, Mr. DeFino, do you have your file open?
Okay, right.
So, you have the file open already, right?
i had it open yeah as long as it's open then you share your screen okay there you go we see it
there you go there we go so here um this is the property here
uh and it's a uh 20 by 54 lot it looks like it backs up to the l right there
um and it's half a block from public transportation and um the neighborhood groups up
south kensington was more concerned with the pedestrian realm so they didn't want the garage
so we they they said we we wouldn't mind a duplex because the block is a good variety of duplex and
single family and it would be more in tune with the neighborhood and the lot size is the perfect
envelope for that and here you see a multi-family on on the beginning of the block um there's
parking underneath this particular uh unit which is right in the middle of the block
and you get to see hove street it's uh south kensington neighborhood
northern liberties i gather and um i could probably go
the plans we do have charles car here um and he could go over the plans with you guys uh charles
can you raise your hand if you're here is charles raising his hand
while we're waiting for mr charles is there anyone who was opposed to this application
if so raise your hand if you are opposed to this application please raise your hand
I just unmuted. Can everyone hear me?
Yeah, just give us a second, sir.
Absolutely.
And I have no hands, Chair.
Okay, so Mr. Dufino, if you could summarize and go quickly through the presentation, that would be helpful.
Okay, here's the letter of support from South Kensington, basically stating that they have no objection to what we proposed,
because we met with them like six or seven different various times,
including a recent board meeting.
So they're not objecting.
None of the neighbors are objecting.
And if you'd like, I'll put up the actual plan for Mr. Carr.
He can describe it to you if you'd like, and we can go from there.
Is it a revised plan, though, correct?
Actually, it's a new application.
So it's not a revised.
It wasn't a revised.
it's a new application
because we withdrew the other application
I remember you saying
I just want to make sure there's no revisions
to the recent application
so here's the front elevation
Charles you want to describe it
excuse me
counselor can you
enlarge
I think I can
use the plus sign
there you go
thank you so we are proposing uh a duplex uh go ahead you would have to wait to be sworn in
in full name spell your last name uh my name is charles kerr k-e-r-r
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed
thank you please proceed uh thank you so the the the building that we are proposing is a duplex
uh thank you so the the the building that we are proposing
Thank you.
it is a three-story duplex where the third floor is set back eight feet and there is a roof deck
with a pilot house above that the first floor is set back into the property two feet with the
steps being set back in the two feet as well to allow for the zoning requirement walking zone
So right now the sidewalk is barely five feet.
And in order to provide the walking zone, we had to provide at least a three or four-foot walking path.
So that's why the ground floor is set back into the property to allow for that.
Again, we're trying to match adjacent materials.
So we're doing masonry on the facade.
and then we have this alley on the right hand side where the x is to allow access for the
residents in and out of the rear yard. The the property to the left is roughly a two-story
warehouse and the properties to the right are roughly a two-story apartment buildings with
roof deck and then all the properties directly across the street are three stories and more.
Okay. I think we got it. We got it, Vince. Just hold on. Any questions from the board?
No. No. Anyone else to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2017, the zoning map was amended at this location from I-2 to RSA-5 single-family zoning
in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan and with the support of the community.
Unfortunately, we don't think the applicant has demonstrated that development is restricted by
any kind of unique physical circumstances or conditions and that the variance, notwithstanding
the adjacent nonconformities, is not necessary to enable viable economic use of the property.
And so we would have to recommend that the Zoning Board deny this variance.
Thank you.
Was there a letter, Vince, from the, Mr. DeFino, from the district council person by any chance?
Is that not opposition?
Swillow or Sanchez?
Yeah, we didn't get it.
No, we didn't.
I didn't ask for it.
All right.
Marco Giurini was very instrumental, and he was back and forth with the council office over there.
I just didn't know if there was a letter.
All right.
Thank you.
MI2020-003085, 1421 Hope Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Calendar number.
Thank you very much.
calendar number 1853, 1524 North 4th Street. The attorney is Leo Mulvihill.
There's a letter from the RCO opposing this application.
Hi, Mr. Mulvihill, can you hear me?
Mr. Mulvihill, you're still muted.
and we can't just move to number five because that's also leo
so why don't we do this let's move to number
12. 6. 12. I'm sorry, you're right, 6. Number 6, calendar number 0742-2116, North 20th Street.
I see no hands. Is it an attorney in this matter?
Michael Green is listed as the owner.
Is Mr. Green available?
Is Mr. Green available? Anyone available for 20?
Anyone available for 2116 North 20th Street?
This is the first listing.
I have a Mr. Michael now.
Mr. Michael, can you unmute yourself?
Mr. Green?
You need to unmute yourself.
good morning mr green good morning good morning identify yourself name is michael green
g-r-e-e-n we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir are you the owner yes i'm the owner are you an llc or an lp no no sir okay carol
thank you okay sir do you um have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance refusal or referral photos and our 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 i have everything i
should have been emailed in by herbert scott okay um you may proceed um
Um, uh, Herbert Scott was supposed to be on here to, uh, to, uh, let you guys know what
was going on.
But since he's not here, I guess I'll talk myself.
Give us a description of what your, uh, your application's about.
I mean, any, any exhibits you have, please share them with us.
Well, basically the, the house is, uh, next door to my mother's house.
Uh, my mother is under PHA.
So I decided to buy a house for her.
It's right next door.
the house my mom lives in is a duplex and I just wanted to give her her own duplex directly next
door the last hearing I didn't get my paperwork in in time I think I did it this time but via
Herbert Scott and I'm just just waiting waiting to you know go ahead with the project you have
any exhibits you can share with us I actually have nothing sir Herbert Scott is supposed to
be on here with everything uh i'm just sitting here watching for the last hour and a half two
hours i'm sorry chair may i ask the question sure uh this is tanya um mr michael um who is herbert
scott in reference to the project herbert scott was my architect okay i see that there's two names
that says herbert if he wishes to raise his hand to present he can be sworn in and present and you
can speak to the case. Yeah, I hope Herbert Scott is trying to sworn in. I'm sitting up here.
Give us a second. Ms. Sunkit said his hand is up. I think I heard. No, he has two devices. Okay,
now he raised his hand. So, Lakeisha, can you promote him so that he can present? And Michael,
you can start off the presentation and then as necessary, the architect can follow up
with additional information thank you thank you chair
excuse me i just want to make sure um leticia are you on and is your um zoom working okay
yes i just promoted um mr sky he should be coming back in as a panelist now
Mr. Scott, it looks like there's okay. Do you have audio though? Can we do an audio
a check? Mr. Scott, we can't hear you. Sir, could your audio be muted on your computer maybe?
Could the other device be his audio? Yeah, because there's no audio on this device. There's no mic
or anything present. So Chair, I'm not sure, but we might want to move on. I'm not sure if that
the technical problems have caused us to delay. But I do see that Mr. Movahill said he would
return very shortly. He had a situation that he had to send to.
We don't know if he's available right now, do we?
He texted and said that he would be back momentarily.
He texted and said that he would be back momentarily.
Let's ask. Let me ask, is Mr. Marblehill available?
Still on mute.
Mr. Scott, can you try to unmute yourself one more time?
Scott, you're still muted.
okay so here's the thing uh mr scott if you could just here we go if you can present any way you
don't really need to talk as much and then let michael handle the presentation so you can promote
to the screen your exhibit mr green um well hopefully mr scott will be able to give us
the exhibits as you walk us through your application
You still have two versions of yourself in here and one of them is muted
and doesn't have video and the other one has video that is muted.
This is Sharon. If the board members are able to access their email,
I just forwarded you the exhibits for this case.
Thank you.
Chair, if I could ask Michael, are you prepared to move forward with this case?
Because Herbert Scott cannot present your case.
I'll try the best way I can.
I'll definitely try the best way I can. This is him calling me now.
herbert they're trying to get you on
back up and looks like he moved he went to another room tanya do you think we would be able to if
um mr michael's um audio was working have him put mr scott on speakerphone well he really
doesn't need to talk okay he just can promote the exhibits really got it so it's pretty much
that's what he needs to do but they're talking on the phone right now thanks tanya
Chair, in the efforts of moving forward,
can we try to see what else we have on our list
to go to next?
We can move to number 12.
Calendar number...
Oh, I'm sorry.
Calendar number 3108-8612-14 Germantown Avenue.
The attorney is Michael Duffy.
Good morning, Mr. Duffy. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, thank you. Michael Duffy, 1812 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.
and i am appearing for the uh owner of eight eight six one two germantown avenue uh the owner is
chestnut hill real estate lp thank you do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth i do do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy uh i would add to the stipulation there was a corrected refusal um okay that was submitted
the first one uh referenced the third floor and the corrected refusal corrected it to reference
the first floor um okay yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter i've only very recently became
involved in this case. So some of the exhibits were emailed five days in advance. Some of
them were emailed more recently. I do know that as of this morning, the complete exhibit
package was emailed. And yes, there was a meeting with the RCO and the letter of support
was one of the ones that was emailed five days in advance.
Okay. Well, then you may proceed. Start presenting your case, please.
Okay thank you. Excuse me this is Sharon if I can just clarify that I emailed after receiving
the initial exhibits asked for clarification on some things and the applicant provided it.
on some things and the applicant provided it. Thank you. So this is a use variance.
Thank you.
The owner is seeking to put in a Mexican restaurant in the property. The property has
remained vacant for at least the past year. It is in an area where there are numerous other
restaurants surrounding it. This is a restaurant, El Limon, is the proposed restaurant that has
locations around the Philadelphia region. It would be appropriate for this area and this property.
And that is the only variance request for the use of the property. And if I could share my screen,
I could show up the start showing the exhibits. Yes, you may. Okay, are the exhibits visible?
yes sir okay thank you um so
this is the uh property on the left um from the street on the right is a uh salon it is the same
owner as the subject property above is a second floor office space and the top floor is uh residential
apartments this is the side of the property this is the chestnut hill train station and the train
station is also the train line is at the rear of the property and this is the the rear of the
building and this is the interior of the property
and uh the view from the uh the street and as i mentioned uh use of properties on this street
as restaurants uh it it's uh regular there are numerous restaurants around it 8624
Cosimo's 8630 is a breakfast boutique, McNally's Tavern, Tavern on the Hill. So there are numerous properties that are already doing the same thing. It's in line with what this community appreciates.
There was a meeting with the RCO, the RCO supports this variance request, there was an
agreement for provisos, so these would be part of the variance.
and that was agreed to with the uh with the rco we also have uh just received the letter
of non-opposition from uh councilwoman bass
and she asked that uh the board approved the the variance request with the uh with the provisos
duffy would you go back to the provisos please yes
Let's see.
Trash generator.
Uh, scroll down. Let's see. The applicant will hold on, please.
Private third party.
The applicant will schedule and receive third party deliveries between.
Sharon, do you have a copy of that? Because
i'm trying to pull it up now um obviously most of these can't be added by the board
there's commercial trash pickup we can do that yes uh extermination we have no control over
and it appears that this is a private signed agreement by the applicant that's correct
would we not we would not be required to put it in as a proviso oh you can still put in what
what is um appropriate you can do the commercial trash pickup um i'm sorry could you scroll up
again sure i i could zoom out if you can still see it so you can maybe see everything at once
that might be too small too small a little too small for my eyes yeah okay
that might be too small too small a little too small for my eyes yeah okay you know and and i
do understand a copy of this was submitted along with all the other uh exhibits yes um to the
letter of support you can you can limit deliveries to the hours of 7 a.m to 10 a.m
yeah i don't think anything else oh that's for deliveries okay
7 a.m to 10 a.m third party deliveries well that gets it shouldn't help the dining
the applicant must be that that's seating arrangements hours of operation that's to be
decided later uh we can't enforce the parking spots correct right okay totally two trash and
deliveries yes i think that's it mr duffy are you open seven days a week uh yes
all right um do you have your client do you want to adopt your testimony you have someone
Yes, Sanjeev Jain is the principal of the client.
And Mr. Jain, if you would raise your hand.
Yes, I'm here.
Hi, please identify yourself first and last name.
Sure, Sanjeev Jain, last name is spelled J-A-I-N.
His first name is spelled?
S-A-N-J-I-V, and I'm the owner of Chestnutville Real Estate.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Duffy.
And Mr. Jean, did you hear my testimony on your behalf?
I did, yes.
And do you adopt it as your own?
I do. Everything was accurate.
Okay, thank you. And is there anything you would like to add for the record?
Just that I appreciate the opportunity to bring El Limon into the Philadelphia area.
This will be their first restaurant in Philadelphia, and the neighbors and others around are very, very excited about it.
We've been trying to get them here for about three years.
Thank you.
Okay, any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
This is Sanjeev Jan.
we we had submitted a list of uh neighbors uh that would be testifying but that was
just in case we didn't get some of these uh support letters from the rco received in time
or a councilwoman uh cindy bass's office but we received everything okay thank you uh anyone else
like to I'm sorry no hands to you okay thank you planning commission
thank you chair Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission
um the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to CMX 2.5 at this location and the
proposed use does conform to this zoning district in the comprehensive plan we just had a question
about the refusal and the variance request it seems to include all uses allowed in cmx3 for
the ground floor i'm not sure if that was amended in the amended uh refusal um but if not then we
would recommend that the board grant the variance that the proviso lists that the specific use is
for a restaurant duffy you care to respond uh well my my understanding is it's for the specific use
as a restaurant not cmx3 uh generally and i'll uh if that is incorrect i would ask my client to speak
no mr duffy that that is accurate this is for a sit down and take out restaurant
um this is sharon the board can add a proviso stating for restaurant use only
okay just for clarity please it is a sit down and take up
well we'll just make it a restaurant right okay yes yeah i think it's a simpler way to do it okay
all right um all right thank you uh mi 2020-003108 8612-14 germantown avenue my vote is yes with the
following provisos commercial trash pickup deliveries will be uh between 7 a.m and 10 a.m
seven days a week and uh this application is speaks to a restaurant only
My vote is yes with provisos. Yes with provisos. Yes with provisos. Yes with provisos.
my vote is yes with provisos yes for provisos
Are we moving to 13 now or back to Leo? Let's check Leo and or Mr. Green whoever is available.
Mr. Mulvihill are you available? I'm going to leave. Thank you very much everyone.
good luck to you thank you sir i am available sorry i took my time hi that's okay can you put
your name and address on the record please and spell your last name certainly it's e-o-l-e-o
last name is mulvihill that's m-u-l-v as in victor i-h-i-l-l address is 20 oh no it's not
anymore. It's 1441
East Alton Street, Philadelphia
19125.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do.
Do you also agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with
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, yes, yes.
all yes to all thank you you may proceed all right good um morning still members of the board
Leo Mulvihill on behalf of Rushdie Muhammad we're here today for the application of a three family
dwelling and a new structure I'll start at the outset by saying this structure has been a
multi-family dwelling for years Mr. Rushdie has owned it for quite some time he's a member of
the mosque that's directly down the street from this property what I have here now on the screen
are the refusal appeal on project information form at page one area zoning maps at page seven
this is rsa five we have our deed at eight tax clearance at 13 the rco letter at 16 and the
history of zoning for this property beginning of page 21 going through to page 37 vote is the
property at 38 plans at 52 so i'll skip directly to let's do one page up
all right but here we go members of the board so we received a refusal
9-2-2020. We received a refusal from multi-family in an RSA 5 district and for a slightly smaller
than required open area. I'll show you the zoning map of the area as well. So members
of the board, this is located by the intersection of Germantown and 4th Street. That weird intersection
is right there as Redner Street comes in. The mosque is located directly down the block.
I drive by it all the time. Our subject property is indicated at the top of this map at page 7.
in the dark. We have IRMX to the north, RSA5 quite around us, and then CMX1 property at the south end
of the block. At the bottom of the page, you see the aerial view, which is taken directly from
Philadelphia Atlas. That's my client's deed. I wasn't able to get the certificate to work,
but here's the information showing that there was a small balance due yesterday, or pardon me,
not yesterday, several days ago, and now at page 15, it's been paid off. On March 17,
we received a letter from South Kensington. We initially had a meeting held with them for this
and a property immediately next door, which has also been owned by Mr. Rushdie for probably
15, 20 years at this point. Both of those applications, I asked for them to be heard
at the same time, but, you know, scheduling works out the way it is. In any case, this building
proposing new three-family dwelling. South Kensington wishes for it to remain as RSA 5,
despite the fact that this structure has been multi-family for years.
I, unfortunately, was not able to attend this meeting.
I was recovering from surgery, and unfortunately, it didn't make my calendar.
Mr. Rushdie was, however, present and fielded questions from the community.
The community, as you can read in the letter,
they believe that single family is the highest best use for this lot
because there's a need for rental units in this neighborhood,
considering the fact that this building is currently rental units
and these demolished, it's in kind of rough shape, and then reconstructed as a new structure.
That's what we're looking to do. Putting a new single family dwelling on this lot
means we have a property that's going to sell for somewhere around $400,000 with new market rates,
if not higher. It is going to continue to push people out of the neighborhood who have been
there for a very long time. And as a longtime resident of the neighborhood, Mr. Rush,
she does not wish to do that. You'll note there are some irregularities, and those were
due mostly to my surgery recovery and, frankly, trying to get my stuff together as I was
recovering. So the meeting was held over Zoom.
Neighbors, SKCP reported that some neighbors did not receive notice of the meeting.
that happens sometimes as we all know um we do have a hearing coming up on 152
that happens sometimes as we all know um we do have a hearing coming up on 1522
north 4th i believe on april 15th um i'm happy to resend notices for this and that project
and try to reconvene a meeting with south kensington and see if we can hear both of
these at once that the board would so prefer to try to smooth out those irregularities
meeting summary form that's just showing you page 19 and 20.
sorry for the interruption would you repeat that again about yeah some well so here's the thing
uh chairman so we submitted these two applications the two properties right next to each other one
five two four and one five two two north fourth um they took a little bit one took a little bit
longer to get through the initial review process than the other um so we didn't get scheduled for
a hearing on the same date some neighbors said they didn't get notice of our community meetings
which has been happening recently unfortunately so if the board is so inclined we can move this
along and reschedule if possible if it permits to be heard with 1522 which is already scheduled for
hearing on april 15 if i recall correctly and they're right next to each other same applicant
same architect same me i'm happy to represent and resend notices so the neighbors feel as though
they're properly notified and or potentially we can reconvene another meeting with south kensington
We're not trying to hide the ball here
or anything like that with this project.
Anya, what is a simpler way of doing,
the easiest way for everyone?
Do you have any suggestions?
And Chairman, they're identical projects,
more or less, too.
Yeah, understood.
I don't see it being a problem, Chair,
is your call.
to do a
put that on
for the 15th
of April
I might be cutting it a little close
Ms. Sunkett we have a project
already scheduled that same day that's directly adjacent
and the two can be heard together in the time
of one hearing as well
April 15th is Thursday
so are you saying
yes it's the 14th
and we have to get everything out
so that's what I'm just saying
it's um it's cutting a little close um but we should be able to do it chair we can go forward
with that okay april the 14th at 9 30. great and i'll stop the share and we'll move on um and i
will conclude this hearing and i guess we'll just come back from this one all right all right so
let me for the record mi 2020 does 001 853 1524 north 4th street is continued uh hold on a second
the hearing will resume be resumed oh it's a resumption hearing correct
uh no chair we would consider this as a continuant and the applicant would have to
vote yes it'll be continued until april the 14th at 9 30 a.m thank you thank you thank you calendar
number 1685 1530 north 25th street attorneys leo malvahill all right members of the board i still
promise to tell the truth i waive and stip we i have to i have to read that you also agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes i do okay and have you submitted
all of your um exhibit uh exhibits in the required documents yes with the required documents you may
proceed great thank you members of the board again for purposes of record leo mulvihill m u l
he is in victor i h i l l here today on behalf of the applicant alex who owns la8 investment
incorporated what i have on the screen is the title page for the exhibit packet we have the
refusal appeal and project information form at page one zoning map at page seven date of eight
commercial activity at 14 tax clearance at 15 rco notification at 16 rco letter at 19 voters of the
property at 21, plans at 37. Members of the board, this block of North 25th Street, I'm
intensely familiar with because I've done probably six appeals on this block in the last couple of
years, all of which, if I recall correctly, are for multifamily on a single family block. One
moment, I'm just going to do one page up. And that's exactly what we're here for today. We're
proposing three dwelling units on a single family block. That's going to become important
when we get to the zoning map and you'll see why. Members of the board, I'm now showing page 7 of my
exhibit packet. You see on the top is the map that I pulled from Atlas. The dark blue area is the
subject lot. It's currently vacant. You'll see that we have this strange L-shaped yellow area of RSA5
properties. I say strange because there's existing multifamily there, specifically on the north
corner of the block where 25th intersects with Oxford. You'll see when I get to the photos,
corner of the block where 25th intersects with Oxford. You'll see when I get to the photos,
an aqua-colored building, multi-family, I believe, with commercial on the ground floor,
or at least it used to. The large areas of RM1 to the east, which would be to the right,
are mostly vacant land. I'm not sure whether this has been remapped yet, but it's mostly vacant.
The buildings directly across the street are gorgeous, and I hope someone rehabilitates them,
but they're also vacant three-story houses.
There's some commercial misuse on the corner,
but I'd suggest that perhaps upon revisiting this,
city planning may look to remap this as RM1 as well,
just like the surrounding blocks.
It's a copy of the deed for the property
to L88 Investment Incorporated.
Client, Alex, is the principal.
Page 14 is my client's commercial activity license.
16 is the tax information.
again that was having issues with the application on the city site. Zoning notification letter is
here at 16. Proof of mailing is here at page 18. And this is our RCO meeting form. We didn't really
get any sort of feedback as to why the neighbors opposed this project. We just got this letter
showing there was that there was no consensus that was reached, but you can see the votes
that are present. We only received this pretty recently. As I've stated before, members of the
board, I've been on this very block with at least four, maybe five different applications immediately
adjacent. Greater good development was one. That's the only one that comes to mind at the moment for
multifamily on this very block. I'll get to the photographs now. So you can see my original zoning
sign from way back when, still there, and a new one. They don't make zip ties like they used to,
they all kept breaking, so I had to use duct tape like MacGyver, but that actually stuck up there
and stayed pretty well. This is looking southbound on the block. You see a new construction on the
block and you see the existing houses that are already there. Our lot is located at the right
of this photo on page 22. This is our lot with the tree in it. It's looking northbound. Members
of the board you can see directly across the street this three-story single family homes or
maybe multi-family at some point um but they're currently zoned for multi-family i'm hoping
somebody does something nice with those instead of taking them down because they have really nice
structure and the cornice lines look really good you said mr mobile they are currently zoned
multi-family as far as i understand one moment members of the board make sure i'm not misspeaking
yes so looking back again to page seven of my packet i'm going to zoom into the top
So our subject property, the vacant lot, is here in blue.
All those homes I just took pictures of, the three-story ones,
those are all located on this block with red in there,
R-E-D as in delta, N-E-R, the north, and Bolton to the south.
Those are all those vacant homes that I just showed pictures of.
Thank you.
Where are we?
So back to page 26, more photos of those.
Looking northbound on the block.
pardon me that's uh southbound on the block that's redner street on the corner you see all the vacant
land all over the place back when we had to hand flyer for these meetings before notifications i
was on this block all the time handing them out you'll see the left of this photo page 30 looking
northbound on 25th that aqua building which is multi-family that i discussed with you earlier
these somehow got out of order my apologies members of the board so the house immediately
adjacent is recently rehabbed that is a single family i believe this house with the green awning
located on page 32 green shutters is multi-family if but not legal multi-family but i can't speak
to that necessarily this is that aqua building that's rather large may have been a corner store
at some point but it's most assuredly multi-family i can tell by the multiple mailboxes and entrances
as i walk by looks like we're repeating photos again here we go now to the plans page 37
So this is 1530 North 25th. Composing red brick, large windows, not exceeding 38 feet. Nothing really too crazy.
Zooming in now on the schematics on the next page. So we're looking at a 32-foot, 9-inch building. We are not even going to the full 38 feet.
This height allows for a decent amount of space between each floor, 9-foot-1 inches from floor to ceiling.
There is egress wells in the basement to allow for additional light and emergency access.
Oh, going too fast for myself.
Going to the bottom of page 39, there is a roof deck that is planned.
And then here's the site plan, I will rotate that, maybe.
Okay, well, I rotated on my preview but not on my big screen, so never mind.
so never mind in any case here's the lot itself the lot itself is 15 feet wide we propose to have
In any case, here's the lot itself.
a little bit more lot coverage than what were provided under the code that said we still have
a substantial room to our depth and let's go to the floor plans themselves members of the board
as i said it is a three family dwelling so we're going to start on the bottom which is a cellar
plan. Bedroom front, bedroom rear, lever as well. Bathrooms in the basement, mechanical area,
stairs. You have trash storage in each of the units as well. So as we go to the first floor,
this unit, by the way, is about 1,550 square feet, so a decent size. You come in the front
door up the steps, hang a left, you're in the front room, the dining, kitchen, bath, and then
a bedroom, office, whatever you want to call it, to the rear. Second floor plan, as you go up the
main staircase in the front, go up the stairs, hang a left, you walk into the kitchen, it's about
730 some square feet. You have living room at the front, dining and kitchen to the middle,
bedroom to the rear, trash storage, off the bathroom. And then same thing on the third floor
as well. Although this has two bedrooms, one in the front, one in the rear. So we have a mix
of one and three bedroom, one, two and three bedroom units to provide for families of any size.
it will be a mix of pricing anywhere between 1250 to 1650 perhaps for these units market right is
ultimately going to determine what's what but they are planned to be rentals not sales at this time
that may change in the future but for now that's what we're looking for for rental stock
with respect to community concerns parking i believe was one as we know it always is
in the city of Philadelphia, no matter where you are.
I don't recall specifically other concerns that were brought up.
And I didn't receive an explanation of position letter from the organization either.
So I'm unsure what the community group's position is otherwise.
But namely, the hardship here is this.
This lot is part of a small pocket of RSA5 properties that is mostly vacant land.
There's a few homes on there for sure.
But in the last several years, this zoning board has granted variances for multifamily on this very block. It's surrounded by RM1. Single-family homes, while they are desirable for many people, we all know the price of construction is continuing to climb, especially with new construction rather than a rehab.
So this is a vacant property. We're seeking to offer these units at an affordable price point in terms of looking at AMI and kind of pegging it to that so that we're not trying to take anybody who's been here for a while and force them to go out just because rents are getting too high.
Irrespective, those are the hardships that we face in this instance.
I suggest that this lot should be zoned RM1 rather than RSA5.
It's the development of a vacant lot into a three-family dwelling.
The price point of these units is going to be such that long-term residents or newer residents who want to move in should both be able to afford these.
We're happy to take any questions from the board at this time.
Thank you. So the first floor and basement is one unit. It's a bi-level unit? Is that correct?
Correct, about 1,550 square feet.
Okay, thank you.
Questions from the board.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
What is the hardship for three units?
Why do you have to have three units?
I mean, the hardship has to do with the fact that this would be a multifamily.
We suggest to the board, at least, that this ought to be a multifamily dwelling lot to begin with.
And my recollection, without doing the math really quickly, is that based on the size of this lot, by May, turning to page 38 of my presentation packet, our lot is 1,260 square feet, which, if I'm doing my math right, quick and dirty, that would allow us for three units by right if this were to be zoned RM1.
So that's what we were looking at, taking the idea of an RM1 lot and working within
those confines, considering we're in a strange pocket of RSA-5, otherwise mostly surrounded
by RM1.
In addition, having the additional unit allows us, just for purposes of pricing, to reduce
the cost of the units for people who want to move into there.
Whereas with two units, the price point goes up, because with a three-story building, you
now have two bi-level units, each of which are about 1,550 square feet, which is going to increase
the rental price from around $1,250 to closer to $1,650 per unit. One more question. Yes.
What is your percentage for the AMI? I don't recall the numbers offhand. I'm sorry I don't
have the documentation in front of me, but in speaking with my clients, that was part of the
calculation that was done. I could take some time if the board wanted to suspend this to grab AMI for this zip.
I could take some time if the board wanted to suspend this to grab AMI for this zip code.
Market rate for one and two bedroom units now, generally speaking, is around $1,500, $1,600.
Based on speaking with my client and having other cases now in the area with newer construction in Brewery Town in the zip code.
Thank you.
Certainly.
Thank you, Tom. Any other questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair DiCicco.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Chair and members of the Board, in 2014, the zoning map was amended from RM1 to RSA5 in
this location in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan and with the support
of the community.
Any adjacent nonconformities notwithstanding, we don't feel the applicant has demonstrated
that development is restricted by any kind of unique physical circumstances or conditions on
this property. The appellant's arguing that the hardship is an economic hardship or a hardship
having to do with the restrictions of the zoning code, neither of which are legitimate grounds for
hardship in the case of use variances. And if the lot should be zoned to RM1, then we would
recommend that the applicant petition for a zoning map amendment however as long as this is zoned rsa
five uh the city planning commission will have to recommend that the board deny the variance
are you aware of any uh future remapping in the not too distant future remapping of the opposite
side of the street which are now it's all multi-family has there been any discussion about
re-remapping that every class i don't i don't have that information immediately handy but i
can check on that. Yeah I'm just curious I mean the entire everything across the street is multi.
Yeah and typically a lot of the recommendations on side streets would be to change that to RSA 5
but I'm not sure I'm not the district planner for that area I would have to check on that.
And chairman just going on the word of the remapping with respect to Mr. Haggerty if it
was remapped in 2014 then the city planning commission made that decision in 2014.
Directly behind us is also RM1 directly across the street and all those vacant lots is RM1
as well. So I understand Mr. Haggerty's concerns. However, I stand by my position here that I find
it curious that the vacant lots here were zoned RSA 5, whereas the existing structures across the
street and other vacant lots remained RM1. And we have RM1 directly behind us, directly to the
south of us on the same block. Yeah, that's why I asked that question. I'm not criticizing,
just was curious as you know what what if there was any immediate any any soon to be remapping
again all right um mi 2020-001-685-1530 north 25th street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is no
thank you members of the board sure i think number six calendar number zero seven four two
2116 north 20th street the owner is michael green
the stenographer we have one more case after this which should go rather quickly do you need a break
now or could you I can wait okay thank you um excuse me chair we're also going back to um
that's right we're going back to uh Mr. Laver correct thank you Mr. Green are you available
or Mr. Scott are you available for this yes yes
who said yeah Mr. Green yes is it possible I can get a continuance
it is it's going to be a while i know but i have no other choice i can't present it myself i have
to find somebody to be able to present this for me okay uh is it okay to ask a question
yeah sure mr green what is the dilemma would you be able to still bring up the exhibit
and just speak to it well my architect is supposed to be email he's not really computer savvy he's
older man um i thought it would be a pretty simple process um he's now let me ask you this
if the if the board can review the exhibit themselves can you speak to what you need to do
with your project yes that that was the dilemma um he couldn't he he couldn't get it on his
computer he's not computer savvy but it's pretty simple i can if to miss mr green to miss sunken's
point we we the board has a copy of the floor plan the exhibit so you can just speak to it
floor plan b exhibit so you can just speak to it i think that's what you're getting at tanya am i
I think that's what
correct yes if i could suggest mr um green if you could just speak very simply about what your
project is for therefore you can go forward and get a decision today if not we are continuing
until august so i was trying to not get you caught up too much okay okay well if it's your wishes we
can do that okay do that i think this is going to be an easy one uh i think yeah uh we can get
through that all right you're green i think he's already been sworn in yes okay present your case
please okay uh again um um i'm an athlete i'm not pretty i'm not the best at this i'll give it a
shot. Again, my mother lives 2118. It's a PHA building, and she's pretty much renting. I saw
an opportunity to buy the house right next door to her, which is 2116 North 20th Street. It's
pretty much the same build. There's a duplex, which she'll be occupying herself, whichever
the floor she desires. And the other unit would be for rent. I mean, I'm not doing anything.
The building, I believe, is multi-family. It's single family, but I wanted to just change
it to multi-family, which is pretty much the same thing on every house on the block.
Can I interrupt you? You've met with the RCO.
Yes, Mrs. Judith. Yes, I have met with her.
And you have a letter of support?
Yes, I believe so. It should be. He literally just emailed me everything.
I'm gonna try to go through this.
This is Sharon. There is a letter of support. It should be included in the documents that I
forwarded to you. All right, hold on. Hold on one second, Mr. Green.
the other board members have all the board members been able to look at the
exhibits I'm looking at the I'm looking at the floor plans now Mr. Chairman okay so I'll give
you some time Tom see if you have any questions I'm okay you're okay anybody else have any other
board members have I'm okay with it no I'm okay okay is there anyone else who would like to
testify in this case please raise your hand no hands chair thank you planning commission
here may i ask for a clarification oh yes why don't you state your full name please
Ariel DiLiberto, A-R-I-E-L, D as in dog, I-L-I, B as in boy, E-R-T as in Tony, O.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Okay, please proceed.
Chair, my question was, I thought I heard the applicant state that this has, is an existing duplex, and I just wanted to clarify that.
No, it's not an existing duplex.
It's a single family, but everything else on the block pretty much.
I think you said your mom lives in a duplex.
Is that correct?
Directly next door.
Yes, sir.
Next door.
Right.
Thank you.
May I proceed with my recommendation?
Yes, please.
So again, this is Ariel DiAlberto with the Planning Commission.
In 2014, the zoning map was amended from RM1 to RSA5 at this location in accord with recommendations
from the comprehensive plan and with the support of the community we don't believe that the applicant
has demonstrated the development is restricted by unique physical circumstances or conditions
of the property and that the proposed variance is not necessary to enable viable economic use
so the city planning commission recommends the board deny the variance recommends
that the board deny the variance
All right. And your mom lives next door, you said, and it's a PHA property, multifamily, correct?
I actually, yes, I actually purchased her. The 2116 was PHA also. I actually purchased it from PHA.
Okay. Thank you. MI 2020-000742-2116 North 20th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
thank you and we go to number 13 colonel
yep calendar number 3075
924 west gerard avenue
bern anastasio is the attorney
letter of support from the 14th ward executive committee
Thank you.
Mr. Anastasio is still on the room.
Mr. Anastasio?
Do you agree to name and address for the record?
Unmute yourself if you have to.
I think I'm already on, but I'm already on the record,
but it's a Vern Anastasio, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006,
19107 representing child's memorial baptist church i agree to everything do you agree
to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed the packet
with 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 yes and yes okay you may you may proceed thank you i'm going to share my screen thank you
members of the board mr chairman this application is for 52
accessory parking spaces to an existing house of worship on an existing lot
and quickly
I met with the 14th Ward RCO Executive Committee, and I think they support the project.
I'm sorry, I got distracted for a minute.
The applicant is a church, and these are their words, which has been serving the immediate community for over 80 years and has the highest respect of the close and nearby neighbors.
granting the variances will not have an adverse impact on the immediate or surrounding neighborhoods
but the application is also for signage and i'll go through those plans it appears that the closest
residents of the proposed project will not have any direct view of the sign from their home the
variances won't alter the characteristics of the immediate neighborhood thank you planning commission
This is Ariel Alberto, excuse me, with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Please hold on one second while I bring up our recommendation.
Okay, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing
CMX 2.5 zoning at this location. The stated purpose of CMX 2.5 zoning district
is to accommodate active commercial and mixed-use development, including pedestrian-friendly retail
and service uses in commercial nodes and along commercial corridors. The development standards
are intended to promote a pedestrian-oriented environment. This proposed set of variances,
which would allow a large surface parking lot and a highway-style animated sign,
plainly conflict with this purpose. We believe that the applicant has not demonstrated
a hardship for the parking use refusal. This is a very large lot that has no apparent unique
physical circumstances that would impair the applicant's ability to develop with a permitted use.
There are also refusals for parking lot landscaping and parking lot standards for
dry vial width. Again, given the generous size of this lot and the lack of any obvious adverse
physical conditions, we find that the requirements of the zoning code do not place an unnecessary
hardship on the owner. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate why the prohibition
on animated illuminated signs represents an unnecessary hardship. Given that the applicant
has not demonstrated hardship and a clear conflict with the purpose of the zoning code the planning
commission recommends that the board deny these variances mr chair just for the record the
landscaping was uh specifically requested to not be included uh it is the experience of many folks
in in various neighborhoods outside of center city that the landscaping becomes a trap for
litter and trash uh and it was specifically requested that that not be the case here
With respect to the sign, this is a sign that every neighbor who lives around this particular property embraces the sign, embraces this church, embraces the use as a lot, especially so that it eases parking crunches that may occur at times.
we hear that all the time from folks so with that i understand uh the planning commission's position
but it's counter to the will and to the desire of the people who live there so with that rest thank
you uh misty liberta is only doing her job mi 2020 that's zero zero three zero seven five
924 West Gerrard Avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you all thank you so now we go back to
my vote is yes thank you all thank you so now we go back to mr laver
and that is three on the add-on list
calendar number 2482 3948-50 west gerrard avenue
is mr laver here
Mr. Laver, we're back on.
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Mrs. Tenere, members of the board.
Mr. Laver, it's been brought to the board's attention
that you've not received a from the streets department approval for curb cut is that accurate
there is no approval needed for a curb cut on along gerard avenue since we have revised the plans
to keep the existing curb cut as is i agree that if we had proceeded with our original plan
that further approval wouldn't have been needed.
It's academic, but I wouldn't concede
that I would have been denied.
I did see an email regarding that option,
which is not being pursued, Mr. Chairman.
So we left off.
Refresh our memory, my memory anyway.
we're waiting for some material from mr goodman yes mr goodman had asked for the opportunity to
submit some additional documentation perhaps miss saletta would like to speak to that
um chair i did forward it mr goodman did email to me and i forwarded it to the board members
if you're able to open that um perhaps we should promote mr goodman too if he's here
He's here. Please raise your hand, Mr. Goodman.
He's coming in now and as a panelist.
Can you hear and see me? Yes, yes. Thank you again and you're still on their oath.
Looking at your letter. I guess all the board members have,
I don't know if you had an opportunity yet to read the letter that Mr. Goodman submitted.
Sharon, do you have anything that we need to know before we continue?
No, as long as you've had an opportunity to review it, and I think Mr.
Labor has explained the issue with Streets Department approval of the curb cut.
Mr. Goodman, did you hear Mr. Labor's explanation?
i did yes i mean i just respectfully i defer to the expertise of the city agencies and so
i still would encourage the board to review the correspondence that we had
with the office of transportation regarding the gerrard avenue driveway specifically
labor any comment mr chairman um we haven't had the streets department appear before the
board. However, I would say this, that the original application as submitted called for a different
design. The design changed in response to the community concerns. If the board is inclined to
grant the requested relief and the streets department determines that in its independent
and separate judgment that there is an issue, then we will address that separately with the streets
department i don't believe that there is an issue since the plan has been revised and we have revised
proviso plans that we've shared with the board don't know that until you that that the discussion
takes place correct with the streets department well go ahead this is sharon celete if indeed
that were to happen then it would not go forward i mean mr labor's client would be proceeding at
their own risk. If the streets department were to deny it, then they would either have
to work with the streets department or they would have to come back here if the design
changes.
Any questions from the board? No, not at all. No. I believe I did ask the
no not at all no i believe i did ask the planning commission earlier uh correct me if i'm wrong and
if you have not yet testified please testify now uh ian hegarty for the planning commission we did
enter our testimony happy to recap if you'd like but we did enter it yeah just if you don't mind
from my from my edification just absolutely sir ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
Commission. We believe the grant of a special exception will cause detrimental impacts here,
including congestion on Girard Avenue, but more importantly, inconsistency with the comprehensive
plan and the zoning code, which support pedestrian-friendly commercial corridors in
area zone CMX2. Because of the property's location, these impacts would be beyond that which might
normally be expected from the proposed use, which is the standard in the code. These two
illustrative examples that were presented by council on Girard and on Broad Street demonstrate
the reason that the code contains a special exception review for neighborhood commercial
zoning districts for drive-throughs. They create an unwelcome environment and a dangerous
environment for pedestrians. We are recommending that the board deny the special exception.
Okay, thank you.
Sorry about this.
It's okay. Any follow-up by any questions from the board?
no no all right it's an interesting case to say the least thank you for me MI 2020-002-482-3948-50
West Gerrard Avenue my vote is no my vote is yes with the revised plans
two pages sorry yes for proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso
thank you thank you that concludes the uh 11 30 i mean the 9 30 list
is that correct it sure does any unfinished business for the 9 30 list
the midnight buffet will begin in five minutes
not this week okay thank you we'll see everybody back at two o'clock again
good afternoon I'm sorry do we need some time Tonya Lakeisha no chair we're ready to go
already okay good afternoon 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, our Board Secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr.
James Snow, Board Administrator Lakeisha Dandy, and Board Attorney Ms. 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
pardon me 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 and the recording will be available
to the public on the web or otherwise 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
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 and i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt
to testify in the chat. All comments should be directed to our board administrator Ms. Dandy.
Having said that I will now read off the list of requested for continuance for the two o'clock
hearing list. Sharon I'm going to do the Ellsworth Street I'll read that as a continuance or rehearing.
You can read that as a continuance,
but with a specific date.
Yes, thank you.
So on the add-on list, MI 2020-002118.
MI 2020-002-118, 2105 Ellsworth Street, and MI 2020-002-116, 2107 Ellsworth Street.
This will be a continued case to April 7th at 2 p.m.
Number one on our list, MI 2021-000177, 1423 Grays Ferry Avenue is continued.
Number seven on our list, MI 2020-000336, 4401 Ridge Avenue is continued.
number nine on our list mi 2021 that's 000319 6134-46 wayne avenue
i'm sorry chair if you could go back and also um i'm not sure if i included on the continuance
list but number three on the add-on list is being continued attorney as a moving party yep
So MI 2020-001230, 1407-09 Grange Street is continued attorney moving party.
If anyone disagrees with the continuance list that has just been read into the record, please raise your hand at this time.
And only those who made this have a disagreement with the list that I just read into the record.
I have a Mr. I'm sorry you didn't get that. Richard DeMarco. Okay good afternoon Mr. DeMarco
please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear you in. Good morning Mr. Chairman I'm sorry
good afternoon can you hear me okay? Yes. Hi good afternoon Richard DeMarco here I did not hear
Richard. Richard. Richard. All right. I know. Spell your last name, please.
D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed.
All right. I did not hear 3533 Allegheny Avenue on your continuance list.
I sent an email last week requesting continuance. We have an RCO meeting scheduled in two weeks.
Okay. All right. We didn't call it. It wasn't on. Okay. So MI 2021-000202-3533 West 80 Allegheny
Avenue is continued. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Anyone who disagrees with any of the cases that
have been read into the record to be continued, please raise your hand.
no more hands chair thank you chair this is sharon i'm sorry this is sharon again if um you could
call number eight i believe the attorney is clementa amazon they're asking to go forward
um despite not despite another um rco meeting being scheduled and councilman got the a's
office is in agreement, but if you could call Ms. Amazon to explain the situation.
Sure. MI-2021-000185-5820 Willows Avenue. Ms. Amazon,
please identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
good afternoon chairman my name is clenta amazon c-l-e-m-e-n-t-a last name a-m-a-z-a-n
but confirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
so we had a community meeting for this project on march 16th unfortunately for some reason the rco
was not able to join said community meeting we did in fact send out notice of the meeting
we did have one neighbor who was in attendance a nearby neighbor and they did express support
for that project so we would like to be able to present to the board and potentially have
a new date about a month from now okay um chair if if if the sunkit is available the
board administrator to speak to the request she may be able will it be a rehearing they I think
they're requesting a resumption but if the if that isn't going to save any time if Ms. Sunke can give
If that isn't going to save any time, if Ms. Sunkit can give them a date, that would be the date in any case that they would come back, perhaps you could have everything at one hearing.
them a date that
All at one time.
We could accommodate with a resumption hearing on April Tuesday, April 27th at 9.30 a.m.
And Ms. Sunkit, that would be a resumption hearing or would this be continued?
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Continue hearing.
yeah miss amazon thank you tanya miss amazon um again if we go forward now we're only going to
have to correct me from wrong someone we'll have to basically go over this again so wouldn't it
be advisable to have the continuance and do the everything at once i'd leave that to the
discretion of the board but i'd be more than happy to do so i'm sorry repeat that i will leave that
to the board's discretion however if you'd like me to present today i'm happy to do so if you'd
like me to hold off until the 27th that's also fine yeah i think that might be the better way
tanya and sharon you agree i do um yes it sounds like a good idea it makes sense okay thank you
and we'll do that mr amazon so mi 2021 that's 000185 5820 willows avenue is continued
to April the 27th at 9 30 a.m okay thank you
anyone uh else uh any concerns about the continuance list or is there anyone who
would like to have a case continued or withdrawn if so please raise your hand
No more hands, Chair.
Thank you.
So we go to number two on the list, the add-on list, is that correct?
Yes, that was correct.
Limited resumption hearing, correct?
Yes, this is only to read the letter into the RCO.
All right. Sorry, I'm talking over here. I apologize.
That's okay.
All right. So MI 2020-003394, 4914 North Penn Street.
This record was closed. We're waiting for a letter from the RCO to be read into the record today.
There will be no testimony.
Is Ms. Pritzker available?
And Chair, I have that letter in front of me.
Would you like me to forward it to you or just read it into the record?
You can read it in.
That would be helpful.
Dear Chairman DiCicco, after two weeks of negotiations with the proposed developer for 4914 Penn Street,
the Frankfurt Community Development Corporation and the Frankfurt NAC RCO have reached a community benefits agreement
that will provide affordable housing for low-income residents,
local hiring for permanent positions and temporary construction jobs. Additionally,
the developer has agreed to use good faith efforts to continue to negotiate for additional parking
in the area for their tenants and to use their best faith efforts to preserve the interior and
exterior unique architectural features of the building. Please find the CBA that was negotiated
as a prerequisite of the support letter attached. Based on the aforementioned CBA, the Frankfurt
community development corporation and the frankfurt knack rco would like to offer this
letter of support on behalf of the project we ask that the zba grant the variance request
so i don't have to call that in as a proviso correct it's because it's part of the record
it's part of these are all conditions that could not be added as a proviso so they have entered
into a signed private agreement very good okay chairman i'm here i don't know if you need me
though uh i don't think so unless you have something but nope okay thank you mi 2020
that's zero zero three three nine four four nine one four north penn street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
This case was to be voted on back in March the 4th, but no vote occurred.
Excuse me, Chair, we were going to hold that until the 3.30 session, but if you could call
Number four and if Mary Jones from Councilman Clark's office could be promoted as well as
number four and if Mary Jones from Councilman Clark.
Attorney's Engine. That's 810 North 12th? Yes. Okay. MI 2020, that's 000296, 810 North 12th Street.
And since this was Councilman Clark's request for reconsideration, if Ms. Jones could present
first.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Ms. Jones.
Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
um mary jones uh council president carol clark's office city hall room 494
we're in the firm to tell the truth all truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you ma'am please proceed i'm sorry can we pause for one moment
i'm miss uh lakeisha could you promote her to a panelist please
um thank you um can you all hear me yes thank you okay yes yes um yes uh our office originally
uh opposed this project and um requested a consideration based on uh feedback from the
RCO as well as this property being located within the north philadelphia excuse me north central
philadelphia overlay uh that was created with the aim of preserving the single family housing and
the surrounding community however we based on further communications with near neighbors
and the special circumstances surrounding this particular project,
as well as the RCO changing their position,
we are no longer in opposition to this project.
And if Mr. Jin is available to respond.
Please identify yourself and we'll swear you in.
That's Zhenjin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia
PA 19103 here on behalf of the applicant.
Thank you.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
In response, that is also the updated position we have with regard to this case.
We've been working closely with the close neighbors and the RCO and has reached an agreement
with them. They are asking for specific provisals, which we have agreed to, and my client has agreed
to, which I can actually share with the board as part of their letter. They indicated the
provisals they're looking for. Please do. Thank you.
So I'm going to go straight to their community letter in this case. They indicated a few things
that they would want some of these i believe are zoning issues some are not but i did want to make
sure the board's aware of all of them uh the utility meter in front exterior the property
is an issue we'll work out with the utility company um red brick front facade again a design
not enforceable yeah uh but the height shall be limited to 38 feet we did make uh representation
at the first hearing that we'd agree to that height limit even at the uh at that time
excuse me for the interruption is that reflected in the plan 38 feet it was not reflected it was
reflected in the plans uh that we presented to the board i think but they were they're not the uh
stamp we don't need them stamp because it could be done by proviso uh for height limit okay and
we're certainly agreeable to that uh and then the designated indoor trash area uh available to hold
a minimum of a 30 gallon trash can is the other requirement they asked for which we agree with
i don't know how we can i don't know if that's enforceable trash inside but i don't know if we
can put a specific right well the property still will have trash uh storage also in the exterior
uh rear but um the rco wanted a indoor trash storage area yeah i remember yeah yes somebody
about to ask something sharon i was yes chair um first i wanted to point out you weren't here for
the original hearing so it would be the other four members voting um at least that's what i have in
um at least that's what i have in my notes i'm not i remember the 30 gallon trash can but okay
my notes i'm not i remember
no problem carol you're on and you could do a proviso um trash and store trash enclosure
area included in each unit would that be acceptable ms jones and mr jinn
it would certainly be acceptable to my office yes
that that was um requested by the rco so um i'm i'm not sure if miss diane is on
but uh we defer to them
is monroe available
uh yes i am hello just identify yourself you're still on this morning diane monroe uh 14th wood
rco chair um the fort the 30 gallon can on trash storage area this is something that we have
uh it's like a requirement that the 14th wood and the neighbors um will like to see and and other
developers has been able to accommodate and so has mr jen with other applicants and the purpose
of that is because we don't want to see those little um trash um the shop right bags sitting
outside and that neighborhood itself they do not have a trash issue on their streets
on the pavements and we don't with this multi-family coming in we don't want to start
anything understood thank you okay how about this language could we do 30 gallon capacity
trash closet in each unit.
Or a minimum of 30 gallons, right?
Minimum 30 gallon trash.
I'm not voting on this, right?
30 gallon capacity trash.
Minimum 30 gallons.
Trash enclosure in each unit.
And the other proviso,
Carol's 38 foot height maximum.
Not to exceed 38 feet.
so we're ready to vote yes okay councilman um calendar number 0296 810 north 12th street
my vote is yes with a minimum 30 gallon capacity trash enclosure and also not to exceed 38 foot
height. Yes for proviso. Yes for proviso. Yes for proviso. Excuse me this is Sharon again and
Ms. Jones thank you again for emailing last night. You're welcome. Thank you Mary. Thank you. Thank
you everyone. Thank you Ms. Monroe. Do we go to number two on the regular list now? Yes calendar
number 0372, 1625 West Thompson Street.
We have no exhibits. This is the first listing.
Anyone here for 1625 West Thompson Street?
I apologize. I had Sharon read a lot of the other ones. This must
was to slip by. I'm looking to continue this. 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. I'd like to
request this matter be continued, please, so we can have further conversation with the community.
Thank you. MI 2021-000372-1625 West Thompson Street is continued.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Calendar number 0186-2500, Masher Street.
That would either be Alan Nockerson or Clemenza.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Name and address for the record, please, and spell your last name.
Yes, Alan Ockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Ockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Address, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
philadelphia pa 19109 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole...
i do do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance photos and or
plans of the property copy of the refusal um and referral have you met with the rco and
do you have a letter? Yes, in all respects. And you've done all of this five days in advance of
this hearing? Yes. Okay, you may proceed. I may share my screen? You sure may.
All right. So I'm here to present 2500-02 Masher Street. This is a property that's almost 4,000
square feet. It's at the corner of Masher, Cumberland, and Mudder in the North Square
area or section of Philadelphia. And what I'm going to be presenting, I'm going to increase
the size a little bit. I will show you the deed to the property, showing that NHA Development
LLC owns the property at 2500-02 Masher Street. I'll show you a Certificate of Tax Clearance,
showing that they're in good standing with the city with respect to their real estate
taxes as to this property. I will then show you the notice of refusal for this RM1 property.
Then I'll show you the application for appeal that we filed with the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
then maps of the area showing the zoning map as well as Google Maps. I will show you photographs
of the property as well as the surrounding area, then architectural plans and drawings,
and then a letter of support not only from the Norris Square Community Alliance,
But this has overwhelming support on that particular block as well. The property owner next door to us at 2504 Master Street is supporting it by way of a letter, as well as several neighbors across the street.
NHA Development has been in business for almost 10 years. It is known for developing properties in the North Square area as well as in other areas.
And that is why, as a known quantity, the community was in support of this project, as well as members of the community on that block, where NHA Development actually is developing a property across the street.
And that's why some of those same neighbors are supporting this one.
Here's a deed to the property showing that NHA Development owns 2500-02 Master Street.
After that, it's a certificate of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing.
There's a minor balance of $100.72, which we took care of in terms of payment.
For both properties, there's a minor balance that we took care of payment recently.
The notice of refusal, 2500 Master Street. This is an RM1 property. We are looking to put a 14-unit building in there with a roof deck. Our refusal is twofold. The first, again, because it's an RM1 property, we are allowed to build multifamily use. We are allowed to build eight units, but we're requesting to build 14 units.
Again, we face three public streets, and given the configuration in the building, this property fits comfortably within this building structure, and we're not seeking any variances other than our pilot house is located on the side of the building such that we don't have a five-foot setback, and that's the way the building is constructed because of the three public-sided streets.
But, you know, technically we have a height variance because they're counting the pilot
house.
But if you just count the roof line, we are under the 38-foot limit for RM1.
Here's our application for appeal to the zoning board of adjustment.
And then a zoning map showing, again, here we are in the neighborhood.
This is a multifamily portion of the neighborhood.
we are in the corner of Masher, West Cumberland, and Mudder.
And you see photographs of the property. Here's a picture of the property
for the front of the property from Masher, front of the property from West Cumberland,
and then the front of the property from Mudder Street. And then here's Masher Street to the
left of the property and to the right of the property, West Cumberland Street to the left
of the property to the right of the property. Mudder Street to left of the property to the
right of the property. And then here's our plans and drawings. Again, we want to keep
the traditional brick facade, but have some stonework on the base level. Because of the
uh because of the fact that we are facing three public streets we were able to have the many of
fact that we are facing three public streets, we were able to have
the first floor units open directly onto the first uh onto from the street which was a thing
that the community felt was a good idea to keep as many eyes on the street as possible
and let's see let me just reduce the size
so this is our site plan
show you where we are in the neighborhood and then here's our elevations again you know from
the roof line we are only 37 feet high and then here is our floor plans
paying particular attention to the uh the the room down here this is our where we will store our
garbage and then here's our letter of support
from the norah square community alliance again it's not non-opposition they actually support
our project and here's letters of support as well from the owner 2246 north howard street
which is not too far from the property uh 25 i can't read that it's 07 or or 17 north master
which would be across the street from our property
2509 north master which is across the street again these are properties where my client is
building next door to show his good faith in terms of respecting the community during the
construction phase and doing the right thing. 2240 North Howard Street, which is not far from
the property. And then most importantly, Jose Ortiz, who lives next door at 2504 North Master
Street, who's in support of this project. Here's our community notice for the community meeting
that took place on February 10th, 2021. Here are the addresses that we sent the notice to.
And then the last page is the proof of mailing. So with that, I would ask that Mr. Chabon
virtually raise his hand so he can adopt my testimony.
Could it be under NHA development? That's exactly right.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Hi, good afternoon, sir.
Please, I spell your first and last name for the record.
My name is Tony Shaban, T-O-N-Y-S-H-A-B, as in boy, A-N, as in mercy.
Sorry, can you repeat that again?
You've kind of faded away.
Tony Shaban, T-O-N-Y-S-H-A-B-A-N.
You're only firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Notkinson?
Yes, Mr. Chabon, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Sloan Foulkes.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Foulkes.
You're still under oath from this morning, but please identify yourself on the record.
Good afternoon, Chairman Chico. Sloan Foulkes, SLOANE, EPSON FIRE, OLKS, Office of Councilwoman Maria Keyona Sanchez, Room 508 City Hall.
The applicant, having received a letter of support from the coordinating RCO, Councilwoman does support this being a request. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
No more hands, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
David Effecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
And I have two questions.
One, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
And I'm sorry, I got ahead of myself.
On that 810 North 12th, I didn't ask for the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Oh, our recommendation for that originally was that we were not opposed in our recommendation stance.
Okay, thank you.
Let's move on to 2500 Masher.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, this is a residential multifamily lot whose zoning dates back to 2017.
Eight units would be allowed by right. The applicant could, however, use the city
8 units would be allowed by right. The applicant could, however, use the city's mixed income housing bonus to build 12 units by right by including units for low income residents or paying into the affordable housing trust fund.
Therefore, 14 units is not the minimum variance required to use this lot.
We have no issue with the height variance, but we recommend that the board deny the requested variance for additional units.
thank you um am i 2021 that's zero zero zero one eight six two five zero zero master street my vote
is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is no
thank you yeah calendar number zero one eight four two forty nine rochelle avenue
the attorney is rachel pritzker good afternoon i name and address for the record
for 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 you're still under oath um i don't yes okay do you agree to wave the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with 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
you may proceed thank you it's one of those days yeah it's all good
okay um in the interest of time too there's a few witnesses i'm gonna um bring up um
uh joe beller is on the line um last one that's exciting
and um our civil engineer greg is on the line as well um so i think it'd be helpful to bring
them up so that i can kind of go through this as smoothly as possible would they be presenting
or just speaking just speaking lakisha thank you joe joe beller yeah joe beller joe beller
It's exciting.
It's exciting for me, believe it or not.
Where are you?
I want to see your face.
Can you see me?
I don't know how to get on.
I'm worried about it.
He's coming back in as a panelist now.
You have a unique voice.
Hey, Rachel.
So this is, is our civil engineer on as well?
can you see me now hi joe good to see you may you ask them to raise their hand he's the only
one that raised her yes um i will text him um if he'd be called in the last uh for 9239
and you said it was greg hucklebridge yep he's on thank you so much
Okay, Chairman, members of the Board, this is 249 Rochelle Avenue.
I'm going to go through the refusal, which is for the proposed parking that is accessed by a front street on an RSA 5 property.
As you'll see, this is a longstanding matter, a longstanding parking space.
And I am appreciative to Joe for being here as he originally handled this matter back in 2001.
I hope we'll get into that in a minute, but just first to kind of explain the property,
I'm going to go down. This is all the other documentation that the board requires.
So this is Rochelle and the zoning maps. As you can see, it's a large intermediate lot on Rochelle
Avenue. It's an RSA 5, currently has a single family home. And as you can see from the aerial,
there is an existing curb cut and parking pad that's been there long-standing since at least
1996, if not longer than that. This is another aerial view of the site, and as you can also see
from the aerial, and I'll go into more detail, there are a bunch of other properties on this block
that also have the parking pad and accessory parking. These are sort of the site photos.
as well. Blurry. Here's sort of our site plan. Just important to point out there's about 13 feet
between where this property ends in the sidewalk, very large sidewalk, eight foot walking zone.
um so there's really no issues as far as you know pedestrian safety and traffic is concerned
So there's really no issues as far as pedestrian safety and traffic is concerned.
obviously this has been there since 1996 so i don't think that anybody is unfamiliar with it
on this site and like i said there's also other properties on this block that also provide the
same sort of concrete parking pad i'm just going to go down again as the board's well aware you
can't do front-loaded parking in rsa5 so that's sort of what we're here for this has been a single
family since at least 01. This was Mr. Beller's original application, as you can see, as to why
we brought him in to shed some light on this. And he, back in 2001, had applied for the legalization
of this existing spot as the prior owner had been using it and did not know it was not legalized
correctly. So they went through that process. I'm going to bring Joe on just to kind of
give his testimony as sort of the additional facts here, just to make it short and sweet
as far as what we're asking for. We're looking to finally legalize a longstanding existing
parking pad. It's in character with the neighborhood. It's been on this property since at least
96. There's city records that I provided to the board that show that in addition to Mr. Beller
here who spent time working through this back in 2001. So Joe if you could say your name spell your
last name and put your address on the record please. Joseph Beller B-E-L-L-E-R 1701 Market
Street Philadelphia PA 19103 suite 2300. You swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you thank you so joe could you just explain um to the board
um your relationship with this project and how you were you know originally involved um and also um
if you've been out to the site uh if you could state that um and what you saw when you were
actually out at the site when you took on this case yes uh well when i first went into the matter
i did what i always do i went and checked the property and their pad was there and as you
showed on photos that was true of a number of other properties in and around the area
and we were merely trying to legalize that which had been used by the prior owners
the the main thing that i thought was of importance was that it's a tremendously
deep front so that this pad would in no way adversely affect people walking up and down
the street it it sits well in but under the law as everybody listening knows because it's parking
it's not considered open area um of course nothing was built on it and it was just a pad and as i
said that existed for many years as did many other pads up and down the block thank you and joe um
could you also uh kind of share with us so um when you met the prior owner the property you said the
site was existing like this you went and checked it out and then um kind of sort of the the history
of you guys applying for um a parking space and kind of uh where where we left off with that
well we applied we went to the board uh i don't remember the exact vote but we ended up
taking an appeal to the common police court i met with uh judge sylvester i believe somebody was
there from the city i'm not sure whether they were there from the board or not but
i wasn't the only one there she felt that the board should uh ask some questions and go over
it again and she sent it back to them uh the board never relisted it uh and i obviously
didn't reconsider it without our involvement in any way uh so we just left it alone my
impression was that post hearing the neighbors apparently made peace with the client and I had
no further you know thing to do in the matter and I wasn't consulted any further frankly till
you brought it up with me I'd forgotten about it but I did remember the site and I did remember
that the main thing that we thought was important was, well, two things.
One, that it had existed previously.
that had existed previously to that in fact it in no way was a blockage of any walkway or open space
Two, that in fact...
thank you and um i guess the last thing i want to ask you joe is um was it was it your
understanding that once uh it was remanded back to the zoning board uh and nothing really happened
from that point as far as it being relisted that there were no complaints or anything
and that sort of a gentleman's agreement was stricken with the community supporting the owner
to park there and there's not been any issues with it. Apparently because had there been any
problem or prosecution I would have known about it. I never received anything further from the
court or the board and uh i may have gotten a call many years later that there were a number
of old cases that were going to just be dismissed or put away but the court sent it back specifically
for further testimony and i i believe that was her reasoning and she felt more had to be made
of the fact that i just talked about that is the tremendous open space thank you joe so um
basically uh the sort of next part of this um we'll kind of just be talking about the character
of the neighborhood the character of the additional properties um that are similar to this and then
kind of going through our hardship but as the board can see this is a again long-standing history
of there being a parking space there and it's been what's 2001 it's been 20 years
since it was originally submitted to the board and up until 2020 when a new neighbor moved in
there's not been any complaints there's one violation which was filed in 2020 because of
incessant calls from the near neighbor to the police and to L&I but other than that
Joe am I correct to say that you you didn't receive any calls or any issues with this
since 2001. I have not. Okay. Thanks, Joe. I appreciate you being here. If the board has
questions for Joe, feel free. But I really do appreciate your time. Thank you. And I'm just
happy to be here and happy to see you all. Joe, in 2001, that was your first year out of college,
right? Out of law school. Yes, I was a freshman. It's good to see you. Stay well. All right, Joe.
stay safe. Okay, Rachel, we can proceed. Thank you, Chairman. So I'm just going to quickly go
to the historical photos of the property. As you can see, we kind of outlined the R-site 249
Rochelle. I also have illustrated the other properties that have gotten approval for parking
on their properties, specifically, you know, most notably, I guess, is 269 Rochelle. The parking
space was approved by the ZBA and the streets department in a 1993 variance application,
at which time the streets department issued a letter to L&I noting, after inspecting and
evaluating the entire 200 block of Rochelle, it was determined that the applicant's proposal
seemed no different than many of the other properties in the block, which park in the
same manner. Hence, curb cut approval has been granted subject to the zoning authorization.
So again, there's three other properties, including ours, that have a similar parking
pad and got approval for parking. And it was when my client, the current owner,
purchased this property 17 years after the gentleman's agreement was stricken in 2001,
after we explained kind of what went back and forth with Mr. Beller, you know, our current
owners were under the assumption because it was there, because there'd been no violations,
because of the longstanding history of people parking there since at least 1996, that it was
legal parking space. And it was not disclosed to my clients, unfortunately, that it was not
properly legalized. And like I said, there are many other properties that are similar on this
block. And so they kind of assumed that was all part of it. The next, our next, the next door
neighbor has, you know, likes to, has, has trying to put this as diplomatically as possible,
because this has been a very contentious issue, has had issue with, with the neighbor's tenants,
They're two young college students that are actually graduate students that I believe are
actually leaving. They actually moved out given this issue because their car got blocked in.
There has been a lot of threats and other things. So we're just really looking to legalize this.
It's keeping a car off the street. It's a long-standing use. It's in character with the
neighborhood. And we also, in addition to going to the community meeting, we got support from
um we got support from nine near neighbors who uh some of which were at the meeting but most of which
nine near neighbors who, some of which were at the meeting.
um you know have tried to wanted to stay out of this given uh sort of the contentious nature that
this has caused um in the community so or in this in this neighborhood uh it's just a matter of
wanting to legalize this parking space uh so that we can kind of put this to bed as the board can
see on here we had support from seven neighbors, 13 opposed on the same block. However, that's
pretty neck and neck. And so we went around and the client actually obtained nine additional
letters of support from near neighbors who are supportive of the off-street parking spaces.
A lot of people did understand that it had been there for a while. Members in Wicca had
you know, remembered the history of this and had said, you know, they do recall this, there was a
gentleman's agreement. And, you know, given that situation that they had kind of just allowed that
neighbor to park there. And so we're just asking the board finally grant this variance so that we
can put this to bed and utilize this as many others on the block are appreciating utilizing
their spaces. If this was to be removed, it just adds more parking on the street. Again, if you ask
the police as well. They're not ticketing this because they recognize this as a legal parking
space. LNI has only put a violation on it as of 2020, and there's no history of violations
for the 17 years prior. I could belabor the point until I'm blue in the face, but I think I'll have
our civil engineer just jump on as our expert here because he's been out to the site. He drew
work for a bit. Greg Hucklebridge, H-U-C-K-L-E-B-R-I-D-G-E, 1051, Drew Drive, Yardley, PA, 19067.
Claire, confirm, sir, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do. Thank you. Rachel, please proceed.
Thank you. So Greg, if you could just explain your background and your experience. I'm going to pull up your CV or your resume so that the board has it. I'd like to qualify Mr. Gregory as an expert here as a civil engineer and be a civil engineer who actually drew up the plans and has been to this site. So Greg, if you could just briefly explain your background and your expertise.
Sure. I graduated from Lehigh University in 2003 with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering.
I've had a license in Pennsylvania as professional engineer since 2008.
I've worked in land development for over 10 years. I'm also public works director for Lower
Mayfield Township. I have experience in other townships in similar roles as well as construction
management experience and heavy construction. Thank you. Can you share with us how you're
involved with the subject property and what steps you took in drawing up the plans as far as
visiting the site and explaining the existing conditions? Sure. The owner of the property
contacted me about this issue. I met him on site on August 15, 2020. We measured up the site and
I prepared plans accordingly that show where that parking spot is in relation to the street
and the structure on the property as well as neighboring properties.
And when was the last time you were at the site and can you please explain to us the conditions
that were present at the site? It was August 15th, 2020 and the conditions of the property
as you can see in the aerial photographs and the other exhibits here there's a concrete pad
behind the curb towards the front edge of the house. There's a good picture of it.
Adequate space per the requirements of the city
for parking off-street with the curb cut with adequate radius
for a vehicle to enter and exit that
parking space from the street. Thank you. And are these conditions
consistent with other existing parking spaces that you've seen specifically
in this neighborhood when you went to view this site? Yes, I saw
several that were actually maybe even more constrained than this one this one has plenty
of room to be able to maneuver. And in your experience given the location size turn radius
and your examination of the site in addition to you know conditions on other sites does this
legalization in your professional opinion cause any potential hardship to the neighbors or safety
to the neighbors or anyone else on the block? I don't see any other hardships in my professional
opinion. So you don't believe that legalizing this would cause additional harm to any of the
near neighbors, to any pedestrians, to kids, anything like that, given your examination
anything like that um you know given your examination and your and uh your experience
and your experience?
correct i i don't see any any hardships on the near neighbors or anybody uh walking along the
sidewalk either okay thank you um is there anything else that you want to add related to
this project or um just uh i did some research with the aerial photographs i went back i could
go back to 1996. And I could see at least from 96 on that space has been there. I also noticed
several other properties, as you've indicated, you can see on this picture here, as well as
other properties that have similar spaces, some obviously permitted and some maybe not. But there
is certainly a precedent on the street with similar parking spaces. Thanks, Greg. Does the
If the board doesn't have any questions for Greg,
I'm happy to rest at the moment.
Any questions for this witness from the board?
Anyone else like to testify in this case,
please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, we have Yvonne.
Hello?
uh whoever you are please identify yourself for the record name and address spell your last name
hello my name is my name is vaughn piccolo v-a-u-g-h-a-n piccolo p-i-c-c-o-l-o
address is 3550 freeland avenue philadelphia we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing about the truth yes are you with one of the rcos i am a member of wicca but i'm not
where is your residence in relationship to this application
i am around the corner are you are you within 250 feet of this property sir not within 250 feet
okay i would ask that if he's just here as a not an affected neighbor that i would ask that
his testimony off we heard excuse me this is sharon it doesn't have to have standing at the
board level anyone can testify well at least at least i would at least like to have the board
realize that he's not an affected neighbor well that's why i asked him thank you all right so
sir please proceed okay thanks so in 2016 was again was rezoned and under a coordinated effort
between wicca the philadelphia city planning commission and other near neighbors where each
parcel was analyzed to ensure that the zoning properly matches its use and location this
parcel right here is rsa 5 which matches its appropriate use that zoning prohibits front yard
parking in 2018 the city council amended the zoning code to adopt the wizak and neighborhood
conservation overlay. That ordinance includes a prohibition against front yard parking. It's one
of the main sticking points of that prohibition of that ordinance. And this also violates the
impervious coverage requirements requirement of that of that ordinance. So there are a couple
things happening here that kind of fly right in the face of what we worked hard to approve not
not two years ago. There's no detriment to the owner to leaving this as is. I think it's kind
of being oversold here how many houses have front yard parking. The vast majority of houses on this
block do not have front yard parking, and so there's no hardship to the owner. There is a
hardship to the neighborhood, absolutely, in that a public parking spot is taken away and turned into
a private parking space that benefits the owner, not the neighborhood. So there absolutely is a
hardship. And I was on the board of Wicca previously, I'm not anymore. And there's no
record that I saw of any sort of gentleman's agreement that the community supports this. I
mean, the community voted overwhelmingly to oppose this. So if that's not an indication that there
is no support, then I don't know what else would indicate that. So I ask the board deny this
variance. Great testimony. Anyone else would like to testify? Hi, yes. Can everyone hear me? Yes.
Name and address, sir. Yes, my name is Daniel Flesher. I am the, my address is 311 Ryder Street
and I am the zoning chair
for the Wissahickon
come again
Flesher
F-L-E-S-H-E-R
Can you square me from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing?
Please proceed.
Yes, I am here to represent the Wissahickon Interested Citizens Association,
and I have some exhibits I'd like to share, if that's all right.
Yes, thank you.
I think I have to be given permission to do this.
Yes, one second.
Yes, may I ask first what type of exhibit you plan to present?
Hello?
Flesher?
Hello?
Mr. Flesher?
Yes, I'm sorry. Sorry, I was rejoined the meeting in order to be able to share my screen.
No problem. Ms. Shunkin had a question for you?
What are the exhibits?
I have exhibits for previous refusals. The letter that the current owner, Jesse Evans, sent to the near neighbors, which I think has information pertinent to this.
The current has all of this. It was included in the hearing packet.
they have part of the packet yeah yes i would i would love to share it if that's okay uh as well
as some witness statements by near neighbors as well as letters of opposition a petition from the
near neighbors in opposition to this uh including nine near neighbors and um so and uh okay go ahead
i haven't seen most any of the documents that he's trying to present um i have that i that i
submitted that are the zoning records and letters of support that we obtained, but I have not been
able to see any of the additional documents that he's trying to provide. I emailed these
per the requirements five days before the hearing. But did you send them to me as the attorney
representing the property owner? No, I did not. Okay, so I'm just reiterating that I've not had
chance to review any of this so i would not be prepared to respond yeah well i'm also i mean
not a lawyer so i'm here to give my testimony uh you know i'm sorry chair but if i could make a
mention uh that if we could and sharon can um discuss as well accept the documents for as
exhibits to the file um however if they're already included in the packet with rachel's they're part
of the file but those additional documents he added and it doesn't appear unless they're pictures
or other things that can be shared that we need to present is that correct sir uh there are photos
so because this property has been in violation since um 2020 since yes since january of 2020
um the current owner has not uh come into compliance with that nor has he cleared the
violation and his tenants have continued to park there since that's why we're here yeah chairman
with all due respect that's why we're here and we reached out to the l and i inspector to let
them know we're working through this and as the chair is well aware you cannot resolve l and i
violations within 30 to 60 days related to zoning so that's precisely why we're here
sure but he is also not um complying with the code so his tenants are continuing to park here
in violation of that code. They're not, we're in, we're in the middle of sort of a pending
ZBA environment. And as we let you guys all know at the community meeting,
those tenants actually have moved out and the owner has actually, the next door neighbor
has actually parked in front of the curb cut many, many, many times, not allowing anybody to come or
go in that spot. So we, I could, we could show those photos as well, but I think that the board
has an idea of what the property looks like in the existing conditions and is dealt with violation
issues uh it's very obvious from the presentation from mitch pritzker we i i think we all do have
an understanding of what we're talking about here so not to belabor the point i i do see
my notes say that the wica letter stated no position and then it then it goes on to say
voting results noted majority oppose um could someone clear that could you clear that up for
me mr yes we are in we're in opposition to this but he's talking about the letter that you actually
submitted yes the letter that we submitted said we were in opposition to this excuse me this is
no it did not it gave the voting results but in the section where you are to cross off your
position, no position was stated. And we were not, we don't, we're not privy to any additional
And we were not privy to any additional documents besides the email that was sent and what we provided in the packet on page 60.
documents besides the.
So we have our meeting summary. We also provided a letter. Do you guys have that letter that we sent?
I don't believe I was copied on that letter.
No, we don't have it.
I have that, yeah. And we're not faulting you, Mr. Flesher. We're just pointing it out.
I mean, you know, you can't have a hearing, a listening to both sides without having the proper documentation.
So that's why I raised it.
I was confused.
It says WICA took no position stated and only voting results noted majority opposed.
So I'm totally confused.
This is all I received.
So this is what I provided to the board, and we were not given any additional letter or anything else, as already mentioned, Chairman.
Yeah, Mr. Flesher.
Great.
So you told me how you would like me to proceed then, I guess, in this.
Would you like me to share what I have?
I did email.
I can look at my sent emails right now in regards to this.
Aaron, do we have – well, we don't know.
We didn't receive anything from – or have we received anything from WICA?
Mr. Flesher, he wants to share.
Are these documents we've already seen?
Are they all in the file?
This would have been – so March 18th, they sent an email that was to rcozba at phila.gov,
Sharon Saletta at phila.gov, pcpc.zoning at phila.gov, and it was a submission of evidence,
and on that same day, I also submitted, sent our letter of opposition, as well as our meeting
summary. So it's confusing to me why you guys didn't get these items. In any case,
can he be permitted, please, to go forward and present the evidence that he has rather than
the chair and i haven't seen any of the documents that he's trying to present so i don't know i
understand that but if the rules are not the same for someone who is presenting if you want to see
these documents and you're requesting an additional hearing to review them but i will i will defer to
the chairman on this um i well i think in all fairness that uh the attorney representing the
the applicant should have had knowledge of what is going to be presented today beforehand.
Of course, but on the other hand, the attorney of record isn't required to copy the neighborhood
organization on the documents that are submitted to the board five days in advance. And it's often
the case that third parties or RCOs will appear at the hearing and present new evidence. If it
raises issues that the attorney would like additional time to resolve, then there's the
possibility of a different hearing but i don't think we can ban rcos and third parties from
testifying yeah i wasn't suggesting that i just want to make sure that we're in all fairness that
we're all everyone is looking and viewing the same materials and so we'll go forward with mr
flesher's testimony and i'm not as concerned about photos i'm more concerned about that we went to a
meeting that we got the results and then sometime after that another letter with something different
was written and i wasn't privy to any of that so that's more of the concern than the photos i'm not
um i don't have any issue with him wanting to present photos well i i think that the you know
the other the owner's letter to his neighbor which had the the letters that you received and support
mr de chico were came from the letter that this uh neighbor the uh the owner of this property
sent to the near neighbors so i do think that it's material that that his argument i think in my
opinion is dishonest. I would like to present the letter that he shared with his neighbors in order
to garner that support. Okay, we'll grant that. Let's see the letters. Okay, so I will share my
screen now. Great, can everyone see this? A little bit larger, that would be helpful.
Sure. Yeah. Does that work for everyone? I think so, yes. Great. So the first thing I would like
to say is that there's a pattern of previous refusals on this block. Ms. Pritzker said that
there are other legal parking pads. There are not. There's only one property on this block,
property 269, with a legal parking pad for a single-family house. There are some drives for
There are some drives for multifamily. I don't consider those as comparable to this situation.
multifamily. I don't consider
So there's a history for 247 Rochelle Ave, which was denied in 1999. 249, the same property as
was stated by Mr. Beller, was pursued a variance in 2001 and was denied. 241 Rochelle was denied
in 2000 and 279 was denied in 2001. And so there's a pattern and a history of refusals for this type
of variance on this block that we think should be upheld and continued. So these are those.
Fletcher, would you happen to know if, go back to some of the, go back to that first page.
You happen to know if any of those cases that were denied, are people using their
uh pads uh currently the parking car yeah so currently no one who uh doesn't have a current uh
uh current zoning use is using their parking pad no one else does and i live in this neighborhood
and your neighbors will testify the same okay just want to know all right thank you please proceed
uh so these are those notices of decision uh furthermore uh 279 rochelle uh went to the
court of common pleas and the court of common pleas affirmed the zba's decision to deny the
variance and this was in 2002 um this is exhibit three this is the letter from the owner jesse
evans to the near neighbors um i can read the whole letter or i can just read uh some experts
that excerpts that i think are relevant to this if that's okay please do great so he says uh in
this letter uh the reason i am writing you today is due to our immediate next door neighbor's
objection to our driveway and using their kids safety as a ploy for blocking us from our park
parking on our land slash driveway he goes on what seems to be our neighbor's agenda is using
the driveway to create a semi-private space for themselves to park in front of their house
and he concludes i ask you to i write to ask you for support and hope that you do the right thing
for your fellow neighbors saving spots on the street for other cars to park and supporting
another citizen for their right. So the current owner, Evans, I think is mischaracterizing this
whole situation as one in which a next door neighbor is trying to take his rightful spot
from him, which is not what's happening. He is trying to take a street parking spot and privatize
it for himself by turning his illegal parking pad into a legal parking pad. And I think because
he's um kind of misrepresents the situation in this letter he um you know the the the form letter
that he has at the bottom which was presented to you uh before and the um the what was it uh how
many near neighbors was it said uh the neighbors who sent this in you know they they did not have
i think an uh this honestly represented to them before signing this letter of support and sending
it into you i don't want to belabor the point but can we go back to the photographs of the yeah 249
you have a shot from the street uh i do have shots from the street looking at the houses
either you or rachel somebody i do i do um i have it mr termen as well the pictures that um
mr flusher is bringing up are ones where uh the next door neighbor who doesn't want this to be
legalized was parking to block um the spot i'm only looking at his realm we're trying to figure
out um you got two photographs up there i guess they're both the same property correct there yes
all these all these are the red the red car the gray car whatever there's all parked in in the
same location that we're discussing now that is correct all right uh but i there's another
photograph i think rachel had it takes it back a little bit further from almost from the street
looking at the house yeah would you would you like me to stop sharing so she could share that again
yes please
this one
that's the one
so it looks the front door
to the left is that the
neighbor who is
objecting
is that 247
or 251
I believe it's to the left
247 to the left
that is the neighbor who has
been raising the objection correct
property line and there's a curb cut which is really only the curb cut just is for 249 but
not too is that 251 again or is that 247 247 247 all right all right and excuse me
all right and excuse me counselor i'm looking at the picture also is there
curb cut for both properties no it's only for 249 correct if you look now you'll see where the uh
looks like the vent the water vents are oh that's that's better all right and how what i'd like to
trying to compare apples to apples here the other properties on the street where people are parking
on a pad is the configuration the same where the the door to each property is next to each other
or they yep so here's um for example that's exactly what i was looking for so you have a fence
and it looks like a little pathway leading from the sidewalk to the entrance to the house on the
left and the house on the right would be a similar layout to 249 is that correct yes and this is um
it's not unique in that sense this is a little bit different but not totally different yeah 269
there that's the only that's the only legal parking pad and they're currently the only house
actually parking in front of this mr flusher but that's the one i referenced that was approved
yes that's that's what i'm saying as well that one is we're all in agreement on that i'm just
trying to look at if there's the obstruction if this 249 is is any different than the picture
we're looking at now the example it doesn't seem to be i could be wrong but the issue with 269 uh
being different is that it's near the end of the block and it's also semi-detached so it's not an
rsa5 this is would be an rsa yep and they also have enough space in front of their house for two
uh two cars so by taking one away and again this is also older 1993 that this was granted
i also believe it's only legalized for one parking spot but apparently the neighborhood
doesn't have a concern with the two here but i don't believe it was actually legalized for
two parking spaces because you'd be into this pathway okay thank you uh i actually think it
is for two i'm sorry chair if i could interject the thought that we do have a couple more hands
raised to testify for this particular case let me get to them thank you okay um any the board
have any questions for uh this witness as before we move on to the next i have a little more to
present if that's okay concerning i mean it's obviously concerning the application but yes um
there's a uh there is a petition with the near neighbors that have signed it in opposition that
i'd like to show chairman again this is a document i have not seen i don't know who signed it i didn't
to look at it and it wasn't shared with me so um yeah let's we'll stipulate that there are other
signature there are signatures people who are opposed to this okay i would just like to put
on the record that it is uh how many of those signatures are on the uh 200 block of rochelle
avenue uh there are 12 signatures on that that are in opposition to this where do they reside
all with all on this block they're all within they're all on your neighbors yes 200 block of
rochelle okay that is correct yes we'll stipulate that to that and okay um thank you for your
testimony like next he actually is the directly the other near neighbor directly adjacent so i
think before just other members of the community at large it might uh consider to allow him to
I would also like to, if it's all right, I would like to expand on the issue that Mr. Beller talked about.
There's actually more to that story that I think is relevant to this.
If you can hold off, I'd like to, Rachel, you said something, the neighbor to the right?
Yep, the neighbor at 251, I believe, has been waiting on the line.
So I'd like to, as a directly adjacent near neighbor, I would like him to have the opportunity.
His name is Dave, last name is L-E-I-T-C-H.
Mr. David, you can unmute yourself.
All right, can you hear me now?
Yes, hi.
Please identify yourself with the record,
spell your last name, provide us with your address.
Sure, my name is David Leach, L-E-I-T-C-H.
I live at 251 Rochelle Avenue, right next to 249.
We don't have any concerns with-
Excuse me, excuse me, I just got to swear to you.
So we're not firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
We have no concerns.
Myself and my partner have no concerns with someone parking in that place.
From what our experience has been since we've been here,
and my partner's been here a lot longer than I, and I've been here about six years.
There's always been a car parked there.
There never had been any expressed concern of people parking in that location in the past prior to, I guess, most recently.
i guess most recently so uh we do not have any concerns whether it's safety or aesthetics
So we do not have any concerns whether it's safety or...
or any of those types of situations your partner does he own the house uh she owns the house
yes she owns it okay thank you all right anyone else testify please raise your hand
i have a jesse evans hello i am actually the property owner and i just wanted to clarify i
I think we'll get to you.
We'll get to you.
We'll get to you.
Just hang in there.
Anyone else?
Maria?
Maria, you can unmute yourself.
Ms. Larson.
Maria Larson.
Call my last name and provide us with your address.
Maria Larson.
Maria Larson.
M-A-R-I-A.
Larson.
L-A-R-S-O-N.
And my address is 247.
rochelle avenue so i'm right next door you're swearing for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed uh i first of all i i am definitely an opposed to
this um for many reasons especially for the safety and concern of uh the neighborhood and the
children um who are in this neighborhood walking and you know playing with the dog you know being
walking the dogs and playing in the neighborhood with the children um absolutely um opposed to this
i i wanted to say one thing um as a witness that um knowing we that there is no one that has moved
out of 249. I don't think that's an issue, no disrespect. The issue is about whether or not
the board will approve a parking pad. Okay. It doesn't matter who lives in the house at this
point. Okay, that's fine. I just, again, wanted to say that it is, it's definitely a detriment to
me and my family, along with a lot of the other near neighbors, and that we do not
have um approved this and that um especially for the safety um of it and there is no other
people other neighbors that are parking um in their paved yard as well um
and i can be a witness to that okay thank you anyone else something new and different
yes bernardo you can unmute yourself hi my name is bernardino allegretti it's a b-e-r-n-a-r-d-i-n-o
allegretti is a-l-l-e-g-r-e-t-t-i i live at one i live at 110 rochelle avenue
you're swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I just to start off this, let's say this was sort of touched on earlier, but there was a mischaracterization of how this property fits into the character of the neighborhood.
Anybody familiar with Wissahickon understands that it's a neighborhood characterized by houses with lots of green space.
It's amid the Wissahickon Park.
There are 68 properties on this block, and six of them have, other than the subject property,
have paved over front yards. And as has been previously explained, only one of them has
had a permit. The rest of them have had attempts to legalize their parking and have been denied.
Since the advent of zoning, parking has been prohibited from this neighborhood,
prohibited from the zoning category. The history of attempts for variances, as far as I can tell,
have gone back to 1980. So this isn't a new battle that's been happening in this neighborhood.
Unfortunately, it's a death by a thousand cuts. I've lived here since 1987.
We have to pay attention to when somebody decides to park in their front lawn, and then we've got
to go and seek L&I enforcement of the zoning code. And Ms. Pritzker previously suggested
that there were no violations, there was no complaint from neighbors, but we weren't the
beneficiary of 311 until relatively recently. So it was a much more convoluted process in
the past to try to get enforcement on illegal parking here.
That's speculative.
As I said, 91% of the other properties in the block have green space in their front lawns.
You guys have heard the same old story about creating off-street parking, helps the parking situation in the neighborhood.
But you know that's not the case.
But you know that's not the case. This privatizes a public asset. This is a public parking spot
This privatizes a public asset.
This is a public parking space.
available to the neighbor. Ms. Pritzker claimed that the neighbor blocked in this spot. Let's
remind everybody that that is a legal parking spot on the street. Currently this use off the street
is illegal. So taking that away from the neighborhood is a taking away a shot that
a spot that everybody has a fair shot to use and puts it in the hands of one property owner.
She also pointed out that 269 Rochelle has two cars parked or has had two cars parked in front of it and was only legalized for one parking spot.
That's another demerit towards doing this kind of legalization is that once it's legalized for one car, there's really nothing to stop two cars parking there.
Just object to that. There's no room.
It's unenforceable. It leads it up to the neighbors again to go make code violation complaints.
And then the code inspector has to come out and catch them parking two cars there.
And all they have to do is move one car out of there until the violation is cleared.
And then they can start parking two cars there again.
So legalizing this parking spot is going to be a burden for the rest of the existence of this property
on the neighbors to enforce it being one parking spot
as if that was in the character of the neighborhood.
So just to comment on that, I did look up the 269.
They were granted a variance for two cars.
Our property is 15 feet wide, so the curb cut is,
so you wouldn't be able to get two cars in there.
You need at least an 18-foot curb cut to do two cars.
Just to mention that.
I can't hear you, Mr. Chairman.
There's a pause for one minute while he comes back in.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, Chairman.
yeah you said um 269 was granted for two-car parking it's also a wider i saw that when was
that when was it granted i can share these my screen uh you probably told me already but just
1993 1993 yep all right uh we're going to be moving along here is there anyone else to testify
has something new and different the only other thing i wanted to mention mr chairman is um
Mr. Allegretti lives a quarter mile away from this property.
So to say that it's detrimental to him, I think is a stretch, but I understand the point he made.
The other thing I wanted to mention, because it keeps being brought up, is as the board well knows, every property is different.
You want to look what's in character, but every property is different.
And there's plenty of situations where one property on a block or two or three get variances and another doesn't for very separate unrelated.
We don't know what happened at those board hearings.
I wasn't there. I don't know if anyone at the board was there, but I would appreciate that
distinction recognized. Understood. So noted. Thank you. There, we have a Nicole.
She's also from the same RCO. Healy? Yes, hello? Hi. Please identify yourself. First and last
name. Spell your last name and provide us with your address. Nicole Healy, H-E-A-L-Y. Address
637 Barnes Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19128. I am president of the RCO.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And if you can provide us with something new and different, that would be helpful?
I just want to comment on the meeting summary that Ms. Pritzker included in her packet.
That is actually not our meeting summary. That email came from me directly, so I feel
as though I can speak on it, I sent that out the day after the meeting to attendees of
the meeting to share the voting results.
And as a courtesy, I copied Ms. Pritzker on the email because we had exchanged many emails
between myself and her team in the months leading up to the meeting.
That was not meant to take the place of the meeting summary that our zoning chair, Daniel
Flesher sent prior to this meeting last week and which I was copied on all the materials that he
sent. And in closing, I just want to say that the RCO is firmly opposed to this application. There's
no question about it. We are opposed. Nicole, are you aware that I wasn't on any of those emails
for any additional documents besides the email I provided?
It does appear you were not copied on that. I was not aware that you needed to be copied.
uh i was not aware that you needed to be copied we were not copied on any of your materials to
We were not copied on any of your material.
respond to um what you're putting out there uh so it does appear that you were not copied
to answer your question yeah the rco instructions do not
right the instructions do not tell us to copy you excuse me everyone thank you tanya uh mr
Flesher, please let Ms. Haley finish and then we'll get to you.
The instructions that I tried to follow to a T do not tell me to copy opposing counsel.
So we did not.
Now I know that's a mistake.
Nicole, the only point I was making was that it's the only thing that I had.
And so when the board asks us to submit documents in a letter from the RCO and that's all that was sent to me, that's what I copied.
It was not in an attempt to not include other documents.
I wasn't privy to any other documents okay well you've not had a problem getting a hold of me
before Rachel so if there are missing documents I wish you would have reached out to me all right
ladies okay um let's see who else was that
anyone else new and different please
questions from the board we have a mr peter i'm sorry chair the owner's on his own not allowed
to speak yet all right mr evans
jesse are you there hello can everybody hear me yeah mr evans please identify yourself again
My name is Jesse Evans. It's E-V-A-N-S. I am the property owner at 249 Rochelle.
Are you swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Go ahead, Jesse.
So my point of view is this. I bought the property, and for about three and a half years,
I was parking on the current spot, and I haven't had any problems.
When I purchased the property in the very beginning, it was in the listing that there was parking included.
As I went through the process, I talked to Don, the older owner of the house.
He assumed, as Joe Beller mentioned, that this parking spot was a valid spot.
since the three years um the next door neighbor i don't know if they had an argument with the
tenant or whatever happened there i'm not sure they started to do the 311 and contact lni and
to my knowledge i didn't know that it wasn't legal so then we started getting these violations
what i assume is the next door neighbor was parking in the curb cut location
for his personal use because it's the next door. It's right there because no one was parking in
that spot. On top of that, if the cops do come out to the site, which they've been called many
times, they will not ticket that car in the spot. They actually told our tenants to put a note on
the window telling the towing company that we are in the house and this is a spot. They will not do
it so really what this comes down to is lni and this being a zoning requirement i just look at it
as i bought it with a parking and the parking's been there for over how many years so um i don't
know what else to say i just want to do the right thing and get this passed so it's there just like
269. You live at this property? No, I own that property. It's a rental property? Yes.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Holloman. Not a question, but a comment. In my opinion,
it seems as though the buildings were originally designed for front lawns and not parking.
that's just my opinion that's it appears that way yeah i agree all right again any questions from the
board no planning commission good afternoon david fecto city planning commission mr chairman
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends this property for single family use
This appears to be an existing curb cut and parking pad built without the benefit of permits.
We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
Okay, thank you. MI 2021-000184, 249 Rochelle Avenue. My vote is no.
249 Rochelle Avenue.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Number 6.
Yeah, calendar number
3636 Haberford Avenue.
The attorney is
Henry Clinton.
Mr. Clinton, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, 1313 South 33rd Street, Queen Memorial Building, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
photos under 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 everything except plans and the letter were sent two days ago rather than five.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Henry Clinton for the applicant who
is on the call with me.
His name is Turlock Hart, and may I share my screen?
Yes, sure.
Is that visible enough?
So this is 3636 Haverford Avenue. This is my presentation binder containing Exhibits AA through A11.
This is the Purim Statement, the refusal. This project, and I'll show you photographs of it as we work through this, this project was built as of right with a zoning permit from, I believe, 2018.
and it's an existing commercial on the first floor which is unoccupied and dark
and three apartments above so that was issued as of right several years ago because the commercial
is unable to be rented and we'll have testimony on that we're coming back to the board and asking
to make that large commercial space which is about 2400 square feet make that two apartments
So this existing commercial and three-unit building will then become five apartments with no commercial if we're successful today.
This is the RCO letter.
You'll see that it was a tie vote, 7-7.
And as a result of that, the RCO did not reach any agreement on this project.
And I just wanted to point out to the board some of the issues that were raised.
and one of the issues we've addressed since the vote was taken.
There was some concern about the basement and the first floor unit layout and size of the windows.
We originally had bedrooms in the basement and the revised plans that we sent it,
and it only concerns internal of the building.
The revised plans have now moved the bedrooms to the first floor.
so this is an aerial photograph of the property and prior to 2018 it was a vacant lot and we're
looking south here so this is penn presbyterian hospital and the university of pennsylvania
buildings there the commercial corridor for this neighborhood is lancaster avenue which is about
two or two and a half blocks south of this property and then all the properties along here
are our commercial zone commercial but there's many residential this these two properties here
happen to be a church there's a large apartment complex over here and there's going to be a
supermarket we believe on this vacant ground to the west here's a closer shot of the block again
it's showing a vacant lot it's a large lot it's 18 wide by about it's 70 plus deep these are the
two churches. This is where there's an ongoing construction project right now. So here's current
photographs, which I took recently. This is the building on the one vacant lot. There's an
apartment here, and on the second and third floor, there's two more apartments. And this is commercial
space. The idea from the get-go, here's the entrance, by the way, to the upper apartments,
but the idea from the get-go was that this could not be a retail establishment.
But the idea from the get-go was that this could not be a retail establishment because Lancaster Avenue is where retail is.
The thought from the owner was this could be professional offices, maybe an architect, maybe an accountant, perhaps a dentist, something that would be a service.
I'll call it a professional office, even though all businesses are professions.
And when the plan was laid out, they have two doors here because this is a huge first floor. It's 18 by 64. And to rent to an office or a sole proprietor, that entire first floor, we thought it would be too expensive for anyone to really latch on to a space like that.
So there was a door installed here, and then a door installed here. In the back, it's about 700 square feet. And then if the sole proprietor took the first floor, he or she would also get benefit of the second floor, which is, again, 18 by 64, a pretty substantial place for a business.
This is looking in another direction, Haverford Avenue, looking north.
Again, this is the building, two vacant lots next door.
Excuse me, one vacant lot and then the two churches.
This is looking on 37th Street.
This is the vacant lot across the street.
Again, the house here.
And my client has had a for rent sign in the building since it's been constructed.
it. This is just close-ups of the churches that I already showed you on the block. This is a
photograph of the 22-unit apartment building that is being built across the street on 37th Street.
Just to give you some perspective, this is the basement of the building. Again, 18 by 64 deep.
There's light wells in four different locations. Ample ceiling height, maybe nine and a half feet.
Again, thinking if this was going to be commercial, you have to have some large area in the ceiling to accommodate a commercial use.
And this is the first floor.
Again, it's not fully built out because he hasn't been able to get a tenant.
He actually got the CO back in September of 2019.
And this space has been dark since then.
that's the reason we're coming before the board asking if we can convert this commercial space
to two units. The one unit would be a one-bedroom in the back, and the front unit would be three
bedrooms with a living room, dining room, and kitchen in the basement. Again, this is existing.
I don't know if that's too big for everyone to see. So these are the upper levels, which are
really not at issue today, which are apartments. Here's the first floor, just showing you the blank
space with the two doors on 37th street and then the blank space uh in the basement
the proposed plans again the upper floors are not of issue the proposed plans are to have the
front door service the bedroom excuse me yeah the bedroom then the front and the bedroom here
with the bath and then in the basement you have the living and the study area then the second door
would be for the other unit would be one bedroom with a full kitchen the rest of the documents are
pro forma documents that the board requires for any presentation the deed tax certification
here's our zoni map again showing you that that entire block and across the street is all cmx1
a commercial even though it's mainly residential on the block and a couple churches
Excuse me, when I say residential on the block, I just mean on this side of the block, not on this side.
There's vacant lots and one large art building on that side.
Let me just go through this.
I just wanted to show you.
These are notice letters.
Here's the zoning permit that my client obtained as of right back in 2018, just showing as a vacant commercial space and then multifamily above.
I do have my client, Mr. Chairman, on the line.
I'd like him to just address his efforts to try to make this space into a commercial space.
I think that would be something the board may want to hear.
if he could be unmuted his name he's on the telephone
uh do you have a name or the last four digits of the number uh the name is turlock hart h-a-r-t
And the last four digits.
and the last four digits that's fine he's on okay
That's fine. He's on.
Hello?
Mr. Hart, are you on the line?
Yes, I am.
All right.
Mr. Hart, you heard my presentation, correct?
Yes, I did.
And can you describe for the board the efforts that you've taken to try to get a commercial tenant?
I know you reached out to several realtors.
can you tell me their names and their company yes um i read out to avenge cat paroli and debbie
mcmullen of berkshire hathaway okay and you know i've met them several times while i was building
the building uh you know before i got my use and occupancy and you know they informed me
they thought that that area didn't lend itself to um it wasn't like a high commercial end like
like lancaster avenue was okay and then uh have you continuously tried to market this property
as a commercial whenever you would meet with the realtor or by having a sign in the window
yes i've continually met with them and then also that sign in the window was um a person from high
properties their property management company they tried to get me you know a tenant as well but i've
no success and you've had this the ceo for this building and permitted to occupy this building
since the fall of 2019 correct no sorry it was 2020 okay my mistake 2020 so yeah but i did i did
try in january of 2020 to try to market this particular property but basically since the fall
of 2020 this this first floor area has been dark and yes and vacant and unusable for any commercial
tenant yes mr hart have you heard my you've heard my testimony and if you had the opportunity to
testify would you find my testimony true and correct and would you adopt it yes i would
mr chairman i don't know if you have any questions or any members of the board
i apologize i stepped away for a couple of minutes uh it's mantua civic did not reach
an agreement or was that correct correct it was a seven seven tie
all right questions from the board no no
but i would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission good afternoon david fecto city planning commission
mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial
mixed use the city issued approvals for a commercial mixed use building for this site
in 2018 this block is in the middle of the haverford avenue commercial node we were asked
to keep the commercial zoning here when we rezone the neighborhood in 2018 we recommend that the
board deny the requested variance. Okay again I was stepped away for a while I think you had a real
estate representative you've been trying to market it did I hear that correctly? Yes Mr. Chairman
Mr. Hart testified that even before he was under construction and while he was under construction
He had two realtors from Berkshire Hathaway that he talked to on several occasions and that they told him that the commercial corridor is really Lancaster Avenue and that this is really not a good spot for commercial and that there was no listing agreement that they would enter into.
I added that that last sentence is mine, that they would not enter into a listing agreement.
He didn't say that, but he was going to say it.
Yeah, and I apologize.
I had to step away for a minute.
I wanted to make sure I had the facts.
I think I answered the board. Any questions? No?
All right. MI 2021-0003373636 Haverford Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Have a great day.
Likewise. Thank you.
Calendar number 0363-800-38 Market Street.
The attorney is Ron Patterson.
he's coming in as a panelist now
good afternoon mr patterson um please identify yourself and i'm going to make a brief statement
Sure. Good afternoon. My name is Ron Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N, with Claire Harrison Law Firm, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia EPA 19103, on behalf of the owner of the property.
Thank you. You're swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. I'm going to step aside and recuse myself because I've been involved with the Goldenberg Group for a number of years.
i did give a brief explanation this morning to the board about what this is all about but i'm sure
you'll do a better job of explaining it than i would i don't know about that okay mr patterson
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do you did state
everything else your name and address correct i did and you were sworn in
yes okay have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter all the above uh but we i haven't received the letter
from the rco despite reaching out a few times but we can relay what happened at the meeting
okay you may proceed thank you share my screen
okay so uh this application regards 800 market street it's uh it's a parking lot
uh that spans from 9th street to 8th street as these pictures show
So, as we all may know, those of us a little older, used to be Gimbel's department store site.
It's going through many, it's just going through the photographs of the surrounding area, gallery across the street.
I think we all know the parking lot.
It's going through many potential iterations of development over the years.
The Goldenberg Group, by way of other entities, does own it.
It's currently a parking lot, having 292 spaces.
I'll show you a little site plan here.
With accessory signs, it has been serving a beneficial purpose.
as we know, it's a highly traveled area. Since it was approved a few times, I would say 1999,
2002, 2007, 2012, 2017, has temporary use variances. You know, the description of the approval has
changed over the years based upon how the zoning code used to call it used to be a special use
permit for temporary parking which was a specific approval but we've asked for variances and been
granted temporary variances it does expire in 2021 uh at each time it's all and it still is
intended to be interim use we've had various projects as i've mentioned but on the books
but never none has materialized um have had many offers but not the right ones for this location
which is good for this area in context i mean no one wants to just
develop it just for a one-story building here. It does warrant better development.
As I mentioned, the ultimate owner is the Goldenberg Group. They are developers. They
are long-term operators. They don't develop just for the sake of it. They're not in the
parking business. They develop for long-term. For example, they own the IKEA shopping center on
Columbus Boulevard, the Snyder Plaza is right behind it on Snyder Avenue and Columbus Boulevard,
the Whitman Shopping Center at Rosa Grant and the Boulevard, 52nd and Parkside,
and a large residential development near Temple at 11th and Cecil B. Moore.
The parking lot has operated for many years with that incident.
It's a number of factors of why it hasn't been developed.
And Bob Friedman, if we can promote him, I'll ask him questions about the history and what's being proposed.
It's located in the CMX 5 Commercial Zoning District that allows accessory parking.
It's located in the CMX 5 Commercial Zoning District.
This is not accessory, this is non-accessory, and that's why we've had to return throughout the years.
Nothing has changed, I would point that out, since we were here the last few times.
So both the layout of the parking, well not both, but the layout of the parking assigns the additional landscaping that we have installed.
fencing all are the same and of course that means that the refusal letter that
we were issued is still the same refusal that we received before based upon sorry
based upon the design so still the same use same refusals brought up the current
standards we seek variance relief again to allow uh time to viably develop the property um we did
meet with the rco group on february 26th which was the fifth republican ward um and we'd asked
again that we believe that the current uses the past uses the surrounding uses physical condition
of the property the condition of uh you know economics and life in general create a special
hardship to viably develop the property. With that said, if we could promote Mr.
Friedman. I have some questions for him.
Is his hand raised right?
Pardon me?
Can we have him raise his hand?
He just raised it.
He just raised it.
Mr. Robert, you can unmute yourself.
Yes. Hi, Robert Friedman, General Counsel to the Goldenberg Group.
Okay, sir, excuse me.
Okay, your address, and then I'll swear you in.
Certainly. 630 Century Parkway, Bluebell, PA, 19422.
Thank you. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
We all like to talk.
Yes, we do.
We want to get over with this quickly.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Hi, Bob.
You mentioned your position with the Golden Group.
How long have you been there?
Over 20 years.
So you know you have a good, deep oral history of both the company and this project, I presume?
I do, yes.
And you've heard my presentation.
and would you agree that it's true and accurate and you would adopt it as your own?
It was true and accurate and I will adopt it as my own.
Thank you.
Is the Goldenberg Group in the business of parking?
No, it is not.
We're in the business of ground-up development.
And in addition to some of the city projects Ron mentioned,
we also did 1213 Walnut Street, which is not too far from this project,
a ground-up 25-story apartment building as well as converted the air condominium on Washington Square.
So our purpose for acquiring this building was and remains to develop it.
And could you briefly elaborate on the history of perhaps your attempts and why they haven't
materialize due to circumstances? Certainly. We've made several starts and unfortunately stops
along the way. One original attempt was to develop an entertainment complex
called Disney Quest and we actually were under construction with this
and at that time the Disney company decided to discontinue that entire operation nationally
So we ended up turning it back into a surface parking lot.
Several years ago, we made an attempt to obtain the last casino license available in the city of Philadelphia
and went through a two-year process of plans and presentations, and it was ultimately awarded to the stadium site.
We continue to explore development opportunities, but we're not willing to compromise based on the fact that we think this should be a large, dramatic, transformative development for the benefit of Market East and the city.
And we've had some interest in grocery stores, home improvement centers, things like that.
And we've had some interest in grocery stores, home improvement centers, things like that.
But based on the zoning, based on the important location, and the fact that it's so large,
it's a two-acre parcel in the middle of the city, it really should be two or three towers,
have a grand podium, a number of different uses, a design that works together.
and the uses could and should include office and residential, hotel, retail, and entertainment.
But putting that package together is not easy and the fact that we've been through COVID for a year
has made it even more difficult to assemble and of course the market for a residential, retail,
office, and hotel were all negatively impacted as well.
And, Bob, so in your opinion, in your position, is this parking lot, you know, as it's operating, provided a service to the area and has it operated without incident, to your knowledge?
It does. And we know that. And we actually asked a planner to analyze that for us.
Yes, we have to testify soon.
um and at this point the to to be honest the revenue from the parking is pretty much being
used up to pay real estate taxes and parking taxes so um some regard i feel like we're running
this for this for the city more than ourselves and if i could ask you bob if if someone came to
you or you've really figured out in this day and age how to develop it, how long would it take
to really go from, you know, to solve designs to designs to paper to approvals and actually
start construction if you have an idea? Sure. If we had two or three large users
walk into our office tomorrow, we're probably, I'll say, 18 months at best case, 24 months
more reasonably before we could get a shovel in the ground.
Okay. Thank you. If there's any questions for Mr. Freeman, I'll move on briefly to our land
planner does the board have any questions no no am i on zoom no um i don't know about
oh we we don't see you but we'd love to see you you know i put a sport coat on over my shorts and
not over your shoulders i'm i'm really disappointed but i'm not going to stand up
Well, if you figure it out, we'll get your face on here.
If we could promote Nancy Templeton, please.
She's available.
Thank you.
Nancy, are you there?
I'm here.
I'm Ms. Templeton.
Can you put your name and address?
Nancy Templeton, T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N.
The address is 1520 Lopez Street, Philadelphia, 19102.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Before I talk to Nance, I just have one more question for Mr. Friedman.
Bob, we attended the RCO meeting with the fifth Republican ward.
Yes, Ron, you and I were both at that meeting by Zoom.
Yes, and how many people attended that meeting, if you recall, besides us?
Oh, geez, I'd say about a dozen or so.
And we testified and discussed the matter with them for about a half hour, if I recall.
And in lieu of we don't have their letter, could you relay, you know, how the meeting went and how they voted, if you know?
Yeah, they seem very supportive.
They understood why it was a parking lot.
They were interested in what some of our thoughts were to ultimately develop it, but didn't
seem to have any concern about the temporary use.
Okay, Bob.
Thank you.
All right, Nancy, could you tell the board your name and address, please?
Nancy Templeton. I work for CH Planning at 1520 Locust Street in Philadelphia.
And what is your position there? I am a Managing Associate Planner.
i am a managing associate planner okay and um i'm i i'm showing the board my um exhibit 11.
Okay, and um...
um you recognize that as your letter i do and uh so you're a professional land planner
yes i am and uh could you briefly uh summarize what you what you looked at what you what you've
studied and what your conclusion is with regard to this part with this property continuing our
operate as a parking lot? Sure. I am old enough to remember the Disney Quest and
the casino proposals. I'm pretty familiar with the area, having lived and worked in the area for
quite a long time. It's, you know, I know it's been a parking lot for over 20 years operating
that way. I understand it's a temporary use and I think in that time there haven't been
any discernible disruptive impacts to the neighborhood and in fact in this time you
know when we have disruptions and transit service and people are reluctant to take transit it serves
a good purpose um for alleviating uh you know parking pressure in this pretty busy neighborhood
so again i think it's appropriate as a temporary use and there haven't been uh you know any
negative impacts to the neighborhood over that. Thank you. That's all I have for Ms. Templeton
if the board has any questions. Does the board have any questions? No. No.
Any other witnesses, Ron? No, that concludes my case.
Planning Commission? Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I know. Is there anyone else
who would like to speak on this case there are no hands thank you david good afternoon madam chair
members of the board david effecto city planning commission this property is zoned commercial mixed
use five which is the densest zoning district in the city for this reason it does not allow open
air parking lots there are no unique features of this lot that would prevent the applicant
from complying with the city's parking lot landscaping standards and the requirements
for parking spaces for bicycles electric vehicles and accessible vehicles for in for disabled
individuals if the applicant were to comply with those requirements then we could support the space
remaining as non-accessory parking since the applicant is not complying with those standards
we recommend that the board deny the request variants um i would just comment that you know
if we did, we would severely reduce the number of parking spaces which would, you know, not
support the demand that's currently there. Is that accurate, Bob?
Please mute it. Mr. Friedman, you can unmute.
sorry can you hear me now yes yes yeah I was going to say that we maintain a nice parking
lot along the perimeter we put up a nice fence we have some landscaping it's well maintained
to start pouring money into beautifying the parking lot and losing parking spaces
just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for a temporary use.
So we would request that those be waived.
Okay. Thank you.
okay so uh the rco meeting was held no letters received and you do understand councilman scuola
supports this but if only limited to a one-year variance yes we're aware of that statement
okay we don't believe it's enough time of course but we're aware of it thank you calendar number
0363-800-38 Market Street.
My vote is yes with the temporary ending April 1st, 2022.
That would be for one year.
Yes, Reproviso.
Yes, Reproviso.
Yes, Reproviso.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
That concludes the two o'clock.
the two o'clock hearings that's the two o'clock i think we're supposed to ask is there anyone
that's the two o'clock i think we're supposed to ask is there anyone who's waiting for a hearing
uh to testify and in the cases we just heard on the two o'clock list did we miss anyone
is there anyone in and is there anyone in the virtual audience waiting
to testify no okay great take a 15 minute break be back at 4 30 we can go live pauline
okay we're good to go sir thank you
Lakeisha we'll wait for you to give us the green light
all ready chair ready okay thank you good afternoon 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, Mr. Confessor Plaza, and Board
Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator, Lakeisha Dandy,
and our Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Sletta, 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 and the recording
will be available to the public on the web or otherwise. 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. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. 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 just repeat that one more time to enter an appearance statement call
google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address in the address of the property at issue i'd like
to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat any comments should be
directed to our board administrator miss dandy having said that i will be read off a list
of requests for continuances on the 330 list and Sharon do I just read Emily Street off or do I
need to call that and ask you should call that out please okay uh call it out as continued
or no I believe the applicant is in me okay very good uh following cases are being requested to be
continued number three on our list mi 2020-00304 2036 germantown avenues continued number five on
our list mi 2020-001434 2232 east estaugh street uh is being continued uh is there anyone who
disagrees with those continuances, please raise your hand at this time, only if you
are in disagreement with those cases being continued.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Is there anyone requesting a continuance or withdrawal on the 330 list?
If so, please raise your hand at this time.
we have a miss kindred miss kindred you can't mute yourself
hi can you hear me yes miss kindred please identify yourself with the record spell your
full name it's kendra chavis would you spell your first and last name please sure it's k-e-n-d-r-a
last name is chavis c-h-a-v-i-s you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth? Yes. And what case are you calling a reference to? Uh, 2215 and 2217 West
Tioga. Number four. Number four? Are you requesting a continuance? Yes. We have not been able to meet
with the RCO. Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but can you confirm
can you confirm confirm what your relationship to the property is
confirm what your relationship to the property is?
i'm representing the owner um are you an attorney no no you are not
go ahead chairman you're not permitted to represent the owner this is the third listing
on this we have no exhibits um go ahead okay this is the third one and i think we we uh
i've said that in the past that they need a an attorney uh it's an llc so mi2020-000374
222 excuse me 2215 and 2217 west ioga my vote is to dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss dismiss
Dismissed. Okay, any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
No more hands, Chair. Thank you. We'll call the first case, Carol, but we'll check
with Sharon. I believe we do not have any exhibits. Calendar number 0031-101
on emily street um this is sharon we received a few exhibits approximately 15 minutes ago
um it did not include did not include the deed the refusal or um a tax cert
is uh francis smith available
he's allowed to talk yes mr smith please identify yourself with the record name and
address and i'll swear you in okay my name is francis smith
uh white good properties 101 emily you swearing it for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do you heard our solicitor mention that we do not have
all the proper uh exhibits i know i just had my son do it i i had because when i got the paperwork
i sent it to the architect he said he was going to take care of that for me i guess he never did
listen to all the cases i tried calling like five times never answered my phone call i just had my
son trying to send all that paperwork in it has to be in five days in advance unfortunately and i
I know Councilman Squillis sent the letter of my opposition, but unfortunately, we can't help you without the proper material.
How will I be able to do this then?
I mean, because I did send it to my architect and told me he was going to take care of it.
I guess call your architect and tell him to follow what the process is.
I called him.
He won't even answer my phone call.
The last time he actually said something to me was in May 12th, 2019.
Sir, I'm sorry, Tia, if you don't mind, may I speak?
Please do.
This is Tanya Sunkit, the board administrator.
The document was emailed to the applicant of record, and it's their responsibility to ensure the instructions are followed.
Unfortunately, this causes a dilemma for you.
But if you would like to reach out to me in the RCOZBA mailbox, I can try to schedule you earlier than what we're currently scheduling for, which is August.
So if you can reach out to me sooner, I can try to get you in within a couple months rather than a few months.
Mr. Smith, I think it's good advice, and I would suggest that you follow up with Ms. Sunkett.
i appreciate that can you tell me one more time who i have to get in touch with
it's the rcozba box it should be on your document that was emailed out okay
i'm looking i really don't see it but the woman who's speaking is tanya sunkett s-u-n-k-e-t-t
so you can look for her name as well and this is sarin mr smith i have your email address i'll
send you the information i really appreciate that okay you're welcome have a good day thank you all
do we call this as do we call this as continued
yeah yes calendar number zero zero three one one oh one emily street continued
Next case, calendar number 1436-1446 West Nedro Avenue.
The attorney is Vern Anastasio.
Thank you.
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board good afternoon name and address for the record
please a verne anastasio 1315 walnut street suite 1006 philadelphia pa 19107 did i see you earlier
are you sworn in already okay do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do. Did you mail in the exhibit packet with 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? Yes, to everything but a letter.
Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. May I share my screen? Absolutely. Thanks very much.
I don't see what I want to share, so hold on for one second.
I'm sorry about that.
There it is.
Okay, this is 1446 West Nedrow Avenue.
The application initially was for family dwelling.
I'm going to give you some procedural background so you know what brings us here today.
We were here before this board some time ago with this case.
We had already met with the RCO and followed all the protocol with the mailing.
it was very lightly attended and therefore Mr. Richardson from the council person's office
had asked that we return to the RCO and his office would facilitate that meeting that second RCO
meeting so we continued it it turned out that my office ended up having to set up the meeting
which we didn't mind we put together the flyer again we didn't mind to do that and at the council
members' office's request, we actually hand-delivered flyers, not stuffed in envelopes,
but hand-delivered flyers door-to-door to everyone on the list. Again, unfortunately,
the meeting was sparsely attended. So we presented. After the presentation,
in speaking with my client, we thought to make a good faith effort, we would reduce the number
of units that we would be asking from four to three, which is more in line with the other
corner across the street, the identical property, three-family dwelling. I had not heard from the
council member's office until a few hours ago yesterday, and I was told that they put out a
flyer asking folks to um uh call them there were calls made and that the uh the feedback was not
positive so that's where we are today we were never given it a chance to to talk to any of
the neighbors that said i want to walk you through the project and then lay out my case for why i
I believe we should be able to get the zoning relief.
So this is, again, 1446 West Nedrow.
The application was initially for a four-family dwelling.
This is the first level was going to be two one-bedroom apartments.
And now, of course, we're proposing that it would just be one large apartment on the lower level.
the first floor is one full spance with a common enclosed porch living room bedroom
and then we've got the top floor which is another full spance bedroom this is the property in
question. It has three separate entrances, one on the front and two on the side. This was
historically an apartment building. Then it became residence above with a doctor's office on one side
and an embroidery mail order business on the other side. And I'll show you the history of that.
Again, here's the light of the exterior.
Obviously, it is not a single-family home by any imagination.
We're using this structure here for trash.
for trash so that this will be one story storage room for trash all three units will have access
from the outside the property management team will then take the trash out and put it out on
the sidewalk. Here's the front of the property. We have
some interiors as well.
John Estella, did you go back to the picture of the front?
The front? Yeah.
Okay, I'm sorry. My eyes were playing tricks. It looked like 1444. All right, I see it. Thank you.
You're welcome.
There's some interior shots that I just want to be able to show you.
and then these are the office spaces on the side on the side now this is
drop ceiling
so that's where we are with this and there's a proof of posting
now here my cursor is is uh right over the subject property there was a property identical to it
over here it has since been torn down the property right next door 1444
1424 is just recently, as a couple months ago, is vacant and marked unsafe for human habitation.
1430 is a multifamily dwelling.
1428 is a duplex.
1426 is a two-family dwelling, all legal.
across the street we've got 1429 is a two-family dwelling and caddy corner over here
to the exact opposite corner 1501 is a has been a legal three-family dwelling since 1972
uh the build the folks who seem to have built the corners seem to be the same builder because
there's an identical property right back here which is right across the street this way uh
that is identical in layout and characteristics it's um here it is and here you could see it's
a it's residential above and commercial down on the lower floor and there's the front entrance
to that particular property obviously in much better shape so i guess the question is
it always is are there unique physical conditions to this particular property
to our particular property that make it uh compliance impracticable and i believe the
answer is yes here. The two side entrances with separate and unique spaces are in fact the unique
physical condition that creates the hardship. I'd like to be able to unshare this for a moment
because I want to share another document if I can.
1962, 1446, West Nedro.
It went from a home and a doctor's office.
So prior to 62, it was already two uses.
And then it became a home, a doctor's office, and a mail-ordered business.
And up until 2008, that's what it's always been.
I'm going to unshare this and go back to my exhibit.
In 2008, for whatever reason, the owner from which my client purchased the property put
an application in for a single-family dwelling, but then did no work, pulled no permits, and
but then did no work, pulled no permits and did no work to actually congeal the two commercial
did no work to actually…
spaces to the residential portion of the building. And then he treated it as kind of like a flop
house. People would come in and out and just for no rhyme or reason. And it's been a problem
on the block for a long time. Again, the property next door is falling down as well.
And so we believe that the history of the property, its historical uses, because even though the permit was actually put in for the single family, it was never used as a single family.
It was never physically converted as a single family.
The historic uses for a good part of, you know, 40, 50, 60 years has been multi, you know, multi-mixed use.
so we think it's uh it just makes sense uh to have the one unit per floor in this building
i want to get to that flyer because i think it's important and again i don't question
that folks call um i do question the method though that was used to elicit the community
concern and i'm going to get to that flyer
the flyer makes it sound like my client just bought a house a single house and now wants
to convert it and chop it up into apartments that's just not the case i've already offered
evidence of that if you read the flyer it it sounds like well this new owner just bought
this house and now he wants to convert it into a four-family dwelling well that's again that's
that's inconsistent with the facts. So I can understand why somebody would call who may not
be sophisticated enough to get online, but can read that and say, well, we don't want somebody
chopping up a house. You know, I get that, but that's not the case here. There's a history of
mixed uses on the block, as I told you. And I think there's a fatal flaw in this particular
method of trying to get input because it denied my client the opportunity to present a trash plan
to present a renovation plan or a lighting plan or a safety plan so i understand a council member
has absolutely every right to reach out to his or her constituents to get feedback but i think
in this particular case, it denied my client his right to address any concerns, and it circumvented
the actual code. And as a result, I'm asking that you grant the variance for no more than
three family dwelling. With that, I'm going to ask my client to raise his hands to be acknowledged.
your client's name is paul yes
yes paul hi paul hi how are you okay will you please state your name and address for the record
paul casuto 2550 ocean parkway brooklyn new york okay paul you're the owner of this property is
correct? Yes. So just let me spell your last name, please, and I'll swear you in. Sure. C-A-S-S-U-T-O.
Where from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do.
May I proceed, Mr. Chair? Please. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Casuto, did you hear my presentation to the
board today? Yes. And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Do you adopt it
as your own testimony if need be? Yes. And were you in attendance to the RCO meetings with me?
Yes. Okay. And were we prepared to present a trash, a comprehensive trash plan using the rear
section of the property for all tenants to access? Yes, most definitely. And were we prepared to put
the property management information on the property so that neighbors could call if there
were any issues with the property? Yes. Okay. And were we prepared to install lighting and cameras
along the entire perimeter of the property for safety? Yes. And upon securing your zoning use
permit where you prepared to pull any necessary and needed building permits to properly renovate
this property to its original grandeur. Yes. Thank you. I have no other questions.
Thank you. Questions from the board? No.
Questions from the board? No. Is there anyone else to testify
in this case? Please raise your hand. Chair, we have Mr. Charles Richardson.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?
Please identify yourself. You haven't been sworn in yet, correct? No, not today.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Where am I from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, please proceed.
Okay, to address the questions about why we put out a flyer and methodology,
The statement or the actual flyer that Vern put out, Anastasio put out, was one that was
rather legalese.
The folks that live in that area are pretty much elderly.
They do not read those types of things.
They don't know how to get on to Zoom.
And the councilman was not comfortable with the fact that no one showed up to the meeting
and thought that we should do something different
to try to elicit some response.
We did get a very huge response.
And in actuality, even though Vern is saying
that they're not going to be cutting up the apartment
into four, they were originally going to be cutting it up
into four and with two on the bottom
and one on each of the additional floors.
So that is not the case, that was not the intent
that they were going to be doing.
All the amenities and everything else
that are concerned, the folks don't really care about that. They care more about the fact that
that is a very congested area already and that the density is very heavy in that area.
We've gotten 30 plus responses because of the fact that I've only counted the responses of the folks
that actually live within the 250 foot range. And even at that, I had to verify using Street List
and been verified, which is one of the apps that we use to verify people's addresses and
telephone numbers and things like that. So we made sure that we were very, very thorough in
vetting who it was that was voting. We only took one vote per household, even though there were
more people that were calling with regard to that. To be honest, there was one person that
lived outside of the 250-foot range that did vote for the project. But, you know, that, again,
is outside of the range that we were measuring as well. And a lot of the folks that live on that
block, on that specific block, and even those that live in some of the apartments are against
the conversion so uh the councilwoman is is opposed and uh hopes that you will vote to um
you know maintain the single family uh residence at that location and uh move it forward from there
mr chair i think yep the entire building as a single family residence that's it that's the
exact issue it's never been used as a single family resident let me let me get in let me
let me ask the question um okay the flyer that went out I have no problem with the way in which
you tried to reach uh your constituents I think it was a good good opportunity to to get people
to know what was going on there uh the only question I have is and I'm not being critical
the the flyer don't it indicates there were four units well in in actuality I did call the people
back after Mr. Anastasio had called and left the email stating that his client would reduce
it to three.
And I had to call the people back and let them know that it was three.
Because I was, again, and there was an email that I did send to Mr. Anastasio, and also
it should be in the record as well, where I let him know that I had to call the people
back to let them know it was three.
And they remained adamantly opposed to it.
That's where I wanted to get at.
I wanted to make sure that they're on the same page.
So I don't know.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further.
I mean, it's the property right across the street and right behind it that is built exactly the same are three families or one family and commercial.
This property has never been used as a single family home.
Despite whatever paperwork was filed in 2008, nothing on the inside congealed the innards of this property as a single-family house.
When you've got the next-door neighbor property literally falling down, dangerous to human habitation,
I would think that breathing new life into this property would be a high priority.
I would think that breathing new life into this property would be a high priority.
As far as density is concerned, there's several vacant lots in the immediate area, one right across the street.
And right next door, again, is an empty property.
So I don't necessarily see how my client would be able to bring this into compliance with any practicability.
let me let me ask this as a you may have i think you touched on it but i want to be clear
in the past the ground floor level was used as a was it a doctor's office on the left hand side
was a doctor's office on the right hand side was a mail order okay and that's from 1967
has your client pursued any sort of light commercial or a professional office for the
ground floor would you know if he has i don't believe so i i think it would be uh difficult to
fill we don't know that i'm just that's what this isn't right could be i mean it was once a doctor's
office and a mail order so there was a time when that ground floor wasn't used as a residence is
what i'm getting at wouldn't that cause more congestion with clients and customers it may
it may it may but it's not 24 7 uh it the density about people living that many units in one may
may not and look i don't know what the community would would if they would be even willing to
accept that i just don't know i'm just trying to find a way of getting some this building back
uh as a usable building and trying to address the concerns of the district councilwoman and
her constituents uh so with that the questions from the board no no no no uh i'm going to suggest
that uh yep i'm sorry if i may i have um one more person i apologize yep please
and if you wish to testify please raise your hand
hello can you hear me yes please identify yourself your name full name and address
my name is sondra broadest um i am the president of a concerned community association that
represents the area um we were originally ma'am hold on please sorry just okay spell your last
name and give us your address. B-R-O-A-D-U-S and the address is 5801 Ogons Avenue. Do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please
proceed. A Concerned Community Association, ACCA, was originally the RCO of record. We had actually
began a paper meeting, paper-based meeting, which is what our community does. I'm sure you're
familiar with it at this point, in which we do ask the applicant questions, get all of their
documents, and then respond to that. There was no other meeting. I don't know what other meetings
the Mr. Anastasia was referring to. There were no other meetings except the attempted meeting
by the council office because ACCA was unable to continue the meeting process so the council
picked it up. We do not Zoom in our area for the reason that much of our community is seniors
and many people do not Zoom. Proof, in fact, they conducted a Zoom hearing, a meeting, and it was not
attended. But the RCO had already asked questions, all of the things that Mr. Anastagio says they
were prepared to testify to. They did not submit any of that information to the RCO when we
questioned them about their use of the project. There was no trash plan. There was no, you know,
property manager, nothing, nothing about security. There was nothing like that submitted. Having said
that, once they paper ballot paper fly at the neighbors, which is how they're used to hearing
about zoning variances, there was a huge response and it was a negative response.
Now, on the very next corner is a grocery store.
It is at 16th and Negro.
That is also the name of the local gang that basically...
That is also the name of the local gang that basically has gunfighting and all kinds of,
it had 30 teddy bears in front of it on the next corner.
There's a mural on the following corner on Collin Avenue of one of the fallen gang members that they're honoring.
That particular block with all the rental properties is one of the reasons why the block is in such disrepair.
Across the street, a police car sits permanently every day.
That's his job to get up and go into that police car and sit and babysit that location.
On the next corner is a vacant lot with the weeds that grow up higher than human beings that the neighbors have to constantly tend to clean and take care of.
The rental properties are nuisance properties. A rental property of this magnitude with four tenants in there would fuel the flames of nuisance in that area.
and anyone who responded to that flyer can attest to the fact that they don't want to see another
rental property, let alone one with four tenants in it. Just for clarification, ma'am, I need to
interrupt you. The applicant has revised it to three units. And I'm not suggesting that you
accept that. I just want you to be clear. It's for three units. Right. Everyone was contacted
And they absolutely don't want that. It's not that we're not talking about the structure of the building and whether there's another structure that looks like it that's already zoned that way.
we're talking about living conditions and the living condition on that block and in that entire
vicinity but that block in particular is the nucleus of the gang activity in that community
and a multi-rental property especially one that large would be a hangout it would be a place where
people could sit on the steps come in and out of multiple doors in a place where the police are
already babysitting the neighborhood the neighbors are not confused about why they said no they
absolutely don't want this thank you anyone else testify something new and different
mr chairman if i may just reply respectfully what typically attracts crime and um
and disorder are things like blight and decay and this particular property has been blighted for
20 years and the property right next to it has been blighted for 20 years. I would suggest and
submit that a complete renovation of this property would actually help improve the conditions on the
block and not be a detriment. The one question I have is, since your client is an out-of-state
owner, who would be maintaining this property? There'll be a local in the neighborhood property
management team and that property management company would be put on the facade of the property
on both sides so that with the contact information like which is required of any property owner who
doesn't live within the city of philadelphia limits again i think i asked but i'll ask again
any questions from the board no no no commission yes this is um ron bednar city planning
please spell your last name and i'll swear you on last name is bednar b-e-d-n-a-r
yes we're the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed property is indicated for single family residential use
on the city plan i believe the applicant has not demonstrated necessary hardship regarding
the requirements of the code the application is inappropriate overuse not consistent with our
adopted district plan therefore we recommend the request of variance not be granted
Okay, thank you. MI 2020-001436, 1446 West Nedrow Avenue, my vote is no.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Tom, did Tom vote?
My vote is yes.
Okay, thank you.
thank you all have a good evening all right take care of that neighborhood
calendar number but where are we just got upset calendar number 3076 2614 ron street
3076 2614 Ron Street there are no exhibits for this case and it's the first listing
anyone here for 2614 Ron Street no hands no hands this was the first listing
MI 2020-003076
Wrong Street is continued.
Calendar number 0383
2810 Frankfurt Avenue.
Billy Schwartz is the attorney.
Before we go any further,
we need to go back to
it was a revised plan, wasn't it?
uh yeah from four to three yep so i think we need to go you guys i mean i voted no but you're
going to have to go back and revote that um so it would is it a revised plan or
maximum three units yeah put it in as maximum three units so both we have to vote that again
I'll call it up. MI 2020, that's 001436, 1446 West Nedrow Avenue. My vote is no.
My vote is yes with the maximum of three units. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Okay, thank you. I'm sorry about that. Just realized. It's okay. Okay, so we're up to number
7. 7. Calendar number 0383, 2810 Frankfurt Avenue.
Mr. Schwartz.
take it off of mute can you hear me now yes can you put your name and address on the record
please and spell your last name yes it's uh william g schwartz uh at 1500 john f kennedy
boulevard suite 900 philadelphia pa 19102 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? No, ma'am. It's a referral. Did you agree to waive that and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes. Thank you. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents
consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the
property five days in advance of today? And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
Thank you.
It's in our package.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Members of the board, I have with me today, this is an LLC, and I have the managing member of the LLC, Marie Gutierrez, and we'll call upon her a little later.
at this time we're asking for the legalization of the use that's here which is for up to 12
recovered addicts whether it's alcohol or drugs they're fully recovered and this is not
a halfway house. However, they want to rejoin society and this provides them with housing,
food, they can be located in employment and in a new residence. And again, it's free of
charge. There's no money from the city. The future witness here, Maria Gutierrez, is a naturalized
citizen. She was a doctor in Ecuador and the license wasn't transferable. She's a psychiatric
nurse here in Philadelphia and she foots the entire bill for these people who
are out of the residence out of her own pocket. As I said the use began in 2017
and well aware of this use over the past four years and know what a credit it is
and know what a credit it is to unity it's zoned rm5 in an industrial area you can see from the
Unity. It's zoned
photographs that we've submitted in our packet that uh it is an industrial area except for the
three or so houses that that front uh on frankfurt avenue uh there are up to 12 rumors men only
They're self-sustaining ex-addicts living here voluntarily, no court order, no drugs administered, and they live free of charge until placed in permanent employment and a new residence.
The applicant, New Creations, is the genesis, as I said, of Maria E. Gutierrez, the managing member.
as i said she is a former doctor from ecuador and is a naturalized citizen and practices as
a psychiatric nurse the house was inspected for fire and by parr you can see their letter
they inspect all houses for uh for recovered uh addicts that that are temporarily housed until
they can be located in the community as tax-paying members of the community and their letters in our
packet uh the uh you also have the letter from the communicating uh uh the coordinating rco
uh which has approved this use and supported it the neighbors on both sides here are supporting
this use. In conclusion, as stated in our appeal, under the numerous grounds for appeal,
there is no detriment by this use in an existing building without change.
And that concludes my testimony and I'd like to call Maria E Gutierrez to the screen if I can.
can anyone hear me yes we can takes a while
maria are you on yeah maria you want to come here please
girl i have to sign off okay talk to you
You're welcome.
Bye-bye.
Hello.
Name and address, please.
My name is Maria Gutierrez.
Spell it.
M-A-R-I-A.
The last name G-U-T-I-E-R-R-E-Z.
Can you give me your address, please?
Your address.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Yes. Okay, you may proceed.
Now, I ask you, Maria, you heard my testimony. Is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge,
information and belief is it true so say so yes say it loudly yes you adopt this testimony as your
own yes are there any questions uh from the board how long has this been in existence how it's since
2017. We have a lease that's dated 2016. No problems? No, never had a problem. And no one
goes there to detox? They're already detoxed? I'm sorry, it's hard to hear. Does anyone go there
to detox or are they already detoxed? Yeah, they've already been detoxed before they come.
does the board have any questions no planning commission no
this is uh ron bednar city planning the property is indicated for commercial
neighborhood commercial mixed use on the city plan given the documented site history
we have no objection to the grounding the special exception thank you calendar number
2810 Frankfort Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Three yeses.
Good luck.
Calendar number 3082-3504 North 23rd Street.
Calendar number
There are no exhibits with this case and it's the first listing.
no hands chair but I have um Sloan folks I believe he wanted to say something for the last
okay mr folks hi name and address please good afternoon co-chair um sorry small folks
office of councilman maria quinones sanchez room 508 city hall 19107 regarding the last case that
was just just voted on by um the zba uh the councilman would make would like to make a statement
for the record. On which case? That was case number MI2020-0003832810,
Frankfurt Avenue. That case is closed. Is that the proper way to handle this, Sharon?
Mr. Folks, I'm sorry, but once it's been voted, we really can't take any
further evidence into record respect respectfully there was no request to ask was there any other
witnesses willing to testify or anyone else willing to testify on the record for that case
okay sharon can i open it up yes can you can we see if mr schwartz is still here
he's not on
okay under these circumstances um if you could let mr folks make his statement um right right
okay thank you okay mr folks thank you very much i appreciate oh sure the councilman right to state
um on uh september 14th let me digress this case has been in the queue since uh 2019
um it came before the zba on september 14th and october 27th of 2020 uh for hearing on both
out on both dates the councilman requested continuance so that the community could take
an opportunity to hear the case. Unfortunately the case was heard by an organization that was not
identified by the councilman as the coordinating RCL. That may have been for whatever reason that
happened because it's been two years since the case was identified. Mr. Folks, I am so sorry to
interrupt you, but this is going further than I expected. I think your recourse would be to
request reconsideration, especially because Mr. Schwartz isn't in the room. This is the equivalent
of an ex parte contact. Respectfully, the office is not going to oppose it. We just would like to
make a statement. I understand that, but he isn't here to respond, and it would be unethical for
board to take really an extended statement if if you can submit it into the record and copy mr
schwartz if you could mail it in and copy mr schwartz and i do thank you very much ma'am since
you've been waiting here thank you very much thank you thank you is there anyone here on calendar
number 3082, 3504 North 23rd Street. I have a call-in user. Would it be you, Robinson?
Calling user, you can unmute yourself.
hello can you state your name please yes this is adrian fernandez of swamp little rco
yes uh do you swear to tell the whole truth do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes i do can you hear me okay yes can you spell your last name and can can you put
your address on the record please um yes my last name is spelled f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z 1821
north 28th street philadelphia pennsylvania 19121 thank you okay
you're with the RCO
the RCO coordinator may have been
The RCO coordinator may have been targeted, however, I checked our emails, and there's no email requesting a meeting, and we received no notice.
Tiger United
however
There was no continuance before, so we sent a letter in after we checked our emails carefully asking for a continuance in fairness.
excuse me um miss fernandez are we discussing 3504 north 23rd yes personal care this is the
first listing and ordinarily if it is the first listing the board continues it perhaps you can
request it to be continued must be helped must be heard but do routinely on the first listing
continue it okay i just wasn't sure of any other information um just explaining why we asked for
continuance. I wasn't sure if there's any other information that might affect the decision for
continuance. No, I don't think it's necessary, but thank you. Calendar number 3082-3504 North
23rd Street. This case is continued with a must be heard. Is anybody here?
Yes, we're all here, Carol.
Is anybody?
Oh, so that's right.
Nobody's voting.
I think that's the last case.
For the day.