WEST PASSYUNK NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION
ZONING MEETING MINUTES
July 17, 2014
A public zoning meeting
hosted by the Zoning Committee of the West Passyunk Neighbors Association (the
“Association”) was held at 7:00PM at the 1st District Police Station, 2301 S.
24th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19145. In attendance were committee members
Peter Curran, Jennifer Harrison, and James McMillan (the “Committee”), the applicant
Anthony Labrusciano (the “Applicant”), the applicant’s representative Kristine
Phillips of Willig, Williams & Davidson (“Representative”), the business
operator Marcellus, and members of the public.
The issue addressed was
consideration of the zoning application concerning 2444 Durfor Street.
The application was for a zoning variance to allow for the continued
operation of the facility as a tire repair shop.
Committee member Mr.
Curran began the meeting by introducing the issue and noting that attendees
present must live within the Association’s boundaries to vote on the
issue. As a disclaimer, Mr. Curran
informed those present that he is a member of a city employee’s union that
happens to be represented by the same firm for which the Representative
works. He then opened the floor to the
Representative and Applicant.
The Representative began
by stating that the Applicant had originally purchased the property – a set of
4 garages of which he owns 12 total along the block – in 1985 or 1986. She stated that he obtained permits to allow
the property to operate as a tire repair shop.
The zone CMX-2 is mixed-use commercial.
According to the representative, as recently as February 2013 the use
was permitted. Their desire was not to
change anything or modify the current structure, but to keep using the building
as it has been used so far. She stated
that it did not make a lot of sense that right up the block there is an auto
repair service, and asked to allow these men to make a living. When the Representative had concluded her
presentation, questions and comments from the Committee and then the public
were heard.
Ms. Harrison inquired if
there was access to sanitation services and water. The business operator replied that there was
access to water and a portable toilet was available on the premises.
Mr. McMillan asked for
clarification on the usage of the garage units.
The Applicant responded that units 3 and 4 are for tire repair, and
units 1 and 2 are for private storage.
A citizen and friend of
the applicant stated that he goes by that area a lot, that they are very kind
and courteous to him there, and that he keeps it very clean.
A citizen asked if the
owner was going to do the same thing to the other garages. Mr. Curran informed him that this hearing was
about the current property only. The
citizen then stated that when her husband’s car broke down right in front, they
were able to fix it. Otherwise they would
not have been able to get home. She also
stated that the change in the zoning code bothered her.
A citizen commented on
the Representative’s earlier comments, addressing the comparisons between the
garages at 25th and Snyder and this garage. The citizen stated that the main difference
was that the subject property is in a residential neighborhood.
A renter of one of the
Applicant’s other garage spaces commented that he has been renting from the
Applicant for years just to keep a nice car in the garage. He stated that the business operator just
does a “brake job here, a brake repair there”.
In response, another
citizen asked exactly what the wording of the variance was, because he had
heard just then of brake jobs and brake repairs. The Representative then read the contents of
the variance. The citizen then commented
that a strict reading of the variance would allow any motor repair to occur on
the premises. The Applicant stated that
he would add an addendum on that point if he could.
A citizen asked when the
last time the portable toilet was cleaned, as they never saw anyone cleaning
it. The business operator responded that
he cleans it himself, since he has three daughters that may be there and
therefore needs to keep it clean. The
citizen also commented on a previous issue of tires being present in the back
yard of the property, not thinking that anyone wants to see that in the
neighborhood. The business operator
responded that he keeps the back yard locked.
A second citizen asked if those tires were from him or a prior
person. The business operator responded
that those tires are the ones that he puts there. Addressing the first citizen, the business
operator asked if building a shed to contain the tires would be
satisfactory. The citizen responded that
they did not agree with that being there.
A citizen asked if the
tires in the back yard are a fire hazard.
The business operator responded that the tires in the back yard are
stock tires that he puts there and tries to sell. Other tires he pays a few dollars to have
disposed. The Applicant commented that
if someone thinks there are too many tires to let them know and they would
remove them. The business operator also
reiterated that they will be chained and locked and fenced. Another citizen commented that the
neighborhood may have to accept that tires may not be the best to look at but
if someone is going to sell tires they need to have a place to store them. The business operator stated that he has a
dog to slow down any theft and protect the tires in the back yard. He hoped that if someone hears the dog
barking that someone would call the police.
He stated they also have a camera system as well.
The business operator
commented that he is not trying to do any harm.
This is the first time he has owned his own business and it has been
quite an experience. He has been doing
it for a while. He is open 7 AM to 7 PM,
not on Sundays, for convenience to customers’ schedules.
A citizen asked who to
contact if there are any issues. The
Representative responded that if there is an issue, the Applicant and business
operator will work with them to make sure you know when the toilet is cleaned
or when the tires in the back yard are cleaned up. The business operator responded to let him
know personally.
No further questions or
pertinent comments being forthcoming, ballots were cast by eligible members of
the public present on whether to support, oppose, or remain neutral regarding
the Applicant’s application. The results
of the public vote were eight opposed, six supporting, and three neutral. No further business being required, Mr.
Curran adjourned the meeting. After the
meeting, the results of the Committee vote were all three supporting.
__________________________
James McMillan,
Secretary
No comments:
Post a Comment