The CTR Overlay in Old City: Regulatory Review or Regulatory Delay?

What 19 years of city data shows about how the Center City Overlay impacts businesses in Old City

Executive Summary

Old City sits within the Old City Residential Area, a sub-area of the Center City Overlay District (CTR, Section 14-502). This overlay adds zoning use restrictions on top of the base CMX-3 and CMX-4 zoning that governs most of Old City's commercial properties.

Our analysis of 315 unique F&B opening events and 162 zoning appeals filed within the CTR Old City Residential overlay (intersected with the OCD BID) between 2007 and 2026 reveals a clear pattern: the overlay forces businesses through a costly, time-consuming process that almost never changes the outcome.

What the CTR Overlay Does

The Center City Overlay District uses Table 14-502-2 to override base zoning permissions for certain uses within the Old City Residential Area. Where the base CMX-3/CMX-4 zoning would permit a use by right, the overlay may require:

• "S" — Special Exception: The applicant must go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and demonstrate they meet specific criteria. The ZBA "shall approve" if the criteria are satisfied. This applies to sit-down restaurants and prepared food shops.
• "N" — Prohibited: The use is banned in the overlay area. To proceed, the applicant must obtain a use variance, which requires proving "unnecessary hardship" tied to the unique physical conditions of the property — a standard courts have described as "rarely justified." This applies to body art/tattoo shops and assembly/entertainment.

How Long Does the ZBA Take?

We measured how long appeals spend at the ZBA itself — from the day an appeal is filed to the hearing date. This isolates the ZBA's portion of the timeline; permit application, permit review, and construction all happen after this period.

No permit work can begin until the ZBA decides. Even the fastest use types still spend roughly 7 weeks in the ZBA queue before construction can start; some categories take materially longer (see the breakdown by use type below).

Quality Control or a Rubber Stamp?

If the ZBA were providing meaningful review — approving good proposals and filtering bad ones — we would expect to see a meaningful denial rate. Instead:

Across F&B use types, the ZBA approved nearly every application. Only 1 F&B-use denial was recorded across the entire 19-year study period. Across all primary use types in the overlay (including residential, retail, hotel, and other categories), only 6 ZBA appeals were denied on the merits. This near-universal approval rate suggests the ZBA process is not providing substantive filtering — it is simply adding delay and cost.

Approval rate = approvals / (approvals + denials). Withdrawn and dismissed cases are reported separately and not in the denominator.

Processing Time by Use Type

Processing time (filing to hearing) varies by use type, but even the fastest categories still require approximately 7 weeks in the ZBA queue before applicants even have a hearing — let alone a decision, permit, and construction start.

CTR Touches Over Half the Appeals

To answer the policy-relevant question — how often is the overlay the actual cause of a ZBA visit, vs. just one item bundled into a visit that would have happened anyway — we cross-referenced each appeal address against BPN Property Intelligence to retrieve base zoning code (CMX-3, CMX-4, RSA-5, etc.) and CTR sub-area assignment, then tagged each appeal by whether it touches a CTR-specific trigger (the use restrictions in Table 14-502-2, the accessory parking-lot prohibition at § 14-502(6)(f)(.1)(.c), or the 65 ft height cap in the Central sub-area at § 14-502(3)(h)).

These are conservative lower bounds. The active-ground-floor requirement (§ 14-502(5) Note [10]) on CMX-3 lots fronting major streets requires variance for ground-floor residential or parking; we couldn't reliably distinguish those from CMX-3 appeals at compliant ground-floor projects without manual review, so they're not included in the count. 89% of our matched parcels are CMX-3, so any CMX-3 appeal seeking ground-floor residential or parking would be CTR-driven and would push the lower bound higher.

Community Organization Recommendations vs. ZBA Outcomes

Old City District's Registered Community Organization (RCO) process gives the community a chance to weigh in before each ZBA hearing. OCD provided their full voting record from 2012 to early 2026 — 76 RCO meetings covering projects throughout the district. Key findings:

• OCD recommended approval in the overwhelming majority of cases. The community process is itself effectively a "yes" by default for projects that follow the overlay's special-exception path.
• 74 of the 76 records were matched to a ZBA appeal in the open data (the remaining 2 likely never reached ZBA — the project may have moved forward by-right after RCO review).
• Of the OCD-supported cases that got a ZBA decision, nearly all were approved. ZBA outcomes track community sentiment closely.
• The two OCD-opposed cases in the dataset split: 160-164 N 2nd Street was denied by the ZBA (community opposition aligned with the eventual outcome), while 222 Market Street — the smoking-lounge case — was approved by the ZBA over OCD's opposition.
• Several applicants who received RCO approval filed appeals but are still pending at the ZBA.

Consequences of the Overlay

The cost of the ZBA process is borne by applicants regardless of outcome. We identified 28 F&B use appeals filed in Old City where the applicant never received a matching business license — some won ZBA approval and still never opened.

The Smoke Shop Irony

Perhaps the most striking illustration of the overlay's perverse incentives involves smoke shops. Smoke shops are classified under the zoning code as "Retail Sale of Food, Beverages, and Groceries" — a use that is by-right in Old City's CMX-3/CMX-4 zones and is not restricted by the CTR overlay. Additionally, the sale of tobacco is preempted by state law, meaning the city cannot regulate it at the local level.

The result: a smoke shop can open in Old City with no ZBA process, no hearing, no delay, and no cost. Meanwhile, a sit-down restaurant — the kind of use that anchors Old City's commercial identity — must spend months and thousands of dollars navigating the special exception process.

Key Takeaways

1. The CTR overlay is at issue in at least 53% of ZBA appeals in the Old City Residential Area — about 36% would not have happened at all without the overlay
2. The ZBA adds a median ~58 days at the board itself (filing → hearing) before any permit work can begin, plus thousands of dollars in legal and professional fees
3. The ZBA approves nearly every F&B application — only 1 F&B denial on the merits in 19 years
4. OCD's own RCO recommended approval in 74 of 76 cases (2012–2026) — and the ZBA's outcome aligned with OCD's recommendation in virtually every case
5. Smoke shops open by-right while restaurants need special exceptions — the overlay's priorities are inverted
6. F&B applicants who file appeals sometimes never open — 28 F&B use appeals never got a matching business license, including some that won ZBA approval
7. The overlay produces process and delay without producing different outcomes

How we did this analysis

This methodology section explains where the numbers come from, how each judgment call was made, and what the analysis can and can't tell you. It's written for non-technical readers — council staff, planning leadership, and anyone who wants to understand the analysis before relying on it.

Where the data comes from

Every figure in this report comes from public City of Philadelphia data. We used four datasets, all available on OpenDataPhilly:

• Business licenses — when each business legally opened (issue dates, license types, revenue codes).
• ZBA appeals — every appeal filed before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (the body that decides zoning-variance and special-exception cases), with the property address, what the applicant was asking for (in their own words), and how the case was decided.
• L&I building permits — fit-out and construction permits issued for each property.
• OPA parcels — the city's authoritative list of every property parcel, with base zoning code, lot area, and building type.

We also incorporated the Old City District's own RCO voting record (2012–present) — a spreadsheet provided by OCD that lists every Registered Community Organization meeting they've held, the project address, and how the board voted. Plus BPN Property Intelligence, Build Philly Now's property data platform that aggregates city data at the parcel level — we used it to cross-check every appeal address against an authoritative parcel record and pull base zoning per parcel.

What "Old City" means in this analysis

"Old City" is defined two different ways depending on who's drawing the line. To avoid arguments about what's in or out, we used the intersection of two definitions: a property had to be inside both (a) the CTR Old City Residential Area overlay polygon (the area defined in Philadelphia Zoning Code § 14-502, made up of five sub-areas in the city's official zoning-overlays file) and (b) the Old City District BID polygon (the BID's own legal boundary).

Time period

January 2007 through February 2026 — 19 years. The ZBA appeals dataset starts in 2007. Business licenses go back to the 1990s, but we excluded any license issued before 2007 because there's no appeals data from that period to match against — including older licenses would have made every pre-2007 business look like a "by-right" opening just because the appeals data doesn't reach that far back.

How we identified what each appeal was about

We excluded a small number of "procedural" ZBA cases that aren't about a project at all — e.g., appeals against L&I administrative decisions where the underlying case was never about a building or use. Everything else was kept.

Every ZBA appeal includes a "grounds" field — written by the applicant or their attorney — describing what they're asking for. We read every grounds entry and assigned each appeal a primary use type based on what the project actually IS: Residential, Sit-down restaurant, Take-out restaurant, Prepared food shop, Other F&B, Smoking lounge, Body art / tattoo, Assembly / entertainment, Hotel / visitor accommodation, Retail / commercial, Roof deck, Signage, Parking / lot, or Other.

Because a single appeal can ask for multiple variances at once (a residential project might need approvals for height, parking, AND a roof deck, all bundled into one appeal), we also tagged each appeal with variance feature flags — yes/no for whether the grounds text mentions a height variance, a parking variance, a roof-deck element, signage, lot-line work, etc. This lets us count "appeals that touched a roof deck" across all primary-use categories, without inflating the total count of appeals.

How we computed approval rates

Approval rate = approvals divided by (approvals + denials). Withdrawn and dismissed cases are not in the denominator — they're cases the ZBA didn't decide on the merits. We report withdrawn and dismissed counts separately so you can see them, but they don't affect the percentage. Every chart and table on this site uses this same formula.

An earlier version of this analysis used different denominators in different charts (some included withdrawn cases, others didn't), which made the same category appear to have different approval rates in different places. We've fixed that — every figure on this site now uses the same definition.

How we measured ZBA processing time

Our headline timeline metric is ZBA processing time — the days from appeal filing to hearing. This isolates the ZBA's portion of the timeline only. Permit application, permit review, and construction all happen after the hearing and are not counted in this number.

We chose this scope deliberately: it's the period the ZBA process itself adds to a project, before any work can begin on the ground. The median across all 162 appeals in scope is ~58 days, computed as the difference between scheduleddate and createddate on each appeal record.

How we counted "would have happened anyway"

For the "but for the CTR overlay" analysis, we asked: if the CTR overlay didn't exist, would this ZBA appeal still have happened?

We classified each of the 162 appeals into one of three buckets:

• CTR-driven only — the appeal is asking for something the CTR overlay specifically restricts, AND the appeal isn't asking for any base-zoning variance (height, setback, parking, lot-line). Without the CTR, this project would have opened by-right. 59 appeals (36%).
• CTR + base-zoning bundled — the appeal touches both a CTR-driven trigger AND a base-zoning variance. The applicant would have needed a ZBA hearing anyway for the base-zoning issue, but the CTR added more variances to the same appeal. 26 appeals (16%).
• Base-zoning only — no CTR-specific trigger detected. This appeal would have happened with or without the CTR overlay. 77 appeals (48%).

What counts as a "CTR-driven trigger"? Three things, all in the actual text of the city zoning code:

1. The use restrictions in Table 14-502-2 (special exceptions for sit-down restaurants, take-out, prepared food shops; use variances for body art / tattoo and assembly / entertainment) — 71 appeals.
2. The accessory parking-lot prohibition at § 14-502(6)(f)(.1)(.c) — 8 appeals.
3. The 65-ft height cap in the Central sub-area at § 14-502(3)(h), but only when the appeal explicitly states a building height greater than 65 feet — 6 appeals.

Some real CTR-driven cases probably aren't captured. The active-ground-floor rule (§ 14-502(5) Note 10) requires non-residential, non-parking ground-floor uses on CMX-3 lots fronting major streets — we couldn't detect those reliably from appeal text alone, so they're not in our CTR-driven count. Any of those cases now classified as "base-zoning only" would actually be CTR-driven if we could verify them. So our 36% is a lower bound: the true share of "would-not-have-happened-without-CTR" appeals is probably higher.

How we counted opening events (and avoided double-counting)

Philadelphia issues separate business licenses for different categories: a restaurant typically gets both a "Food Establishment, Retail" license and a "Food Preparing and Serving" license, often on the same day. License renewals are also issued as new records each year. If we counted every license record as a separate "opening," we would have double- and triple-counted businesses that just renewed or had multiple licenses at once.

Instead, we deduplicated to one event per unique (address, business name) pair, keeping the earliest license issuance date as the opening event. That's how the 690 raw license records in the area collapse to 315 unique opening events, which is the headline number we use throughout.

How we matched community-organization records to ZBA outcomes

Old City District provided 76 voting records from their Registered Community Organization (RCO) meetings between 2012 and early 2026. Each record includes the project address, the ZBA application or permit number, the meeting date, board and public vote tallies, and the final Support/Oppose outcome.

We matched 74 of the 76 records to a specific ZBA appeal in the city's open-data feed. We used three matching strategies in order: exact match on the application or permit number, then text matching on application numbers in different formats, then matching by address combined with proximity in time (within a year of the meeting date). The 2 unmatched records appear to be cases that never went to the ZBA — projects that may have moved forward by-right after RCO review.

Cross-checking against BPN Property Intelligence

To make sure our addresses and zoning assignments are correct, we cross-referenced every appeal and every opening event against BPN Property Intelligence — Build Philly Now's property data platform that aggregates city data at the parcel level. We achieved a 100% match rate on both — every one of the 162 appeals and every one of the 315 opening events resolved to a specific OPA parcel number. This let us pull the base zoning code, lot size, and building type for every property in the analysis. About 89% of the matched parcels are CMX-3, 10% are CMX-4, and the remainder are residential or special-purpose districts.

Known limits

• Some use-type categories have small sample sizes (3 body-art appeals, 3 smoking-lounge appeals). The patterns in those categories are suggestive, not statistically definitive.
• We can identify F&B applicants who filed a ZBA appeal but never got a matching business license, but we can't know whether they abandoned the project because of the zoning process specifically or for other business reasons (financing, construction problems, change of plans).
• Some Old City addresses may have use approvals carried forward from prior zoning frameworks that predate our data window. A business operating today under a 1980s use approval wouldn't show up in our ZBA data.
• The active-ground-floor rule and a few other CTR provisions can't be reliably detected from appeal-grounds text alone; our "but for CTR" share is a conservative lower bound.

Underlying data is downloadable from the Data page. Every chart and figure on this site can be reproduced from the canonical CSV files in the workbook. Questions about methodology: jon@buildphillynow.org.

Download the underlying data · View the slide deck