particularly i i again i i never said i said this twice to you now that i never said she
was an expert no but i'm so sorry it's not clear to me at what point you decide that
I don't mean to be repetitive. It's just not clear to me at what point you decide that issue.
I'm sorry, sir. Could you say that again?
Are you done with the witness?
Mr. Vizner, you have to have any follow-up.
Nothing for this witness, no.
Ms. Logman, your witness, how long do you think your witness will be?
30 minutes? Oh, oh, today. Today?
10 to 15 minutes.
Why don't you call your witness?
Okay. I'd like to call Dorothy French as a witness.
Ms. French, please raise your virtual hand.
Ms. French, where did she go?
Ms. French, please raise your virtual hand again.
Thank you. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I have a question. We were told at the beginning that we were going
to hear testimony from Rob Robertson, the developer. And I have questions about how
the number, I'm holding questions about how the number of units were decided on. When is he coming
out? I did not say he'd be testifying. What I stated was he's present today to the extent there
are questions he needs to address. We put on our case. We did not conclude our case. He's not
adopted our testimony. He is available today. Okay. Well, in your case, I mean, given that
you have to meet the minimum variance requirement, who is going to testify
about how you arrived at the number of units and what a reasonable profit is?
Reasonable profit is not relevant to a variance case.
Have you, are you familiar with that? That's not an undue hardship.
are you familiar hold on hold on hold on hold on this misery you is is he part of your case
i would just ask that i would be permitted to call him to adopt my testimony but i didn't
conclude my testimony before we switched over to miss french why don't you conclude your testimony
thank you just by way of summary again this is a vacant property with almost 60 000 square feet
in an RSD3 district. RSD3 requires 5,000 square foot lots. Proposal today is appropriate for the
12 units proposed with off-street parking. We have letters of non-opposition from both
Upper Roxborough Civic, Councilman Jones's office, and a letter of support from Upper
Ridge Park Civic, the two co-coordinating RCOs that were involved from day one in this process
in February of 2023. Rob Robertson is present, and on behalf of the owner, I'd be asked that
keep her permitted to speak and adopt my testimony.
Rob Robertson,
please unmute yourself.
Mr. Robertson.
He's been
unmuted and allowed to speak, Chair.
Could you please state your name and spell
for the court's sonographer?
Certainly. It's Rob, R-O-B,
Robertson, R-O-B-E-R-T-S-O-N.
Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do.
please proceed council thank you mr robertson did you hear my testimony today regarding
the 12 proposed homes of off street parking at 73 30 ridge avenue yes would you agree that it's
true and correct yes would you adopt it as your own certainly thank you thank you mr chairman
um yes i do um miss mr robertson um who is your expert in real estate development finance who
crunched the numbers and came up with 12 houses again we're going to object the finances and
profits are not relevant in a zoning matter so i'm going to continue because if you're familiar
with inri ridge park one and inri ridge park two which are 2020 and 2021 cases commonwealth
also roxborough very similar development here's a quote from the case uh where you're where you
where you're where you have a quantifiable departure, including even though there's a use variance, the determination entails ascertaining how many units were necessary for applicants to build, given the cost in the area.
have a quantifiable departure, including
In other words, the inquiry required resolution of the factual issue of reasonable profit and the minimum number of units necessary for it to be economically feasible to proceed.
And this goes to the minimum variance requirement.
Our least minimum variance standard was met because our 60,000 square foot lot in an RSD3 district can be broken into 5,000 square foot lots, one unit on each lot, which drives the 12 units presented today.
So why don't we do this?
Let Mr. Robertson say how he got to that point.
And that's fine testimony for me.
We're not going to get into deep finances, but Mr. Robertson, could you please say how you got to the point of having 12?
And in fact, if I'm not mistaken, it was 24.
You decided to drop it to 12 after dealing with the neighbors.
Am I correct?
That's correct, actually, that there was one configuration, 20 as well.
So it was an iterative, I can't say the word, process of getting to where we landed at the 12.
and the 12 really was driven by the 60 by 60 divided by 5,000 so pretty close math at 12
that's where we landed it um so so mr robertson but it's correct that you're asking for
multiple principal households on one lot so you're looking for a variance a qualitative variance
correct? It's a legal conclusion. Yes, I think that's a legal equation that I'm not a capable
answer for. Are you looking for a variance on how many primary households can be on the lot?
We're looking for the most optimal use of the lot that meets the code requirements, yes.
Okay. And the refusal is because this is considered a multi-family use,
even though there are 12 single-family homes on the lot. That's the refusal under the
Philadelphia zoning code I'm still talking I'm sorry please proceed come on the the this lot
although it's large could be developed with one house correct you could possibly put one house
on it it had one house on it at one time you could put two or three or four so how do you
come up with 12 being the minimum the minimum variance that you need to afford relief
well if i'm if i'm not mistaken he wanted 24
and then he went after he sat with the neighbors he went from 24 to 20 and then after the neighbors
again and all the other people he got down to 12 so he started at 24 am i correct that is correct
we were we were we worked very collaboratively with the neighbors
right we took their feedback and we adopted the items that we could that would you know
most optimally used as land. There were many questions from the neighbors from Durnly Park,
certainly, about circulation on site and whether you'd be putting in a cul-de-sac, correct?
It came up at their meeting. Yeah, I'd have to go back and listen to the recording.
They were asking about garbage service, fire trucks. Actually, I think Pam Delisio was on
at one meeting and was asking about fire trucks, correct?
Correct. Fire trucks has been brought up. And my experience is that a fire truck is going to pull in and it's going to probably back out of most any neighborhood. And I've got experience of a house next door to my home burning down and watching seven fire trucks do exactly that.
Right. So it's going to back out on Ridge Pike, right?
Correct. Pretty standard procedure for something that's 40 feet long.
Right. So it's it's not something that's ideal, though. And if we could plan for if we could plan for emergencies such as that, maybe there could be a better design. Right.
I'm just going to object to this line of question. My client is not a traffic engineer. We put on a traffic engineer and the streets plan, the streets department and the fire marshal will review all internal circulation for safety.
Flagman, please move on from that question.
So was there any, did you make any calculation about how many houses you needed to build to make a reasonable profit?
Through all their iterations, we would try to figure out what the profit would be, correct?
How much profit are you going to make on 12?
I don't think that's in your business.
Can I just ask one question, Chair?
Is the case law you're relying on related to Pechen Street? Because it's my understanding that's still pending in Commonwealth court, that it's not current law.
current law. Well, it's been brought back to Commonwealth for the third time.
Well, it's been brought back to Commonwealth for the third time.
Yeah, it's still pending, but the decisions from Commonwealth.
So it's not, it's not a matter of law at the moment.
Well, the decisions from Commonwealth court are out there. It was remanded twice to the trial
court on those issues, which are the exact same issues here.
Right. So the testimony regarding profit is not relevant to a zoning determination.
Well, according to the Commonwealth court, that is the inquiry that must be made in this kind of
case. So, anyway. Yes. So, just last one. It's true that this property could be developed with
less than 12 houses. It could be. Thank you so much. Ms. Misner, do you have any follow-up?
I do. Just a response to the last question for the record. The code requires that the least minimum variance be requested. However, in this instance, the one home on a 60,000 square foot lot would not be consistent with the surrounding area of the neighborhood.
Mr. Robertson, are you aware of any 60,000 square foot lots with one home on them in the immediate vicinity of this project?
No, and I was actually going to chime in on that and say that exact thing.
Great.
Thank you.
Ms. Logman, would you please bring your client one?
And then we're going to take that testimony.
We'll have Cross, and then we're going to move on, okay?
Dot, are you there?
Can I have the person's name, Ms. Laughlin?
Dorothy French.
Ms. French, please raise your virtual hand.
miss french has been unmuted and allowed to speak
would you please state your name and spell for the court stenography it's dorothy french
d-o-r-o-t-h-y-f-r-e-n-c-h i also go by dot you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel um okay if you don't mind that i'm going to call
you dot um could you please tell us where you reside i live at 490 harman road in philadelphia
and what properties do you own i co-own 490 harman road and i also own 7300 and a half
ridge avenue where are your properties in relation to 7330 ridge avenue
They are one to two properties away from 7330 Ridge Avenue.
So one of your properties is adjacent and another is a, there's a lot in between.
That's correct.
What is your occupation?
I'm a professor of mathematics at the Community College of Philadelphia, associate professor.
How long have you resided at 490 Harman Road?
Since 2001.
Can you tell us about your work in the community and in the Durnsley Park community and particularly with your involvement in the Durnsley Park Community Association?
Yeah, I'm the president, the current president of the Durnsley Park Civic Association.
This civic was dormant for since, I guess, for about four or five years.
We, with help of former members and also with a residence, we decided to apply for reactivation of the Civic and we were successful and it was reactivated, recertified by the city of Philadelphia in July, the 26th of July of this year.
We currently have about 50 plus members and about 30 households paid up members of our Civic.
and and when you're here with me though you're speaking as an individual correct i i wear two
hats i'm i'm i um as a as the next door neighbor to the 7330 property um i i have a i guess i'm
not a party status in this in this affair but i'm also the president of the donley park civic
Association, which has certainly had a voice in objecting quite strenuously to this current
proposal over time.
When did you first hear about this proposal or the first iteration of it that you became
aware of?
Actually, it was May 31st, 2024.
I was sent a letter by Catherine Missimer, the counsel for the Terraforma group.
that's the first I heard about it. Okay. And then did you attend a, did you also then get a notice
of refusal from the 20 single-family homes? Yes.
from the 20 single-family homes? Yes. Okay. And at that point, did you decide to try to
re-establish Durnley Park Civic Association so that you would be notified more promptly about
these kinds of things? Yeah, I and I had a lot of support with former members of the lapsed civic
and also, again, neighbors within the near vicinity of this project who felt that we should
we should re-establish a civic. In fact, I quote Georgie Gould, who's the president of the
Roxburgh-Wissahickon Historical Society. It's her language, not mine. She said she felt
naked and exposed without a civic. And so she was very thrilled that somebody wanted to put it back
together again. And I and Val Hallman, our treasurer, we worked together. We were able
to reconstitute a civic, and now we are an active civic with membership in our Dalmy Park area.
What did you do to learn about the land development proposal and the request for a zoning permit?
Did you understand it at first, or did you have to do something to learn more about it?
I had to do a lot to learn about it, and I consulted with you, Pam Lockman, as my attorney,
And I also went to, we went to L&I and we obtained the application for the appeal and why it was, why it was rejected and what the plaintiffs, what the applicants had said as part of that process.
Okay. And in that application, were they asked to explain how they, how their proposal met the variance standards?
Yes, I saw that.
And did you did you learn anything from that application or was the language just conclusively involved?
Yes, that I guess is the correct term. I mean, I I'm a math professor and I guess people I don't want to bend your ear with equations and so on.
But if a student solves a problem and gives me the answer of, say, three pi, I'm going to want to know how they got to that answer.
I'm going to say, would you please show me your rough work? And in every instance with this
application for appeal, there's no rough work. There's no explanation of how the applicants
can convince anybody reading this that, for example, yes, the proposed use creates the
least modification possible. Every time it's like, yeah, it's going to be fine. And I as a
professional as a professional math person would like to see more proof of why we get to that
how do you arrive at that conclusion okay so so you had to go down to lni to take a look at the
at the application to at least try to learn what had been submitted but it didn't
really illuminate things for you um nonetheless the next day did you get on a zoom call with
terra firma with Mr. Reddy and Mr. Robertson. I did. And did you ask, and you were shown plans
on the Zoom call, and you asked for them, but you weren't, you asked to see the engineering data,
to see how it was, the plans were diverging from RSD3, but they never gave you any engineering
data, correct? That's correct. At that time, at that time. At that time, on this plan for the 20
units. There were plenty of pictures, but not what we requested, which were engineer's notes with
a lot of details on there. Okay. And you requested to see the plans again before the
other civics had a meeting on July 9th, but you didn't receive them with any kind of data,
the plans with any kind of data, correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay. So you attended the other
civics. Let me just speed ahead here. The original plan was withdrawn by the applicant
honor about July 31st 2024 as far as you know that's correct okay and just prior to that date