That's essentially where we are. This is a different parcel. Every parcel in Philadelphia is unique, Chair. That's why we're here in front of you, because as you know, the zoning code treats every parcel differently.
That's essentially where we are.
This is a different parcel.
Every parcel into the bill.
So what we have, at least according to the plans that I can see on my screen as being shared by Mr. Feynman's office, is the proposal for the expansion, which is not on our property whatsoever, the property that we have under agreement, the subject property 1631.
It's connecting the two buildings that are already existing.
So this is all speculative, number one, and it doesn't necessarily deal at all with our subject parcel.
So this entire testimony is irrelevant, has nothing to do with what's going on on the proposal on our property, except perhaps to show some sort of animus here that the reason they're here to oppose is because they wish they could have acquired this property.
But as you heard the testimony earlier, it was too expensive per Mr. Nissenbaum's testimony, and he didn't want to pay the price that the seller wanted to sell the property for. And that's not really a reason to oppose a zoning matter.
The only reason, the only way he can win in front of this board is to show a hardship to the property and therefore entitled to a variance.
Okay, the hardship in this case, he's identified as being this pipe that he has to build two buildings rather than one.
I want to show, if I can, I won't even talk about what additions we're going to make, but I want to just show the board how somebody deals with that hardship.
somebody on the adjoining property the same easement comes immediately through the property
i maintain it's irrelevant your honor our chairman
i'll let it in i i think it might be irrelevant also but we'll let everybody mr fineman understood
Good, Chair. Thank you.
John, are you there?
Okay, John, just briefly for the record, you are a registered architect in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, am I correct?
And how long have you been practicing as an architect?
41 years.
Okay. And you were hired by D.C. Humphreys Cover Sports to come up with plans to build an addition on their property. Is that correct?
And that addition, just briefly, will connect the two buildings that we presently have referred to. Is that correct?
The original intent was to connect the two existing buildings. Yes.
Yes. Okay. And plans have been submitted to the City of Philadelphia, is that correct?
Yes. And the expectation is that the full plans will be approved sometime before the first of
the year, is that correct? Yes. And you're going to begin construction before the first of the
year, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Now, in doing so, you've had to deal with what we've called
as the property in question, 1531 North 52nd Street,
you've had to deal with an easement
that comes directly from their property
onto the property in question.
Is that correct?
Objection reading.
Why don't you explain for us what that easement is?
There's an 80-foot easement.
If you can put where your cursor is now showing these parking spaces, go to the right.
Okay, so that entire area is an 80-foot easement that has a 12-foot-6 diameter regional sewer line, as well as a 3-foot-6 concrete pipe sewer line.
um the the water department prohibits construction within that easement our initial intention
was to connect the main building at the bottom of the sheet with the building to the north of
of the sheet um with one continuous building because we we were prohibited from building
over the easement, we submitted a plan to the water department to build a pre-engineered
building up to the easement line and connect the building with a fabric mobile structure
that in the event that the water department had to have access to the pipe and
In the event that the water department had to have access to the pipe and excavate within the easement,
that mobile structure literally could be rolled out of the way and allow them to have access within that 80-foot easement.
And has that been accepted by the water department and accepted by the city of Philadelphia?
Well, it has been accepted by the water department, yes.
And the expectation is that your building plans will be accepted within days, is my understanding.
Is that correct?
Hopefully, depending on the schedule of the planning of the review department, building department.
Have you received any other comments which would make you feel that your plans are not going to be accepted?
We have not.
I have no other questions.
just one last question how big is this additional space 22 000 square feet
okay so the 22 000 square feet adds to what is the square footage of the other two buildings
the main building uh which i call the south building if you go back to your
plan that you were right there that building on the on the south end is 94 000 square feet and
change the awning factory which is uh that that one there correct that's 40 that's almost 42 000
in round numbers and the proposed building is almost 23 000 22 8 and change
okay I have no other questions thank you Mr. Mulvihill before you proceed
for my benefit I guess the benefit of the other board members to refresh my memory
how does your applicant application address the issue that we Mr. Feynman and Mr. DiBenedetto
just spoke about as it relates to the sewer line what is is that one of the reasons you're here
just refresh my memory to get relief for that no members of the board not specifically but
if i may uh share my screen i can then proceed to show the board my plans
i believe mr whomever is sharing at this point just needs to stop so i'll be able to share as well
thank you
so essentially we're doing a very similar thing although we don't have a
mobile sort of tent above exactly, above the easement area.
One moment while I pull up the correct page, members of the board.
So while I try to find this specifically, essentially we have a similar thing in that we have two separate buildings.
You have building A and building B. It has to do with the way that the site is laid out, and that's one of the hardships endemic to at least the design of the building itself.
What I'm now showing on the screen is page 106 of my presentation packet, and members of the board can see what we've done with this, with a circulation drive aisle, with a loading zone and parking spaces, a green space in the middle, and then parking spaces off to the right.
but this maintains essentially the easement area that is open to the sky here's building
a off to the left building b off to the right if the board has any more additional questions
about that our architect Logan Dry is on the line and he can testify to some greater concerns if the
board has those but that's essentially how we're dealing with it in a very similar manner just
without a rolling tent any questions from the board uh yes mr chairman no it seems to me
is that the residential selling the land by century 21 will make more money
than the industrial people are willing to pay for it that's what seemed to me the problem
Tom do you see any issues as it relates to the sewer line and you're the
architect on this board so I'm asking you. Both of them have to conform to the sewer line that's
why the residential has two buildings and the industrial has two buildings they both have to
conform to the uh right away for the uh sewer line
correct and chairman and members of the board i just want to reiterate from last presentation
correct and chairman and members of the board i just want to reiterate from last
that these are going to have green roofs we have pwd approval for stormwater and our landscape for
the entire process was all approved as part of the cdr process for this site um so with respect to
just getting back to uh the elements of you know whether to grant a refusal a and i've heard no
testimony as to what the design is, but I'm assuming with parking spaces is going to be
a cement or asphalt sheet essentially on the other site that's adjacent to us.
This is a far better way to manage stormwater runoff and things like that as well with the
green roofs and full stormwater that we have approved by water department.
Thank you. Any other testimony? Mr. Chairman, I just like to make one more
comment if I can and then I'll be finished. I looked over, as I said to you, I ordered the
notes of testimony from the prior hearing and read them. And what you have here is his plan.
And he is saying to the board, we have the property has a, it is really burdened, has
a hardship because we have to deal with the sewer line.
And quite frankly, that is the only hardship that has been identified.
And I read over those notes of testimony very carefully, and that's exactly what they identify
as the hardship.
I'm saying to you one of two things. One, you could build two industrial facilities if you
wanted. The second is we presented the architect only to show the board how in an industrial
setting you could deal with the same so-called hardship. Look, I'm at my wit's end to understand
why this property should be changed
from industrial to multifamily,
understanding that there is no hardship to the property.
Mr. Chairman, I would tend to agree to that.
Thank you.
Ms. Mulvey, will you rest?
Just to reiterate, members of the board,
that we do have as mr fineman noted and what i'm pulling up now is page 13 my exhibit packet
the subject property is indicated in blue in the middle of that purple area we're located just south
of woodland avenue it's a mixed use area and this residential use of this property kind of
works as a transitory space between the icmx industrial use and the pre-existing both residential
use rsa5 and the commercial mixed use cmx2 which as this board knows allows for residential living
above commercial ground space that's essentially what we're looking at with respect to this property
i defer to the board's recollection of the facts at hand in rendering their decision
and what i suggest at this point is that as you've heard based on the testimony that what we have
here is an existing company which is respectable they employ i believe it's 150 people 50 from the
neighborhood next they're going to be expanding their area where they are right now potentially
employing more folks it's wonderful but the opposition here seems to be based on a speculative
purchase or desire to purchase which was first reached out to five years ago with no response
and then i guess based on the testimony that i heard the board's recollection controls another
year and a half ago uh to which the uh protestant didn't offer enough money based on what market
rates for the property might be and that's where we are that's what i think is the is the bone of
contention here is that the company next door wants to buy this property and they're going to
do what they can to try to buy it so that's why i suggest the members of the board uh with that
i have no other things to add at this time i would just like to ask uh my client lavar
clark just to adopt the remaining testimony that i made today as my own or as his own rather
mr clark if you're if you're here would you please unmute and raise your hand
or raise your hand and then unmute
and he's available to speak now good morning sir please spell your full name and i'll swear
Hello, my name is LeVar Clark. L as in Larry, E as in Edward, V as in Victor, A as in Apple,
R as in Robert. Last name is Clark without an E on the N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Moblehill?
Yes, Mr. Clark, you've heard my testimony?
Yes, I have.
And it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And is there anything you'd like to add at this time?
I would like to add that we have overwhelming community support for this project, part of this project.
It's a multifamily project, but we're also offering affordable housing as a percentage to this actual project.
We've had multiple meetings with the community itself.
All of the RCOs in the area and the neighborhood have overwhelming support for the project and what we propose to do for the community.
And I would ask that there hasn't been no other opposition to the project except for the next door neighbor.
That will be my complete testimony.
Mr. Chairman, if I can just add one thing. I'd ask the board to look carefully at the
letter that was sent to you. And I see Mr. Reuter has his hand up, so I hope I'm not
interfering with this. The letter that was sent to you by PIDC, that letter describes
in some detail why PIDC opposes this project. And it does so because there's been a continual
rezoning of this entire area. And this is one of the few industrial sites that's left.
And if you read carefully their letter as to why they're opposed to it, and it's in the record at
this point. I think that you'll see in a clear, let me talk about it in a clear public policy
manner as to why this property should not be rezoned. And what's up in front of you today
shows that the purple area, quite frankly, is the all industrial area. And then you see what are
small commercial neighbor small commercial and some residential that is what the area is and I
see I'm asking the board to spend some time looking at the PIDC letter thank you Mr. Reuter
thank you members of the board again Leonard Reuter for the city of Philadelphia
first of all just to reiterate I don't have any questions of Mr. DiBenedetto or Mr. Clark or Mr.
or any of those persons other than, again, to correct the misperception that there is no other
opposition to this project other than from the adjoining property owner. The PIDC and the
Commerce Department, which joined in the letter, are strongly opposed to the variance requested
here. And again, as Mr. Feynman just noted, a letter was sent. I want to clarify, I'm not sure
it was actually on the letter, although it came from the author. And the author of the letter is
Troy, middle initial M as in Mark Mandy, M-A-N-D-Y. He is the director of real estate services for PIDC,
which is the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. And again, as indicated in the
letter, the Department of Commerce for the city of Philadelphia also joined in that.
A couple of things that I just want to highlight about what was stated there simply had to do with
the fact that again in the comprehensive plan this property is to remain industrial also
and it is within the southwest industrial district and that it is part of PIDC's industrial
land use and marketing strategy from 2010 it remains that way and again as I just mentioned
And the Philadelphia 2035 Comprehensive Plan still indicates this and actually is having a high potential for intensified industrial use and development.
The PIDC helped with the Department of Commerce, worked with the City Planning Commission to create the master plan for the lower Schuylkill District area.
So again, and that was, I think that was in 2013.
So it wasn't that long ago. And again, it remains there.
The city actually, PIDC, as they again, as they indicate in their letter, there's actually been a substantial increase in potential purchasers and potential users of industrial spaces, particularly smaller industrial spaces, but also.
of industrial spaces, particularly smaller industrial spaces, but also something which I
would think would qualify as mid-sized here. So again, in terms of like the appropriate uses
for the property, the city is pretty uniformly opposed to a change of this property to
residential use. I don't dispute that the adjoining property to the, I guess that's
northwesterly side, is ICMX. But again, that would still incorporate some industrial uses
that mostly be things like artisanal type things, which again would also be permitted for this
property. So we don't believe that a hardship has been established here. The possibility that this
could, you know, might arguably be some kind of a transitional area from the industrial to the
residential. Again, those are the sorts of things that the Department of Planning and Development
and City Planning Commission considers all the time. That's what goes into the development of
master plan and we we do have some traditional transitional areas nearby but this property was