I was muted. I would also like to say that there has been some issues brought up with how it was zoned and how, you know, they think that it's been incorrectly zoned.
But it has been a public open space since the 90s, which is at least a generation.
People around here, if you look at the Google reviews for the dog park that is now, like, just sitting there, like, not being used,
it's people using the ability to take their dog to the park.
I have a dog here.
I look out the dog everywhere.
Why are you opposed?
Why am I opposed?
I'm telling you why I'm opposed.
I'm opposed because you're taking away a public dog park.
It is not a public dog park.
It was, and the mayor took it away.
Also, I think we have the problem with Pottstown being 30 miles away.
Ma'am, ma'am, it is not a public dog park.
A public door, the public zoom.
It is a privately owned parcel.
And the reason it is vacant land is because a building was torn down and no construction was put in place.
which now we have construction project that's being proposed next witness please
Thomas you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
chair if you don't mind without being too fresh I would just like to state
that we are here for zoning hearing and please stick to the zoning thank you kindly we still
have a long list and a 330 list to handle thank you so much chair thank you and we keep asking
the same question that you just raised stick to the zoning please. Thomas you can put your name
on record and the chair will score you in. My name is Thomas Ewing 4721 Chester Avenue directly across
the street from the entry of the proposed building. Thomas will you spell your last name please?
It's E-W-I-N-G. Thank you you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
My wife and I submitted an argument by email, four pages of drawings based on the city's open maps, copies of certain city records, for instance, the purchase price of the land in question, and three pages of photos of the neighboring houses.
My first point is there is no hardship.
The applicant attorney's statement in the April hearing that the size and the configuration of the lots prevents development within the current zoning of the district is not correct.
I submitted my drawing SK-4 showing a total of 11 semi-detached duplex houses consistent with the RTA1 zoning of the district and requiring no variance.
Mr. Feldman today referenced he was able to get 14, I understand.
Note that I shared my drawings and my argument to the zoning board with Mr. Feldman prior to the April hearing.
That may have triggered comments by Jerry Roller in that April hearing that the layout I suggested would somehow require multifamily zoning as the basis for a plan unit development.
While that may be one approach, the SK-4 layout I submitted could be achieved by a subdivision under the RTA-1 zoning with cross variances among the owners for the parking access.
As well, my drawings may have triggered comments from planner Nancy Templeton that duplex semi-detached houses would necessarily require street front curb cuts at each house.
Unless a developer would act against its own economic interests and choose to make fewer lots, they could not fit the two parking slots required for semi-detached duplexes on the street front while maintaining the required side yard in RTA 1 zoning.
A rear driveway and parking would be more profitable as well as better suited to the neighborhood.
But should the board disagree with what I've stated so far and find.
Should the board disagree with what I've stated so far and find basis for a hardship, it must consider that both Title 14 and Commonwealth Court decisions disallow hardship created by the applicant.
In this case, Mr. Gelley purchased the land in question only eight years ago at a bargain price, 20% of what he originally bargained for.
That reduced price reflected the limitations of the land based on the zoning in the district.
I submitted references to the various court cases in what I submitted by email to the board.
As an indication of how much of a bargain Mr. Galey got for his $200,000 for the land or $1.74 per square foot,
A currently pending land sale for a house lot within one block of the site is at $76 a square foot, over 40 times as much.
The relief that the applicant requests, my third point is the relief that the applicant requests is the purview of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, not the zoning board.
There are two different sets of parcels here.
There are two different corporate owners.
Both are foreign to Pennsylvania, according to the city's land record.
Cedar Park neighbors had different states of incorporation in their document that they showed on screen earlier.
Where are we going? I'm a little confused. Where are we going with this?
Where are we going? They purchased it at a very affordable price, a bargain basement price, if you will.
It's worth a lot more now. I don't understand that.
what's the harm? I'm making an argument in case there is thinking that there's economic hardship
here. There is not economic hardship. But I'll ask you the same question I asked one of the
previous witnesses. Is a buy-right, and I think you sound like an intelligent person, is not meant
as a threat. There is a buy-right project that can be built. Would you be in favor of the buy-right
as opposed to what is being proposed today?
I'd be absolutely in favor of buy right.
Well, you're honest about that, and I appreciate that.
And, okay.
My fourth point is that the relief that the applicant requests
is not the minimum relief required to develop the lots.
The applicant has argued in its meetings with the neighbors
that the scale of the project, the number of units,
was based on the need to subsidize rents to gain approval of the district council person.
In this case, based on a statement that the council person, Jamie Gauthier, has issued on
the web, that approval is not forthcoming, undercutting the logic for the large number
of apartment units. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness.
Elizabeth can be sworn in please identify yourself full name and I'll swear you in
my name is Elizabeth Oakley last name is spelled o-a-k-l-e-y
we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth I do
um I'm a neighbor I live right down the street at 48th and King Sessing and I just want to say
as someone who's been involved in the community meeting process and has attended many of the
community meetings, I just want to say that I'm disappointed that there hasn't been an
acknowledgement by Mr. Feldman of the March 24th community meeting hosted by the RCOs,
hosted by the convening RCO, which is Southwest Philadelphia District Services, the president of
which is Michael Ross. I don't understand why he wasn't allowed to speak. He very graciously held
the space for that community meeting, and mediated it, and allowed community members to speak. And
at that meeting, there was a vote held, and there were 64 near neighbors in opposition, and only
six in support. And I find it very strange that that number has not been mentioned at any point
in this hearing. That is part of the due process of applying for zoning variance. And it is, I found
very strange that Mike Ross was silenced earlier on in this meeting. And I just want to say, as
someone who has participated in this process and is very opposed to this project, to bring that
number forward. And the zoning board should have that. It has been submitted to them in writing
multiple times. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Next witness.
now it's the glass i have jillian jillian you can open your mic and wait to be sworn in
thank you please identify yourself first and last name and i'll swear you in
jillian jitan spelled j-i-l-l-i-a-n last name j-e-t
Gillian Jiton, spelled J-I-L-L-I-A-N, last name J-E-T-T-O-N.
Where are from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
I am also a near neighbor.
I've been renting for five years in this area.
I'm just one block away from the proposed project.
There's been an incredible amount of new construction of large multifamily homes in West Philadelphia,
all supposedly for students and young professionals.
Meanwhile universities in the area have been building their own massive on-campus housing and
this year Penn is now requiring freshmen and software students to live on campus in an effort
to stem student gentrification. In addition student enrollments are going to decline for decades due
to a tumbling birth rate. In West Philly landlords have already begun to offer deep discounts around
Penn's campus and vacancies are on the rise. Philadelphia on the whole has seen an ongoing
population loss of affluent residents with more migrating out of the city than moving into it.
While there is a trickle of additional jobs in the biomedical sector, some have already chosen to live elsewhere because West has become too expensive.
Could you, sorry for the interruption, but could you talk to us about what it is you're opposed to about this project?
Absolutely. Yeah, I feel that this project will bring in, many people have, you've been asking the question to folks who have spoken,
in, are you in support of the buy-right? And I am in support of the buy-right because that
will bring in far fewer residents to this neighborhood than the proposed apartment building
who have purchasing power, who are going to add to the density, add to the parking issues,
add to many of the issues that we've brought up before about affordability. I believe that
the buy-right houses will have a far less of an impact on our neighborhood and the affordability.
Fair enough. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.
How many more do we have, Tanya? Or Jason, whoever's keeping track?
There were 10 now.
is uh all right we're not going to ever we're not going to be able to get through all this we have
numerous cases yet to be heard is there anyone out there who can offer something new and different
and please respect our request something new and different not that we don't respect the
time you've taken to be on this call today but uh we are challenged with a lot of cases yet to be heard
Okay, we have Robin, who can be sworn in, and she can unmute herself.
Good afternoon, Robin. Please identify yourself for the record, and I'll square you in. Spell your name.
Robin Markle, unmute yourself.
Hi, yes. Can you hear me now?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay. I don't use ma'am. I'm actually gender nonconforming. I use they and them.
My name is Robin Markle. Do you need me to spell it?
Yes, please.
Okay. R-O-B-I-N-M-A-R-K-L-E.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Okay. So I'm a renter. I live at 4812 Regent Street. I've been in the neighborhood for 13 years.
I live a half a block away from this site of the proposed project.
As I think others have mentioned, this project was listed in zoning as being at 4701 to 15 King
Sessing, but the actual building would be at 48th and Chester. And because of that misrepresentation,
I know that other neighbors and I have been disenfranchised in this process because the
address was not listed properly. I object to the zoning variance because it will damage our cohesive
stable community and character. One of the many ways that the applicant has misrepresented our
neighborhood, putting undue emphasis on the apartment buildings that were once on this lot
or nearby blocks. Those apartments were from the 1920s and 30s, and they predate the zoning code
and thus are irrelevant to the applicant's request for a variance. Our city planners did an excellent
job of zoning this area using community engagement and comprehensive planning tools. They determined
that it should be RTA1. There's a reason they made that decision. As the photos that we submitted and
a study of the density in the area reveals, the planners in West Philly did an excellent job.
They've created our neighborhood to be green, cohesive, stable, a mix of housing-dense apartment buildings, row homes, and single-family housing that has led to long-term renters like myself, many of the other people who oppose this, many of whom are low-income.
There are mom-and-pop landlords in our community, including some that, you know, oppose this project.
We all know each other, and we have a walkable, social, diverse neighborhood in terms of race, age, gender, and socioeconomic mix.
Spot zoning, a massive apartment complex will destabilize and destroy what the city planners thoughtfully zoned and created.
The zoning needs to look like what is here now, not what was once here before there was a zoning code.
Zoning needs to look like what is here now, not what was once here before there was a zoning code.
And the second thing I'd like to add is going back to what Cindy Miller brought up earlier,
the zoning notices were not posted accordingly. And we did reach out and tell the zoning board.
I sent a letter in April with a photo of the zoning and the postings for the zoning
showing that they were not legible. So many of us who did find out about these meetings,
it was not because of the postings that Brett Feldman put up. It was because neighbors reached
out to other neighbors and we organized amongst ourselves and we have told each other about the
meetings but if it was up to just people getting information from the postings I don't think
almost anyone would have known about this project because they were out of place and
illegible and I'm happy to send you further photos or hold some up to the screen right now
that show how illegible they are thank you ma'am thank you I'm sorry thank you Robin okay anyone else
we have mary mary unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
my name is mary mcgetican good afternoon please identify yourselves by your last name
mc g e t t i g a n you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed i represent the rco west philadelphians for progressive planning
and preservation this property lies within our group's boundaries we're asking the zoning board
to deny this request for variances at the numerous well-attended community meetings there was
overwhelming opposition to the current proposal those most affected by the proposal the near
neighbors voted 64 against and only five in favor they couldn't be sending the zoning board any
clearer a message. In addition, the owner has failed to make any convincing argument for hardship,
a condition which any serious request for variances must meet. Now the grounds for the
neighbors' opposition are substantial and speak directly to the proposal's negative impacts on
their quality of life. Among these, a net loss of green space, greater traffic congestion,
and increased parking difficulties. But neighborhood opposition is based also on the real threat
that this type of development poses to their largely low-income and extremely diverse community
of renters as well as homeowners. Now, supporters ask you to look at this current development as a
simple mathematical equation. Fifteen so-called affordable apartments are greater than zero,
right? Well, not really. This argument ignores the complex reality of the harmful effects of
new development such as this one on old and established neighborhoods. In the absence of
rent controls and other efforts to protect them, long-time members of the surrounding community
face the inevitable outcome of rising rents and involuntary removal, and most importantly,
more affordable apartments. The neighborhood loses more affordable apartments than new
development provides now i know it's not the job of the zba to solve this dilemma of gentrification
and displacement but it certainly should not make zoning decisions that encourage it preventing
displacement and stabilizing neighborhoods are important components of any effort to promote the
general welfare of all our citizens so please consider the harm this development would inflict
on this special neighborhood and deny these variances.
And I'd also like to address the community benefit agreement
to the extent that you would consider this agreement
that was submitted by the owner.
I would have to argue that one of the most difficult issues
surrounding CBAs involves the question
of who legitimately represents the community.
In this case, it appears that the owner commenced the negotiation of a CBA with a single local civic organization, failing to include other RCAs or to directly involve other members of the community.
How can this possibly constitute an argument in favor of granting variances when it appears that the majority of the community members most affected are not a party to the agreement?
And I would have to add that when I asked many months ago Mr. Feldman to share the details of the community agreement with me, he refused unless I agree.
That's not true.
No, that's true.