Thank you.
good morning everyone my name is bill bergman i'm going to be chairing this morning's meeting
of the zoning board of adjustment with me is our board member shell l gaston present mr chairman
And then board member Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Michael Johns.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Michael's not here.
What is today?
Our board member Taya Wynn should be walking in any moment.
And our board member Ryan McAdams.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, our zoning board director, Ian Haggerty, and
our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
A recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
This is an in -person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in person, if you're called to speak, you must state and spell your name and then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter their appearance.
There are three ways.
You can identify the case property address in your Zoom webinar.
You can see a staff member or you can call the ZBA appearance line by the close of business tomorrow.
Call 267 -270 -5548.
leave a message that includes your email address and the address to the property of the appealed
case. Following guidance is for our remote attendees. When directed, you must raise your
virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak. If you're called to testify, you'll be prompted
to join as a panelist. Please accept the request and turn on your camera. Third, the webinar Q &A
is for questions about the hearing. Do not comment on the cases in the Q &A. And fourth, if you're
participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. For our in -person
attendees, please refrain from talking, eating, or drinking during the hearings. Verbal and
physical aggression will not be tolerated. The restrooms are across from the elevators.
A water fountain is just outside the room to the right. When speaking on the record,
you must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and the court
reporter in the event of emergency please follow the directions given over the public address system
or by the staff the main exit is through the double doors in the rear the nearest stairwell
is to the left outside of the doors in case of evacuation the rally point is love park
directly across heart street please remain there so we can account for you let's look at today's
schedule. Number three, MI 2024 -004 -576 -5963, Kimball Avenue. Stephen Gaines is the listed
owner. There is a request for continuance from the Concerned Community Association, RCO.
So is Mr. Gaines present?
Good morning, Chair.
This is Jasmine, and I will be your co -host this morning.
I have a hand up by the name of Natasha Gaines.
I'm going to allow them to speak.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Natasha, N -A -T -O -S -H -A, Gaines, G -A -I -N -E -S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you the owner of the property?
No, I'm actually the owner's daughter.
He had a last -minute emergency, and he could not attend today.
So, Hillary?
I just wanted to be here, just in appearance.
I am okay with the continuance.
Well, we are okay with the continuance.
okay yeah so make sure you were aware of the continuance yes Hillary make sure you're aware
of the continuance request um and you have been in contact with the RCO the Concerned Community
Association yes okay great yeah and I'm sorry and I'm like okay so hold on so MI 2024 004 576
5 7 6 5 9 63 kimball avenue this case is continued to 11 19 25 at 9 30 a .m thank you for calling in
5963 kimball avenue this case is continued
and hold on one more case here so mi 2025 000 432 51 18 north broad street verne anastasio is the
The attorney, Mr. Anastasio.
Vern Anastasio has been promoted to penalist.
Mr. Anastasio, could you please state your name as Bell for the sonographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Anastasia, we do not have proof of posting for this location.
And neither do I, Mr. Chair, which is why I'm going to need to ask for a continuance.
My client is out of the country and wasn't able to post.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
So MI2025 -000432 -5118 North Broad Street, this case is continued to 11 -1925 at 9 .30 a .m.
Thank you, sir.
And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, Mr. Anastasia, I just want to note for your other matter, we do have proof of tax compliance.
So we're all set to proceed with that case today.
I do appreciate it. Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Okay. So, MI -2025 -004 -676 -1701 Market Street. This is an appeal against L &I. Adam Laver is the attorney. Leonard Reuter represents the city and L &I. Mr. Laver, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Adam Laver, L .A., V as in Victory, E .R.,
Blancrum, L .L .P., 1 Logan Square, on behalf of 1701 Market, LLC.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. Reuter, please.
Thank you, May. Please, the board. Leonard F. Reuter, R .E .U .T .E .R., Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
i do uh mr labor thank you mr chairman and members of the board
thank you ms emerson uh members of the board i wish that we weren't here today um and uh we take no
joy in being here and hope that we can make this as brief as possible i represent 1701 market llc
which is an Altera Property Group entity, the owner of the subject property at 1701 Market
Street, along with its co -founder and managing partner, Leo Adamondo. Joining me today, just
sitting behind me from Altera Property Group is Jared Kern, KERN, who is the director of
mixed -use development for Altera Property Group. The subject property has recently been rebranded
as 17 Market West. It's a very prominent property in the central business core, located just south
of the Comcast Building headquarters across John F. Kennedy Boulevard and running south along 17th
Street and through to Market Street. 1701 Market Street was built in the 1950s. It was the former
home of morgan lewis uh i believe the largest law firm in the city of philadelphia it's an 18 story
or it was an 18 story office building consisting of ground floor retail four levels of above grade
parking and 13 levels of office space leo adamando and altera property group acquired the property
in September of 2023 as the world was emerging from the COVID -19 pandemic. And Altera redeveloped
what was a vacant office building because Morgan Lewis had moved into a new construction
property at 23rd and Market. Altera redeveloped the vacant office building into a luxury apartment
complex with 299 residences, retaining 190 parking spaces approximately, and adding a
rooftop swimming pool along with a plethora of other state -of -the -art amenities. The subject
property itself is zoned CMX5, as we know the most generous zoning in the city of Philadelphia.
Zoning permits for the conversion of the property, as I described, were approved entirely within the
were approved entirely within the parameters of the zoning code and building permits were obtained
parameters of the zoning code. And building
I don't know.
and i walked through the property recently and anyone is invited to do so 17 market west itself
was the first major office to residential conversion of the post -pandemic era in our city
leading the way in the mission 30 000 charge and this is where we get uh relevant to the issue
before the board shortly i'm setting the stage giving you a little bit of background the new
entrance to the residences is located off of market street along the western facade of the building
uh across from what i still think of as the mellon bank building but i think it's now
bny or a different name but although the residents have started to move into the
rebranded 17 Market West apartments, accessory building identification signage for this very
prominent building is missing because of an L &I interpretation regarding Table 14 -904 -1 of the
Philadelphia Zoning Code. That is what brings us before the board today. So as the transformation
of the former office building concluded, Altera filed applications through a sign expediter
with L &I for flat wall accessory signage, which I'll share with you momentarily,
identifying the former office building to be known as a new residential building, 17 Market West.
I ask members of the board that in considering this matter and the screen sharing that I'll
share with you momentarily, that we suspend the human impulse to read in between the lines of
the zoning code and to do as a matter of law what must be done and take the letters of the zoning
code as what they are. And furthermore, in doing so, to do it in the light most favorable to the
property owner. Allow me to screen share for a moment. This is what Altera proposes. This is not
what is at the property if you walk by. There has not been any signage erected without approval.
this is a conceptual rendering. So we're on Market Street, the south side of the property.
We're looking east towards City Hall. There you can see the residential entrance in the rebranded
office building, former office building, now residential. And the proposed signage is on the
screen above you. The proposed signage would consist of three flat wall signs grouped together
to read to the public as one, including the building logo at the top and identifying the
building as 17 Market West. I switched to a nighttime rendering, all in the file with L &I.
Alterra believed, based on the plain language of the zoning code, that the proposed accessory
building signage conform to code requirements. However, L &I has disagreed. That's the issue.
Essentially, what L &I is doing in this instance, and we're not looking to rewrite the code or set
precedent, this case is about this particular case only. But the L &I interpretation essentially
states that the presumptive the presumptive intent of the code provision must be considered
and that the presumptive intent behind the actual code provision controls presumption
is not part of the code and one could imagine the burden on the department of licenses and
inspections in considering presumption and the preamble of the zoning code and other provisions
every time an examiner looks at a zoning provision.
I respectfully submit that due to this overreaching
and in fact punitive interpretation,
Altera was respectfully forced to file this appeal.
Let's turn to the notice of refusal which was issued.
And I've highlighted some sections for you to see.
You can see at the top that it's a refusal.
all. It references the zoning application. It describes what I had shared with you,
erection of three flat wall signs, which I had shown you are proposed to be grouped as one.
Flat wall signs, which I had shown you, are proposed to be grouped as one.
And there's one use refusal, citing table 14904 -1, which reads on the refusal, quote,
whereas the maximum sign height is the lower of the roof line or second floor windowsill,
and the signs extend above the second floor windowsill.
In an instance such as that, the signage is not permitted, and one would have to appear before this zoning board for variance relief.
Let's move to table 14904 -1 of the zoning code.
And again, I've highlighted some section.
I mean, it's not a lot.
It's really a straightforward issue.
Table 14904 -1 of the Zoning Code permits accessory wall signs within the zoning district
so long as the maximum height is, quote, the lower of the roof line or second floor windowsill, end quote.
Actual conditions of the property.
I took this photograph.
This depicts a view of the subject property facing northeasterly from Market Street.
The corner is the entrance to the building lobby, which is a high ceiling, single story space with bands of glass.
It's actually, I remember it from when Morgan Lewis was there, it's actually a refreshed lobby in the same space.
Members of the board, you can see from the exterior, the bands of glass, the bands of glass that run up, and I guess I should show you with my cursor, right up to that point.
That is the ceiling of the lobby, and I'll show it to you from the interior, too.
So not only is there not a second floor windowsill, which the code provision dictates, there's not a second floor, but that's irrelevant.
There is no second floor windowsill.
here is another view position looking north the glass that you see all of the glass that you see
is part of the first floor uh lobby that you walk into
there is no second floor window sill there are no second floor windows
windows, but that's not what the code speaks to.
It speaks clearly to the lower of the roof line or the second floor windowsill.
Another important provision in the code section 14 -20114 of the zoning code concerns rules
of interpretation.
It is here that the often cited principle is stated that code restrictions shall be construed
in favor of the landowner.
although mr chairman and members of the board we do not believe that there is any ambiguity
whatsoever it is clear that there is not a second floor windowsill that restricts placement
of the intended signage before uh below the roof line but let's take a look inside the lobby to
observe the interior conditions you don't have to believe me i'd like you to just see it
the only lower level windows that observers will see from the exterior are ground floor glazing
off of the lobby in a banded style and you can see from the inside that banded style
here is the site plan that was submitted to the department of licenses and inspections
I know it's small, but the detail really isn't relevant, although I can zoom in if the board members want to see anything specific.
I'd simply like to show you here that this shows the proposed placement of the building identification signage here in that corner at Market Street,
which meets the code requirements for the generous CMX zoning, meaning the placement itself meets the code.
requirements. That's a non -issue regarding the size of the signage, even though I would say it's
actually quite reasonable and appropriate, and I can't imagine any issues with it.
And then we have the elevation. The elevation shows that lobby area with the banded windows,
the proposed placement of the signage, which is between... I'll show you with my cursor also.
So here we go, 24 feet, five inches off the ground and 44 feet, six inches off of the
and 44 feet, six inches off of the ground.
ground.
That's the area where the signage is proposed.
This is above the lobby
and along the exterior of what is existing parking levels.
So Altera had retained parking
that had been there with the office building.
And you saw how they have upgraded the overall property.
But just to give you board members a sense
as to what is there, you have levels of parking.
And then it's also, just to contextually show you how this is envisioned, where my cursor
is at the sixth level above the parking is where residential living begins.
And this is actually where we see, after the lobby level, the first sign of windows.
Um, once again, the code speaks to window sills, but just, just putting it into context.
And, uh, here you can see some, uh, closeups of the signage, uh, which in terms of the,
the size, the spacing, uh, I'm not aware of any, uh, issues or anyone contesting it.
the only issue is whether the table referenced in the refusal applies or not
and some additional detail
and and bringing you back to the photograph with the conceptual renderings if you will
we're asking the board mr chairman members to interpret the zoning code in line with the plain
meaning of the code language and as always to do so with the principle that the code should be
interpreted in favor of the applicant we're prepared if the board would like to ask some
questions of mr culp the representative of the department at the appropriate time
but that in a nutshell is uh is our case respectfully before you okay do you want to
ask your questions now if i may thank you i'd like to please call mr andrew colp of the city
of philadelphia department of licenses and inspections
could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer
andrew culp and d -r -e -w -k -u -l -p you swear our firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes mr labor good morning mr culp sorry to uh pull you up here today thank
you for being here i have on the screen uh a um copy of table 14901 -1 of the philadelphia zoning code
i it provides that um
the maximum height for wall signs in the cmx5 zoning district is quote the lower of the roof
line or second floor windowsill end quote do you agree that this is the uh sole provision
in the code that regulates height of accessory building identification signage in the cmx 5
zoning district no because what's that building oh sorry towards you sorry sure uh you're referring
to something different building identification signs are a completely different code provision
this is for regular accessory signage there's a separate section for building identification
signage and which section is that it's later i don't have it it's 14904 something
there's separate provisions in cmx 4 and 5 for building identification signs on high rises but
they have to be above 150 feet that's the general gist of the requirement why sir is that not
referenced then in the notice of refusal that was issued because these were applied for as
accessory signs and not a building identification sign you would have to specifically identify that
you are seeking approval as a building identification sign to apply that section
Okay, so what's before the board is an application for accessory building identification signage. Are there any provisions in the code that would be relevant to accessory signage, sir?
Which one? You referenced two different things. Building identification signage?
Accessory signage.
Okay, so then, yes, the table applies for regular accessory signage.
applies for regular accessory signage. Thank you. Are you aware, Mr. Culp, of the provision
Thank you.
Are you aware, Mr. Cole,
in the zoning code that distinguishes buildings with curtain wall facades vis -a -vis the cited
provision in table 14901 -1? Not that I'm aware of. So there's not a more restrictive measure
in signage height for curtain wall facade buildings such as this, correct? Not that I know of. Thank
Thank you.
Prior to submitting this application, ZP2025 -005142, an application was submitted to the department
which is actually referenced in Mr. Reuter's submission of last evening, and it was reviewed
by Richard Chen of your department, as you know, Mr. Colt.
I'm bringing up on the screen an exchange that I had as counsel for the applicant,
counsel for Altera Property Group with Mr. Chen.
And then in reviewing the initial substantially same application for accessory signage at the property,
Zoning examiner Richard X. Chen commented that the proposal would appear to, quote, be a by -right approval if updated elevation plans, reference floor plans and notes could be included in the sign drawings to clarify the situation with the new application, end quote.
Mr. Culp, do you believe that Mr. Chen was mistaken in his comment?
uh he was asking for updated drawings so we wouldn't be able to make a formal determination
without a new application with updated drawings so it could be correct or it could not be correct
based on the revised drawings that he was requesting you to submit a new application
we can't make a formal interpretation without an application submitted with plans and required
details. I agree. And in fact, that's exactly what was done at this point. And a new application
was submitted with the same plans with clarificatory comments. And this was reviewed by
Harry Wilson. Are you familiar with that review? Yes.
and this resulted in the subject notice of refusal on the screen correct yes
departmental eclipse records will reveal that mr wilson noted in his review that quote no sign may
be erected or maintained in the center city commercial area unless approved by the art
commission end quote however mr wilson realized on this point that he was mistaken and did not
include this refusal in the subject notice of refusal that was issued correct can you please
repeat that sure so here we go on page three of the eclipse uh comments that mr wilson created
associated with the application before the board he noted as i've highlighted in yellow this is my
highlight not his no sign may be erected or maintained in the center city commercial area
unless approved by the art commission however this did not end up on the notice of refusal
that was generated correct okay correct yes so a mistake was made on that point right
uh not necessarily the the examiners use atlas and atlas has gis which probably flagged the
property as in the commercial area and then we have to we have to receive information to confirm
whether that overlay actually applies depending on the location so was it a mistake or not ultimately
I mean, he didn't issue a refusal for it, so I don't know where the mistake would be.
Okay, we can move on. Mr. Culp, in your role as engineering supervisor, I had reached out to you
this past June to review the two applications that I've mentioned, the original application
that Mr. Chen reviewed, and then the subsequent application that Mr. Chen had guided us or
advised us we would have to file in order to proceed with L &I, and that was the one
and that was the one reviewed by mr wilson which is specifically referenced in this appeal
reviewed by Mr. Wilson, which is specifically referenced.
can you please read the highlighted language at the top of this page which is your
response to me that begins the sign goes above the fourth floor level
okay the sign goes above the fourth floor level i think you're trying to make an argument that
since there are no windows at the second floor then it couldn't be above that but then based
on that logic you could put the sign wherever you want up to the roof which would not be allowed
the refusal stands you can argue with the zoning board thank you why does the code language
reference the second floor windowsill. Can you repeat that, please? Sure. This is the
hyper -technical legal issue that's before the board. It's a very unusual issue for the board
to have to consider, I recognize. Mr. Culp, why does the code language in the table that we've
looked at, which I can bring up if you wish. Why does the code language reference the second floor
windowsill? I don't know. I didn't write the code. I don't know. I didn't write the code.
What is the purpose of specifically including windowsill? I don't know.
thank you in light of the specific inclusion of the words windowsill in the zoning code
mr culp how do you abide by section 14 201 14 concerning rules of interpretation
and construe the code in favor of the landowner of this matter so um while i don't know why
the specific language was used when the code was written logic would state that the second floor
windowsill would be somewhere between the second and third floor or ceiling of the second floor
so on a regular building there would be a second floor window with the windowsill it would be
somewhere in that area so ruling in favor of the applicant we would have to say that the highest it
could possibly be and still be on the second floor would be at the ceiling of the second floor so
that's where we would have to limit it if we received an application that didn't have windows
sills or windows at all because that's the highest that a windowsill on the second floor could
possibly be i mean that wouldn't physically work but in theory that's the highest the second floor
windowsill could be i think i understand so to use your words
logic you used your logic to determine the presumptive intent of this provision correct
i guess thank you it's a difficult task i i i understand
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, a windowsill is generally defined.
Are you done with the window?
Thank you, Mr. Cole.
Do you want a couple questions?
I do have a couple questions.
Do you want me to take the screen sharing off?
Could you go back to the email that you exchanged you had with Andrew?
So, Mr. Kolb, in preparing for the hearing today, did you go through the emails and other materials that you had in relation to this matter?
Sorry.
And with respect to that, did you come across the particular email that Mr. Labor has just referenced here?
Yes. Okay. And again, I want to be careful how I broach this, but is there, is, so, and today,
did you bring a printout of that email? Yes. Okay. And I apologize. I don't, because I didn't
personally know that the specific thing would come up. I don't have a copy of it. I have a paper
copy. Is there a difference between the email that you received and the one that's being shown
on the screen yes the second floor level was removed somehow from this drawing okay i'm going
to show a copy and this is a i'm going to show you a piece of paper this is a copy a printout of an
email that you printed out today yes okay and uh in that does it show that there is a level two
marked out yes that diagram okay i'm going to show that and i'm going to pass that on to the board
and i'm going to pass that off to the board excuse me this is the reporter could i ask
Excuse me, this is the reporter.
mr reuter and the witness to share the microphone thank you
he just wants you when you testify oh yes sorry that's all okay so in fact uh in in the email
that you received there is a level level two that is uh marked out is that correct
Actually, I sent this email and I pulled the plans from Eclipse on the application that was filed.
So the image that's on the printed out copy, which was what I sent to Mr. Laver, had the second floor level shown, and that is what we received in Eclipse.
And in the actual application that was reviewed, the second application that was reviewed, that also indicates a level two?
yes and that's where you got this from yes okay all right so again we would just ask the board
to accept the complete uh version the non -redacted version of the of the email for purposes of the
record um now i'm gonna go to uh i'm gonna probably need to share my screen here
i'll stop sharing
i gotta find where's my shares i will have some redirect at the appropriate time oh you know what
i don't think i'm actually yeah that's right i will thank you yeah sorry i didn't even notice that
Yep. Thank you very much.
All right.
Trying to.
All right. Can you see that on your screen?
I'm sorry. It looks a little bit jumbled right now.
but um what am i uh this is a section of the philadelphia zoning code uh
okay title 14 section 14 -202 rules of measurement
can you read what it has under 21 .1 windowsill and calculating sign height
Yeah, if you're able to move the zoom bar, just drag it to the top.
It should go horizontal, and then we can see the whole code provision better.
Oh, yeah.
It's just, see, it's not showing up on my screen.
Oh, okay.
All right.
can you collapse the the index then on the side and maybe we can see the whole thing better
yeah more or less yeah that's that's better thanks all right can everybody see that now
okay and again what does that say uh window sill and calculating sign height this measurement
shall be based on the floor of a building with which the window is associated which is fully
above grade plane not measured as including basement cellar or other space below grade plane
okay i'm going to stop well i'll wait that up for the for a moment and um what is your
understanding of what that provision means i'm fairly certain that the intent of that is to
delineate where this which floor we would consider the second floor when determining
where the second floor windowsill is okay and is that due to the fact that in many buildings there
are in fact no windows for the second third floor or maybe no windowsills at all for a curtain wall
construction building I believe so one or just for a point this Gaston has it has a I guess
that's my question is there a definition for windowsill in here there is no specific definition
for windowsill um but it's the city's position that this provision in effect tells you where
the windowsill is regard regardless of whether there are any windows it's this is literally
the how you determine where the windowsill is in calculating cyanide but okay if there's no
definition right then you have to use ordinary meaning of a windowsill and a windowsill is a
ordinary meaning of a windowsill and the windowsill is attached it's it's with a window not just any
height wouldn't it be i'm sorry i'm not trying to make a case for you i'm just asking the question
that this is calculating it the windowsill at sign height right but
there has to without the definition of windowsill i mean how do we you're saying that regardless of
whether there is a window or not that this applies is that what you're saying i i in a in a fact yes
that that you know again and this will be more the city's argument for closing there's more argument
But the city's position is that the interpretation that the appellant seeks would allow an accessory sign anywhere on curtain wall construction, because there are no window sills as commonly understood for most curtain wall buildings, whether you're talking Liberty One or you're talking 1701 Market or so many of these other places.
there are no window sills per se here in fact they've indicated that they do have levels
and there is a second level and there is in fact glass on that second level
so because i believe if i understood correctly the interior lobby goes up to the bottom or the
the floor of the third level which is where i guess the parking that is incorrect
i don't okay but again even even in turn and turns and well let me maybe oh it's an it's an
interpretation that's been used is that the common interpretation that you can answer that yes you
see yeah yes just one clarification curtain wall construction does have a windowsill all windows
have a windowsill it's a part of the actual frame of the window it would just be on the floor
in a curtain wall construction where the mullion connects to the building all right so why don't
we wonder why don't you finish up with your witness and i think um mr labor wants to have
a couple follow -up questions too all right so uh i'm gonna hopefully without too much difficulty
uh share my screen one more time
all right uh now do you see what i'm showing here on the screen mr kulk yes okay uh do you agree
that this was part of the permit application yes okay now in this uh and i believe this this would
also be the elevation that you took you showed a section of the elevation in the email exchange
that you had yes okay so in this uh elevation you have the ground floor you have a thing that's marked
level two and then you have another marking above that that's level three do you see what i'm
talking about there yes okay and again forgive me if i'm wrong but was is it your understanding at
least that in the interior the what's shown as between ground floor and level
three that that's just an open lobby in the interior we would have no way of
knowing when a zoning application that's why the examiner asked for level two and
level three to be identified okay and based upon the identification that was
put on the plans that were submitted as part of the application
the plans examiner made a determination that the proposed sign was above
what would be the second floor windowsill as determined by 21 .2 of the rules of measurement
yes okay um i have no further questions of this time
Mr. Lever.
Unfortunately, I have quite a few, but I'll try to do this quickly.
Mr. Culp, can you provide, you mentioned that the department has used this same interpretation for other properties, that this is not the first.
Can you please provide the board with a couple other specific examples of this interpretation?
No, I review thousands of applications a year. I don't recall specific ones.
I understand. Okay.
I would like to screen share for a moment.
There we go.
on the screen before the board is a elevation plan that was submitted and is in the records
On the screen before,
of the department of licenses and inspections this was submitted following uh comments by
lni and confusion by zoning examiners regarding the levels of the property the plan that mr reuter
shared with you was an initial plan that was submitted, and this was an updated plan. Both
of them are correct, but let me explain for the board, and then I have a few follow -up questions
for Mr. Colt. As the board saw, there is a lobby that has a high ceiling at this corner of the
building. In other areas of the property, there is, as I had described at the start, perhaps
indirectly a garage that has had existed so you have ramps that wrap around the lobby in the back
and there are there's parking there so in other we're not saying that there aren't other levels
of the building incidentally side note it is not relevant to the code section which speaks to
windowsill but for purposes of clarification of the examiner looking at this one issue that was
ultimately raised revised plans were submitted this could be found in the file so i wanted to
state that for for the record i'm going to stop screen screen sharing um is it your position
mr culp on behalf of the department that regardless of whether or not there is a windowsill
the department should take the most restrictive provision uh most restrictive interpretation
and act as if a windowsill is present at this property that's not what i said i said we would
interpret it up to the roof or the ceiling of the second floor in lieu of a windowsill
specifically identified so you take out the word windowsill in in coming to that interpretation
correct? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Gaston mentioned earlier whether there was a definition of
windowsill in the code, and you answered that there isn't, and I agree with you. That was one
of the first things I looked at, and I remembered my early days in this field of going down to the
concourse level at l and i and meeting with amazing uh uh city employees like claire gatzmer
and jean klinger who would take out their dictionary their webster's dictionary and say
we have to turn we have to turn to this um yeah i i i think you're just a little bit of far field
and i i do appreciate you i'll i'll hone in then why don't you focus on i'll focus and say this
Okay. Mr. Culp, would you agree that the plain English definition of windowsill is generally defined as a ledger sill forming the bottom part of a window?
Yes. Thank you. No further questions. I'm prepared to offer some concluding remarks at the appropriate time.
Just a quick follow -up. Go ahead, Leonard. So, Mr. Culp, and I'll show this.
I'm sorry to share my screen one last time.
Now previously it was stated that there was some discussion about an earlier permit application
for the sign that was that was proposed um by the that was submitted by the applicant do you
recall that yes okay and at that time uh the plans examiner was uh richard chen is that right yes
okay um and ultimately a uh refusal was issued for that the initial permit application is that right
yes okay and why was that refusal issued because the applicant asked for it and said the owner was
aware of the refusal okay and i'm gonna show uh a document up on the screen do you can you tell
the board what this is this is a letter from the applicant on that application saying that the
owner is aware that the proposed signs require zba approval for the placement on the facade and
request the examiner issue the refusal as appropriate which he did objection irrelevant
uh mr mr paul does this at least uh
Mr. Paul, does this at least indicate that the applicant, which, let me back up, the applicant on the second application was also form and sign company, is that right?
Correct.
And does this indicate that they were aware, or they believed, at the time they submitted the initial application, that it should get a refusal?
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak to this.
You're going to speak to what he just said or summarize?
I'd like to say one thing about this exhibit, and then I'm prepared to summarize.
Sure, I may do that.
Mr. Ward, are you done with your redirect?
Two more further questions for -
Do you have more?
I have no other way to -
Okay, all right.
Just wanted to make sure we're finished.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
Rather than cross -examine, I'd just like to make this statement, and thank you again,
Mr. Culp, for coming.
I just like to state regarding this document that it really is irrelevant. It's not the zoning examiners do not do what an applicant says, particularly an applicant who's not first in the law.
So I don't know the background of this document. I don't know what exchange there was back and forth. But similarly, if a form and sign company were to say, we believe that everything should be given to us over the counter and an examiner disagrees, as they did actually here, they don't just do what an applicant says. So I don't think anything more needs to be said about that.
Okay. So, and you'll have summaries too, Leonard?
All right. So, this has been a fairly complicated issue, right? What I would prefer is that you both have written summaries and put down what you think. And I know it's a little bit more work for you, but I think it's so everybody would understand.
And Ford, have any questions?
I'm going to go back again to the idea of statutory interpretation.
And I'm just going to read from, this is, I think this is Merriam -Webster, but it says that a windowsill is the horizontal surface or structure at the bottom of a window that supports and holds the window.
in place. And it also protects the window frame
from water and what have you. So I guess I'm
having a little problem with the idea that
you're saying that
the windowsill, whether there's
that you're interpreting the code to say
that even if there is no windowsill, if this is above
the second floor then the um refusal was validly issued is that is that the argument that i'm here
i mean based primarily upon 21 .1 of the rules of measurement which essentially and again i don't
know why they didn't just define windowsill now that would have been helpful lots of things that
are not defined in the code that you would think would be obvious things that you would want to
defined windowsills not one of them but what they did do is they did indicate where the wind where
the quote -unquote windowsill is for purposes of measuring the sign height and that is where the
window is associated with the floor so they submitted plans showing level two there's glass
there that's where we interpreted now again our interpretation is more generous than what we
believe a strict reading would require, which is the bottom of that second level, because
of the ambiguity, we specifically said they could have it up to the bottom of the third
floor, rather.
So there is a window associated with the second floor, but we will, or glass, and we will
interpret that as, you know, the sill being sort of anywhere in that second floor, second
level.
And again, this is level two that they submitted in the permit application.
you know and again it's the city's position that their interpretation would effectively allow
an accessory sign anywhere at any height whatsoever on a curtain wall building and
we believe the rules statutory one of the rules of statutory interpretation is that you don't get
an interpretation that leads to absurd results and we don't think that it was the intention of
council to allow accessory signs on current law structures anywhere all right but in this specific
case yes the windows according to the documents that have been presented are like at the sixth
floor the third floor correct right i mean whatever that other what's i don't know what
that other structure is between the glass and the where I see windows
structure is between the glass and the where i see windows where there might be a
but that's the parking garage ah okay so i'm not seeing windows there what i'm seeing is
the glass up to where we're seeing this parking garage piece and then we see windows
Yeah. Well, it wouldn't be that you could put the signs anywhere. You'd have to put the signs somewhere. Right. The idea. What did you say? I thought it said.
What is it? The what is it between the second floor windowsill? Right.
and the roof line so there's no second floor windowsill right
so what this idea yeah how are we yeah i'm just having a problem with the interpretation
because of the lack of definition of windowsill as we as you would hope it would have been in
the code but then you have to use um the regular definition of that term and i'm not seeing where
you can do this and just say substitute floor and windowsill that's where i'm having a problem
yeah i'm okay so why don't you put that in your summary tya do you have a question yes i have so
I have a few questions. One, is this sign illuminated? Yes. Is there going to be any
signage on the JFK Street side or only on the Market Street side? This application is only
regarding the signage to enter. And then for this building, are there any other residential structures
facing the facade that you know of i'm sorry miss when i'm trying to understand the question
um are there any other residential like buildings facing this sign no not uh the closest building
is what i still think of as the mellon bank building uh and across john f kennedy boulevard
are uh office buildings um to the south of the office buildings the closest would be
the william penn house at 1919 chestnut street and i don't believe that there would be visibility
of this sign which is uh facing westwardly okay and then um my last question is with this
this building's residential conversion of the office building um sort of landmark because it
was the first of its kind in center city are there any changes occurring to the facade
because it's a residential structure to add windows
well i've toured the i've toured the property myself and uh the residential
apartments i do have some operability to windows that i'm not sure was there when morgan lewis was
there. Uh, and there's different cladding, uh, I'd argue more attractive cladding, uh, for the
garage, uh, for example, but, uh, no, uh, nothing beyond what I've described that, that I'm aware
of. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So excuse me, Mr. Chair, just a quick question. Um, Mr. Reuter,
did you, I didn't know if you had a, a presentation or if you had gotten all of the information in
that you had intended through your questions to Mr. Cole?
He said, yeah, that you were done.
Yeah, I have no other questions.
I mean, we were just going to do closing arguments.
Okay, I just want to, I didn't, okay, so you had submitted a packet.
I didn't know if you wanted to walk through that further.
No, no, no.
I don't think there's really anything in our packet that was different than what Mr. Labor
had already presented, other than the letter from the signed company asking for the refusal.
Okay, all right.
Thank you. Thank you. So written summaries. We're back October 1st. Am I correct?
Yes. Could we have it before that? Is that possible? Absolutely. I don't want to see this
delayed any longer. This this is an important project for the city. Yeah, well, we have no
objection to that. I do want to address one point just administratively in his initial submission
His initial submission to the board for this case, Mr. Laver said, in effect, and correct me if I'm wrong, Adam, that you would ask for a variance if at the conclusion of this you were denied.
to the board for this case and Mr. Labor said
The city would have no objection to that.
I don't know that I would have to defer to the board whether that's even, whether they could do that, but we wouldn't have, you know, I wouldn't have any issues with that.
uh in effect you know asking for a variance in the alternative but kind of delaying that until
the conclusion of this that that's i don't i don't have a position on that we would uh just
defer to boards so we we do not have a variance appeal currently on file for this case um so that
would need to to be filed if this appeal was not was not granted well i guess what we could say is
that i wouldn't i wouldn't object to that being on its face untimely like it wouldn't necessarily
require them to submit a new application and get another well we that has to go through a separate
process has to go through the rco process property has to be posted all of that i just meant the
timing to take the appeal to the board i understand okay thank you okay so october 1st we'll be back
and what what date do you want it in our hands um would friday the 26th be okay by close the
business absolutely by 5 p .m you want those simultaneously um yes yes so so we can that
way we can vote on this at 9 30 on the first so friday the 26th 26th yes next friday that's right
okay would you like mr kern to adopt and affirm um sure mr kern would you please step up to the
microphone and state your name hi jared kern could you spell please for the sonographer why don't you
sit down a minute um k -e -r -n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes sir leonard thank you uh good morning mr kern you've been present for the
entirety of this zoning board of adjustment hearing correct yes and would you adopt and
affirm the testimony that i've offered as your own yes thank you sir all right thank you both
okay and thank you both and thank you to uh thank you my business all right thank you okay
who's next
okay um we're gonna go number four mi20240067484283 via ola street tl63838
Meredith Furliger is the attorney for Haverford Square,
and Steve Masters represents the Viola Street Residents Association.
Steve Masters and Meredith Furliger have been promoted to panelists.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, Steve.
Meredith, could you go first, please? State your name.
Sure. Meredith Ferliger. F -E -R -L -E -G -E -R.
Steve, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Steve Masters, S -T -E -V -E -M -A -S -T -E -R -S.
Right. Do you both swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. So this is a resumptive hearing, right?
So what we're going to have today and both tell me from right here, the Protestants will introduce
a counter pro forma by Christopher DeBrun. Am I correct, Steve? Yes, that is our expert witness.
Right. And then after that, there'll be questions from the board.
and also the planning commission to make a recommendation, right?
And we taking public testimony with this?
We already took public testimony.
So, yeah, the record is closed on public testimony.
Thank you.
So, we're ready to go, Steve?
Yes, if Mr. DeBrun can be elevated to panels.
Meredith, you agree that's where we are, right?
I agree, Mr. Chairman.
I agree, Mr. Chairman. I would love to give just a very brief closing statement just to kind of tie it all back in as well, if that's possible.
I would love to give just a very brief closing statement,
it just
Well, let's see. Let's see how how far we go here.
Understood. Right.
Mr. DeBroom.
Has Mr. DeBroom been identified?
Yes. Mr. DeBroom is being promoted to penalist.
All right.
And Mr. DeBruyne, are you up on the panel?
I'm Mr. DeBruyne.
do we see him in the audience yes chair he needs to unmute and turn the camera on
okay so the room could you please unmute
also my apologies i had a conflict on my calendar and i didn't see it pop up i apologize okay all
All right. All right. So please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Christopher DeBruin.
Can you spell your name?
Christopher, D -E, capital B -R -U -Y -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Masters.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to go over Mr. DeBrun's expert credentials, unless opposing counsel has no objection to certifying him as an expert.
Meredith?
I do have an objection. I'm not clear from his report what kind of an expert he's being certified in.
Okay, so Steve, why don't you...
All right, sure.
Of course. Mr. DeBruin, can you review for the board what your professional experience is concerning costing estimating for construction projects?
Yeah, I have been employed full time continuously since 1998 as a construction cost estimator for a variety of bosses.
Right now, I'm my own boss. And those construction projects have consisted of a very wide variety of projects in a pretty wide geographic range.
But residential type projects, office towers, residential towers, museums, airport renovation work, like just a really wide variety of projects.
And can you name some of the larger companies that have employed you to do your cost estimating?
Yeah, I worked for Becker and Frondorf starting in 1998. They're an independent cost consulting firm that is probably one of the most respected firms in Philly at the moment, and certainly was back in the day.
I left Becker and Frondorf and went to Gilbane Building Company, which is an international, at this point, family -owned building company.
We did a lot of work in the Philadelphia area.
I worked in the Philadelphia office.
My last five years with Gilbane were on a Hurricane Sandy recovery project where we inspected, estimated, and managed the grants and the construction of about 2 ,500 homes along the Jersey Shore for lower -income residents who were impacted by the storm.
And after Gilbane, where did you work for next?
After Gilbane, I went out to work for a small firm, small $500 million a year construction firm in Exton called HSC Builders, who kind of focused on hospital renovation and kind of high acuity, highly technical construction work.
and on the day that my office closed for COVID I had planned to leave and start my own firm so I
did and I've been doing that ever since. All right so Mr. Chair we intend to certify we would like
to certify Mr. DeBrun as an expert in cost estimating but we also have another field that
we want him to be an expert in. So I'm going to turn to that one now. Mr. DeBrun, do you have a specific expertise?
Um, uh, Mr. DeBrun, do you have a specific expertise concerning zoning and land use?
I have been, um, I'm not currently, I left the post in January, but I've been, I was
approximately 10 years on the, um, Swarthmore planning commission, um, four, four and a
half years or so of that was as chair.
and our role there was to
the majority of the projects in Swarthmore
were zoning and
kind of land use issues for the college
since they did most of the building
but we did a fair amount of residential
kind of adjustments of the zone
we did quite a bit of rewriting of the zoning code
to try and keep it coherent and modern
um and and um helpful for the residents of the town as opposed to having a kind of a static
aging zoning code so is it fair to say that you were a member of the swarthmore planning commission
from 2010 through 2025 uh it's i think it was 11 i i don't remember the exact date that i know if
wrote it there that's correct so 2010 until january of 2025. okay and you were the chair of the of the
planning commission and and in swarthmore is the planning commission the body that approves zoning
variances no we have a zoning hearing board the planning commission um gets input from the zoning
hearing um committee and when we talk about writing new code to kind of address common
issues that keep coming up um but we we do not hear in the pennsylvania township system that
there's a separate board for that okay so mr chair we would move that mr de brun be
uh admitted as an expert in both cost estimating and in land use and zoning
um mr chairman would would would you prefer if i uh just make a counter argument on this or or
would you prefer that i ask him some questions to get to the point that i will make that i have
no objection to him why don't you just make the point okay i have no objection whatsoever to him
being uh certified as an expert in cost estimating but with all due respect serving on a planning
commission in Delaware County, Chester County, I don't remember where Swarthmore is specifically,
but serving on a planning commission in a volunteer capacity in no way qualifies somebody
to be certified as an expert in zoning, no less an expert in zoning in Philadelphia,
of which Swarthmore has absolutely no bearing and is in a completely different system.
So no objection to being certified as an expert, as a cost estimator, certainly, but I will maintain a vigorous objection to him being certified as a land planner or having any expertise in zoning.
Steve?
As you'll see from some conclusions that Mr. DeBrun has made in his findings, we want to be able to put into the record his examination of the Viola block and the context and some zoning -related findings that he made.
His primary findings are around the cost estimating and showing that the pro forma produced by the applicant was deeply flawed and inaccurate.
But we do want him to be able to also present the findings that he made concerning some of the unique zoning features of Viola.
The fact that the Swarthmore or virtually every other jurisdiction in Pennsylvania has a different code doesn't really detract from the fact that he has written parts of zoning codes.
He sat and deliberated about zoning codes for what he said was over 15 years.
And that, I think, makes him as much of an expert as members of this board are as experts on zoning.
Well, thank you very much. But I agree with Meredith here that the cost and things of that nature, looking at the pro forma, but I don't think that I can say that he's a zoning expert. Okay.
Okay. May I make a quick comment?
Pardon me?
The point I would make.
No, no, no, no, no. There's an attorney here. He'll represent the case. Steve, do you have any comments?
um yes we're going to go to uh our exhibit one
Yes, we're going to go to our Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1 was presented by the applicant at the last hearing.
This is the pro forma that Mr. Yakubov testified to.
And I have a series of questions for Mr. DeBrun.
So we...
All right, so I'm all on one screen.
Okay, so hang on a second.
Mr. Dubroon, did you have an opportunity to review the video from the last ZVA hearing
where the applicant testified at length about a pro forma he prepared for the zoning project?
Steve, I'm so sorry to interrupt you.
Mr. Chairman, can we have my client brought on and sworn in, in case there is any redirect?
I just want to make sure it's clear that he's actually on here.
I apologize.
I should have done that before Steve started.
What's your client's name again, please?
German Yakubov.
If you're there, just be ready to go on, okay?
Good morning.
Yeah, well.
Thank you.
I apologize for the interruption.
Use him when we have to.
Sorry, Steve.
let me um let me ask that again hold on hold on sir please state your name and spell for the
stenographer german
sure german yakubov g -e -r -m -a -n y -a -k -u -b -o -v all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do so swear and affirm all right steve let's go back
to your client sure um mr de brun did you have an opportunity to review the video from the last cba
hearing where mr yakubov testified at length about a proforma he prepared for the sony project i did
yes and did you analyze the costing calculations in mr yakubov's proforma i did yes um and is that
um so that and that is exactly what we were looking at on the on the um uh on on the screen
before the the pro forma from last uh from last session uh okay um in your opinion did you discover
any unusual elements in the applicant's pro forma well it wasn't it didn't appear to be
about this project there was um a list of kind of a menu of different building types one two three
units four five six i think six units was the most and the project we're talking about is a 16
unit project so it didn't i didn't see how it applied to this project really specifically at all
other than um somebody saying it was about it so
can you um can you describe um those unusual features in more detail um proformas are typically
um in constri in real estate and construction proforma a proforma um for a project typically
describes the financial aspects of the project and you would typically use it I mean it's not
typically a legal document it's typically a document that you use to get um to inform the
bank um how your project what your profit levels are going to be and your sources and uses of cash
and what you expect expenses to do and to make some projections um in order to do that you need
to have accurate information about the the land cost you need to have the cost of construction
in there you need to have um um all of the costs that you need to the costs and the uses that you're
going to provide for this that are going to provide for this project um this pro forma had
uh six different building types shown as a kind of a matrix they all had the same land cost so
a single family had a $70 ,000 land cost, and it had a kind of a built and a cost per square foot
cost, which is fine. And it was being compared to a six unit building on the same $70 ,000 piece of
land with almost the same, well, the cost per square foot was a little higher because it was
a few more larger square footage
but it didn't
but it didn't none of it was specific or it had nothing to do with this project
none of it was specific or
some other things i thought were a little bit odd as a even as a comparison is that the
cost of construction of a building is not the same
like a single family is a different cost of construction than a two -family
if only if only because kitchens and bathrooms are the most expensive part of each of these
buildings and you've got two kitchens and at least two bathrooms in a two -family and you've
only got one kitchen and at least one one bathroom in a single family so the cost per
square foot is going to vary and particularly when you're comparing a one -bedroom or let's say
it compares to a two -bedroom building
which would have, in his assignment
it would be two kitchens and
I don't know, maybe four
bathrooms, I guess. It's a two - and a three -bedroom
versus a six -bedroom, which would have six kitchens.
Steve, can I ask a question? Could you put that up?
He's reading off what I'm reading off.
then we i'm not and yeah we don't know what he's comparing to okay sure um right yeah i just uh
yeah you had it up and then you took it back took it down yes i will i will put it back up sure
thanks steve okay so as you can see this the first row is single family homes he's got 1700 square
feet 1770 um construction cost total development cost um and then some kind of the last two columns
are a kind of analysis i guess so the last three columns are kind of a finance somewhat
of a financial analysis it's an unusual way to use this to terms but it seems to be what that is
um if you look at it the two bedroom it's 3 000 square feet um
so but the $715 ,000 if you subtract that if you do the math um works out to be $215 a square foot
and each one of these um in the total development cost column the 450 715 and the 715s all the way
down, are $215 a square foot construction cost. And that's just not reality. It's a way to talk
about, to make a very preliminary discussion about, it's a way to talk about costs on a very
preliminary level, but cost is based on what you put in the building. It always varies tremendously.
So in particular, did you make any conclusions and findings as to whether Mr. Yacobov's pro forma was accurate and it used the proper types of measurements in order to arrive at a sound amount of costing?
um all this
I did um I just in my opinion um this isn't really a pro forma it's not about this project
it's just a list of what he thinks the cost is to build um to build a building in Philadelphia
and it's comparing a six unit building on one lot from a single family on one lot and with a
couple of permutations in between and the only real difference is the amount of income that each
one generates and obviously the six unit building generates more more income than a single family
home so um it's a lot of numbers on a piece of paper but it comes up with a very trivial
um a very a very trivial result it doesn't doesn't really give you much information
all right and uh and and i apologize mr chair but um i'm i'm remote i'm well obviously i'm remote but
but i'm i'm in washington dc and i don't have two screens and so that's why i was i was turning
things off because i was looking at my question that's fine all right so uh i'm gonna call my
questions again uh so uh let's let's go to your alternative on pro forma did the de brun group
uh let's let's go to your alternative um pro forma did the de brun group create an analysis
of the construction and sales costs for these three parcels i did yes okay so we're going to call that
up and in this is exhibit two of our of our exhibits that were submitted for today's hearing
uh so it it um it appears you have four sections in your in your pro forma the first one is recent
sales of new construction uh near or in the parkside neighborhood um can you uh explain to
the board uh what the relevance is of looking at recent sales of new construction it looks like you
looked at um new sales for single family uh homes and also new sales for multi -family homes uh in
the vicinity of of parkside why is that something that's in your pro forma it's in my pro forma
because every as i said every building is a different cost per square foot because it's
all based on what you put into it um there is a trend they do tend to cost something and nobody
builds anything that they can't sell or they try not to build anything they can't sell so there's
a cap on that cost per square foot or that cost per building i guess um
knowing that um i wanted to look and see if the cost per square foot of 215 a square foot
represented the actual cost to build something in philadelphia or or something else or what
what else was in it it's very difficult without a design and spending a lot of time measuring and
counting everything in a building to um to understand what it costs but you can look at
all at recent sales of new buildings and see that um people are building buildings and selling them
for a cost there you may occasionally sell one at a loss but developers in in general do not sell
buildings that'll boss um there's no reason for them to they just rent it out so one of the
families that you looked at mr de brun was it in fact uh bought by um by the applicant here
uh the the one uh at 3736 brandywine yeah the 3736 brandywine was actually constructed by
have her associates okay so you're using part of part of the data you're using are are the
applicants own properties that he that he um developed in the neighborhood yes so in 2020
mr chairman i'm going to object to this uh haverford associates is not my client
okay that is an entirely separate llc that is not owned by my client okay oh our apology
steve could you respond tonight i if if if if uh i'll i'll take um miss ferlinger's word for that
if that is not it i believe that haverford associates was was her client if it's a
different haverford that's your client uh then then we apologize for that thank you uh mr droon
So we have data for single -family new construction, and we have data for multifamilies.
Why was it important for you to look at both single -family and multifamily data?
well they have different costs and um we were we're frankly um i i think we wanted to look and
see if single families were viable on on the property on on a lot and i don't know if viable
is the right word but if but how much it costs to build a single family in in west philly today
if we go if we go down to the the different sections the the first one here the single
family new construction um this what conclusions uh and findings do you make from from the these
costing uh this costing data for a new construction of single family so the cost per square foot of
each of these buildings range from 158 excluding the 3736 brandywine because that was in 2020 so
that makes it pretty old but excluding that the average is a hundred and seven
But excluding that, the average is $179 a square foot total development cost.
So that includes any design work, purchasing the property, sales fees, 100 % of the cost and all of the profit for the developer.
So builders were able to realize an average of $179 a square foot for the whole project.
And that would be in comparison with the $215 a square foot just for construction and kind of other costs, excluding land costs, that is shown in the pro forma.
So it doesn't seem to me, it seems substantially lower than the pro forma number to me.
All right. So you're saying that we're just looking at the first level here, the single family new construction. You're saying that the average square foot cost to build that single family was 179 a square foot, 179. And that Mr. Yakubov's pro forma says that the average is 215 a square foot?
I would say something more than that. I would say that Mr. Jakubov's number does not include purchasing the land. He's got that as a separate number. And so it is another, his number is another 20 or, or you could say it differently, that $179 per square foot average that all of these cost.
If a building, if a lot in Philadelphia is $40 ,000, $50 ,000, $60 ,000, then that's another $20 or $30 a square foot that's in this $179 number that you should take out.
So maybe that should be $150 ,000 or $145 ,000, something like that per square foot, all of the costs except Lando acquisition.
acquisition. All right. So that's quite a big difference. You're saying between what Mr.
Jakubov says is the cost to build in this neighborhood versus what the actual cost
that you found for these single family new construction. If these developers are building
things, buying land, building things and making a living at it, which they are because they keep
doing it um yes okay let's go down to uh that was to 2020 to present you also looked at single
family homes that were built between 2006 and 2019 um look i'm going to interrupt you for a second
that the the 179 average that we would lower down to like to if you take the land costs out is like
a 150 number right something is 22 23 and 24 so it's all within the last two or three years
okay and is that is that um in your opinion more sound uh data if it's if it's in the in the near
past as opposed to farther back in the past yes um there was a large construction there was a large
cost escalation around around covet okay so eliminating that um is is meaningful let's go
down so then let's just even forget about the 2006 to 2019 uh let's go down to the multi -family
new construction uh from 220 to present yeah can you analyze that those data for us and explain
to us how that differs from what Mr. Yacobov put in his pro forma.
So this is the same time period, roughly. Again, this is all 2002, 3, 4, 5.
And it's the same issue. There is an average of all of these. This is all I could. I looked
on zillow after i looked at the hearing a month or two ago i guess um and it was everything that
was available as re as a recent sale on zillow kind of in the general vicinity of east parkside
okay and it's the same issue it's a it's an average it's 168 dollars um rsa the if you
take the land cost off again that's like 150 140 dollars a square foot
and when it says multi -family do we do you know how many units they were they were building in
these in all of these data sets i do the cost the number of units is in the first column it says
multi -three, multi -two, multi -four, so. Okay, so triplexes, triplexes, quadplexes.
Okay, and again, you're saying that the average cost of 168, that includes numbers that
that the the average cost of 168 that includes numbers that mr yakubov put into a separate
category when he said that the that it was 215 plus then it would be another another uh bunch of
of um funds to put to to acquire the the property and everything right so this is a number that
includes the land acquisition and mr yakubov's number does not okay
so let's now look at section two um you're calling this section i'm going to make it bigger for
for members of the board here let's see if you can do that uh this is the financial document
analysis section uh what are we uh what were you looking for in this section and and can you
can you give us a summary of
didn't we just go over that
we did
he started with that Steve
no we did the section one
we probably should have started with this one
the one you're showing now he started earlier
he did this the sixth
remember because he was saying there's only six units
I think that was
that's where he started
uh mr mr durian did you did you start with this section no this is my um this is my attempt to
understand i kind of broke his spreadsheet apart and tried to understand where the costs were so
this is my support for the idea that there's a construction cost of 215 a square foot land
acquisition etc okay okay this is an analysis of his piece so you analyzed the first one you had
up you're saying yes yes okay so this this 215 is all mr jakaba's numbers okay yeah okay so what
what is it um that we when you break this down what what what do you want us to pay attention to
in in this in in this spreadsheet so um i'm not sure we need necessarily to talk about this this
was just this is kind of that is i'm showing it as the source of my um analysis and so did he just
say he doesn't think we have to talk about this is that what he said all right so should we yep
should we should we go down to the rental pro forma okay so i use the the information from the
above kind of breakdown
of the of the original
pro forma and
reworked it to be
an actual pro forma for this
project so I have a 16 I have
some alternatives for this
these three lots so
the single family alternative
is three single families
okay right so it's 5 ,000
square feet not 1 ,700
I used
a wildly high in my opinion construction cost per square foot of 172 dollars a square foot
um I believe the the land acquisition is the actual last transfer cost for those three part
those three parcels okay um and then I did some analysis so the total development cost is the sum
of the construction cost per square foot times the number of square feet plus the land acquisition
and then i said total development cost per square foot which i have uh so that's just
divided by the square footage of the uh construction annual rent is derived from
Mr. Yakubov's rent assumptions.
Expenses at 35 % are his assumption of 35%.
And the net operating income is the rent less the expenses, basically.
Here's where my analysis differs a little bit from Mr. Yakubov.
He used a financial term called DSCR.
It's a tool that the banks use to determine if they think your project is profitable.
They typically want to see a 1 .2 DSCR, right?
And so you can see in the column, it says 0 .73, 1 .73, et cetera.
They would want to see a 1 .2 if they're going to lend you money.
um i think as a developer i would want to know how much i need to borrow and the amount i the
maximum amount i can borrow from a bank is going to be expressed typically as a percentage of the
total project capital and right now the maximum loan is kind of in
project capital. And right now, the maximum loan is kind of in the 35%, excuse me, 65 % versus 35 %
equity. So the loan is, that's the 65 % loan is the amount you need to borrow. The annual debt
payment is the debt payment on that loan. And equity is the amount that, how much does the
developer need to spend so these last three columns are really the analysis that that you
generate that in my opinion that you need to generate in order to making it to make a decision
about whether a project is fusible or not how much money do i need to do it um is it worth my time so
cash on cash is a very common um developer um analysis and they typically want to see six percent
return of the cash which is there's actually if we can go to the bottom of this sheet
there's some definitions for these terms so cash on cash is a total profit um not including uh
taxes divided over the total investment so it gives you it's a quick and dirty way to look
and see is this worth my time and in typical markets developers say six percent cash on cash
return is is worth their time um and dscr is we go up here numbers where do we see that there is
this at least the six percent cash on cash so go back to that okay so the cash on cash column
the single family is a negative 3 .73 so to build and rent out three single families um
that are 1700 square feet each you i'm projecting a loss of 3 .73 so that's not that doesn't look
very enticing from a investment perspective um but immediately below that which is two
uh excuse me three single uh three two families right yeah right here it says it's two families
times three for the two family for each of the three uh parcels for each of the three lots
correct so that would be six parcels six total apartments right okay and renting them out is
instantly profitable at roughly 10 percent and you're saying anything above six percent is is
um you're in the game for that and so that's almost twice twice as what you need right for
cash on cash uh so in your opinion would two units in in each of those parcels be financially viable
yes absolutely okay um what about um what kind of income would would someone who was developing the
two units and in those parcels um be able to to achieve do we have that in in your in your data
here the it uh do i have the i you know i'm not actually showing the actual return okay
um it's kind of not important um because you really want to know your when you're comparing
opportunities you want to see what the percent return is on the opportunity because any money
that the amount that you are um returning is you want to you want to use a percent you if you want
to compare two different sized buildings two different sized projects you can't do that on
a dollar for dollar basis you have to do it on a percentage basis as to whether how worthwhile it
is does that make sense okay well let me ask you another question um for this second steve how much
long do you think he'll be on uh maybe 10 minutes okay um mr de brun so let's go back we're on the
two family units through um three of them in the one on each parcel um i'm looking here at the um
at the loan uh that's required uh it looks like for the for the duplexes the amount of the loan
is lower than any other category does that make it more financially uh valuable to a developer to
to be able to develop something without putting as much money down oh i
i'm not sure um i would assume perhaps that um i didn't notice that so um i would assume that
steve kept the steve but they're his numbers right yeah and he's not sure what that means
no i i understand what it means i didn't i didn't notice it as a feature because i was
focused on the percentages okay the amount the amount you need to borrow
okay the amount the amount you need to borrow it the the big issue for the developer is going to
be the amount he needs to that he needs to have to he needs to put into the project so the 35
equity number okay is is the issue there and that that's also below us for the duplexes yep yep
okay so he so someone can can develop these duplexes with much less money down than any
the other options yep okay uh what are we looking at um on the on this uh so that was for rentals
right uh what are we looking at in terms of the sale performa so you always want to look at it
if you have to get out of it after you build it you can't rent it or you need the money for
something else you want to be able to sell it so you have to look at it from a sale perspective
i took the same approach basically um the loan is less important because you're not taking out
long -term equity on this so the analysis is a little bit simpler you just look at how much
money you need to put in do you have it to spend and then you look at your return on equity you
can't use cash on cashier because there's no income from it there's just the sale so it's
really a straight return. So in this scenario, it appears that even the single family option,
one single family per parcel comes out with a positive return on equity. Is 16 %
enough to get for equity or do you need to go to the next level?
I'd be happy making 16%. I don't know. Maybe developers need more. I don't know.
that's a that's i don't know what the the minimum return is going to be for an individual
okay but on the on the duplex um option we have 40 return on equity yes
which is how would you characterize that as a return okay uh
your zoning notes um
mr i'm gonna object we're not we're not gonna accept him as a zoning expert steve we really
are not well these are these are just pointing out uh the specific zoning the specific zoning
issues that are that are um specifically for this neighborhood steve we're not doing that okay all
right um let's go to your conclusions that you that you created in your last section
okay I'll skip over the zoning okay um the initial sale price
um for lots and lots of building in buildings in West Philadelphia are substantially lower
than the than the just construction cost as shown by the by the original pro forma
and those are all those that we looked at in section one with the data showing
that the construction costs were quite a bit lower and they and they even included
a lot more things than mr yakubov did yep um okay what about uh conclusion three
uh could you
all of the the the analysis the purpose of the analysis was to show that um whether or not you
could whether or not you can make a profit building these types of buildings in west
philadelphia and east parkside and it shows clearly that these are profitable construction
projects so the data confirms your findings is what you're saying that you can build much
less density there with just like yes there's no need to put 16 units on on three lots you can put
two units on one lot and okay we'll make a living make a good living conclusion four
there's no um no on there's no reason why construction i this is to support the analysis
There were no buildings for sale or no new buildings constructed in East Parkside proper as part of my analysis.
And I'm just saying, my experience in the building industry is that there's no construction cost difference from one street to another in a neighborhood in a city.
It's the same cost.
okay there's nothing special about east parkside that adds cost that's construction cost so so the
data that you that you located for those new sales and um of single families and multi -families that
applies to east parkside in your opinion yes okay even if it wasn't specifically in east parkside
yes okay even if it wasn't specifically in east parkside do me a favor could could you please
pick up the pace a little bit i mean okay sure it takes him a while to read it then you give
your editorial on each one and we got a lot of them so please pick up your pace all right um number
6 is a zoning
issue.
I'm sorry.
Number 7
is also a zoning issue, right?
i think number 10 might be the next one that's yeah that's uh the one the one point i want in
my analysis the majority of um of these multi -families are not the majority but a large
number of multi -families in my analysis were built in rsa5 there's a couple of rm1 buildings
um it doesn't seem that they were variances some of them seem like it was uh post the buildings
were constructed post -change in the zoning.
What's that mean, Steve?
I mean, please, I mean,
I don't want him talking about zoning.
Okay, all right.
Well, we're not going to talk about zoning, Mr. DeBruyne.
So finally, in sum,
can you summarize your conclusions
as to the validity of Mr. Jacobo's pro forma
and the validity of your pro forma?
I would summarize it by saying
that it's an unusual um document to call a pro forma in a real estate context in my opinion
it doesn't appear to be specifically for this project in any way that i can understand other
than maybe the the price the land cost that he noted for one of the buildings
um is the price that he paid for one of the lots um it doesn't appear to be using um making doing
an analysis in a way that i've seen any other proformas do this type of analysis uh it's
completely unusual and it doesn't and i don't agree that um his well i i would point out that
his um cost per square foot to build the buildings which i understand means more than just building
it's the it's the designer and the legal costs and all the other costs excluding um the uh land
acquisition that cost is substantially higher than whole buildings are being sold for in in
philadelphia in west philadelphia i thank you i'm gonna reserve a rebuttal if if uh if that's
appropriate murder if you have questions um mr chairman just in terms of timing i with respect
to the board's time i do have quite a bit of questions for mr jabron so i i don't want to
delve into it if your schedule is not going to allow me sufficient time plus i would also have
an idea how much how much time you would need um half half an hour between my cross and redirect
i i i think and then and then steve will have additional questions i i think we're
going to have a resumptive hearing there's just nothing we could do the time we understood and
that's why i wanted to but before i delve into it and and end up having to get cut off in the
middle i think it's more efficient if it's all so we're going to have a resumptive hearing on this
on 12 16 25 at 9 30 a .m 12 16 you said mr chair yep at 9 30 a .m
thank you both thank you very much thank you very much thank you and then we're going to head to
number one mi 2023 000 489 4400 north 8 street john griffin is the attorney this is a resumptive
hearing
john griffin had been promoted to penalist
good morning mr chair can you hear me i can sir could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer sure john griffin g -r -i -f -f -i -n on behalf of 4400 north a street
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do sir
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
All right.
So this is a resumptive hearing.
And my understanding is you're going to give us a discussion of the amended refusal by the applicant.
There will be questions from the board.
There will be public testimony limited to the amended refusal.
And then Planning Commission will make a recommendation.
Yes, sir.
So why don't you start your presentation?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I had previously on Friday submitted a packet and in there at the beginning is a cover letter, which essentially covers sort of all that has happened.
We previously took testimony on January the 8th of this year. There was no public opposition testimony beside my client, Debbie Garcia, who testified.
We had testimony from Mr. FABO, F -E -B -O, on behalf of the RCO.
We withheld a vote because at the request of the RCO, they wanted to see us seek an amended refusal so that it could satisfy their concerns.
We did that.
We have submitted that into the record.
So that is of record there.
um uh so essentially we have done what the uh rco has requested um and essentially i think we're
uh good to go just do me a favor just for the board's sake tell us the major change the amended
refusal um originally uh we had sought um a use permit for a prepared food shop at the property
yep uh following uh conferring with the rco uh we sought an amendment to the appeal
to seek a use permit for a grocery store with food beverages and groceries and we specifically
did this at the request of the rco as you can well imagine i think being a team player in this
community is critical. So we regrouped, we did exactly what they had asked us to do. And that
amended refusal was submitted. And it is in the record, I believe the date of that was August the
4th of 2025 okay okay so i i think we're good to go uh miss garcia i believe is present on this
we've been texting back and forth she's already testified the prior time she she did uh i would
just note uh that she would certainly agree with my presentation here okay why don't you bring her
on bring her on she can you can miss garcia uh can you hear me please
debbie garcia has been promoted to penalist
good morning miss garcia could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
debbie garcia d -e -b -b -i -e g -a -r -c -i -a you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel mr garcia you heard my presentation with the
chair and the remaining members of the RCO, did you not? Yes. And you heard what our efforts were
to accommodate the RCO and how we accomplished that through an amended refusal, which was issued
on 8 -4 of 25. Am I correct? Yes. Do you adopt my testimony as if it was your own as being accurate
to the best of your recollection yes okay mr chair one final note uh in speaking with
miss emerson uh there was a request for an amendment not for an amendment i apologize
for a recent uh tax clearance certificate we had filed that with the board and that is of record
we got confirmation from your board that it was received.
Okay, so questions from the board.
I have a question.
So this is RM1, right?
This property?
Is this RM1?
I believe so.
Okay, so I'm looking at the notes,
I'm looking at the notes, and it says you were advised for the second floor if an application would be generated for refusal of lack of parking.
and it says you were advised for the second floor
if an application would
What did you decide to do with that piece of the case?
Debbie, can you address that, please?
Right now, it's to the future, maybe occupy it either for the store or any type of occupancy.
But right now, not anything at all.
okay thank you other questions
as you can see this this property's been vacant for quite some time it's got a it's got a very
long history of a similar type business or businesses i should say and um just trying
to infuse some additional uh an additional business from a local woman who has been there
all our life we're here thank you any other questions on the board questions from our
attorney hillary emerson not at this time on the virtual audience i see no hands at this time
chair planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission amy boid do you swear or
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the rsa3 residential single family zoning at this location
this property has a documented history of a food establishment the proposed use is in harmony with
those previous approved uses the planning commission recommends that the board grant
the proposed use variants for sale of food beverages and groceries mi 2023 000 489 4400
north 18th street i vote yes with proviso per amended refusal dated 8 4 25 charles gaston
My vote is yes, with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ty Owen, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Number two.
Thank you, by the way.
Thank you, counsel.
May I have an excuse, sir?
You can, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
MI 2023 -002 -457 -2364 Orthodox Street.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
And Mr. Ward, welcome back.
Good morning.
I'm just checking my watch.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
It's nice to be back.
Just for the record, state your name and spell for the stenographer like everyone knows it,
but please do it. Of course. My name is Sean, S -H -A -W -N
Ward, W -A -R -D, Esquire, Attorney for Applicant.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Mr. Ward, this is a
resumptive hearing, and
we're going to do a discussion of the amended refusal by the applicant.
There'll be board questions, public testimony, and
Planning Commission recommendations. So could you give us an update on the
amended refusal? Yeah, Mr. Chair, just for the record, I have present
with me today in my office, Joe Ramos, who is
the principal of, you know, the applicant and principal of
the property owner, in case there's any questions or he needs to adopt
and verify. Okay. But real quickly, I will share
my screen.
if the board recalls
the applicant did not request
an amended refusal
board counsel Hillary
in her infinite wisdom
identified that the
that infinite wisdom
is outstanding by the way
We're going to say that right away. Yes, it is. You know, Hillary identified or observed or, you know, discovered certain discrepancies in the existing refusal and instructed the board or advised the board that you should hold your decision pending a corrected refusal.
We did not seek any amendments and we did not have to go back to the RCO because nothing changed other than the refusal was corrected.
Uh, so, um, what I've done, um, in my screen share right now is the revised refusal, uh, the comments, you know, in red print are inserted by me just for discussion purposes, but the revised refusal was in fact provided to, uh, the ZBA and.
the revised refusal was in fact provided to the ZBA and board council. So I defer to Hillary if
she has any comments moving on. First, I would move up to, wait a minute, am I on
the right page? Okay, now let's go to page one, I'm sorry. Unfortunately, the revised or corrected
refusal, still indicates that we're applying for five units on this property.
Currently, there exists a duplex at the front, and we're proposing to demolish an existing
garage at the rear, which is in disrepair, dilapidated.
It's outlived its useful life.
And we're looking to erect there on a new structure, which would have a two -bedroom
apartment on the second floor, together with a two -space parking garage with accessory
storage for all three units on the first floor. So the new refusals or corrected refusals indicate
that we require 480 square feet per unit, and that, you know, in late that five are requested,
we need 2 ,400 square feet. We're only requesting three, and the lot is 2 ,400 square feet.
So therefore, we're permitted 4 .1 units or four units total based upon the square footage.
I remind the board that years ago, we obtained zoning board approval for an addition that would result in four dwelling units in the existing front building, whereas the garage unit in the back would go away.
That was never implemented, never constructed, and never pursued.
So, until this day, we are only seeking a total of three units on a 2 ,400 square lot, and therefore, we believe that this refusal is either non -applicable, incorrect, or, you know, otherwise, you know, the board can either grant relief or disregard it.
The next one is the roof deck.
As we all know, roof decks must be set back five feet from the front property line.
If you look at the plans, the roof deck is on the new structure, which is at the far rear of the property.
The lot is 100 feet deep.
The new structure is 36 feet long from the rear of the property.
So we submit that the rear setback for the deck is at least or plus or minus 64 feet from the Orthodox Street front property line.
If the board is of the mind for us to set back the deck at the rear by the distance of five feet, we have no objection.
And if that's the case, we would either withdraw that variance request or the board can, you know, make the appropriate, you know, relief.
OK, the next is the ADA parking space.
We submit that we did prepare plans and show plans that we could, instead of having two interior parking spaces in this new structure, we could certainly make it just one ADA accessible space.
However, you know, pursuant to discussions with the RCO, you know, I mean, that accommodation can always be made if we have an ADA tenant.
But in any event, it would decrease the number of off -street parking spaces made available for this three -family dwelling.
You know, considering one person can park out front on Orthodox Street and two persons can park in the newly constructed interior garage.
The next refusal is no commercial use on the first floor as required in CMX 2.
We submit that there's never been commercial use on the first floor of this building.
It's always been used residentially.
So we submit that it was previously approved and it's an existing condition and therefore may continue as such.
And then on, I'm sorry, page two of the revised or corrected refusal, the maximum occupied area would be 1 ,500 square feet at 75%.
We are slightly over at 80, roughly 80 % at 1 ,608 square feet.
So we're seeking a small variance of 108 square feet, which, you know, quite frankly, is about the size of my office that I'm sitting in right now.
And then the rear setback of the structure, this structure fronts on a shared alley running behind Orthodox Street or parallel with Orthodox Street.
running behind orthodox street or you know parallel with orthodox street currently the
existing garage runs right up to the property line uh what we have done is uh propose a new structure
that is one and a half feet off the property line which aids in the assistance of the turning radius
from the alleyway into the two you know the two parking space garage so we we believe that's a
de minimis variance. It is a rear alley. It's not the street front. If it was the street front,
it could be right out to the property line, just like the existing building. So that is the sum
and substance of the revised or corrected refusal. For the record, I spoke to Bridesburg Civic
Alliance, Yvonne Stevens, and she did share an email yesterday reasserting their support of
this application that email was forwarded to the board and the city planning commission and i
believe at the last hearing one of the reasons we had to have a resumption hearing was because
planning commission at that time did not put on the record its recommendation as to this application
okay when do you bring your client on to adopt your testimony all right hang on one second let me
stop chair
alright as you can see for the record
behind me is Joe Ramos
Joe please raise your hand
Joe could you please state your name
and spell it for the stenographer
state the name
state your name and spell it for the record
oh okay
Jose Ramos
last name is R -A -M -O -S
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, of course. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you, chair. Joe, you've heard my representations to the board today. Yes, I did. Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief? Yes, they are. Would you adopt those representations as your own testimony? Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Questions from the board.
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson yeah i just want to acknowledge mr ward
yes there's still some issues um with the refusal but we can work with it as is um and um the board
can just note it's actually not i thought it was it had been amended but it actually was corrected
so it you can just note that it's per refusal dated if the board or whatever the vote is per
refusal dated. And then if the board does grant, indicate that it is for three dwelling units at
the property, not five. Yeah. And for the record, Hillary, the date of the corrected or corrected
refusal is March 28, 2025. Yes. Yes. That's what I have as well. Thank you. All right.
Okay. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission amy wood with the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from the current cmx2
commercial mixed use to rm1 residential multifamily the proposal for no ground floor commercial would
be allowed in the rm1 district and matches the character of the block the proposal for three
units would be allowed by right in both districts the proposed roof deck would be on the back
structure and not visible from the street and the proposal for 80 occupied area is a de minimis
divergence from the acquired 75 percent the impellant has not demonstrated why they cannot
comply with the accessible parking requirements the proposed rear yard setback is existing and
in the character of other properties sharing the back driveway the planning commission recommends
that the board grant the requested variance for roof deck setback no ground floor active use
occupied area rear yard setback and grant the requested variance for a multi -family with
proviso max three units and deny the requested variance for accessible parking thank you
mi 2023 002 457 23 for 23 64 orthodoxy i vote yes um per corrected refusal dated
3, 28, 25, maximum three dwelling units, and all the other board members will certify that
they watched the video on May 15, 2024.
I, Cheryl L. Gaston, certify that I watched the video recording of the May 15, 2024 hearing
in this matter, and my vote is yes with provisos.
i excuse me i ryan mcadams certify that i watched the video recording
that I watched the video recording of the May 15th, 2024 hearing in this matter,
of the may 15th 2024 hearing in this matter
and my vote is yes with provisos.
I tie a win, certified that I watched the video recording of the May 15th, 2024 hearing in this matter,
and my vote is yes with provisos.
Okay. Thank you, counsel, and glad you're back.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Have a great afternoon.
Sure. Number six, MI -2025 -001 -088, 1518 Moore Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the East Point Breeze Neighbors Association,
and there are several provisos.
Vern Anastasio will be rejoining us.
Sure, thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Counsel. You've already been sworn, just for the record, state your name.
It's Vern Anastasio. I represent Ms. Lindsay Everett.
Okay. Janetta Graham, our board member, has a few
questions, sir. Good morning. Have you submitted your
documents five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, ma 'am.
And do you waive the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
All right. Thank you. You may proceed to share your screen. Thank you.
Chair, first, I'm going to start with the letter that I'm moving into evidence from East Point Breeze neighbors.
They have a letter of support asking for two provisos commercial trash service, which, of course, we agree to, in addition to some of the music limitations on time.
10 p .m. Sunday through Thursday, 11 p .m. Fridays and Saturdays, closing at 11 p .m. Sunday through
Thursday, and 1 a .m. following Fridays and Saturday nights. We have no problem with any
of those provisos. So I want to make sure that that is moved into evidence. Okay. I also want
to move into evidence. Can you confirm you see this screen? We do see this. Okay, great. We've
got lots and lots of immediate neighbors signatures of support for this. It's basically a small venue
for events. And as you can see here, my client went door to door using the addresses given to
us by the planning commission back in May and got signatures from everybody that she possibly could
in support of this small event space.
Moving that into evidence as well.
The application, it's a referral, CMX2,
which as you know means we're not here for a variance.
We're just here for the special exception for the event space.
And we'll get right to it.
This is property and I'm moving into evidence.
In addition to the documents I've already shared with you, I have an additional 50 pages of evidence that I'm moving into, exhibits that we're moving into evidence today.
This is basically the layout of the space.
Photos do it a better justice.
It's just one large space.
It's about 30 by 16, a little under 502 square feet.
So not a very large space.
Not really for big parties, but here is a large bathroom for ADA compliance.
And as the property history shows, decades of use as either a restaurant, a bar, a tavern, that's what it's always been.
We won't be serving any alcohol, per se.
Folks will use the space.
They'll bring their own food just, you know, as far as for catering burners to warm up.
But there'll be no cooking and no alcohol being sold.
That's the space. As you can see, it still looks like a commercial space because that's what it's always been.
Even has the old 70s glass block that was pretty popular back in the day, even though I was a little kid.
I do know that taverns and things with glass block in the 70s was quite a thing.
So we have a letter here that was mailed to everyone, not only inviting them to the zoning hearing, but also inviting them to the RCO meeting.
We have already sent over separate proof that all taxes for real estate have been paid.
As you can see here, it's right on a commercial area, CMX2, adjacent to other CMX2 properties.
as you can see here it's right on a commercial area
And it's a fairly dense area in South Philadelphia.
And my client has experience in running venues like this.
She has a degree in entertainment management from the University of South Carolina.
You're going to meet her very shortly. Here is the property history from, you know, way back.
Restaurant and one family dwelling. And then it became a tavern and other sorts of entertainment, food sort of uses.
My client also was a venue manager for Comcast SpectreCore.
Not only here, but also in Georgia and Iowa.
So she also went abroad to become a general manager of a hotel.
So she has extensive history of hospitality management.
She also has worked in marketing and entertainment.
She was a project manager for a while with real estate.
She has organized block parties in Philadelphia, like many of us, and has worked in Philly with many different community -wide efforts.
The information in the East Point Breeze letter clearly states that she's very involved in the community.
And as such, they feel like she'll be a good steward with this property and in the future.
because of her extensive background and professionalism because of the overwhelming
support we have from immediate neighbors and because we are more than happy to agree to
what we consider to be reasonable provisos i'm going to request respectfully request the granting
of this special exception for this subject property and with that i move everything into
evidence and call my clients to raise her virtual hand, Ms. Lindsey Everick. Thank you.
Lindsey Everick has been promoted to panelists.
Hi, Lindsey. Could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
Hi, my name is Lindsay Everk, spelled L -A -N -D -S -E -Y, last name Everk E, B as in Victor, E -R -K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Lindsay, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
True and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
questions from the board? Yes. Is the event going to have, I mean, the event space going to have
a dedicated entrance into the building? Yes, it will. I'll show you the plan and Lindsay can
speak on it too, if she'd like.
When you say dedicated, you mean an exclusive entrance?
correct okay main entrance is right here where my cursor is which is on the other side of the
large window and that's on so on the moore street side facade because this is a corner property
that's correct okay other questions and so i'm sorry for the so the residences are going to
remain at the property yes that resident is me yep and lindsey lives above it so okay
and that is an exclusive entrance that's on the what is that the mole street side yeah
that's correct okay and then are all deliveries and load -ins for the event space going to happen
on Moore Street?
Lindsay?
Yes, they are not connected.
So anything that would need to go inside the event space
would have to be loaded in on Moore Street.
And then is there a basement to the property?
And how do you intend to use the basement?
Go ahead, Lindsay.
If it needs to be used, I'm not sure if it does.
um but if it needs to be used it can be accessed by you can see the bilco doors right there
so for storage it's not going to be used for event space oh no that's correct okay
and the bilco door is the only access into the basement from the event space
From the events place, yes. The other entrance is via the Unit 2.
From the event space, yes. The other entrance is via the unit two, which, again, they are not connected.
Okay. Other questions?
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no means at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the current zoning of cmx2 commercial mixed use
the appellant has demonstrated that the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts
beyond what would reasonably be expected the planning commission recommends that the board
grant their requested special exception for assembly and entertainment mi 2025 001 088
1518 Moore Street I vote yes with proviso live music to end by 10 p .m. Sunday to Thursday and
by 11 p .m. Friday to Saturday venue must close by 11 p .m. Sunday Thursday and by 1 a .m. on Saturday
commercial trash pickup
Cheryl Gaston my vote is yes with proviso
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Mr. Chair, just clarifying that last Proviso,
the venue must close by 11 from Sunday to Thursday
and by one on Friday and Saturday.
I think we can miss the Saturday.
Just clarifying that for the record.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
Thank you, and good luck.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I say no hands at this time, Sheila.
Thank you.
Everyone shut their mics off, please.
Thank you.