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.