My girlfriend also, she had a property like this built next to her and all she has is green mold all over her yard
because she's no longer getting the sunlight that she had and she cannot grow her garden.
And it's just a shame that developers can come in and do this to people that have lived there all their lives. It's just, I am totally against it. I'm sorry. I bet we're rolling, but I'm totally against it.
Ms. Martin, you don't have to be sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling in. We understand your position.
Mr. Orfinity, do you have any questions?
i mean it i mean ma'am i mean you so you have right now uh hi michelle first of all um you
Um, you, you, right now you have, you have a building at the front of your property,
you right now you have you have a building at the front of your property a resident
a residence that you live in, and then this is a 30, 1334, and then a residence at the
back, correct?
Correct.
And then you, and then you have parking from the properties that I guess park on 1332 and
then go out to Will Street, correct?
Uh, yes, because I put a gate back there so I could park because there's never any parking
in Fishtown.
All right.
All right.
And then you mentioned about, well, first of all, well, the two things, privacy and air and light.
So I'm just going to pull up on the screen again real quickly.
Can you all see my screen?
So this is the current design that we're putting to the board.
So the buildings, if you look here as I zoom in, you have the driveway.
and the driveway is at least 14 the buildings are at least 14 feet away
and then on top of that the roof decks on top on the top of the roof are additional five feet so
probably the roof decks are 20 feet away and the pilot houses are all the way over on the south
property line 30 some feet away from you 30 yeah 31 feet or 28 feet away from you there are these
balconies at the second floor level, but they're approximately 10 feet away from your property.
And they're only at the second floor. And then what I had shown the board was, just give me one
minute. So even with this scenario, you have, and this is building on 1330 and 13, let's say just
13. Let's even just forget about the other ones for now. Building on the property right abutting
your butting yours so you have a building you would have rather than having a fence
and we had talked we had discussed like if you want a taller fence it would generate another
refusal but we could put a taller fence you can grow things up the side of it might give you a
little more privacy it would require another variance but it's something we had discussed
um but i know that you weren't receptive to that but rather than having the whole length of the
property, 134 feet long, having nothing up against it, having nothing located closer than 14 feet
away, you would have about 100 foot tall building that's 41 foot six inches to the top of the
parapet. And then a pilot house, you could have a pilot house that says 125, it could be 165 square
our feet, which would go up to 51 feet, six inches. And this is just somebody building by
right. And then decks off the back, we only show a deck at a second floor. They could have it at
the second, third, and fourth floor. So I guess what we struggled with, Mr. Chairman, is we tried
to listen to the concerns, but then we heard concerns that when you look at what somebody
coming in there you know we heard build by right build by right and it seemed more of more of a way
to kind of stop any development thinking well if we stop this like nobody and it really is a
financial hardship nobody's going to build a buy right building but if somebody were to build a
buy right building whether they max it out this is you know 75 open area remember we're at i mean
25% open area. We're at, with our project, 40-some percent open area, and none of it up
against Michelle's property, located far away. You don't have roof decks right up against the
property line. You don't have decks right up against the property line, which I think we all
thought would be even more invasive in terms of privacy. So we hear concerns with our proposal
about privacy and air and light, yet what we're proposing actually has far less, far less impact
on air, light, and privacy than a straight by right project would. So it was a little difficult
to move through this process at times because it was, no matter what we did, it was basically,
we don't want anything there. And that's just, that's not how zoning works, land use works.
It's not what the city of Philadelphia wants. And here you have a developer who lives in a neighborhood, who cares about the neighbors.
And we'd heard about with, you know, with rag flats. And I'm sorry, I said ice house. I meant rag flats before, you know, about the trees.
But Roland has already anticipated that. And he's already and he's taken that issue away.
Like, here's 10 years of maintenance I'm willing to pay for. So you don't have to do it.
And yet it's still not it's still not good enough. And this is where we and again, we have an appraisal report that shows that previously showed that five was the minimum and anything less than that wasn't financially feasible.
and yet it's still not it's still not good enough and and this is where we and again
Now we have the updated report with, again, the slight improvement in the construction industry showing that four is.
So we're doing the minimum variance that's necessary.
We're imposing less on the neighbors.
We only have one.
I understand, but Mr. O'Reilly, why don't I see if there's any other witnesses, and you'll have your final say.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, chairs. Two people. Kernan has been allowed to speak first.
Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yeah, good afternoon. My name is Ash Kernan. First name is A-S-H. Last name is K-E-R-N-E-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Are you for the project or against it?
Opposed.
Okay. Could you just give me a short reason why?
Yeah. First off, thank you for everybody's time for being here.
Look, you know, as much as I appreciate Roland's overtures and I don't doubt his responsibility, at the end of the day, who builds this project is a red herring.
Because despite all of these changes, the overwhelming majority of neighbors stand still in opposition to this.
Because at its core, it's a fundamental change to the nature and character of the block.
This is a single-family residence block. This is incongruent with the majority of the pre-existing usages. I don't believe that it's been offered in good faith the valuation and assessment, simply because literally right across the alley from this project, a flag lot sold as a single-family residence for $1.9 million two years ago.
So I don't feel that they have done their job to demonstrate that 26R and 28 could be conjoined and sold for a premium.
And in addition to having 1330, that could get them right at the sort of price point where they're at.
So I just wanted to reiterate that not only does the council stand, the council president stand opposed to this,
the FNA stand opposed to this, that the majority of the neighbors do as well.
And I appreciate your time.
All right. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Ms. Whitaker, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
It's Bernice Whitaker, spell as B as in Victor, E as in Elephant, N as in Nancy, I as in Igloo, S as in Sam, E as in Elephant, Whitaker, W-H-I-T-A-K-E-R.
Right.
I'm here in the capacity of a resident.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Chairman.
Are you for or against it?
I am currently against it.
And could you give me just a short reason why, especially if it's different than what
we've already heard?
i am suggesting that this goes back to the community again um for because now roland
is being present in it and he has brought up a lot of points on this meeting that is a continuing
issue in fishtown with destructive construction um and the developers before were not as open to
this conversation. So I know Roland didn't meet with them briefly, but I'm just suggesting that
this is continued for more discussions because all the neighbors around here has had very bad
experiences from the Flag Lots, the Montgomery Five, and a few other, you know, we heard at the
meeting the other night, this older gentleman, which broke my heart, like his train room was
wrecked, his basement, like the destruction that's happened to a lot of these neighbors is very unfair.
So, my suggestion is that, you know, I understand what David Orfinides was saying that someone's
going to build there no matter what, but you know what, there needs to be a more thorough
discussion.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
All right. Mr. Orfinites, would you want to take a two minute quick overview where you stand?
Sure. And just one quick thing is, the property that was referenced, the other flag lot that sold,
I don't know, $1.9 million, which is pretty massive. I mean, I'm looking, I have up on it now.
I mean, I'm looking, I have up on it now, none of those properties have a two foot five inch
none of those properties have a
wide flag, you know, flagpole. So, I mean, so I don't know that the details of that other
property, but it clearly doesn't have the hardship that our 1326R has. Again, I think
in terms of- Excuse me, this is Hillary. Can we actually hear from the planning commission
before Mr. Orphanity says it's closing.
That way he could respond to that as well.
Oh, that's a great idea.
Thank you.
All right.
Our planning commission.
This is Ron Bednar, city planning.
The property is indicated for residential use
on the city plan.
Adopted district plan recommends
no change to existing residential zoning
and dislocation.
The applicant's hardship is not supported
with evidence.
Unique physical circumstances
or condition of the property
that would prevent it from being used
and conforming with the code.
Normal-sized homes can still be legally developed by right.
Therefore, we recommend the request of variance not be granted.
Thank you.
Okay, so a couple things.
Let's be clear.
These are four single-family dwellings.
Wait, can I say something?
Wait, wait, wait.
Let me say something here.
No, no, no.
Your client, your lawyer will speak.
Okay, so four single-family dwellings, so they're not multifamily.
you know, let's be clear, despite what their notice of refusal says, it's four single families.
We're not, so it's very much in keeping with the underlying zoning classification.
We are, you know, we're doing four, we're not doing five. We've shown what three looks like.
We've shown it's just much more, it's not in keeping with the nature of this neighborhood
is at all. You have massive single family homes that wouldn't be able to market,
that would be completely out of keeping.
These, you end up with units that are much more in keeping
with what exists and what's being built.
In terms of the physical hardship,
there absolutely is a physical hardship.
And the unique shape of 1326R makes it a big problem.
There was clearly, and you can see in the Sanborn maps,
a dwelling unit on that property.
And at one point, you could run utilities
across other people's properties,
even under buildings on your own property, you can't do that anymore. And the cost and the issues
the neighbors are going to have with running utilities down Wilts Street makes that development
of that property impossible. And you cannot develop all these lots as only two single-family
dwellings. Developing it as three is an impossibility because of the water department,
because of the streets department, and financially. And again, I don't know that any of these people
have actually read the appraisal reports that we've provided. They're extremely extensive,
extremely detailed. I'd be happy to have Mr. Musnoff quickly speak about it. But we discussed
that you can read them and they speak for themselves. But it clearly makes it absolutely
100% clear that even at four, I mean, the margins are so risky. It is clearly the most de minimis
refusal or de minimis project that we can possibly have here. And again, it is very much
in keeping. Roland talked about these types of developments. I live in something like this.
They're very common when you have lots that are like flag lots. And when we say flag,
not with the skinny pole like 1326 are, but that are wider in the back like this is as a way of
getting development that works, that functions, and that has the minimum amount of impact
on the neighboring properties. Again, if we were to build, even if you could financially build
three single family dwellings, the ones on East Berks would not be anything like what's
presently in the neighborhood, even if it could be sold. So we feel like we've established both
the physical condition of the property that creates a hardship we feel, which is not the
sole hardship. You can also have financial hardship. The zoning code talks about that.
And we've established that time and time again throughout our presentations. But clearly,