The image to the left, presented by the opponents to this project, is an image with the parking
garage in the foreground. As a result, it makes it appear as if there is no backyard
to this property. The image to the right is a higher elevation that gives the image of the
backyard, and it shows that indeed there is a 30-foot backyard behind the property.
The other misleading, you'll see the circles. The image presented by the opponents to this project exaggerates the distance, the length of the pilothouse.
They have also stretched the body of the property. And if you look in the two circles, you'll see the obvious differences.
And we have the project architect here to testify that the image to the right is the accurate image and the image to the left is not accurate and very misleading.
This is the bird's eye view looking west with the project superimposed.
And what you'll see is it's entirely consistent with the neighborhood.
And I can.
Those are the facts.
and that's my opening. Now, I want to, in my opening, I also want to make reference to
the process that has taken place thus far. The process before the Historical Commission
was very involved. It was very costly. There were numerous meetings and there were numerous
meetings with the neighbors present.
Thankfully, the Historical Commission found that this project was historically sensitive
and merited their approval.
The next door neighbor, Mr. DeMarco's client, appealed the historical approval and took
that appeal to the Board of L&I Review, where it sits, they would use the ZBA as another
as another appellate remedy from the historical commission process.
appellate remedy from the...
They represented to you that they didn't have an opportunity to consider this project.
And we provided to you proof that not only was an RCO meeting scheduled in March,
but that ever since April, we've been asking them to consider this project.
And then you gave them additional time and a meeting was scheduled by the RCO on Monday.
And you will hear testimony from members of the community that they were not able to weigh in at that meeting.
And the proof in the pudding here is that prior to that rescheduled RCO meeting,
you received and that letter hasn't changed so there was a meeting on Monday
Mr. Miller sorry to interrupt you broke up you said you will see something about the meeting
and you broke up I apologize I'm not sure where I where I left off well you said that they had
the meeting and you will see and then you broke up right and the proof in the pudding
that the process that's been employed by the RCO has been only designed to advance the complaints
of the next door neighbor, the owner of a multi-unit apartment building. Because the RCO
claimed to need a meeting, a postponement was granted for that meeting, and yet the RCO didn't
provide a revised letter to the ZBA to change the letter that was previous, that was sent before
that meeting occurred. So it was a fait accompli. The RCO was not sincere in its desire to solicit
community input. And the RCO went through the motions, held the meeting, denied members of
the community the opportunity to be heard and then appears before you today without submitting a
revised letter. What you'll also find is that the app next door, and I've provided to the board as
an exhibit, the chats, the feedback from the community memorialized on that chat. And it's
open forum and there are people against the project and there are people for the project.
And that gives you an accurate understanding of the sentiment in the community
as about this project. The RCO said nothing but negatives. And
I think that when you consider just how involved the process has been thus far,
The board will understand that the objections that you're hearing are objections that have already been heard by the Historical Commission, that have already been voiced before the L&I Board of Review, which is considering that.
And I think you will find that this is a project that is historically sensitive, that it fits the neighborhood, and that the hardship on the height and on the access from the side will be adequately demonstrated.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller, could you tell us what is the status of the appeal before the L&I Review Board?
So there was a briefing schedule issued. And to my knowledge, Mr. DeMarco was obligated to file a brief. Then the COVID happened. And I honestly don't recall whether his deadline was before or after the COVID emergency. But it's my understanding that no brief was ever filed. And I don't think there's been any action.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco, could you respond to that?
The chair and I have discussed what the new deadline would be for the brief.
The brief was due during the COVID-19 shutdown.
I have not filed a brief.
That's completely accurate.
it. But I have been in touch with Ms. Salata and asked when she would want to receive that
brief. And I'm happy. And I should clarify that I am also the attorney for the L&I Review
I should clarify that I am also the attorney for the L&I Review Board.
Board. I will write to.
I will write to both parties after this and clarify what the briefing deadline is and when
the board will vote. Thank you Sharon. I'm happy to add that I'm happy to file my brief whenever
it's due. Thank you both. Thank you. So can I respond now or do you want to?
uh between you or mr boland you guys decide who wants to go first if it's okay ryan i'll i'll i'll
go first i'm gonna step on your toes ryan please go ahead okay uh so mr chairman members of board
thank you uh thank you for the uh the granting the additional time for some more rco input i
appreciate it i guess i'll start with uh the next door submission you know i i'm not going to um
hem and haw about late submissions of exhibits and uh you know i i i'm happy to uh not object to
most of the applicants exhibits including the images and i'm happy i would like to say this
they've they've offered that my experts our experts images are inaccurate I'm
happy to use mr. Miller's architects exhibit an image as well because it
shows how stark it shows starkly how adversely impactful on how out of place
the building is with the rest of the block I'm gonna attempt to share my
screen. Okay, I don't have to yet. I guess, Tanya, it's not critical at this point, but do you mind
giving me? Mr. DeMarco, you all have it. You're a panelist, so you all have the capability. Oh,
it says you cannot start screen share while the other participant is sharing on my screen.
Mr. Miller can you take yours down? I just changed it. He should be able to do
it now. All right thank you. Oh all right. Thank you.
Oops hold on.
you see my screen
yes okay so i don't have mr miller's most recent um most recent mr um the applicant's most recent
um image but you know they're really not that different i mean the board will make that decision
on their own but um you know their image actually shows greater massing right here this is my
client's property and this is our our experts exhibit and their experts exhibit is actually
greater massing right here i'm happy to use uh mr miller's uh mr uh excuse me the applicants
um i don't think they're that different but the board will make that decision anyway correct me
if i'm wrong while we're on this point yeah this looks to me as though the building extends further
back than mr miller's uh yeah i mean this is where the parking area is on this one
yeah doesn't seem to be a parking area for three cars right because i think what correct i think
what you're going to what you're going to see is that it's the angle of the point of view of you
You know, my expert took a different angle that, you know, part of the rear yard is obstructed in this image.
It's the angle that of the point of view of the image, the architect's, the applicant's image is swung out more.
I think they're both accurate, frankly.
But again, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to use the architect's image as well.
I know where you're going, but unless I'm having a lapse of memory here, this doesn't seem to be the same image that Mr. Miller provides.
And I understand the angles, but this to me seems that the backyard, I'll call it where the parking would be, much more narrow than in Mr. Miller's image.
Right.
I mean, I stand corrected if I'm wrong.
yeah you you can see that the parking garage here obstructs I don't I'm sorry let me say let me
rephrase that I'm talking about the parking area behind 2000 Spring Garden right all right appears
to be more narrow in this uh photograph than it does in the plan that in the photograph or the
uh photograph than it does in the plan that in the photograph or the image that mr miller
presented and mr chairman someone correct me or if i'm incorrect i i'll tell you what's happening
the the parking it extends back into here and janice woodcock will will explain that but this
this building obstructs it's our vantage point is is back in a way whereas the architect's
vantage point is in here somewhere so you so you see the full you see the full uh parking area in
his image and you don't see the full parking area because it's blocked by this image okay
so they're both accurate uh frankly i mean when jan and again janice will defend her work uh but
both both images are correct one is a different everybody chooses the best vantage point that
they can mr chairman to demonstrate the impact but like i said the architect's image shows how
much deeper their property is than the rest of the block and how unusual and how uh how stark
the adverse impact is on all of these properties and that's why everybody's so upset
this is a departure from the orderly uh massing of the block and that's a good segue to
the issue of the height variance. The opening of Mr. Miller seems to completely ignore the fact
that he must prove as part of his burden of proof, which he has a very extreme burden of proof,
he must prove that he's requesting the least minimum variance. And our courts have been very
clear that the least minimum variance is most applicable to dimensional relief. He needs that
height variance not just for the front of this building but all along here and here his height
variance is all along this massing and he could have if he chose to he could have mitigated his
height variance it's not just the height grant us the height variance and then we're done that's a
that is a ignorance of his burden of proof he must prove that he's asking the least minimum
dimensional variance. And his height variance is a stark height variance. It's over 10 feet,
which I know this board's reluctant to do. Now, if you were to take his argument that he gets to
match the mansard roof of my client, which I don't think he is, unfortunately the code says
what it says. It doesn't say that you get the height variance if you're matching the cornice
line of the neighboring property. Doesn't say that. If city council intended that, it would
have said that. It does not. And that's what we're left with. He needs to prove hardship.
He can build a building which meets the height variance. End of story. He doesn't meet the
standard. However, let's say you do get to match the corner sign, Mr. Chairman. Then why does he
have to have a height variance all along this depth and all along this depth so that he blocks
the light and air to all of these properties, including my client. His pilot house will block.
My client wants to put a deck here, and she won't be able to when his pilot house blocks it, and
that's a function of the height variance that he wants. He could have chosen to create massing,
which matched the rest of the block. He chose not to. He's seeking the greatest height variance
that he can get in order to maximize the buildable area of his building. He has not matched the
height of my client's property or the other properties. He has not matched the massing of
the height across the street. This is a radical departure from the massing of the properties on
this block. He needs variances. He won't meet the standard. So it's a fallacy to say, just give us
the variance. We get a variance for the whole thing. And that's all you have to give us because
we matched the cornice line at the front. That's completely incorrect as a matter of law.
And it's a misunderstanding. You know, he's saying we changed our tune. I don't know where
that comes from. We've always objected to the height variance at all points. But just for
argument's sake, if he can match the cornice line, then he still needs to match, to mitigate
his height variance and match our properties. And unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where
it's come to be that suddenly my client controls the RCO, controls the council person,
and there's an attempt to attack my client for offering her objections, which I think is
a shame. My client is clearly the most impacted by this development, has every right to offer an
objection when a developer chooses to seek variances to the zoning code. She has every
she has every right to object and the attack on her is is sad it's a shame and you see why we're
right to object. And the attack on her is sad.
here there's been no attempt to engage my client my client scaffolding is still there because she's
on hold due to this due to this she doesn't know what she's going to be able to do there
she's been working with the historical commission to beautify the rear of her building and suddenly
scaffolding that's necessary to upgrade a property is somehow a bad thing. I didn't know that,
but she is now on hold because he's going to block, this development's going to block the view
to her rear. She wanted to put a deck right here. She wanted to put a deck right here.
She doesn't want to remove the scaffolding and incur additional costs without knowing what,
whether this will be approved or not. So it's a shame that there's been this attack on her,
but you can see that there's tremendous opposition to this project. And it's for two reasons. One,
the tactics of the developer in attacking my client, attacking the RCO, acting entitled to
this relief. I'm sorry, but this is supposed to be a collaborative process. I've never seen a
situation where there's been no engagement with the next door neighbor other than threats. It's
a shame. And, you know, unfortunately we are where we are, but I want to make that clear.
The applicant has also, I'll note an objection for the record. The applicant has included a
pages and pages of hearsay testimony from this next door website, which has people from Fishtown,
people from center city people from the northeast commenting now i'm not going to object to all
these images i'm not going to object to the doc to the to the plans the pictures they're all proper
but this board and and mr miller should know better the next door social media commentary is
not proper for a zoning matter and should be stricken from the record it's all double and
triple hearsay, people who have no clue what's going on, just looking at one image, a self-serving
post by the developer or one of his friends. Let's get rid of that, please. Let's talk about
the variances. Let's talk about his burden of proof and talk about whether he meets the legal
standard for unnecessary hardship. Lastly, I heard a statement that somehow the Historical Commission
require him to seek a variance? No. Sorry, that's not how it works. They requested this development
and worked with the Historical Commission to get Historical Commission approval. The Historical
Commission never dictated the height. He applied for relief from the commission. So he actually
tried to go higher than, I believe, higher than the next door property, and the Historical
Commission made him match the corners line he chose to seek that height they
didn't dictate what height he wanted he's chosen that that's the choice of
developer this board knows that the historical mission process was started
by the developer developer chose which variances he wanted the parking sorry
the parking while there is a curb cut there that was for surface parking he
The applicant has changed the format of the parking, so therefore he doesn't get any non-conforming protection because of the existing lot.
He's using that rear yard to meet the code, so he had to remove the parking from the rear yard so he could get the massing that he wanted.
So it is his decision to lose any non-conforming protection for the surface parking that exists.
he's being refused because he's now changed the format and now he has
parking within the building because he can't put the parking in the rear lot
because he's pushed the building back as far as possible and he needs to not
have any surface parking within the rear yard so that is a perfectly legitimate
variance not only that mr. chairman we'll have testimony that we believe L&I
missed two variances with regard to the garage the garage has stacked parking
and there should have been a refusal for that when you're above two spaces you're
supposed to have aisles drive aisles and you're not supposed to have a depth
greater than 25 feet and that's in our exhibits that that should have been a
refusal in addition to the curb cut. Can I ask just a procedural question here? Mr. Miller,
that was your, when you spoke, that was your opening statement. Is that right? A summary of
what you would be presenting? You do still have witnesses whom you're going to call? Is that
is that correct that is correct I'll tell you I'm finished by the way thank
Correct.
you for your time mr. DeMarco before you go you mentioned stack parking yes are