all right um then ronda you are excused and i would like um uh john thompson uh to
to uh raise your hand i'm sorry jonathan thomas
to uh raise your hand i'm sorry jonathan thomas sorry about that
ah you are here okay great um so we're gonna look at we need to get mr thompson oh sorry you have
to get him thomas on the record name minutes please state your name and address spell your
name for the court reporter, please. Thomas, J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N-T-H-O-M-A-S, 321 Chapman
Drive, Percasee, PA, 18944. Mr. Thomas, can you explain your role in this project?
we were brought on to the development team as home builder and partner of the um to do the four
uh the twins of the four units um and designing those in a way that those are sellable
and the correct kind of housing configuration to not only have a successful project to be
conscious of the neighborhood, but also to sell them at a maximum value to help take the proceeds
from what we do to help benefit the restoration of the Farlaw Mansion, which I think is the most
important aspect here. And what is, can you just explain the connection between the sale of these
four homes and the ability to preserve and renovate the mansion? My understanding is the
proceeds from the sale of the four lots to us as home builders is they're going to then roll
those proceeds into the restoration of the um you're getting a little cut off unfortunately
could you repeat that the four lots um those go and benefit for the restoration of the uh
the two units in the mansion okay so let's go through the the designs for the
new construction can you see the the screen that I'm sharing Mr. Thomas can
you can you see the the diagram on the screen okay all right so what would you
like me to show to to help you explain um how you design these homes and and why you um you you have
the setbacks the way you do so like the first floor plan um i mean the idea is that we we need
to have a home that's big enough for a growing family in mount area mount area you're going to
have the need for three to four bedrooms um and then we also have a width issue which a lot of
the setbacks um a lot of the variances are from those setbacks and we built a home here that we
feel is very it's wide enough at 18 and a half feet wide outer outer to outer um and then it's
about 50 feet deep on the deepest part um 52 feet deep here that you can see the mudroom um so we
felt that anything smaller than that we would just have a we'd have a subpar you know home to build
and that you know this is kind of like the maximum between what we can do what
we can sell it for and then also like how those proceeds go to benefit the
historic you know renovation of the mansion okay I think I think mr. Holloman
is also asking um as to your choices around um the side and the and the rear um setbacks and the
front setbacks this is as far as can you clarify what the question is let me let me let me ask the
question please okay it seemed like to me that the design of a building is dictating the
zoning parameters whereas zoning parameter should dictate the design of
the building you follow me I do I don't know if I understand a question there
well what can you do to to what can you do design wise to meet the zoning
requirements in my personal opinion as a is a
in my personal opinion as a is a you know i guess a real estate professional for 13 years
i don't feel that we're able to design a smaller home that's that's anything skinnier is going to
be too too narrow um and then with the rear patio that you can kind of see on this image here
is that you have livable space so you have from your back door mudroom area you know where everyone
takes off their dirty clothes and shoes and everything, you step out onto a really nice
patio. And that patio, you have a little bit of rear yard and grass, so it feels like a good
community feel. And then from there, we already put the detached garages in the back. And I think
some of the setbacks are caused by that. However, I know that the support from the person who lives
in the manor house right there is understanding and I believe supports the project. Ken, you can
correct me or stevie can correct me on that um but that i think that is the most extreme
setback variance for there for the accessory structure um
well let me ask let me ask you let me let me ask you if you reduce the number of lots
could you reduce the number of refusals
i i would think that the the factual answer to that would be if you reduce the number
of lots the answer would be yes but then you would be in jeopardy of not being able to preserve
the far lawn mansion because now you're only having two lots and we're not selling
one home for you know twice is what two homes would sell for so you're losing
that that development aspect of it
well should the zoning board be helping you with economic issues
well i i would say i think that's maybe a question more for me than for my witness
um mr holliman um in this case uh the city the city has a very strong public policy
um for preserving um our historic heritage and historic structures and this structure as i said
at the very beginning of the hearing you know is designed by the same architect that designed the
Bellevue Stratford Hotel it's a beautiful example and and worthy of
preservation but it costs a lot of money to do that and it has a 1.2 acre a lot
but as we if we want to look at the whole site plan what we're doing is
we're not taking we're not putting houses you know the the manor itself is
it takes up a quite a bit of space it's 10,000 square feet and that has the
entire look at it basically comes out you know onto on the whole frontage of
Cresham Road and it curves around to it's the corner with Pelham and Cresham
so to take this giant lot we certainly wouldn't want to put houses in a way
that would destroy the grandeur
and the beauty of that mansion
and try to divide up the properties that way
to carve out like a corner lot on Pelham and Cresham,
that would not be pleasing to the neighbors
or to the preservation of this project.
So the only possibility for carving out some subdivisions
and putting some homes was along this portion of Pelham,
which is going towards, it's going to the east
towards Germantown Avenue.
And right next to these four proposed new homes,
these four new townhomes are five row homes,
which we can see in our site photos here.
and make this a little bigger so we so this is you know the mansion we obviously can't put any
homes uh in in the vicinity of the mansion um we're putting the homes um here which um and
then putting the garages back here right next to these five um adjoining row homes so from a from
from a design point of view, this seems to be completely compatible and in character
with the surrounding homes. And perhaps you're right. Perhaps if there was larger lots and
less of them, then there would be less dimensional variances. But the courts have said that when
we're talking about dimensional variances, the issue of financial hardship is appropriate,
is appropriate where it isn't with the use um and with the use with the manor the only use
where it isn't with the use.
And with the use,
variance we have um you'll recall is with is with putting two single family homes in the manor
because it's zoned it's a 10 000 foot 10 bedroom house that's zoned for one family
um and we're putting two homes there that's a use variance and we believe we have
the unnecessary hardship because um because the testimony is we can't use the home with that with
that structure, especially historically protected, we can't do anything with it to make it a single
family home that would be viable. Everything else, dimensionally, we're saying that we need
those four homes in order to generate enough total return so that we can preserve and maintain that
mansion and that's that's just the that's just the economics of of preserving historic buildings
other other developers might come in and want to demolish it and that's not what we're doing
we're actually preserving this poor character for the neighborhood let me let me ask you
counselor did your client apply for historical tax credits uh this is ken weinstein come back for
that. Yeah, thank you. This is Ken Weinstein again. We did not. We don't think this is a large enough
project. Usually when we apply for historic tax credits, we usually do it on $2 million plus
projects. So we did not apply in this case. I'd also like to, if I could, just add on to what
Steve just said and that a lot of the refusals are because of the top topography of the site it's hard
to tell from these pictures but the rear yard where we are proposing to add the four houses
sit up high like a plateau several feet up and we did not want to cut more into the slope
except along Pelham where this where the sidewalk needs to go we didn't want to
cut more into the slope and and damage the slope so we allowed a sizable area
behind the house before the four houses start in order to keep it on the top of
the plateau and that created some less comfortable less straight lines as you
can see in the drawings. So Ken can you can you explain why you chose to do it
that way as opposed to have larger lots and and less houses? Yeah I think John
Thomas already answered that question but we need a certain amount of revenue
out of the rear development in order to make the front building work as you
said Steve it's a sizable investment to restore that house from scratch and stay
within historic historically designated regulations and in order to follow those
regulations to a T we're anticipating that it'll be a large price tag and then
also the the driveway that's that a new driveway to allow all the the home the
new homeowners to have access to these um garages that that takes away some of the dimensional
setbacks that you that you could have had um if you didn't have that correct that is correct
so if you didn't have ability to park on site um then you could have had larger lots but then you
would have had more of a parking impact on the neighbors that's correct what we clearly heard
at the RCO meeting was that parking is a major concern.
So we did not want to negotiate on that
or downsize on that is the right word.
And wanted to insist that each of these new houses
has two parking spots and a garage off street.
So it would not impact the neighbor's ability to park.
Can you also talk about any plans that you may have considered but rejected for putting higher density residential use in the manor?
Well, as I mentioned earlier, we did not want to go the route that other developers had suggested, upwards of six apartments in there.
Because it's a three-story building, it would have laid out to six apartments.
but then the wonderful staircase inside would have had to be a common
staircase inside would have had to be a common staircase. And I think that would have been a
staircase. And I think that would have.
disservice to the building. We also did not want to take the route now allowed in historically
designated houses with previous commercial usage as this house has had and put in something higher
density and not as pleasing to the neighbors like a B&B, restaurant, offices, single room occupancy,
group homes, etc. We do not want to take that route and don't feel that would be fair to the
neighbors. Under the historic designated exception to the use table in the zoning code, would you
be permitted as of right to put in certain uses that you feel would be incompatible and you would
prefer not to do yes the uses i just mentioned can be done by right um and and but we do not
want to go that route and if you did those uses by right would you have the economic would you
be able to get the economic return to to basically you know maintain your ownership of of this
property without having to build the extra houses? Yes. In particular, group homes pay a lot to
developers. It doesn't mean that they should do them in the middle of a residential area,
but that would be another way to go economically. And again, we rejected that idea
in preference to do it this way. And clearly, a majority of the neighborhood agrees with us.
so um members of the board we have um some very brief testimony from the immediate neighbors
all around this property that i would really like to put into the record at this time
mr uh steve unfortunately we have about two minutes that's what my clock says i don't think
you're gonna have enough time uh frank mr chair i think you know you said uh we're gonna have to
continue, right? I don't think we're going to
have enough time.
Frank, you're muted.
I thought we had started
more like at 11, so I thought we had
15 minutes left.
Frank, we're not getting audio from you.
Looks like the chair is having some sound issues.
Steve, you want to continue to hear?
Sure. So we have a petition in support in our exhibit binder from 34 neighbors,
including um from a woman who was the last uh with her family was the last resident of the uh
of the home uh excuse me i'm i'm sorry to interrupt but i have the chairman on my cell phone he for
some reason can't unmute but he's going to um he has a question now go ahead frank
Hi, they're suggesting IT is suggesting Frank you close out and try to rejoin and maybe they that might work
Steve, you want to continue to?
Sure, sure.
Thank you.
Do we have, I have on the list here, we have Chelsea Badeau, Joe Sullivan,
Jen and John Conley, and Megan, John McGann, or Karen Colquitt Hall,
John McGann or Karen Colquitt Hall and Paris Hall,
and Paris Hall, are any of you?
or any of you.
And all those people, Steve, you got to get on the record.
Yes, but very briefly.
We have letters from them, but I just wanted,
they've come to this hearing and I want them to just to,
I think that they could just affirm the letters
that they put into the.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can.
Thank you.
Good idea.
Good suggestion.
Thank you.
uh mr chair did you say that was a good suggestion that they could just
reaffirm their letters yes oh no testimony just their name address and whatever okay great
what's the first person uh do we have joseph sullivan on the on the um at the zoom
if i could ask if you could raise your hand if you have to testify
okay let's go down to jenna and john conley
hello hello this is joseph sullivan i just couldn't find the unmute button
oh great okay mr sullivan please identify yourself with a record spell your name for
this yes joseph a sullivan j-o-s-e-p-h middle initial a last name sullivan s as in sam
u l l i v as in victor a n your address i'm sorry and my address is 15 westview street
philadelphia 19119 don't really swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do i have a question how close is uh your home to the application the property that
we're hearing occasionally. My home, it literally abuts the yard of the mansion. We share a common