I've been in business for almost eight years with no nuisances or any type of complaints against my business.
I'm known down at PCA, the Philadelphia Corporation of Aging, for the support that I provide to the community.
My company provides something that a lot of businesses don't and it's support to seniors that cannot live alone.
This is a necessity, especially with our homeless rate in the city of Philadelphia.
I take care of these people like they're my own. And, you know, unfortunately, they're all waiting to move. They've been excited about this project. They've been looking to move into something that's nice, new and in a different location.
Um, and I mean, this is God's calling for me. I, um, it's unfortunate that the community is
against it. And I just wish that they would give me an opportunity to show what I am capable of
and what Careness is capable of. But I can tell you that this particular business homes holds
their own reputation. Um, I just hope and ask God that it gets approved because it's something that
IS NEEDED AND AGAIN MY RESIDENTS ARE REALLY TRULY WAITING FOR IT WITHOUT THIS THEY WILL BE DISPLACED
OKAY THANK YOU HILLARY WE'VE ALREADY HAD COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD RIGHT AM I CORRECT
LAST HEARING UM I BELIEVE SO YEAH THERE WAS QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD I JUST WANTED TO NOTE
though, that there was one additional hand
raised, Reynard Hughes
in the virtual audience. We do have
a letter from Mr. Hughes.
But if you'd like to hear from him
as well, it's up to you.
I think if we have a letter and we'll
file, I'm fine with the letter.
The letter is in opposition, just to clarify.
So, Council, we've had a lot of
testimony, a lot of correspondence
about this. We're going to vote on this
next Wednesday. We're going to review it
in the executive session, and
we'll vote at 9.30 a.m.
Okay. Okay. Thank you very much for your presence. Thanks for your time. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you.
So MI 2024 006748 4283 Viola Street TA 63838. I have Meredith Verliger is the attorney for the owner and Steve Masters is the attorney for Viola Street residents.
Mr. Masters, why don't we start?
Could you please state your name and spell 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,
with the law firm of JustLaws.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Counselor Ferliger?
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
So, for both counsel, here's the order of the hearing.
Remainder of Protestants' presentation.
and steve if i'm not mistaken you um submitted two names that are going to testify for you
yes i have one more name too there's three names there's three okay um then we're going to have
cross-examination by the applicant uh board and council questions public testimony and a
planning commission recommendation yes i do have a motion that i wanted to present first sure um
And then I also wanted to very briefly summarize the within a minute or two, the testimony that we have before just to give the board the context.
OK, a minute or two, you said.
OK, thank you.
Okay. So just on Sunday, we received some additional exhibits from the applicants that
were submitted very late. They were supposed to be submitted five days before, as is the
practice of the zoning board they were submitted two days before and in their uh in their revised
submissions they are um they are uh supposedly presenting a pro forma uh for the costing
supposedly presenting a pro forma uh for the costing of the project that they're doing there
is no uh designation as to who made this pro forma there is no signed or or sealed uh instruments of
it there was there is no um request to bring an expert in to provide the necessary data for the
pro forma, but we anticipate that the applicant's counsel is going to try to introduce that as a
rebuttal. Our motion to you today is to either exclude that testimony or that exhibit or provide
objectors the ability to... We have a costing expert that we work with from time to time.
we would like to provide our own rebuttal costing analysis as to why their costing
scenario is not valid. Those are the two outcomes that we think would be fair.
But the applicant's attorney responded to our motion by claiming that as far as she's concerned,
apparently, she can submit any exhibits at any time, even after the hearing, and that would be
fine. That is not the practice, as you know, of this board. And that for objectors, we are not
bound by the same five-day rule, but the applicant is, and this is the second resumption hearing,
this applicant could have provided a pro forma all the way back to, I believe the first hearing was
in uh january uh of this year okay thank you counsel yes mr chairman um i'll address i'll
address mr masters mischaracterizations uh in turn but but steve if you could go back up please to
uh keep going keep going okay stop thank you uh so first of all we did submit our exhibits our
exhibits were submitted timely on Thursday, as are required. Mr. Masters' motion here
cleverly misstates what the actual zoning board regulations say on this point. And I will read
directly from the zoning board regulations at 5.2.3, which says the appellant must submit
the following documentation at least five calendar days prior. And then there is a specified list of
documents that must be submitted. And as we submitted during the first hearing and the second
hearing, all of those documents were submitted. Furthermore, as this board knows, applicants are
given broad discretion to submit additional exhibits during the course of their presentation
that can be done during the hearing. And the board's rule has been that if there are additional
documents that are submitted during the hearing, that those documents are to be submitted to the
board within 24 hours after the hearing. We reserved on the record the right to have a
rebuttal witness, specifically Mr. German Yakubov. That right was reserved on the record. We have
not exercised that right yet because Mr. Masters has not concluded his portion of his protesting
case. We felt that it was common courtesy to send that additional exhibit in advance,
although there was certainly no requirement that we do so. We could have submitted that pro forma
with our rebuttal, and that pro forma could have then been submitted to the board within 24 hours
after that. And as the board will recall, Mr. Masters himself submitted his initial exhibits
two hours before the first hearing, which I did object to on the record. So in conclusion,
there is simply no basis to deny an applicant the right to a rebuttal, the right to present
additional evidence or testimony to rebut their case. And we fully intend to present a rebuttal
witness. And this pro forma will be used specifically for that purpose.
Mr. Chair, we don't disagree that the applicant has a right to rebuttal. What we disagree with
is that they don't have a right to sandbag the opposing counsel
and to present something within a few hours of the actual hearing.
So if you do decide to allow Mr. Yakubov to testify to a pro forma,
we would ask that you hold this case
and allow us to have our expert do a counter pro forma
to have our expert do a counter pro forma so that you can have the correct information
so that you can have the correct...
in front of you.
Right.
So I'm going to overrule your objection.
We're going to go on with the case today, and we'll get as much testimony in as we can,
and then we'll make an evaluation at the end of the day about how you would bring somebody
back in.
So why don't you start, and counsel, can you hear me?
I was okay?
All right.
Thank you.
Well, why don't you start and bring your first two or three witnesses on.
Yes, I just wanted to, as I said, give you one or two minute.
Yeah, the one or two minute little, the highlight film from our second.
You most certainly can.
Yes, okay.
So as the board will recall, although Mr. McAdams, I think you are, this is your first time hearing this case, and welcome to the board.
um we presented uh four witnesses at the last resumption hearing uh jean allen who has been
living on viola street uh since the 1950s i believe her family it's like five generations
of the family that have been there um sean solomon uh gave a very detailed uh testimony
around the historic preservation elements and his own uh specific contributions which were very
laudatory and strong
for preserving the historic nature
of the Centennial District.
Lauren Gomez,
whose family goes back to the 50s
and she's been living there for 30 years,
she talked specifically about the dangers
and the unfortunate occurrences
that have been happening with tenants
who move into that block
and who don't respect the quality,
the character of the block
and they put litter in the green spaces
and the flowers and the plants that they have there.
And then Mr. Cromer,
who was the head of the city's housing authority
and who has been a consultant
for the Viola Street Neighbors Association
and East Parkside,
and he gave testimony that was specifically
about a very modern conundrum,
which is the DoorDash and Uber Eats drivers
and showing that there would be
a significant amount of transportation blockages
and that would be a considerable problem here.
So I do want to just summarize
some of the critical building design issues
that have emerged so far from our our client's testimony that any new construction this is a
this is as we know is an empty lot at this point but it's literally right next door to
the beginning of the historic district the new construction must harmonize with single family
homes on each side of the project the new construction must keep the historical flavor
of the block the new construction's front doors should match the look and feel of front doors on
the street. Keep in mind that up until today, they were proposing zero front doors on that
building, only in the back or weird alleyway kind of exit and entrances. A big boxy building,
the testimony has been so far, is not compatible with the character of the block, and the new
facade should match the facades of the surrounding buildings. Now, we're going to see later,
or maybe at another hearing if we don't have time today, the applicant is now proposing a new
look to this building. I'm not going to preview it for you. You'll see it in good time. But I
will just tell you that to me, it looks like a casino. It looks like a brick casino, like the
Borgata or Caesars or something. And there is nothing on this block that would suggest that
was within the character of Little Viola Street to have a giant casino towering over a bunch of
other homes i'm going to now call uh our first witness for today which is joyce smith okay um
so joyce can you come up here could we sit at the other tables oh right okay yeah all right
i think it's okay good morning could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Yes. Joy Smith, J-O-Y-C-E-S-M-I-T-H.
Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed, counsel.
Okay, thank you.
All right, Ms. Smith, I think you have an opening statement you wanted to make, and then I'll ask you some questions.
Okay. It's three pages, but big print on your site.
Okay. It's three pages, but big print. I'm very excited.
No, that's fine.
Okay, I want to thank you.
Please read your three pages.
Okay. Good morning, and thank you all for this opportunity to share the concerns of the Viola Street residents regarding this proposed project.
The project, as currently designed with an extraordinarily high density for our narrow block, one-side parking, would have a significant adverse impact on our quality of life, bringing overcrowding, excessive noise, increased traffic, and trash.
Also, it runs counter to Project Reclaim, our community-driven plan, and threatens to compromise the years of work we've invested into strengthening our block, our neighborhood, and our community.
East Parkside is a neighborhood of deep historic and cultural significance.
It's home to the 1876 World's Fair in the Centennial District, and as residents, we take deep pride in that legacy.
Over 17 years ago, a group of neighbors came together to form the Viola Street Residence Association.
We reunited around a mission of block preservation, beautification, and support for home ownership, and we got to work right away.
From that commitment, Project Reclaim was born, an initiative grounded in a shared vision for Viola.
In fact, Project Reclaim was recognized in Mayor Nutter's 2012 budget address for our grassroots leadership and community impact.
But our passion and boots on the ground work, it wasn't enough.
We needed a plan.
In 2012, we applied for and were granted or awarded a community design collaborative grant to develop a conceptual design plan for the 4200 block of Viola Street and adjacent blocks.
And I remember how excited we were.
We were going to document and legitimize our vision, the vision of the residents on Viola Street.
We spent almost a year meeting with residents, members of the wider community, the collaborative team.
We built an impressive task force that included city agencies, elected representatives, nearby cultural institutions and professionals and so on and so on.
And we continue to build on those relationships today.