I'll just read it to you.
As you know, we placed an application in for variance for an eight-unit building in each parcel, a total of 16 units.
This is the big letters minimum we need to make this project work.
If the variance is denied or even approved at six units each, we will not proceed with the project.
We will board up the property and wait until the rents catch up to a point where it would make sense to rehab this property.
We are eager to rehab this property and bring it back into use, and we would be able to, without a variance, if it was zoned RM1, as are many of the identical homes on the block are.
However, at this time, the project does not make financial sense at the six units that it was last used as.
This is the property that we showed the photos of earlier, correct?
That's correct. And I've been consistent in my testimony over the last five years that I've been trying to develop that.
I mean, you can I know you're going to try to make it.
Why don't we do this? Just answer his question.
OK, right. If it's yes, that's that's the property we just looked at the photos.
That's correct.
And it currently has a hole in a window and the roof is leaking significantly. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct. The roof is leaking significantly, but there is a hole in the window.
There's a hole in the roof and you're not fixing it.
Correct. Do you have any plans to fix the hole in the roof?
Yes. Do you have a plan that's a contemporary plan, not something in five years from now?
Do you have a plan that's a contemporary plan, not something in five?
Yes. What's your plan? We're going to board up the building until we can get any variance that
would allow an eight unit building in each of those properties to do. You did board up the
building, Mr. Yeah. At the front level. Yeah, but we'll secure the windows in the second and third
floor. Now you're going to clean and seal it basically? That's correct. How is that helping
the neighborhood well what's that doing to the property values what would help the what would
help the neighborhood is having a fully rehabbed building and i've attempted many times over to
to present that so mr yakubov you understand what blight is right of course i do okay why would you
intentionally continue to to perpetuate blight in a building that you don't want to that you
that you don't want to develop under the terms that the community is willing to why don't you
just sell this building let somebody else develop it so there's no more blight you have somebody
that's going to be able to develop it at the sales price that that would dictate a market
well now you're going to you're going to charge a lot of money for a blighted building so that
i don't understand how that's not well i didn't see a lot of money i said what the market would
dictate i mean you're asking somebody to uh to to take on the risk of developing a single family
zoned building right um that they cannot develop just like i have not been able to develop um
so what will somebody do that i can't do right so i guess i guess we want to find out but we're
not able to find out because you haven't put it up for sale uh let me go on you could find out
nobody has developed anything why don't we let me go on why don't we move on okay um you testified
that you created the proforma? That's correct. Okay. And you are the developer of this project?
That's correct. And if you created a proforma that said that it didn't justify 16 units,
you would be destroying your own ability to get a variance. Is that correct?
I think the evidence speaks for itself. Nobody else has developed any building in the neighborhood
that's less than six units. What I'm saying to you, Mr. Yakubov, is that you're completely
conflicted in doing a pro forma to try to prove that you have hardship in a zoning case you're
you're saying that like you are the expert to to demonstrate to the zoning board that you should
you should get a variance how is that possibly legit well i think that i've demonstrated in
many ways that i'm entitled to a variance not just a pro forma sake i think the fact that there has
been zero development in this neighborhood what for a single family house why don't we why don't
go back and answer the question about the pro format yeah i don't think i have a conflict of
interest you don't think you have a conflict of interest absolutely not i think the numbers
speak yourself if you put if you would put down nine units i'm sorry would you put them upset
with yourself if you would have said nine units instead of 16. i wouldn't be upset with it i would
i would i would the numbers speak for themselves i look facts and if the numbers worked at nine
I want to show you page, let's see where I write it down here.
Your testimony was that looking at the project reclaimed that there was no new construction
that was considered in that project.
it was all rehab it was all renovating um existing structures that's not what i said
what do you know that they that they do they do have in project reclaim they do have a section
that talks about the viability of new construction in the in the neighborhood that's consistent with
the zoning that they're that they're that they're looking at and in 12 years none of that has come
to fruition um we're looking at um this is considered page 69 um in the project reclaim
uh materials and uh
the planning commission and the other and the other uh architects of this plan um contemplated
of a contemplated new construction of a scale that was appropriate for the neighborhood
okay you said in your testimony that you that you that there is no possibility of doing
new construction that's appropriate scale for the neighborhood
i said what they proposed and what the what the economics are are in conflict and it's not my
testimony alone. It's the fact that no developer, nobody that wants to make any money has decided
testimony alone it's the fact that no developer nobody that that wants to make
to build a single family house in a decade and a half since this has been produced. So this might
make great, you know, might make a great report, and it might be wishful thinking, but it doesn't
put things in practice. I'm not the only one that's developing in that neighborhood. If somebody
thought they could make money on a single family house development, they would have done it,
you know as soon as possible just like they have done in other neighborhoods nearby whether it's
in mantua whether it's in belmont whether it's in other uh are you are you familiar with um
turn the key program turn the key is a subsidized program of course if the government
doesn't throw free a free hundred thousand dollars i'd be more happy to answer the question
are you familiar with i am i am and is it your testimony that turn the key would not be
appropriate on this block? Of course it would be. It would be appropriate, correct? Of course.
If somebody else is paying for it, of course. I have no further questions.
Free land and $75,000 to somebody. I have no further questions.
Counsel, do you have anything further? German, you're about to start before you got cut off,
but what's your understanding of what the Turn the Key program provides to developers in order
to develop single-family homes?
Turn to Key program is a competitive bid process
that would allow for city-owned property,
not private-owned property,
but city-owned property to be transferred
for $1 effectively to the applicant
and for them to build a home.
So it takes away all the acquisition costs of land.
And not only that, they give the buyer
a $75,000 down payment assistance
coupled with other programs that exist
the purchaser is getting a free $100,000 in assistance in order to buy that house.
With those numbers, of course, more than happy to make that work. Absolutely. But that's only
available for city-owned land, and it's available to a certain number of lucky individuals within
the city. And would you be willing to take advantage of that program if that opportunity
was provided absolutely and i've requested that um many times including to a several emails to
mr masters and to the community there is a ton of vacant land that's owned by the city in the
neighborhood within a half a block from here or a block from here that i would be willing to build
single-family homes with with those um conditions that's all i have thank you i've redirected mr
you understand that it's not appropriate for a developer that creates blight and perpetuates
blight in a community to get city-owned land for free does that make sense to you
i would say the blight isn't caused by me it's perpetuated by you so anytime anytime that you're
anytime that you are intentionally perpetuating blade why would the city give you land
i think you need to clean up your act and then you can get city land is is my understanding
in so the blight is a cause of your clients inability to support a project that would
make economic sense it's a self-inflicted blight not mine okay all right um okay that's it all right
steve um what what's your next steps so my my request mr chair um is to have some time we i
have an expert, a costing expert that I've worked with on on other cases before the board. I would
like to to to, you know, secure his services and to get a report that he would be that he would
author. And I believe that we would have to have him testify to that also. So it would be a
resumption hearing just for that purpose. Meredith. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman,
That report will be strictly speculative. As Mr. Yakubov testified, he prepared these figures himself based on the specific details applicable to both this project as well as his experience in this area.
And to the extent that Mr. Masters would like to retain an outside cost expert, they're not going to be privy to information specific to this project. And I would question the effectiveness of that testimony that would, in our position, be entirely speculative.
well mr chair so apparently my opposing counsel hasn't hired an expert to do costing this is what
they do so this guy this guy gets called into to um to developments all the time and he does
costing um so he is it's not going to be speculative he's actually way more qualified
um so he is it's not going to be speculative he's actually way more qualified than somebody who's
trying to do something for his own project listen to me we're going to agree that if we do have a
receptive hearing it will be only for that testimony and with what's a chance to cross
examine is that right counsel if if the board is going to allow it then yes i would i would agree
with those conditions so we're at a point where um uh the appellant testified it's his pro forma
um i i believe that mr masters uh indicated over and over again that uh it's his just his word and
that's it's kind of a conflict to have your own so it's not like expert witness right right what
mr masters would like to do is to have a um i guess one more hearing when we say to say that
where he will bring in a person who will testify to their opinion of what the pro forma is
council will have a chance to question that so i mean we can we can i was also gonna say we
haven't had public testimony yet much of recommendation of the planning commission
So I don't know if you were still trying to get that in today or you'd put that to the next tier.
I will take public testimony, but everything else is closed other than this.
Do you agree?
Yes, we can do that.
Is there comments from the audience or the virtual audience?
Chair, we...
I'm sorry.
We have Mark Harris.
Mark Harris.
he's been promoted to panel
good morning Mr. Harris
Mr. Harris please unmute you're free to speak
Mr. Harris?
There's no response, Chair. Do you want me to go to the next person?
Please go to the next person. How many hands do you have?
Just one left.
Okay. Go to the next person, please.
It's Clarissa Cruz. She's being promoted to a panelist right now.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Hi. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Clarita Cruz. It's C-L-A-R-I-T-Z-A, Cruz, C-R-U-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Ms. Cruz, are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am an eight-year tenant on 42nd.
Ms. Cruz, as over several hearings, we've had numerous testimony relative to this case.
Are you in favor of this case or against it?
I'm against it.
All right. Is there anything you could offer that hasn't already been said?
I just would like to affirm.
I also serve as president of Centennial Parkside Community Development Corporation.
Thank you.
But I was at the meeting concerning the property on 4204-06.
And which I think what is my unique testimony is because there was a lot of testimony by the developer and, you know, rebuttals stating that he had acted in good faith throughout this process.
And I would like to speak to the fact that or just highlight to the committee with brevity, of course, that according to the developer's own testimony, his blighted properties have suffered fires and dumping.
And it wasn't until after the fire that he did any kind of rehab.
The property 4204-06, the back of that property empties out right into my front door.
So I look at that blighted property for the eight years that I've lived here.
And one thing that he has done is he kept his promise that if we didn't give him the 16 units, that he would keep it boarded up.
And it's been five years and he has done so.
So we have negotiated in good faith, even, again, with the developer's own testimony that we offer 12 units.
We always try to negotiate with developers.
Also, behind me on Memorial Drive, Butcher Singh up against Parkside and Viola, is a new construction unit with a couple of units in there.
But it's not like, you know, 16 units or eight units where there was only one.
you know, 16 units or eight units where there was only one single family. I think that if Mr.
Yakubov came in good faith, then we would, you know, support his efforts, but that has not
happened. All right. Thank you very much. Next witness. Hi, could you please state your name
and spell for this now? Can do. Travian, Ambrose, T-R-E-V-I-A-N, Ambrose, A-M-B-R-O-I-S-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Council member's office.
For you, neighbor.
The council member's office.
Okay, please proceed.
Will do.
Good morning, Chair.
Good morning, Board members.
My name again is Travion Embrose.
I'm here on behalf of Council Member Gaudier, who represents Philadelphia's 3rd District.
I want to state clearly that council member stands with East Parkside and strongly opposes the variance request for 4283 Viola Street.
This 16-unit proposal is simply too much for Viola.
It's a narrow block, and residents have expressed serious and valid concerns