would be no increase in the, you know, I'm sorry, let me just gather my thoughts for
There would be no increase in burden on the public facilities or utilities because these are just, because there would be cars, each home would have a dedicated parking spot utilizing the existing curb cuts so you wouldn't have people competing for parking spaces.
And again, I think a lot of the issues that people were raising were non-zoning related issues related to the desire that the lot simply remain as it has remained, an undeveloped asphalt parking lot from the beginning.
So I guess with that, if there's any questions from the board, as I said, I'm hearing my clients here and we'll be happy to answer them.
But my clients have dedicated a lot of time to this, and they've dedicated a lot of time in an effort to make changes that were reasonable.
I think that a lot of my other clients probably would not have made.
They're not big-time developers or anything.
JP is an architect, and his partner, Steve Marcel, has worked in construction.
But this is just kind of two guys just trying to make this project work.
And the other thing is the number of units, they've looked at this and kind of crunched it, given the increased construction costs during the pandemic. In order for this to work out as a viable plan, they do need the number of units in order to make the economies of scale work without getting into an exhaustive discussion on that.
but that's that's what works in that um and that's what uh we think meets the uh for the reasons
stated before we that's what we believe means the hardship okay does anybody on the board have
questions no no is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify please raise your hand
madam chair may i ask one question oh sure um mr monroe yes it it sounds as though even aside from
the roof decks and pilot houses that if this were approved there are additional changes that are
reflected in a revised plan is that correct yes yes and we did send over a proviso sheet
and updated plans with the uh with the four units and that includes an increased uh width to the
dry vial which was something that the the rco had requested the reduced number of units as i noted
But the other change that is not in there is the is the pilot house and roof decks, which they were given that, despite what I said.
pilot house and roof decks which they would and given that um despite what i said earlier i think
that if there are going to be revised plans in any case that if the board is inclined to approve this
that they hold the vote for one week so that the revised plans be further revised to include removal
of the roof deck and pilot houses and i've spoken with my client they can do that thank you okay
are there any witnesses
Chair, we have Charles. He has been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Charles. Excuse me, sorry. Can anyone hear me?
Yes, sir. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name please?
Absolutely. My name is Charles Feig, F as in Frank, E-I-G, and I live at 6649 Croson Street, so I'm a near neighbor of the project at 265 Porter.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay. You may proceed.
Thank you. Members of the ZBA, my name is Charlie Feig. Like I said, I live at 6649 Croson Street. It's one of the houses that borders the proposed project on the retaining wall side.
I'm reading a statement here that I have that I co-prepared with my roommate, Isaac Gaines,
who was supposed to attend this meeting and was unfortunately unable to.
But we are just continuing to implore the board to reject the variance application for 265
for a number of reasons.
First of which is it's clearly stated in section 8.2.a of the zoning code, there must
be unique physical circumstances peculiar to the property causing unnecessary hardship.
In the case of this lot at 265 Hoarder, that's simply not the case.
the law is rectangular and while perhaps slightly narrower than average, it is hardly unique in its
narrowest. It would still be entirely within the realm of physical possibility for the applicant
to develop by right on the slot in strict conformity to the provisions of the zoning
code and without the need for a use variance. Second of all, a prerequisite for the approval
of a use variance is that the hardship cannot under any circumstances be cured by the grant
of a dimensional variance. Again, it is totally possible for 265 order to be developed in strict
conformity with the zoning code, and especially with the grant of a dimensional variance.
Lastly, the proposed development will absolutely be detrimental to public welfare. It'll encroach
on the privacy of the neighbors on both the Croson and Chusai's, and it will encroach on the light
and air of the neighbors on the Chusai. Finally, it'll substantially alter the essential character
of the neighborhood. Four brand new modern style modular units sandwiched between rows of early
20th century twins. The bottom line is that the applicant's proposals does not represent the
minimum possible variance that would afford relief, nor does it represent the least possible
modification of the regulation and issue. I remind you that under Section 8.2 of the zoning code,
all of the prerequisites listed must be met. Each of my aforementioned points alone should be enough
to disqualify their application, let alone in combination. I ask that you please consider the
negative impact the proposed development would have on the daily lives of all the near neighbors,
and particularly those on the CHU side, many of whom may not be here to voice their concerns
because they don't have the luxury of attending a Zoom meeting that has the potential to run
hours in the middle of a weekday. Thanks for your time. Thank you.
Is there anyone else? Yes, chair. We have Nina. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello? Yes. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
uh yes my name is nina curlett c-u-r-l-e-t-t i live at 236 east springer street um springer
is adjacent to crossin um my house is one second please do you swear or affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do yes okay you may proceed um i would like to um well good
afternoon. I'd like to thank my neighbor for testifying. I believe he covered many of the
points that I would like to cover. I am going to, I'd like to reiterate that there are definitely
no physical circumstances or conditions that exist at 265 East Warder to preclude the possibility
of this property being developed in conformity with the zoning code. I believe that I would
have to argue that authorization of a variance is not necessary to enable the
viable economic use of this property. I believe that one home could easily be built with a large
yard which is more highly sought after than ever due to COVID and because COVID has been brought
due to COVID, and because COVID has been brought up in this on more than one occasion over the course of the discussion about this property.
up in this on more than one occasion.
I do believe that additional green space is something that people are searching for, and that it would probably be of a benefit to the developers to consider that point alone if they indeed want to develop this lot.
I would also like to point out that another near neighbor on Chew Avenue at 6708 has a lot of 7,098 square feet.
So this lot is definitely certainly not out of character.
It might be larger than some, but definitely not larger than all.
And agreed, this lot could actually be developed as a subdivision, as had been mentioned.
I believe at some point, this lot has since been zoned as two lots, which has not been brought up
in any of this discussion. This happened last September. There is a zoning permit that had
been issued for subdivision, which I have no idea why that's not even an issue at this point.
I do know that a use variance does not seem as if it is in character with the neighborhood.
multifamily would not be in character with the neighborhood. And I'd like to say as well,
just as a last point, that everything we've been shown thus far, I would have to say is definitely
not the least possible modification that a use variance would be granting relief for, for sure.
It could be developed by Wright or with a small dimensional variance developed as well.
So, I do not believe that in this instance, a variance is, should be granted and it's
certainly not, I do not believe that a hardship has been proven.
In order for a variance to be granted, a hardship must exist and I would argue that
the hardship is on the neighbors and not on the developer.
Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify with something new and different?
Here we have Bonnie. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi. Hi, Bonnie. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yep, it's Bonnie Zuckerman. I am at 67082 Avenue and last name is spelled Z-U-C-K-E-R-M-A-N.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Okay, you may proceed. Great, thanks. So I live at the house
that Nina was just speaking of with a lot size close to 8,000. So I just want to say that I'm
here. And then also that there are so many other homes in our neighborhood. So, you know, three
blocks to the south, we have the 300 block of Cliveden. Those homes are also have deep, deep
backyards. The 300 block of Upsal also has deep, deep backyards and the 100 and 200 block of
of Gorgas. And as Nina was saying, this is very much a privilege and a commodity that people
seek out in our neighborhood. I'm not going to keep going because you've heard it already, but
one of the other concerns I have, which also hasn't been brought up, is that the yards that
are listed as rear yards are not actually rear yards in these designs. They're like awkward kind
of side yards, and I'm also kind of concerned about this one that is on Porter, right? So it
has this front setback that is not in line with any of the other buildings on that street, which
I think is a zoning violation, but maybe I'm wrong. But yeah, anyway, definitely do not want
this to be approved. I think that, you know, a set of twins with deep backyards
would be a great fit for this neighborhood.
Tons of families would love to have a place to throw a ball
or put up a trampoline, which is something that people
in the Upper Northwest or the Northeast or Overbrook
have the privilege of doing.
And I think that would make the most sense for this lot
and for our neighborhood.
So thanks.
Thank you.
is there anyone else who would like to testify yes chair we have charles richardson
mr richardson you've been unmuted please wait for the
Hi, Mr. Richardson. Can you hear me?
hi mr richardson can you hear me i can
I can hear you.
Thank you.
Hi. Name and address for the record, please, and spell your last name.
Okay. Charles Richardson from the office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you swear I'm firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay. You may proceed.
Okay. Madam Vice Chair, the Councilwoman is opposed to granting this variance.
The developer has not proven any type of hardship that they would be experiencing.
In fact, the hardship would be created for the near neighbors as this project encroaches on their properties for the most part.
It is an overly dense development that they're trying to shoehorn into a very small space.
Throughout the entire RCO process, the neighbors have consistently been decidedly against this project.
and they just don't want it, and the Councilwoman supports their position.
Thank you.
Chair, we have three more hands.
Next is Melanie.
You've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Melanie?
Melanie, please unmute yourself.
I think I was mistakenly added to the list.
I don't need to testify.
Okay, is there anyone else?
We have Edward Jones who has been unmuted.
Mr. Jones, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Jones.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, and then I will swear you in.
Edward Jones, 6647 Croson Street, J-O-N-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Okay, as stated, my address is 6647 Croson.
actually adjacent, attached to Charlie and on the other side of the wall.
And basically my, the issue with this project is it does not, it's not, that that lot is
not designed to contain this type of development.
This lot, as the developer said, hasn't been developed since whenever, well, the lot previously
contained garages and that's why the lot is shaped like it's shaped and that's also why
it hasn't been developed because there's really nothing conducive that can go back there not
definitely not like this uh this project here um now so sir why are you opposed to it i'm i'm
getting to it okay okay um now he show actually showed a picture earlier of the lot from hoarder
Street, which already he had said that it wasn't a deprivation of light, but that's clearly wrong
because first of all, he just showed a picture where half of the lot was already shaded from
what's already existing. Now we're trying to propose building a three-story structure with
a basement all over top of the two street side, which would basically be blocked off,
but there's other issues as well. Can I share my screen? I have some pictures I'd like to
sure sure i promoted him to panelists and chair thank you
mac could you take down yours please okay sure
okay thank you
all right can you see my screen no okay wait a minute let me go back i'm sorry
all right
this is a picture of the uh the chew street properties as they exist right now with no
without the uh the plan but before the plan proposal now again what they're proposing is a
three-story a three-story structure well four three-story structures behind you or they they
they eliminate the the uh decks but they would still there it's out of character because it
doesn't fit is my main point there um there's nothing really
is my main point. There's nothing really anything like it in the neighborhood. The lot scale
the information
basically, I'm sorry, if you look at it a little closer, apparently this fence would be the back
of the property and then you're going to have also a driveway on this side of the wall
for access. I'm not sure how that's supposed to fit back there. Now, he said it's an expansive
lot. It's not really that expansive. On the other end of the lot, there's an auto repair shop,
which that lot is approximately half the size of that garage. Now, there's another issue as well
with this in that there is a verizon infrastructure in the back um where's the picture
all right if you look here here's a poll this is verizon wires i'm just going to object as
irrelevant but no it is relevant because um wait wait wait just wait excuse me there's no back and
forth your objection is noted there's uh there's verizon infrastructure already this this this
poll right here is at best 20 20 feet high now these wires that are coming from the back of my
house and all the houses on um on crossing street barely clear that wall the reason why they barely
clear the wall is because that like there was there was nothing else designed to be back there
but a garage they were actually these these wires actually if you can see them right here
every house on Croson Street has these wires going for their uh Verizon service coming to this pole
now I'm not understanding how you how you're going to do this when these when these wires are
lower than what's already there so they said they when we talked about this in this meeting
they said they would rewire it so now I'm assuming you're going to put there's four poles here down
this road down this uh alleyway in which i guess you're gonna we're gonna have a a tree uh a utility
pole farm as well but again like i said i told them at the time and i said this in january of
last year the project is it's lovely i love how it looks but it does not belong back there it's