Chair, this is the court reporter.
May I have one minute of
a pause in place? I need to change the batteries
in my machine. Yeah, let us know when you're
ready. Take your time. Thank you.
Excuse the interruption.
Thank you.
thank you chair thank you next witness and no more hands here thank you um mr wise yes uh briefly
mr chair um this is an application uh in the refusal that was issued um the original refusal
application was for, I believe, four properties. A subsequent plan was submitted, stamped, and
second refusal issued for the two properties that are proposed. But it's important to understand
that this is one lot, one large lot, fronting on the three streets prominent in the neighborhood.
fronting on the on the three streets prominent in the neighborhood the refusal
referenced steep slope because they're piercing a retaining wall it referenced parking which is
essentially prohibited in the overlay district and it's referenced the multi-family nature here
in this residential single detached home zone when we talk about variances we all are familiar
with 14.303.8.E.1 that actually has nine criteria that an applicant must satisfy as its burden
that the denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship and you'll all recall in
August at the initial hearing in which Mr. Bailey, the developer, stated that the hardship was the
maintenance of the existing building, a large property fronting on Front Street, and the
architect testified that a hardship resulted from the unusually large size of this lot.
These are not hardships considered by the zoning code. Hardships are typically physical
characteristics of the lot preventing adherence to the code. But hardship's not the only
criteria that an applicant has to satisfy. But in the absence of a hardship, a variance normally
would not, cannot be granted. But the 303.8.E.1 goes on to state that if a variance is requested,
denial, I'm sorry, that the variance must be the minimum variance necessary to afford relief,
and it must be the least modification possible of the regulation at issue. The regulation is
that this is an RSD block. These are detached homes, grand in scale, because the dimensional
I'm sorry, the dimensional requirements and provisions of RSD call for larger lots, 5,000 square feet buildable, minimum buildable lot size, 25-foot front yard, 7-foot on a corner lot of 7-foot side yard, 25-foot rear yards.
um it's not uh so as you heard earlier the lot itself while being very large the existence of
this this existing there's there's an existing building on the lot already and the way that
building sits on the lot doesn't it makes it so that the applicant can't just subdivide and have
a buildable lot in the back so they would even building one house as as one of the witnesses
has stated uh the code doesn't provide any uh buildable area so the applicant when he bought
this uh property recently was aware that there was no buildable expansion provided uh available
to him without a variance um the application is here before the board today seeking two homes
down from four homes. When the zoning code under 3038E1 says that a variance must, if there is a
hardship, the variance must be the minimum and the least modification of the home, well, it's common
sense. Two homes is not the minimum. There was testimony from the architect that one home would
require variances also. Of course, because these are grand scale homes that are contemplated in
this RSD zone. But the applicant could surely apply for a variance, and one ohm would be the
minimum variance. Two ohms is not the minimum variance. So for that reason also, this variance
is not, should not be granted. It also goes on to require that the applicant show that the
variance sought should be in harmony and spirit with the purpose of the zoning code.
Well, the zoning code seeks grand homes on large plots, not twins.
It's right in the zoning classification.
These are detached homes, single freestanding, not attached homes or semi-attached twins.
So for that reason, also, the applicant is unable to satisfy its burden for this variance.
um we also haven't seen any uh information photos layouts otherwise of what's going on in the
existing building on the structure which is normally required by by the zoning board and
i did want to raise just one issue about the refusal because the refusal does reference
the existing structure on the property um is in use as a five apartment five family dwelling
and whenever that was granted, that was provided to include a
And whenever that was granted, that was provided to include a doctor in residence with his office in the property.
We heard during the initial testimony that there is no doctor residing there.
And there was an office that sounded like it needs some repair.
It's not in service.
But I am not sure if that was referenced in the initial application or why the non-compliance of the front home is not noted or part of the refusal.
I would I would have expected that the refusal in understanding that the five units are no longer including the doctor's unit, the doctor's office with a doctor in residence, which was, you know, one of those historical paths to multifamily back in the day when doctors and dentists sort of lived above their offices.
but we don't know what these units are in the in the um in that front building but we did hear that
we do know that this uh property is already a five-family dwelling on this lot contemplated
by the code to be a single family home um so uh with uh with all that um i don't believe the
applicant has satisfied the burden in the absence of any hardship and putting the hardship issue
aside, not bringing the minimum lease modification forward in this application. And you heard from
the representatives of the neighborhood and the community and the zoning committee at the RCO
as to their observations and feelings and statements on that. And for that reason, the RCO
opposes it and asks for this application as presented to be denied. And I thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Malloy? Thank you very much. And let's take the last point first. The office
remains an office. It's just vacant. There's been no move to make it another residential unit.
And so it was not discussed in the application.
It's five residential units, not including the former doctor's office.
There's no intention to move it at this point to a residential unit, but it remains an office.
Second, let's put this back in context.
This is not a large lot with a large house on it in a sprawling neighborhood of similar lots.
This is a lot that when my client bought it, the same neighbors who came and testified tonight that he didn't cooperate over 11 meetings were the ones who placed it on the historic register right after he bought it.
That placed extra burdens and extra levels of complexity and levels of work and quality that needed to be done on the exterior of the building.
He's placed $179,000 of improvements into the building and testified about that during the first hearing.
The maintenance and upkeep of this building, which everyone acknowledges is a grand historic building, five residential units does not support the upkeep of the building.
That creates a hardship in the vein of the Hertzberg decisions, and this is not a variance motivated by pure profit.
Everybody's acknowledged we did not come in here seeking four residential units or three residential units.
We were whittled down over since 2019 to two residential units in the back.
The reason that the developer cannot go to one is because one creates an impractical size unit that will not sell in that marketplace.
Two units is the minimum variance required.
It's the minimum variances required to create the revenue stream that will be necessary to allow for the upkeep and maintenance of the residential building that's on the property in a way that is respectful of its historic nature and the neighborhood.
The residents are planned for the rear of the property along DuPont, where there are numerous twins and, as everyone testified, residential styles of various and different types.
residential styles of various and different types surrounding this property. This property is a white
elephant given its size. Once you subdivide, as proposed, the houses and the lots in the back,
the property still remains compliant in its current zoning. So what we're asking for,
I think, are reasonable variances to allow us to create two residential units, which is far less
than where we started and where, contrary to what everyone testified, we bent over backwards,
changing designs, changing roof types, going to historic commission, you know, and dealing with
the community and changing the design and altering the design right to the end to try to provide them
with the best development possible.
The fact of the matter is they don't want any development,
and that's what's necessary to continue to maintain
the level of upkeep that's necessary
to have that historic property.
So this is a restoration and a maintenance
and an upkeep issue.
It's based on requirements that were not in place when the landowner bought the property, and since it's not an effort to create pure profit and is an effort to maintain this structure, we think the variances are reasonable and should be granted to allow a very reasonable development of an otherwise unused portion of the property.
extremely large property thank you thank you um are there any other witnesses
no hands chair thank you planning commission
good morning mr chairman board members david fecto city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for single family residential use
the applicant's hardship claim is not supported by evidence of unique physical
circumstances or conditions of the property the applicant already appears to be deriving value from
their property the need to maintain a building is not a hardship the applicant is the application
is also not consistent with the central roxborough neighborhood conservation overlay which was created
in 2015 in a collaborative process with the community therefore we recommend the board
deny the requested variances. Thank you. Since our vice chair was not available for the first
hearing, the record will be closed in this case. The vice chair will have an opportunity to
review the testimony that was given at the first hearing. I believe the last hearing was
August the 3rd. So the record is closed. The board will be discussing this at next Wednesday's
executive session thank you all thank you mr chair thank you members all right number two
on our add-on list mi 2021-000336 4401 ridge avenue sean whalen is the attorney for the
applicant mr bonnie represents the rco east falls community council which has stated opposition to
this development this is a resumption hearing uh i know we've had two prior hearings on this
mr bonnie i believe is uh going to present three remaining witnesses and the board will also hear
from other members of the public who wish to testify and from the planning commission
Once we complete that round of witnesses and questions and comments, the record, we will then ask that the attorneys for either party submit written closing statements to the board no later than noon this coming Monday, October 25th.
Is that clear to Mr. Whalen and Mr. Bonney?
Yes, it is. Thank you.
Yes, there's one slight correction.
Let me do this, Paul, before you begin.
Let me swear both of you in and then we'll start.
Mr. Whalen first.
Mr. Whalen, name and name.
Name and spell your name.
Sean, W-H-A-L-E-N, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Where if I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Bonney?
Yes, my name is Paul Bonney. My address is 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 110919106. I represent East Falls Community Council.
Yes, my name is Paul Bonney.
My address is 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 11.
Bonney is spelled B as in boy, O-N-I. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, and I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Who's first? Who's up first here?
I think I am. I also just wanted to just make a very minor correction. We have four witnesses. We've identified all those names, and one of them is very short.
so um excuse me this is Sharon and Mr. Bonnie I did advise the um the board of that at executive
session continuing with you have four witnesses to present you have a number of documents you want to
identify um that are being included in the record the witnesses include um
Hillary Langer link I'm sorry I keep getting that wrong it's Hillary Langer an architect who will
be testifying as to his opinion that the property can be developed without variances. Is that right?
Yes, and also with least minimum, much more minimum variance.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, were you going to list all of the witnesses? Because he was not our first.
Oh, no, I understand. You did submit the resume for your witness, who is going to testify to environmental issues, to some extent.
Okay, well, do I have the floor?
Yes, you do.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to try and speak really quickly.
So, you know, just as you know, our overall position is that we are pro-development, but that this project should be smaller.
And we have evidence of that from various witnesses and including a lot of evidence from documents, as was agreed to at the last hearing.
And I think, Mr. Chair, you weren't there, but I'm sure you'll review the transcript before voting.
so thank you for that. It was agreed that I, on behalf of East Falls Community Council,
would circulate all of our exhibits, which I have done, and so the board solicitor has
reviewed all the exhibits, I believe, and so I think, and then I was granted the ability to
walk the board through many of the documents, especially the government-related documents
and some of the background documents, in order to speed our presentation. So I will not rely
on the witnesses to say, is this what page six says? Yes. Is this what page seven says? Yes.
I will just walk the board through those documents on the screen.
So without further ado, before I call our first witness,
which is Cynthia Kishenshand, who will testify to some of the environmental aspects here,
I would like to share my screen and just show the board a few of the documents
that we've submitted. I'm going to jump in real quick because I think while Mr. Bonney's looking
for documents, this is a good time to keep this moving. I'm going to object to Ms. Kishinchand,
I hope I said that correctly, testifying as any kind of an expert or to environmental issues
as an, quote, environmental witness. She can certainly testify to her own experiences and
her own personal situation and hardship caused by this development. However, the resume presented
by Mr. Bonney does not present any basis for Ms. Kissinchand to be presented as a witness
on environmental issues generally before this board. Has the board had an opportunity to see
that uh her credentials chair i did email you the resume um and and again it this is a close
question i think that she does have experience um in dealing with some of these issues and
addressing some of the issues that she wishes to testify on but as we said at the beginning it
be limited testimony um she can well we'll let her go forward and and um limit it as necessary
okay can i make a suggestion that first i have some documents um to present and then we can
put her uh resume up as as we introduce her personally but
uh resume up as as we introduce her personally but you know certainly we have um documents here
from basically the city of philadelphia that um you know no one can argue that those aren't are
inadmissible so i'd like to sort of set the table for her testimony again i apologize sharon you
said you you sent me that um yes i said that to all the board members i can re-send it now it's
That's the entire exhibit packet and it includes the resume.
Mr. Bonney.
Should the board please.
I'm happy to stipulate to many of the documents that Mr. Bonney wants to show their public
record.
We already included maps, if not this precise map, additional maps exactly like this are
already in the record.
They've already been testified to.
This board set a one-hour time limit to complete this hearing today.
this is obviously the third hearing already for this case after two continuances to further meet
with the community which we did so this matter needs to get completed today and can't be
unnecessarily delayed by retestifying about matters which have already arisen so we're not
Correct. Can I continue please in the interest of time?
Please continue. Okay. Showing on my screen, just to remind everyone what this site is,
it's this large wooded area in the middle, this green area. And that's where the site is.
I want to go over the zoning code that protects steep slopes in 14704, section 14704 of the zoning code.
Could you enlarge that, Paul?