he can confirm and accept my testimony.
Mr. Grossman, you've been unmuted.
please unmute yourself uh good morning everyone thank you for having me good morning sir please
identify yourself first and last name my name is eric grossman we're in the firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth of course thank you mr bertill uh thank you mr chair uh
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Grossman, did you hear the testimony that I provided to the board this morning?
Mr. Grossman, did you hear?
Yes, I have.
Do you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as known?
I confirm everything, minus the fact that I will be hosting competitions inside location. I mean, we travel abroad for that.
But showcasing performances, classes, 100%.
Thank you, Mr. Grossman.
um with that uh Mr. Chair I conclude our presentation. Thank you. Questions from the
board? No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so please raise your hand.
I see no handshare. Thank you. Planning Commission?
good morning please identify yourself this is brian wenrick from the city planning commission
w-e-n-r-i-c-h brian do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you please proceed this shopping center is zoned for residential use and is
proposed to be remapped to ca commercial auto in the district plan we feel that this use does not
pose any negative impacts to the surrounding area. Accordingly, we have no objection to the
granting. Thank you. MI 2020-00248915501 Busselton Avenue. My vote is yes with the proviso. Use
limited to dance instruction slash studio with related assembly and entertainment.
you're on mute carol yes or proviso
still muted carol you have to unmute yourself mr nervy i'm sorry okay i just did my vote is yes
with proviso okay thank you next case calendar number 2476 sorry we didn't get everybody
oh i didn't hear all the votes uh my vote was yes with the proviso that i read in and i'll read it
again use limited to dance instruction slash studio with related assembly and entertainment
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso
tom i don't see tom he's right here i see his name his name but i don't hear him
Mr. Holloman, if you're speaking, you might need to go out and come back in because we can't hear you, even though it seems like you're not muted.
Okay, well, we have three, Chair.
Tom's going to load out and load back in, okay?
I guess he's having a motion.
Thank you.
If I could, Chair, if I could make an announcement.
For some reason, we're having a lot of feedback.
If I could request that everybody stay muted unless you're about to speak, it might cut that down a little bit.
But it's a whole lot of feedback today.
God, I'm hearing it.
Carol, next case.
Calendar number 2476-2214-22, North 4th Street.
The attorney is Adam Laver.
Mr. Laver, you've been promoted to panelists.
You may unmute yourself.
Mr. Laver, can you please put your name and address on the record?
Good morning, Mrs. Tenere, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Adam Laver of Blank, Rome, 1 Logan Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mrs. Tenere.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
and finally have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
refusal or referral photos and or plans five days in advance of this hearing and have you
met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all thank you you may proceed thank you
i'm going to uh do screen share
Hopefully you can see on the screen an aerial view of the property.
If you cannot, please let me know.
No, we're still looking at your files.
No, we're still looking at your files.
Okay, one moment.
Okay, one moment.
Do you have it now?
No, not at this time, Adam.
If you could double-click and actually open up your file first, then go to share screen, that might be better.
one moment apologies for the technical difficulties
it's coming up now mr laver thank you all for your patience uh adam laver of blank room on behalf
of JVA Group, Fringe Development, and Alan Nadav, A-L-L-A-N, Nadav, N-A-D-A-V. Alan Nadav,
the owner of the property, has previously appeared before this board. At his studio
house project at 1613 Germantown Avenue, Alan was proud to provide high-quality rental housing
at a more affordable price point, in that case, under $1,000 per month.
I mention this by way of background because in the proposal before the board,
Alan is trying to achieve something similar for owner-occupants with for-sale homes in this instance.
With us is Derek Spencer of Nome Architects, who's online in addition to Alan,
and as I stated to Ms. Tenere, I submitted an exhibit package previously.
Here you see in the aerial photograph, and I'm using my cursor to pinpoint the location,
we're looking at a 7,200 square foot unimproved parcel with wide frontages on 4th Street,
which is to the left of the screen, and Leithgow to the right.
moving to the zoning map you'll see again where the hand icon is that the block is zoned RSA 5
single-family you have RM1 in orange across Susquehanna Avenue and in purple close by ICMX
I'd like to run through some photographs for context here you see an image of the
the development parcel, the lot with trees and some cars on it, looking along 4th Street.
There's an auto repair shop next door that is not the subject parcel, it's next door.
The subject property itself often has cars parked there in various states of repair.
And Alan has been in communication with his next door neighbor, the owner of the auto repair,
who is aware of his plans, does not have an objection to the proposal, unfortunately could
not be here today, and furthermore indicated that he's actually planning on retiring in a year
or so. Here you see some additional photographs of Leeds Gal, cars on the lot.
The proposal itself, the plan is to create eight lots, each for two family homes, four
duplexes along 4th Street, which I'm showing with the cursor, four along Leithgow, for
a total of 16 residences with off-street parking for eight cars.
The proposal calls for four-story buildings with setbacks, importantly no pilot houses
to preserve the scope and feel of the neighborhood, and also a sunken rear yard also to meet the
scope and scale of the area while creating more livable area on the next page here you get a sense
of the perceived pedestrian experience the perceived pedestrian experience from the sidewalk
would be 34 feet 7 inches in height from fourth street and leap gal 29 feet 2 inches
Moving to the elevations, you see a combination of brick, integrated planters, and other quality
materials. It's really a reimagining of the block. There are some solid homes along the block.
It's really a reimagining of the block.
There are some solid homes along the block, but as you saw in the initial photographs,
there are many pockets, unfortunately, that have been neglected.
You'll note in the renderings as I'm moving through them, the setbacks, again, to maintain that street-level pedestrian feel.
And now to the floor plans.
which i'm zooming in on a little bit again uh mr chairman and members of the board each of the
homes uh would accommodate two families what we used to call duplexes the lower
unit is shown in green green and the upper in beige the lower unit is proposed typical at
1,342 square feet, one bedroom, two baths. The typical upper unit, 956 square feet, one bedroom,
one bath. I'd like to address the refusals that are before you. Two-family living is not permitted
in the RSA 5 single-family district, as the board knows. However, in this neighborhood,
and an issue throughout the city is creating more affordable options. The price point here
with homes of this size, which actually are reflective of surrounding homes,
allow a price point under $250,000 with quality materials. The refusal also notes that balconies
are prohibited in the rear yard now this is a technicality at the second floor where the balcony
is proposed the presence does not take away from ground level outdoor space in addition i would
submit to the board that it creates additional outdoor space an additional opportunity to take
a breath of fresh air from the second floor level in keeping with the spirit of the code and that
the rear yard depth is achieved at the ground level the building height refusal is based on
the average grade which appears more significant in the refusal due to the architect's creative
approach in creating a sunken rear yard which pulls the average grade lower so again that's why
a few moments ago i mentioned the perceived feel from pedestrian street level which is most important
from a neighborhood perspective and in terms of the refusals that focus on
parking we met several times with the community and the initial feedback right
off the bat was that providing parking was a plus the subject property has been
significantly underutilized some of the neighbors had asked us to give them a
sense as to what would be permitted within the bounds of the code in RSA 5, and you see a sense
of that here. Homes that, I don't want to focus too much on this, but homes that reach 4,300 square
feet in size, that really are out of place for the neighborhood and would be large and unaffordable.
the massing is not something that we would want to pursue it would be completely out of place
doesn't make sense we believe at all we met several times with nara square community alliance
four times i believe we appreciated the discussion with them the feedback from them
The turnout, unfortunately, was light at these meetings, but we fine-tuned the plans over the course of several meetings.
At the end of the day, at 10.52 last night, when we received the RCO's most recent letter, which was submitted to the board,
the RCO board and committee were evenly split, support or non-opposition versus opposition,
and general community members were roughly split as well, although I must concede that there were
a couple more who were in opposition. We were disappointed that the letter from the RCO indicates
opposition. When you read through the letter, it's really mixed views in the community,
some based on principle and others really recognizing the efforts of this developer.
So we're left, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, with what is practical at this location, what is possible.
Given the practical realities of repurposing the site, the sensitive treatment to design,
we believe that the proposed development meets the homeownership ideals of the community, respects surrounding land uses.
respects surrounding land uses in this instance the authorization of variance relief would not
In this instance, the author is
alter the character of the neighborhood or district in a negative way or be detrimental
to the public welfare the proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood the granting of relief
would benefit the public and be within the spirit of the code the proposed variance would represent
the minimum variance to afford relief and represent the least modification possible
of the regulations at issue a comment was made during one of the community meetings that this
would be taking jobs away from the community and i was puzzled by that comment and i asked for
further clarification and the response was that the auto body uses the uh the land and uh that
prompted me to ask alan to engage in further discussions which we did and i alluded to at
the beginning of this presentation that although the owner could not be here let me state to you
as an officer of the court that there is no opposition from him and in fact he plans to
conclude his operations in the near future as a side note of course the use of the lot is
unregulated but we understand the difficulties of transition in a neighborhood the grant of variance
relief would not substantially increase congestion in the public streets increase the danger of fire
or otherwise endanger the public health safety or general welfare based on the unregulated use
presently this would be a noticeable improvement this will not adversely affect transportation or
unduly burden water sewer school park or other public facilities there are no environmental
issues. Mr. Nadav is here and can adopt and affirm at the appropriate time. In addition,
our architect is here should the board have any questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Let's get your testimony adopted and then I may ask the question.
Mr. Nadav, would you please raise your virtual hands so that you may be identified and sworn in?
Mr. Nadav you've been unmuted please wait for the chair good morning sir please identify
yourself spell your first and last name Alan Nadav A-L-L-A-N-N-A-D-A-V good morning to you
also good morning do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Laver.
Mr. Nadav, have you been present for the entirety of this virtual zoning board of adjustment presentation this morning?
And would you adopt and affirm the testimony that I've offered as your own?
Thank you, Mr. Nadav.
Thank you. Mr. Laver, could you share that letter from the RCO, the most recent one?
I have up on the screen the most recent letter from the RCO. The highlights are not mine,
they are from the RCO. You'll see the final position taken as opposition. If you move
down to both counts under RCO board and committee, two members of the committee supported, one
opposed one offered non-opposition in addition to that there were uh eight general members of
the community who attended and you can see the breakdown of those votes to the right thank you
okay questions from the board uh yes can you hear me can you hear me yes okay uh i'm wondering what
What is the design requires so many 24 use refusal and 42 zoning refusal?
The architect couldn't come within the guidelines of the zoning requirements?
Mr. Holloman, you're right to point out that the way in which the refusal is calculated
It multiplied to almost gross extremes due to the individual lots proposed and the duplex nature of this.
There is a buy right option for this site, which I didn't want to focus on too much.
I don't I don't like that approach, but it would allow five very large.
It would allow five very large, bulky homes on this site.
We believed in working with the architectural team in this instance, that having these various refusals for each home, which are multiplied, and you pointed it out, it's quite surprising to see the refusal itself.
but the actual refusals for the overall project i think that the board would understand are actually
quite fewer uh over the course of the entire development and we respectfully believe that
what we're presenting is more in line with the scope and spirit of the code
well it's to me it seemed like you're putting too many units in a small area
well uh i i do understand uh that viewpoint among some so we we looked at it and we discussed this
with some of the community members if you were to have five very large homes i don't see those
actually being um viable in the neighborhood but you would have as many bedrooms as you liked
for a large family.
We know what the code requires
in terms of number of people
unrelated by blood or marriage.