Are you able to unmute your phone?
Okay, he's up to the panelist now.
Good afternoon, sir.
Can you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
we can hear you talking
but we can see you talking but not hear you talking
please turn up your volume if you may
Mr. Gutman
can't hear you
we're going to come back to you and see if we can park you
and get you up to date with some technology.
Moving on to the next one.
Number six, MI-2024-006748,
4283 Viola Street,
I have a hard time too, Mr. Chair.
i'm sorry i butcher it up a lot i blame my husband it's all his fault all right
you please uh state your name and spell it for the court reporter meredith ferlinger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do
mr masters state your name and spell it for the court reporter good afternoon 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 just laws can you spread
it to the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you and mr masters can you
just identify your clients for the record um yes my clients are the viola street
residents association and other any other objectors to this project thank you uh we're
going to start off with mrs merida council and yes we actually we know that since they're they're um
two attorneys in this case um and and one representing protestants we realize this
matter we may not get through this matter today in its entirety um so we would like to find out
from each of you um how many witnesses you intend to call so we can get a sense of um how long this
case may take um meredith sure um i don't believe i identified it when i introduced myself but my
client is haverford square viola llc the owner of the property i only have one witness today
my presentation is a fairly standard uh length presentation uh but i i do only have one witness
of course, would want to reserve the right to cross-examine any of Mr. Master's witnesses as
well. Understood. Understood. I am trying to pull it up. I have, I believe, five or six witnesses
that are going to have different things to testify to. Okay. Can we just ensure that they're not
coming up and testifying on the same thing? We want to have different testimonies if possible.
different testimonies if possible we've prepared them to do very different testimonies um one one
We've prepared them to do very different testimonies.
from the other so we we respect that that the board uh desires us to do it that way okay excuse
me pardon the interruption this is the court reporter could i please ask those speaking to
get a little closer to the microphone thank you sorry thank you mr kelly um mr chair given the
length of the list that we have today and some other contested um matters i would recommend that
we could try to get through miss ferlinger's presentation since she only has one witness
we'll keep an eye on on the time but that may be as far as we can we can get today and we will
obviously um resume this in the near future all right council miss ferlinger that understood uh
i'm at the board's prerogative whatever you feel is appropriate all right let's proceed
Thank you. Again, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. One second, Council. Can you, Board Counsel,
Mrs. Graham has a few additional questions to ask. Oh, sure. Good afternoon. Have you emailed
all the required documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case five days prior to this
hearing? I did, yes. Thank you. And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to us accuracy. Yes, I do. Thank you. Again, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
Meredith Ferliger of Dilworth Paxson. My client here today is Haverford Square Viola LLC, the
owner of the property, represented by today by member German Yakubov. The request before the
board today concerns 4283 Viola Street. You have an exhibit packet in front of you that contains
20 exhibits, which we request be moved into evidence at the conclusion of the presentation
today. To summarize the basis for today's request, this application requires a variance
for the proposed multifamily use in the RSA 5 zoning district, as is shown on the refusal
at Exhibit 1. I will first orient you to the location of the property. The deed, as well
as tax clearance, which was updated today, is included at Exhibit 2. And I have included tax
clearance for all three of the properties, although they are now consolidated. I did include
them for all three, as well as the deed at Exhibit 3. As you can see here on the aerial at Exhibit 7,
this property is a vacant lot on Viola Street, just east of Belmont Avenue. Belmont Avenue is
over here in the image to the east. From the rear, you'll notice that this property directly
adjoins structures that front on Parkside Avenue. By way of more complete context,
in the next aerial, you'll see an outline of the applicant's associated development
proposal on Parkside Avenue, which is not before the board, as that project was approved by Wright
last year. And you can see the outline of that project here and how that relates to the project
before the board today on Viola Street. At the zoning map at Exhibit 5, you'll note that this
property is zoned RSA5 and is surrounded to the rear and to the west by RM1 as well as CMX2
classifications. Notably, this block was rezoned in 2014, as is shown in the remapping ordinance
at Exhibit 6. Interestingly, you may notice on the proposed zoning map, which I've highlighted
here and I'll zoom in on, that the CMX2 zoning classification was supposed to have extended
further down the block onto Viola Street than is currently reflected on the actual zoning maps
retained by the city. So again, if you look just here at this area that I'm highlighting with my
cursor, and then if I flip back to the zoning map, you'll notice the discrepancy in how that line was
actually drawn once the GIS maps were updated. Current street view photographs are included
at Exhibit 8. You will see here the vacant lot with portions of the lot having been vacant for
decades. Photographs of the timely posting are also included, showing that the posters were
posted on February 5th, 2025. The next, and again, these are some of those posting photographs
showing the timely posting. This next photograph I have here shows the property in relation to
Belmont Avenue, which again is just to the west of the property. The structure immediately to the west
which again is just to the west of the property. The structure immediately to the west is also
shown here, which is currently used as a daycare for an unknown number of children.
The next photograph is looking southeast from the subject property,
showing the mixed two- and three-story structures on this block.
And again, another view here is shown on the opposing side of the street,
which is predominantly two-story, with the same side of the street being predominantly three-story.
At Belmont Avenue, right across from the Viola intersection, as shown here, is the Discovery Charter School.
Almost immediately west of the subject property, and again fronting on Belmont Avenue, is a Philadelphia fire station.
by way of context i did mention earlier that this property is contiguous
to the applicant's other development on parkside avenue which is not yet built a view of that lot
is shown in this next photograph for full context where you can see all the way through to viola
street as you can see on the consolidation plan at exhibit 9 the lot is 3920 square feet
You can see in the rear that the property shares a rear lot line with the applicant's adjoining property at 4262 Parkside Avenue, which is part of the larger development, which includes 4262 through 4274 Parkside Avenue.
the proposal for 4283 viola street is shown on the zoning plan at exhibit 10
and includes one new four-story structure to include 16 dwelling units or four per four per
floor the building is proposed to be a detached structure and let me zoom in a little bit more
on the zoning plan leaving a five-foot buffer to the east on on this side of the property
as well as approximately eight and a half feet a little bit more than that actually to the west
a four foot curb cut is also proposed only to facilitate the efficient removal of trash
commercial pickup will be required the building itself is only proposed to occupy 63 percent of
this lot far less than the 75 percent that would be permitted providing ample outdoor space
no basement is proposed the number of units here is truly dictated both by the layout as well as
based on the affordability structure for this project with a mix of unit types sizes as well
as accessibility floor plans are included at exhibit 11 and i will zoom in on those as well
this plan shows that the trash enclosures are proposed to sit behind an enclosed
fence to shield the area from public view. The first floor has a common mailroom and a lobby.
Electrical panels would be installed in the rear of the property as shown on the floor plans.
Throughout the building, the units are roughly similar in size between 459 square feet and 507
square feet. With a rectangular detached building, the units are well designed with ample windows
for light and air and again this is the first floor rendering the second and third second
through fourth floors are substantively similar and we certainly are happy to answer any questions
on the layouts themselves at exhibit 12 zoom back out again we've included a preliminary rendering
this rendering is likely to continue to be updated as the design continues to progress
particularly on the park side development, because as I mentioned, this is intended to be an extension of that development.
As you can see here, no door is designed to be provided on Viola Street.
And if I scroll back up to the floor plans, you'll see that reflected on the floor plans as well with the doors proposed from the sides of the building.
And I'll address that a little bit further in the presentation.
The reason for this design, as I mentioned, is that this proposal is intended to complement and act as an extension of the applicant's already approved development on Parkside Avenue.
I've included additional information on that project at Exhibit 13, where you will see that 4274 Parkside Avenue and all of the associated addresses were approved for 49 dwelling units.
were approved for 49 dwelling units. On the approved plans, scroll down there,
On the approved plan,
the relationship between 4274 Parkside and the current lots on Viola is made more clear.
To the right, zoom in more for you, to the right here in gray, 4262 Parkside is an existing
structure that will be accompanied by a new structure to the left in this orientation.
Two-thirds of the Viola lots sit directly behind this new proposal. Again, you can see here 4287,
4285, and then the third lot is a little bit further down.
two-thirds of these lots sit directly behind the new proposal and the intent here is to create a
cohesive combined development with shared common space and outdoor areas
now regarding the refusal only one refusal was issued for the proposed multi-family use
the project itself is quite under built for this lot the applicant submits to several
hardships, which my client will supplement in a moment, in erecting a new single-family home on
this lot or any variety of this lot for several reasons. First and foremost, this lot is not
zoned in accordance with the City Planning Commission's district plan, which specifically
encouraged zoning to avoid a mismatch in zoning in comparison to current use to avoid unnecessary
zoning variances. As is shown at Exhibit 16, zoom in on this, this entire block was recommended to be zoned RM1 to allow for multifamily, but for a separate community-led plan that resulted in the rezoning of this area that is contrary to the stated goals of the district plan.
If this block have retained its intended zoning, the applicant could have used a mixed income housing bonus, in addition to other bonuses available in the code, and would be just a few units shy of the instant proposal.
In fact, with a green roof bonus, it's very likely that this proposal would have been entirely by right.
I'm going to object to that testimony because the green roof bonus and the mixed income bonus are not part of their they don't apply to this property in any way.
So right now, opposing counsel is engaging in some kind of fantastical world in which she can create different bonuses and different density issues that do not exist in the actual zoning code.
So I'm going to ask for her to stick to what's actually in the zoning code.
And respectfully speaking, the point that I am making to the board here is that the property is not zoned in accordance with the city planning commission's district plan.
And certainly the applicant can offer testimony about what would have been allowed by right had the planning commission's district plan been put into action.
It is not hypothetical. It is simply what the code would allow if this plan, which is a stated district plan, had been put into action. That is not fanciful testimony, respectfully so.
To be clear, city council zones and passes and enacts zoning changes. And in this case, we have in front of us what the zoning is for this property, whatever, whatever opposing council would like it to be is just part of her desires, but not but not part of the actual reality of what we're looking at.
Council, if you may please stick to the facts of the actual project.
it. Furthermore, the Viola Street plan, which is included in Mr. Master's exhibits, encouraged the
creation of a vibrant residential community that is affordable for the neighborhood. Yet the
resulting rezoning was entirely contrary to those stated goals, particularly since this particular
developer is an active participant in PHA's voucher program and has a documented commitment
to providing affordable housing across West Philadelphia, including in this very neighborhood.
Furthermore, as I referenced earlier and is shown quite clearly in the opponent's exhibits at page
41, the CMX2 zoning was supposed to have extended further down Viola Street and include at least a
portion of the property before the board today, but for what we assume to be a simple GIS mapping error.
but for what we assume to be a simple GIS mapping error.
Due to at least in part pre-existing conditions of economic distress,
which are referenced in the introduction of a May 2013 report
concerning the block by the community design collaborative titled Project Reclaim,
and again, which is included in the opponent's exhibits,
there appear to have been no instances of new construction on this block
since its 2014 downzoning, despite the continuous presence of at least 25 vacant lots since that
time. Two of which are part of this instant application. Excuse me, can I finish my
testimony before you object to it? Larry, please testify. Okay. Counsel, what have you, before you
go back, just want to get a little clarity on the record. Is these parcels directly associated with
anything of philadelphia housing authority no okay thank you please proceed
despite the rezoning this area remains predominantly multifamily
exhibit 14 outlines this quite abundantly and this data is pulled directly from the city of
philadelphia public records first the property immediately next door to the west as i pointed
out earlier is a daycare center. With the entire swath of property to the west and north ripe for
significant multifamily development based on their current zoning classification, the character of
this neighborhood is such that it would be an extreme hardship to facilitate single-family
development on these lots absent significant public subsidy for which there is no evidence
of any occurring in this neighborhood. On Viola Street, nine other existing structures are in
multifamily use, with lots that are a fraction of the size of the subject proposal, even
proportionally speaking. To the north on Parkside Avenue, which abuts the property to the rear,
the density increases even further to anywhere between two units and up to 49 units, which is
of course the proposal that is intended to adjoin this one. Further to this point, and with complete
respect to the councilwoman's informed position on this project, even her letter acknowledges the
multifamily context of Viola Street. Furthermore, as is shown on the historic maps at Exhibit 19,
and again these maps derive from the city's open map system, these properties sit just outside of
boundary of the Parkside Historic District, which you can see outlined here in black.
They are, as a result, and before I get to that point, you can see in addition to that,
these are properties that are individually designated on top of the district itself.
As a result, these properties before the board today are uniquely situated
and of disparate character than the remaining block, which was intended to be preserved
and developed in a single-family fashion that would be consistent in character with the
historic district and the historic properties that exist on the block, none of which existed
on these lots. This combination of factors establishes it would be a hardship to use
this property in compliance with its single-family use. Likewise, as I noted earlier, the CMX2 portion
was supposed to terminate either within or just before this property. It's very unclear based on
the maps. In light of the boundaries of the historic district, it's not unreasonable to
surmise that planning principles should have encouraged the continuation of the CMX2 or RM1
zoning slightly further down the block to avoid the creation of a few disparate parcels that are
fundamentally different than its surroundings. The evidence presented concerning the use and
character of adjacent and surrounding land is unquestionably relevant to a determination of
hardship, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clearly stated in the Pivotal Valley View case
referenced at 462 A to D 1983. We submit that the number of proposed units is also the least
minimum. There are no dimensional refusals associated with this request, and this proposal
is quite modest, dimensionally speaking, in terms of what can be built on this lot.
By comparison, the proposed density is nearly identical to that which would be consistent with
the allowances of the RM1 zoning district by utilizing a variety of different bonus structures.
by utilizing a variety of different bonus structures.