Objection again.
Objection again.
As I previously described, the density is further consistent with the density of the multifamily uses of surrounding structures based on the lot size of this particular lot.
The structure itself also dictates the number of units.
Given the diverse uses on this block and further considering the commercial use history of the property, it is the least deviation from the code to propose a use that is most consistent with the character of the block.
There is no evidence that new single-family development is viable on this street, particularly not any new single-family development that would be consistent with the historic character of the other structures on this block that were built in the 1800s.
Compatibility with surrounding uses has been embraced by the Commonwealth Court as evidence of satisfaction of the Philadelphia Code's least minimum standard by showing that of all of the viable alternatives, the proposed use is most similar to uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
The board can refer to Inre Garcia, which was decided by the Commonwealth Court in 2022.
Contrary to the opponent's assertion that this proposal violates the intent of the Viola Street Project Reclaim Plan, the applicant would submit that the plan expressly states a goal to, quote,
maintain affordable housing for low and moderate income residents in a location on the cusp of
revitalization. Despite the fact that the applicant cannot formally rely on the bonuses provided by
the code, the applicant has preemptively recorded a declaration of covenants, not just guaranteeing
the 10% affordable that would have been required with the bonus, but adding an additional 15%
so that 25 percent of the units are reserved as affordable. That recorded declaration is shown
at Exhibit 20. Furthermore, page 45 of the opposition exhibits include a map showing
neighborhood opportunities for investment. The prior blighted structure on 4285 Viola
is noted as an existing building in need of significant investment, further supporting
the case before the board today that a mere single-family development would not be sufficient
to support the level of investment needed on this lot. The proposal will not increase congestion.
Although parking is not a requirement, the applicant submits it would be extremely challenging
to provide parking for this development as a result of the property's location mid-block
with no other access points other than Viola Street. There are no residential uses on this
Street with any off-street parking. Furthermore, public transit abounds this neighborhood with bus
stops at every corner. In addition, in response to the opponent's assertion that the project will
cause overcrowding on Viola Street, the evidence has shown that this project is not intended and
has been designed to be oriented in a way that encourages significant pedestrian traffic
that discourages significant pedestrian traffic to or from Viola Street and instead directs it
towards Parkside Avenue, where the buy-write larger project has already been approved.
The proposal will not impair light and air, as again, it's designed to be underbuilt given the
dimensional allowances of the lot. The board saw that this design includes significant open space
for residents and by creating side yards around the building actually i'll bring up the zoning
plan back up by creating side yards around the building through a detached building these units
will have far more windows and light and air than would be typical for a development of this type
finally to be entirely candid to this board there is a dual application for this lot pending
that is not scheduled to be reviewed by the board until March.
That application proposes an identical structure, but a different use as group living.
We do not intend to discuss that particular proposal today, as it requires its own independent
However, that application only requires a special exception.
Either a multifamily use or a group living use would complement the applicant's new
development next door. The applicant presented both proposals to the community, and there was
a clear difference of opinion among those in the meeting, many who felt strongly that a traditional
that a traditional multifamily would be a preference over group living. Despite significant
multifamily would be a preference over group living.
efforts to reconvene and further discuss the proposals, none of the efforts panned out.
The applicant submits the proposal and the requested variance complies in full with the
requirements of Code Section 3038E.2. Full analysis is provided in the Memorandum of Law at Exhibit 15.
Before I bring up my client, I would respectfully note the applicant's strong objection to the board's consideration of Mr. Master's documentary evidence or their inclusion into the record, given that he submitted them to the board and myself at 11.38 this morning in violation of the board's express and written policy that opposition exhibits should be submitted a minimum of 48 hours in advance of a hearing.
Given that an applicant's case would be continued if they fail to comply with the board's written mandates, opponents should be held to the same standard, and this board should reject the consideration of their written exhibits as a result.
At this point, I would ask to locate German Yakubov in the audience to have him sworn in.
Mr. Hand, can we find him in the audience?
Yes, he will be rejoining as a panel shortly, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning or afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir.
Can you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
German Yakubov, G-E-R-M-A-N, Y-A-K-U-B-O-V.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do so swear.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, German.
Very briefly, broadly speaking, how long have you been developing in West Philadelphia
And just roughly, how many collective dwelling units have you built?
Sure. So we've been developing in West Philadelphia for about 17 years.
And we've built over those 17 years about 500 to 600 units.
And what about in the Parkside neighborhood specifically?
Sure. In the Parkside neighborhood, we started developing in about 2013, so about 12 years ago.
And we have developed about a number of units, probably 50.
And then we have another 150 that we got permits for that we intend to build in the next year.
To get right to the point, in your experience as a developer, particularly based on your 12-year knowledge of this neighborhood,
do you believe that building one or more single family homes on this lot is viable and why or why
not sure so in the last 12 years um there have been no single family homes built in in east
parkside um i i think that the last time a new home was built in east parkside was probably 50
years ago if not before that um i'm objecting that there's no he said probably so he's guessing
and you can't speculate it has to be a real knowledge for him to testify about okay there
have been no new homes built in the last 50 years in this neighborhood whatsoever um and
no single family homes so that comes that is because several reasons um but it's more
it's really clearly evidenced by um three parcels right around the corner here on 42nd street um
they were owned by the same person or are owned by the same person or group.
They got permits for two six-unit buildings that they were able to build.
And then when they went to get a variance for the third parcel for six units,
I'm going to object that this isn't relevant, or what's the relevance to what they wanted to do.
What they wanted to do.
Jerm, hold on one second.
One second.
uh so can you can we at least get him to testify on your testimony and you know try to keep his
comments you know tight as possible because we do have to do across and we have additional
individuals that want to testify i understood and and i believe that the testimony that german
is attempting to give and i'll ask german to to just sum it up but i believe that his testimony
here is is looking to establish that even lower density multi-family is difficult in this
neighborhood let alone single family so uh german again based based on your knowledge of of the
development that you're speaking of how does that establish that single family cannot be built on
these lots i'm objecting that that's a leading question and there's no there's no foundation
that he has any knowledge whatsoever he's just testified that he builds things that doesn't mean
that he knows things respectfully he he testified that he has been uh
Respectfully, he testified that he has been developing in this neighborhood for 12 years. And as a developer in a fairly small boundary, it is not unreasonable that a developer would be quite familiar with other developments being built in that exact same neighborhood.
it's possible i would imagine that that could be true but it would also be true that if he's
building in homes for so many years then he should know how to he should figure out how to get along
with the community and to build things that are in concert with let's get back to council please
proceed sure so so the community approved two six unit buildings that were built because that was
the least amount that made financial sense to build. When that developer went for another
variance for the six units next door, the neighborhood pushed back and wanted him to
only build four. So he got a variance for four units. Then he realized he couldn't build them.
So he tried listing that property for sale. And that property still has not sold because nobody
can go in there, buy plans to build four units to build it at what costs to build today.
So, German, just again, based on what it would cost to build a single family home on this lot, or if the lot was subdivided to create smaller lots, based on what it would cost to build, can you economically support the construction of a single family home on these lots or any combination of lots here?
no and and it's evidenced by lack of any new single family homes being built in this neighborhood
for at least 50 years or a duplex or a triplex um you just there's none that have been built
in this time and again just in terms of the design of of this particular proposal
this is intended to be an offshoot of your development on Parkside is that correct
it is and I'm fully sympathetic to the community's needs in wanting to dissuade people from
walking down a admittedly smaller street than Parkside um to to be able to um sorry
to do that so what we did was we we put the entrance on the side of the building and we
made it so it's much easier to access it from Parkside Avenue, and that would be the main
entrance. The trash comes out to Biola Street down a small ramp on a side of a street where
parking does not exist, so it does not take away from any parking spots. It is just as tall as
the buildings surround it. It has got way more open area than the buildings around it.
We've taken great consideration to take in our years of dealing with the community and their concerns into the design of this building.
And just very briefly, how do you come to 16 units versus some other number of units for this building?
sure so it for the number of lots that that this is for what it cost us to purchase those lots
and what it costs to build a building like this 16 units is the least amount that we could do
and again it's evidenced by um the fact that we only need to you know this barely works and
one of the reasons it works is because we only need to run one water line one sewer line one
sprinkler line. If this were three different buildings, we would have three times as many
costs for those same exact things. That's why those buildings are on the corner, even though
collectively they are 16 units, only two of them were able to be built because the cost of running
new utilities to each individual structure is now multiplied by three.
Thank you. I'll ask Sherman to adopt my testimony. I'm sure that Steve has cross-examination, but
i think i should probably have him adopt my testimony before we get to that so uh german
have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today
do you adopt that test do you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt that
testimony uh as if you hadn't given it yourself for where you did not give it yourself yes is
there anything else you want to add before mr masters uh takes over some cross-examination
no thank you thank you counsel mr masters and and steve if you wouldn't mind please speak into
the microphone it is a little hard to hear okay yeah i'm i'm not used to having to put the
microphone so close i should i should do karaoke more i guess um meredith can you stop sharing no
Sure. All right. Um, Mr. Um,
all right um mr um yakubov is it true that the we're talking about three parcels that were
consolidated into one larger parcel yep and it's true that you're the one who consolidated them
correct correct okay at the time that you bought these three parcels were you aware that they were
zoned for single family i was excuse me i was i am you were okay and did you understand that if
you consolidated three lots into one that the that would mean that only one single family house could
be built on the entire plot on the entire um large consolidated lot or a group living facility
if if you were going to be doing single family it's zoned for single family correct
Correct. And group living. It's group living with a special exception,
but I'm talking about by right. Yeah, by right, group living. I mean,
my understanding is special exemption is pretty close to by right.
Okay. This isn't going to go so easily. If you keep arguing, we need to be back. I'm trying to
ask you a question very simply and have an answer. Well, you're leading me to believe
that the single family house is the only thing that could be built on the slot. And I reject that
assertion. I don't believe that that's the only thing that could be built on the lot,
But I'm telling you, but I'm asking you to confirm that by consolidating three lots into one, you, you, you have, you, you brought yourself into a situation where in terms of single family, you could only put one single family home on all three lots that are consolidated instead of three separate single family homes if you kept them separate lots.
That's correct, right?
So at this point, your minimum variance, you basically made it three times harder to meet your minimum variance by consolidating this lot, knowing that it wasn't RM1, knowing that it was single family only.
No, because we proposed a special exemption use for a group living facility that this size lot would accommodate.
That's coming next month.
I don't think we can talk about things that are coming next month today, unless you want to withdraw your application for multifamily.
No, not at all.
Okay, well then we're going to have to talk about multifamily today and we can talk about group living next month.
Okay, so you said something interesting towards the end of your testimony with your council.
You said that you have a history of dealing with the community?
Okay. And the word dealing struck me as concerning because many people would describe their interactions with the community as working with the community, collaborating with the community, coming up with strategies or compromises together with the community.
Dealing with the community, is that the word that you want to stick with?
you had a several meetings with the community about this project is that correct
i had one meeting and they did not show up for the second meeting
are you aware of conversations that have happened between myself and your attorney
yes but we've only had one community meeting okay and at that community meeting uh did the
community present to you what they what they thought would be a fair amount of development
on this property and i respectfully disagreed with what their assertion of fair was
well i'm asking you what they said they want that they would agree to well they didn't say
whether you agree they wanted less units they wanted nine or twelve or some other number than
16. Okay. And that's not single family, correct? That's not single family. Right. And your
testimony today was you can't go anything below 16. My testimony was that my neighbor around the
corner went and did the same thing. He wanted to accommodate the community and this isn't going
to work. And I'm asking you what your testimony was today about your property, not your neighbor,
not to other developers you said you can't go below 16 isn't that correct that's correct
and economics dictates that just like it did around the corner for a developer that tried
to go down that same path by by trying to do what the community wanted him to do and now he's stuck
with a property excuse me excuse me if we can answer council's questions we want to try to get
as much testimony on record before we have to do a resumption um so we could try to keep the
before we have to do a resumption um so we could try to keep the responses short but accurate
The response is short.
please understood chair uh mr yakubov i can't find your pro formas in your exhibit binder can
you show me what exhibit you are revealing all of your pro formas to so that we can understand
how you could arrive at a minimum of 16 and nothing below that i'll let my attorney answer
No, your attorney doesn't answer cross-examination. Do you have pro formas in your exhibit binder that you've shared with the board today to document any basis for your surprising and unsupported conjecture that you have to have 16 units of this property?
I'm going to object to that question. I believe that this applicant has established himself as an established developer, and there is no requirement for a developer to release their pro formas publicly.
He is fully capable of testifying to what costs would be and what his expectation would be based on his 17 years of development experience in West Philadelphia without having to present highly private data.
there are just for for the boards um for the board's knowledge um there are there are court
cases that have specifically held that the the mirror conjecture of a developer without any
actual details as to what the costs are is not sufficient to justify and to support a minimum
variance um proof um on the on the part of a developer um i don't have any more questions
can you provide a citation to the board for that assertion i will provide that i don't have it right
in front of me okay that's it i have no further questions yeah okay so we we did um spend quite
a bit of time on this we're going to actually move this over to a resumption hearing um we're
going to schedule that for april the 2nd at 2 p.m i'm sorry uh you said the second april april the