second at 2 p.m. Thank you. Understood. Can I just confirm, Ms. Ferlinger, you have completed
your presentation at this time? As long as, yes, but I would reserve the right to bring Mr. Yakubov
back on as to offer any form of rebuttal testimony based on any testimony that the community has
offered. That's understood. I just wanted to, so next time we will start with Mr. Master giving
his presentation thank you i would just request that um that mr yakubov not be allowed to provide
proformas or any more or any tangible details that he didn't choose to provide to the board
at this at when they um before they rested um i think that that would be prejudicial
to the objectors and we would then need more time in order to rebut any kind of proforma that he
would provide you got your exhibits two hours before the hearing so the record is because
we're going to a resumption hearing the record is open any parties can submit documents to the board
and any other parties can object if they do not believe those documents should be considered by
the board thank you but it should be it should be submitted within 40 hours before the next hearing
Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah. So we're going to go back to number five, hopefully.
Mr. Goodman is available.
MI-2024-006099
9, 42, 10, Peasdale Street.
Mr. Goodman.
You should be back in shortly, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hand.
yes we can hear you now
we can hear you
please state your name and spell it for the court report
William Goodman
you swear to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
our board member mrs graham has a few questions for you sure good afternoon have you emailed
all the required documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case five days prior to
this hearing yes good and do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to us
Good. And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
accurate
Board member Graham, actually, because this is a pro se matter, I'll read the refusal into the record.
Gotcha. Thank you.
This application is for the erection of an accessory agricultural structure, greenhouse, in the front yard of an existing attached structure.
Permanent and temporary structures are not permitted in the required front yard.
You can proceed, Mr. Goodman.
If you can, you know, pull up your presentation.
Well, basically, I want to put up a greenhouse so I can extend my growing season.
We need you to pull up your presentation so you can walk us through the documents.
Oh, snap.
I'm not on my home computer.
No, that's okay.
We can give us a second.
All right.
Hold on one second.
Pull up your presentation.
because you have your email open
right here.
This is your email.
And you
have, you emailed
it to me, right?
Yeah, I think I did.
Yeah, right.
So it's,
where is it? This one?
I think so.
Image.
Where is it?
Okay. Where's the one that you sent to me? This one?
Mr. Goodman, do you need a little bit more time? We are pressed for time with many cases here,
so would you like us to come back to you in a few more minutes?
Yeah, a few minutes. Sure. We're going to move on to the next case.
you send it to me I have my email
I'm going to do the other resumption.
mi-2024-003086 7330 ridge avenue catherine missimer is the attorney
excuse me mr chair i believe we were going sorry i believe we're going number
14 next and then coming to number two. I'm sorry.
So, I'm going to recuse myself from this one and this is Commissioner Graham is going to lead this.
Okay, thank you. Okay, so MI2024006920, 648 to 50 North 40th Street. Meredith Froelicher is the attorney.
Ms. Graham, she will be coming back in as a panelist shortly.
Good afternoon.
Okay. Can you hear us? Meredith, can you hear us?
I can hear you. Can you hear me?
Yep. Gotcha. All right. So I think you've already been sworn in.
Okay. This is for the erection of semi-detached structure with roof deck.
With access structures, we have a letter of opposition from the Belmont Alliance Civic Association, as well as a letter of opposition from the West Belmont Civic Association, with a letter of support from Councilmember Garter's office.
I'm going to. Yep. Could you identify your client for me?
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, again, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R. My client today for this proposal is 41 Development LLC, which is the owner of the property. And the representatives on the call today are Eugene Nadevich and Robert Sherman.
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, again, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Okay. Thank you. And have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case five days prior to this hearing?
I did, yes.
And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
Wonderful.
Good afternoon again, members of the board.
The request before the board today concerns 648 North 40th Street.
And I have to say, I think you're going to find this to be one of the oddest cases that you've heard in quite a while.
You have an exhibit packet that contains 17 exhibits, which we do request be moved into evidence at the conclusion of the presentation today.
To summarize the basis for today's request, this application represents the often significant disconnect between affordable housing funding sources and the structure of the zoning code.
To be very clear, this proposal can be built entirely by right, as I will explain, if it were not for the requirements imposed by the funding sources that are required to make this project 100% affordable for seniors over the age of 62.
With that background in mind, let me orient you first to the location of the property.
The deed and tax clearance are included in the exhibits at 2 and 3.
As you can see on the aerials at Exhibit 9, sorry, actually Exhibit 10,
this property sits on North 40th Street that has frontage on Fairmont Avenue,
Wyota Street, and again North 40th Street to the east of this orientation.
This aerial is slightly out of date as there is new construction immediately next door
that you'll see in later photographs. At the zoning map at Exhibit 9, you'll notice that the
property is zoned RM1 and is surrounded on three sides by similar RM1 and CMX2 zoning.
The photographs at Exhibit 17 are coming up now.
You'll see the vacant corner lot, which is currently being used for staging of construction equipment for that new construction I referenced immediately next door.
The photographs also show the timely posting of the zoning posters on all three frontages.
Otherwise, you'll notice that this is a sizable lot over 5,000 square feet.
This first view is looking from North 40th Street back to Wyota Street.
The next view here looks from Wyota Street towards North 40th Street.
I've also included some older photographs as well, including from the corner of North 40th
and Fairmont Avenue, again looking towards the property.
This older photograph here is on Fairmont Avenue, and this is Wyota Street intersection.
and this is again an older photograph looking from 40th Street
and again from Fairmount Avenue. The proposal for 648 North 40th Street is shown on the zoning
plan at Exhibit 7 and includes one new four-story structure. The building will contain 24 dwelling
units. The roof deck is for mechanical access only. There is no basement. As you can see here,
the building is set back along the 40th Street frontage. If I turn momentarily to an earlier
version of the plan that was submitted to L&I about a year ago, you'll see that the building
was originally designed to front on 40th Street with a setback along Wyota Street. However, in
response to discussions with planning at the time, you'll see the line they indicated would be the
preferred setback, and you can see that dotted line here. Also on this plan, I'd ask the board
to take note that the original lot square footage, I'll bring it up here, the original lot square
footage was 5,243 square feet, which is also the lot square footage on record with the OPA.
Planning also had noticed at the time of the preliminary review a discrepancy in the lot
dimensions, which were resolved via the recording of a corrective deed, which is included at Exhibit
3. On the current zoning plan at Exhibit 7, you'll see that that revision to the lot area dropped the
lot to 5,196 square feet, which is ultimately where the dimensional variance derives from.
which is ultimately where the dimensional variance derives from.
Now, even though I've...
Now, even though I've shown you an older plan and a current plan,
the current plan that is before you is the one that actually generated the refusal,
so there's no need for any form of revised plan or revised plan proviso form.
We simply filed a new application to avoid the discrepancy.
This property is zoned RM1 and sits within the MIN mandatory affordable housing overlay.
Per that overlay, 20% of the units are to be reserved at 40% AMI.
Pursuant to the MIN density calculations, this lot is eligible for a base number of units of 17 units.
With a mixed income housing bonus, this lot is eligible for an additional 50%, or 25 total units.
I'll explain momentarily why that is not possible to use in this case.
Floor plans are shown on Exhibit 8.
Pursuant to the PHFA-approved plans, there are 12 one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom units.
Those units, including the overall number, are designed to comply specifically with PHFA requirements for unit size and layout.
As I mentioned, this project has already received a conditional award of funds under the Pennsylvania Housing Affordability and Rehabilitation Enhancement Fund, or commonly known as FAIR.
In addition to that, this project has also been selected as a FAIR cloth to RAD transaction, receiving an award of a project-based voucher subsidy.
Again, this award is also specifically linked to 24 units.
Documentation of both of those awards is included in your packet at Exhibit 18. We wanted to ensure
that you could see that what we are testifying to today has actually already been granted.
Based on these funding sources, 20% of the units will be fully ADA wheelchair accessible
as there is an elevator in the building, as you can see on the floor plans.
10% of the units will be reserved at 20% AMI, 20% of the units will be reserved at 40% AMI,
20% will be at 50% AMI, and 50% will be at 60% AMI. My clients are here today and can answer
any questions you have about these funding sources specifically. Now, regarding the refusal,
I'll start first with the dimensional refusal, which is extremely minor. As I pointed out earlier,
this resulted from an unfortunate lot line discrepancy that planning was quite adept at
noticing. On the original plan that was filed with L&I, you saw that the open area was 20%,
and I'll show you that here, the open area was 20% and was fully compliant with the zoning code.
As a result of the meets and balance discrepancy and the lot square footage dropping slightly,
the open area went from 20% down to 18.04%. The building itself did not change,
and this is truly a de minimis dimensional variance stemming from an unfortunate discrepancy
in the meets and bounds description. Next, the applicant also received a refusal for the proposed
density. The refusal notes that 17 units are allowed where 24 units are proposed. However,
as I alluded to earlier, this law is eligible for a total of 25 units with the mixed income
housing bonus. So why, you might be asking yourself, can the applicant not use the mixed
income housing bonus if the project is intended to be a deed-restricted affordable housing project
regardless? Allow me to show you why. The City of Philadelphia Division of Housing and Community
Development, or DHCD, put out an RFP to solicit proposals to finance the development of rental
units designed to serve low- and moderate-income households from a variety of city funding sources.
This RFP is intended to provide gap funding for projects seeking or those that have already
received some form of PHFA funding, which of course, as I pointed out earlier, this project
already has. If I scroll down, you will see quite clearly where the problem comes in.
Stated in bold on the RFP, DHCD states that, quote, the development of affordable units for
which a developer is receiving a density bonus under the mixed income portion of the zoning code
under the mixed income portion of the zoning code is not eligible for financing under this RFP.
is not eligible for financing.
Of course, 24 units is a crucial number in terms of eligibility for both the fair
and the project-based awards, but yet getting to the 24 number by right will then disqualify
the project under DHCD's guidelines. Given the importance of encouraging projects such as this
one that will not only provide deed-restricted affordable housing, but will do so for seniors
over 62 that predominantly come directly from this community. This refusal represents a clear
hardship, as strict conformity with the zoning code would prevent development of this important
project that directly serves the goals of the current administration. We submit the proposed
units is the least minimum as the density proposed is actually allowed for this lot and is technically
one unit less than would be allowed under the provisions of the zoning code. The dimensional
variance is quite minor and resulted from a technical error in the lot dimensions that had
unfortunately gone unnoticed until the filing of the original application. With regard to the
community, we are candidly quite baffled by the positions that have been taken here.
We quite clearly illustrated during the meetings that an identical proposal can be built
by right on this lot with a fraction of the affordability that this project proposes.
Furthermore, at the very least, the West Belmont community previously issued a letter of support
for funding purposes, again, referencing the 24 units. And this letter was back in 2023 for
funding purposes. The project has not changed since then. So again, we remain, quite frankly,
perplexed, given that this project represents the epitome of not only the current mayoral
administration goals, but also espouses the goals expressed by nearly every community across the
city. We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair
light and air. The proposal is consistent in massing to surrounding new construction and
intended to facilitate the retention of seniors in their current community. More detailed analysis
is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 14, and I'm happy to touch on
any point in more detail. At this point, I would ask the administrator to unmute either Eugene
Nadevich or Robert Sherman, whoever is available.