I've got Robert Sherman.
They should be coming back in as a panel shortly.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Hello.
good afternoon good afternoon can you state your name and spell it for the sonographer please
robert sherman r-o-b-e-r-t sherman is s-h-e-r-m-a-n okay do you swear to tell the truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you uh robert you are a member of the ownership entity of this
property 41 development llc correct yes and have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was
offered in front of the board today i have would you agree that testimony was true and accurate
and would you adopt it as if it were your own yes thank you we're happy to answer any questions on
this okay thank you questions from the board um yes i'm just trying to confirm right now you have
both FAIR and you have
PHA vouchers under
a future HAP contract
to support the
whole development?
That's exactly correct. And then who's
going to be the property manager once
the development's complete?
It'll be
Fittler Properties.
And does Fittler
Properties have previous experience
working with both this population
and these affordable
housing finance
mechanisms yes um i have a question was there any parking uh with this project there is no parking
for the project and it's also not required of course as you know but no there is no no parking
proposed what was the uh community's opposition board member johns i i don't know that i could
articulate that clearly there was there was some concern over the the density which we really truly
did not understand uh again not only just because of the fact that the density is allowed for this
is allowed for this lot, but there was seemingly some confusion over what they believed to be
lot but there was seemingly some confusion over
an 18-unit proposal versus a 24-unit proposal. But candidly, we really left the meeting quite
perplexed, and I'm not sure that I could articulate what the concern was in light of
the circumstances here. I don't think I saw the elevations. Oh, sure.
that they're not they're they're two-dimensional that were included on the zoning plan you can see
here there's the section yeah i don't i don't see like an elevation so trying to figure out context
as it relates to the the block and the rest of the
sure so i we don't have a detailed elevation but as you can see here there's
proposal immediately next door that's under construction as you can see in the photograph
here it is in terms of massing it is very similar to what is being built next door
um well it's kind of hard kind of hard to see from this picture because all we're seeing is a
blue wall okay i understood and apologies i don't know you know it yeah i mean
the the dimensions do comply with the code certainly uh that doesn't directly address
your question but um but in terms of of massing it is it is consistent with what is on the block
currently particularly immediately next door kind of hard to to to what's the height is there
identified height. The height of this building is going to be 45 feet. 45 feet. So it's four
stories, 45 feet. Correct. And your development team submitted for FAR funding, then they would
have had to submit elevations for this project. So that should have been included, you know,
just so we could see our rendering or something that really kind of shows the context. So
that's disappointing um is it 45 feet to the top of the roof deck or to the top of the pilot house
it is to the um it is not to the top of the pilot house it's to the top of the roof
is it to the top of the roof deck or that because you're pointing to the parapet can
need scrolls to the right. No, it's the top of the roof. The roof is on it. It has a pitch to it.
Yep, I see it now. Yep. So it's like to the top of the roof.
Any other questions from the board? Questions from attorney Hillary Emerson?
Just briefly, Ms. Ferlinger, I wanted to clarify, you mentioned there was a change in the plans as
a result of the deeds, the meets and bounds being incorrectly laid out. Was there a corrected or
amended refusal issued because of that? No, Council Emerson, that original plan was actually
filed under an entirely separate zoning application. As a result of the discrepancies
that were discovered and the process that we had to go through to make sure that was corrected,
we withdrew that application entirely and when it was corrected we refiled so there is no there's
no corrected refusal there's no revised plan in terms of this application itself because the
zoning plan that's in front of the board is the one that generated this refusal okay if that's
clear much yeah no no problem sorry that's okay we have any questions from our audience
Yes, Ms. Graham, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have a hand up in the virtual audience
by Park Frost.
I've allowed them to speak.
Hello, thank you.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Park Frost, P-A-R-K-F-R-O-S-T.
And do you swear to tell the truth?
Okay, proceed.
Thank you. I live on this block directly, almost almost directly across the street from this block. I am the block captain of this block. I have been a resident of this block for 24 years.
um i attend all of our rco meetings um and you know know many of the attendees of the rco meetings
including all of my neighbors in the immediate vicinity um the situation is not being accurately
represented um obviously uh with with good reason you cannot rely on the lawyer of the opposition to
With good reason, you cannot rely on the lawyer of the opposition to present your case for you.
Our RCOs, I understand, have written clear letters as to why we have rejected this.
Basically, the context is that all of the other multi-unit buildings on our block and on the next blocks and on the neighboring blocks are around three to eight units max.
This is far larger than anything in the area, far more units than anything. It's far more dense than anything nearby. As was noted, there is a construction going up on an identical lot next door, you know, identical lot, same size.
they are placing 10 units on it, and it is affordable housing. The setbacks on this side
of the street are much deeper than what they are providing. They are building to all other
lot lines, as my understanding. This is much larger than anything else on the block. All
other buildings on the block have considerable front setbacks, backyards and side yards.
This does not fit the scale of our neighborhood. It does not fit the density of our neighborhood.
And our neighborhood did not approve ever anything this large. We approved what we all seem to remember, and this has never been addressed by this lawyer. We attended a meeting where they presented a request for 18 units.
we have we approved that and we wrote a letter of support for that and that is why the rco that
wrote a previous letter of support has now written a letter of non-support because we do not approve
something this large it's far too large for the context okay thank you thank you for your testimony
anyone else in the virtual audience
um yes i have a hand up from trevian ambrose i've allowed them to uh speak
oh wait they just put their hand in i'm sorry
oh okay now to put it back up i allowed them to speak
hello can you hear me good afternoon could you uh state your name and spell it for the stenographer
please. Yes, Chair. Travian Ambrose, T-R-E-V-I-A-N-A-M-B-R-O-I-S-E. And do you
speak to the truth? I do. Okay, proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Chair. Again, my name is
Travian Ambrose and I'm representing the Office of Councilmember Gaudier. I'm here again to convey
the Councilmember's opinion on this matter as one of full support. It is the Councilmember's
opinion that the proposed 24-unit 100% affordable would reflect what it looks like when funding or
financing partners to build for genuine affordability, in this case for seniors. The
office acknowledges the concerns of constituents. It is our understanding that this exact proposal
was discussed with community in 2023 as part of DHCD's affordable rental housing RFP process
and received a letter of support. It is the council member's view that bureaucratic
incompatibilities in the code and the city's RFP process
should not stifle, derail, or stall the creation of new,
deeply 100% affordable housing, senior affordable
housing, especially given the current uncertainty surrounding future
federal funds. The Councilmember reaffirms her urge that the ZBA
grant the requested variance without delay. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No, it's okay. Planning Commission. Okay. Oh, the attorney would like to respond to any
other testimony thus far.
No, I mean, not not to be repetitive. But again, you know, just in terms of the density.
Somebody could come into this lot and build a much larger development, and it would be far less
affordable so we believe that the the application uh you know stood on its own to establish why
why this proposal is warranting of relief and certainly we understand the concerns for density
but in this particular case the density proposed is contemplated for this lot one way or another
okay thank you uh planning commission thank you good afternoon chair and members of the
board michael gall with the philadelphia city planning commission okay uh do you say that your
name already could you spell it for the record m-i-c-h-a-e-l-g-a-l-l and you swear to tell the
truth in your testimony so affirm okay position the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the rm1 residential multifamily zoning at this location for the additional dwelling units beyond
for the additional dwelling units beyond 17 the appellant could earn eight additional
17 the appellant could earn eight additional dwell
dwelling units if they were to apply for the mixed income housing bonus the city planning commission
provided a planned consistency letter to support funding for this project therefore the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested variances for unit count
and maximum occupied lot area oh thank you um i think uh you guys want to take this uh back to
executive session um can we uh vote on it for next week at 2 p.m okay all right next week at 2 p.m
thank you thank you
okay moving on to the next one i just want to just make an announcement real quick uh mi dash
for continuance mi-2024-005-841-4010 palmetto street we want to continue that and a date will
be provided to you i was gonna say that we're actually continue that attorney moving party
so yes continued attorney moving party yes we'll provide a date um when it will be when the attorney
reaches out yes thank you all right
and moving on
to number four
MI-2024-006066
1921 West Norris Street
Daniel
you want to go back to it
okay are we going to go back
and get this last one out the way
MI-2024-00380867030 Ridge Avenue.
Kristen Mister is the attorney.
And I believe we also have Pamela Loughran here
on behalf of the Protestants for that case as well.
I don't think she's here in the room.
She may be virtual.
is Pam Longman
on the virtual audience.
Can we promote her?
Catherine,
can you please state your name and spell it
for the court reporter, please?
Please keep turning.
Catherine Mithimer,
it's M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R,
Claire Harrison,
1835 Market Street, Suite 1400,
19103.
Thank you.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And has Pam been promoted?
Pam, can you please state your name for the record?
Yes, Pamela M. Lachman.
And can you spell that for the court reporter, please?
L-O-U-G-H-M-A-N.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
this is a resumption hearing so we can get started um chris and katherine we'll start with you
and and mr try i believe that the only thing the app has to present is the updated landscaping
plan that was requested by the planning commission and then we were going to take public testimony
and the recommendation of the planning commission yes and i'll just ask that my architect step
forward so that he can testify to the changes made on the landscape plan okay fair enough please proceed
rustin did you want to put your name on the record rustin oler r-u-s-t-i-n-o-h-l-e-r
harman deutsch oler architecture we swear to the truth the whole truth but nothing but the truth
i do thank you it's all you counsel thank you russian can you speak to the changes made
with respect to pcpc comment on the landscape plan we'll pull that up so it's easier for you to see
sure um so city planning had requested a further review of the landscaping plan
um overall there were no comprehensive changes to the entire plan at all or any of the landscape
buffers it was just a clarification on some planting and species so the plan as was previously
presented from a zoning standpoint to the zoning board has not changed minor changes in delineation
of plantings and that's it and a note i believe was added to clarify that the buffer was with
respect to um the zoning district adjacent correct correct and there were no other changes made on
the landscape plan understood uh pam um yes i just have one or two for mr oler um mr roller um the
The landscape plan proposes greenery and shrubbery along the.
um proposes uh greenery and shrubbery along the the rear lot line parallel to ridge avenue correct
correct yeah and so uh that greenery and shrubbery would prevent any light from cars
um i'm sorry and it's in front of a fence isn't a proposed fence is that correct yeah we have a front
a fence around the entire perimeter a solid fence yes okay so the combination of the solid fence
and the proposed landscaping would prevent any um light from cars from bothering people who live
on uh the development behind the rear lot line i think it's called um