and and so there are no impacts from driving piles there is just the drilling of these steel piles
into the ground and um by doing that is it is definitely the best best method to preserve
preserve surrounding structures and has been used at other historical sites in the past
and will there be extra costs incurred above the typical demolition and construction costs
to preserve the zagar mosaic yeah there definitely are it's you know micro piles are not a cheap
system. So there's extra cost in the micropiles. And then because we're doing this six to 10 feet
inboard from the existing perimeter walls, the structure above has to be cantilevered and the
cost associated with the heavy steel framing cantilevered beams to carry the building above
is significant. It's very significant. And while this is at an early design stage,
you have some estimate of what these extra costs might be? Yeah, my best estimate based on
work I've done over the past 26 years is about $2 million.
And are the opinions you've expressed today based upon a reasonable degree of structural
engineering certainty?
Yes, absolutely.
It's based on my professional experience over the past 26 years.
I have a number of projects that are awarded by the Preservation Alliance of Philadelphia.
I have a national award for a similar project to this.
It was actually much more complicated than this project.
It was completed at the Pennsylvania Hospital campus. And so, yeah, I believe I have a degree of certainty on this.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for the witness.
Thank you. I just have one question. As it relates to the process of the drilling for the piling, you said you have experience in other areas where there were historical structures. Any of them in Philadelphia?
Yes, Chairman. The one I'm specifically referring to was completed at the Pennsylvania Hospital campus. As you know, Pennsylvania Hospital is a historical hospital in the city here. And at their Widener building, the emergency department building, a project that I designed and oversaw through construction administration as the design engineer, we built while we kept their emergency department active and running every minute of every day through this year and a half.
long project. We actually installed new foundations with micropiles in the basement of that building
below that building and then threaded columns down through the existing three-story building
and built four stories above the existing emergency department building and also gave
them capacity for an additional three stories in the future. And that work was done the entire
time on the historic campus with the emergency department running 24 hours a day the whole time.
running 24 hours a day the whole time thank you any questions from the board for this witness
Thank you. Any questions from the.
yes mr chairman do you happen to know the uh depth that you're going to drill the piles and
the reason why i asked the question is that second feet is close to the river thank you
uh yes no we do not have that information yet uh they wouldn't obviously wouldn't go deeper than rock
Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions from the board for this witness?
Any other questions for this witness?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly.
This is Vern Anastasio.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Haltsinger, you testified that there's extra costs to preserve the bride, is that correct?
Extra cost, yeah, to do this system that we're proposing, this concept.
And to preserve the bride, you estimate the extra cost to be around $2 million, is that right?
That's my guess.
Okay. Are you aware that there is no reason, legal or historic, for preserving the bride?
Objection, because that's why we're here today, Mr. Chairman.
Objection.
I was asking if he's aware that there's no reason to go.
He's asking him for a legal conclusion, Mr. Chairman.
I think he's been listening. And Mr. Hollinger, you have been listening to this testimony?
I have.
All right. So I think, Bernie, it's obvious that he's aware.
Okay. So, Mr. Hollinger, you would agree then that these extra costs are voluntarily taken on by the applicant? Is that right?
Objection to the characterization, Mr. Chairman. They are what they are.
There are extra costs that are taken on to design a project to preserve the bride.
But for, Mr. Holtzinger, maybe I should restate the question.
Sir, but for your client's desire to maintain the bride, would there be extra costs involved?
Let me ask the same follow-up to that question.
You haven't answered it yet, I know.
Given the testimony that was put on earlier about the two historically certified structures that are 250 years old, would your process be a better way of ensuring to the best of your ability that no damage would be done to those adjacent properties as opposed to typically pile driving?
I'd have to understand the alternative structure that you're talking about to answer that.
Mr. Chairman, I was only wondering if Mr. Housinger understood that these costs were being assumed by his client voluntarily, that's all.
I understand your question.
I'm not sure. I don't know.
Okay, so his answer is he doesn't know, that he doesn't know that these are self-inflicted
wounds. Okay, fine. Thank you.
All right. Do you have any more witnesses?
I have no more witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, who's up next?
And remind everyone, we have 45 minutes to go.
I'll be as brief as I possibly can, okay?
Someone else, was that Sharon?
No, it was Lakeisha. I was just letting you know we have two hands raised.
Okay, let's, Mr. Anastasio, and then we'll do the attorneys and then public.
Okay, I'm going to be brief with my argument, just going through it very briefly with the highlights.
You have our memo and all the case law.
It's voluminous.
It's already entered into the record.
I am going to ask to share a screen, if that's okay with you.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, may I proceed?
Yes, please.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, you've already heard lots of things today, some of which is and is not relevant.
You're going to hear other testimony today as well.
and you know I think we have to bring it back to the basics here and we have to be really crystal
clear with what we're doing and I'm going to focus just on the law because this is a legal proceeding
I know there's a lot of emotion involved with this particular piece of work but
wall coverings are not zoning unprotected wall coverings
Wall coverings are not zoning. Unprotected wall coverings are not hardships. Yes, the applicant
has a right to preserve the building that he purchased, but he does not have the right to
then use that building as a basis to seek zoning relief. The Historic Commission in 2018
already ruled that any purchaser of the property
has every right to demolish.
And then he moved, he knew that,
and then he purchased it.
He knows he can demolish the property.
And he may or may not know
that he could preserve some of it
and build an alternative scheme.
But the developer knew about this property
before he bought it.
he was aware of the determination of the historic commission when it was purchased
now the commonwealth court 2019 they relied on the historic commission's determination
that a prospective purchaser could demolish the entirety of the building including the mosaic
and the fact of the matter is what you're looking at is prima facie evidence that no hardship exists
they have in their possession this permit this is it
which they can execute tomorrow on they bought the bill they bought the property for four and a
half million dollars they have a permit to build 16 dwelling units three bedrooms apiece
in a residential section of Old City steps away from Alfred's Alley, which will sell in excess
of $2 million a unit. And by the way, they have parking. You can't sit here and credibly argue
that the numbers don't work. Okay? The only reason why the numbers may not work is if you choose
to save a building no one's asking you to save in fact the historic commission said go right ahead
the commonwealth court said go right ahead
so this is the prima facie evidence that i want to enter into the record and by the way
these are beautiful 16 townhomes they can go 65 feet
beautiful roof deck there's a reason why they submitted this you know they submitted it because
this is what they wanted to build and the applicant wouldn't have gone through all this trouble
if this was impracticable right he said it himself why would i bother if
if uh if it's not going to work well certainly this he bothered here
right he bothered look at all the work he did he submitted and he got his permit
this is this is the case this proves full evidence because there's no evidence of the contrary
that there is no hardship he's he has what he needs to proceed
and by the way if he doesn't want to go with that we've moved into this into evidence
our own report from our design professional. He's determined in his expert opinion that preserving
the mosaic can be accomplished with a structure not exceeding 65 feet, or as a supported
freestanding wall fronting a modified townhome development. So I don't understand the problem
here. There's an unwillingness to look for alternatives, and there's a desire to preserve
a building, but you can't base zoning relief on a desire, right? You see, there's zero evidence
of hardship as i've demonstrated you're going to hear testimony that granting relief in this
project would do adversely impacts to my clients those individual neighbors on both bodine street
and vine and by the way granting relief on this basis
would fundamentally alter the role of the zoning board forever
So while there's no hardship, as I said, there is a desire or a preference, and that is to spare a mosaic, which they won't even commit to personally maintain, by the way.
which they won't even commit to personally maintain, by the way.
They're going to leave that up to a third party.
They're going to leave that up to a third party with a paltry bank account.
So he can go 85 feet in the air and eat up all the light and air for the neighbors on Bodine Street.
Desires and preferences, Mr. Chairman, they're nice to have, but they have no place here before the board for a zoning analysis.
you can't use it the zoning board doesn't do aesthetics opposing counsel said it himself
the neighbors through their attorney sent three separate emails offering alternatives
based on your recommendation Mr. Chair that would give the appellant some of what they want
but they were answered with a big no each time and by the way no alternative option was ever offered
and if you grant this appeal the zoning board isn't just offering zoning relief anymore
the zoning board would become the last great hope for every wall covering in this city
be it a mosaic a mural or a vertical garden
when the courts won't protect them when historic commission won't protect them
they'll come here to the zoning board you think your docket's heavy now
they'll come here and they're going to rely on this case and they're going to ask you to
protect that wall covering or in the alternative bend over backwards to award huge variances
in deference to that wall covering you don't want that there's a place and a time for that
It's not here.
Granting the appeal is bad public policy.
It's bad law.
And that's what we're here to do.
This isn't arts and crafts.
It's a legal proceeding.
And that would be a terrible mistake in law
would be to grant this variance.
I submit all of my materials into evidence again,
including all relevant case law.
with that i have bob grimanskin as the first witness mr chairman before we go to him i just
have you mentioned the you use the word desire isn't it pretty much the same case for everybody
who appears in front of the zoning board no to seek some sort of relief because they desire to
do something right it's not permitted and i i'm sure there have been other cases at least i haven't
been sitting on as chair during any of the cases that may have where people may have requested to
save murals uh i know the sumatra mural of brodo morton wasn't saved i don't know if that was a
the applicant who built a multi-story building uh that basically covered it came in front of
the board or not but that's that's our job here isn't it to make those decisions based on a legal
analysis desires of people you've been faced for numerous times where people have a single family
home and their desire is to convert it into a three-story home i mean a three-family dwelling
as opposed to a single family dwelling that doesn't mean that the board's going to grant it
they desire to change the use right and preserve or preserve you're right and every and every
parcel is unique and that's how zoning law is handled uh in this case you when you do the
legal analysis you know again you all know this better than anybody you have to have a legal
hardship if you're going to ask for this kind of relief this isn't turning this is the board
understands that okay so but there's zero there's zero evidence it's not even like they tried
there's zero evidence of any hardship there's not one document that says what they have in
their hands 16 luxury units can't be built they have it it's the fact it's evidence the only thing
they actually have in evidence is the fact that they have no hardship mr chairman his statements
because we presented our case and they are what they are.
I do want to object to the toner letter.
It's hearsay and I want to object.
I want that on the record.
Sustained.
Vern, I think you had someone.
Yeah, Bob, are you there?
Is the RCO chair or representative?
Mr. Robert, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, sir.
We couldn't hear you.
please I spell your full name and I'll swear you in. Sure it's Robert and the last name is G-U-R-M-A-N-K-I-N.
M-A-N-K-I-N.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You swear for him to tell the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.