Thank you.
chair we have 54 attendees and we can start when you wish thank you good morning my name
is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning zba hearings with me is ishmael shaheed
our board secretary he's here he's he's here thomas holliman our board member good morning
mr chairman thank you james snell our board member present mr chairman thank you also our
board attorney hillary emerson and our zba hearing supervisor lakeisha dandy are also present before
we begin, here's our virtual format. The proceedings are being recorded. By participating,
you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting
tonyasunkett at phila .gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask the attorneys
and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone,
if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an
appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in
question. And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
Any comments have to be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumpit.
So let's look at continuances that we have today. Number one, MI 2022, 002 -379 -4890 Somerdale.
That case is continued. Number two, MI 2021 -005 -225 -120 North 53rd Street. That case is
continued. And number 12, MI 2022 -000 -479 -8917 Revere Street, that case is continued.
Does anyone have any comments relative to those three cases?
is there anyone who has any additional continuances
i see no hands chair thank you number 10 is a withdrawal mi 2022 003 821 1600 north 11 street
that case has been withdrawn and also i have number seven
number seven is mi 2022 003 585 1500 to 30 east erie avenue that case has no exhibits it's the
second listing. I see no hands. Okay. So MI 2022 003 585 1500 to 30 East Erie Avenue. That case is
continue and mark must be tried so we're going to start our our regular list
number three mi 2022 002 205 233 south 24th street jared klein is the attorney
there's a letter of opposition from center city residents association
um council person kenyana johnson is also uh at the same position the center city
resident association is but there's a petition in support signed by approximately 137 neighbors
mr klein is coming in now as a panelist thank you you're welcome
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Mr. Klein?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good morning, Mr. Klein.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Certainly.
It's Jared Klein, J -A -R -E -D, last name Klein, K -L -E -I -N.
All right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Certainly.
I am representing Ambrosia Restaurant, which is the owner of the property through its operators,
Freddie and Georgie, who are on the line with us today.
All right.
Thank you.
Ismail Shahid has a few questions for you.
Certainly.
If he's not available, Mr. Chair, I can
Why don't you run through it? I'm sure you have it down.
Do a sign, sir. Mr. Chairman? Yeah, go ahead, Thomas.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to his accuracy? Yes, I do.
Did you email all of the
exhibits and documents as required, such as
proof of ownership tax clearance copy of the refusal or referral pictures or drawings of the
property five days in advance to this hearing did you meet with the rco and do you have a letter
yes to all the above sir thank you please proceed and show your screen thank you very much
so we are here for uh 233 south 24th street there's an rm1 zone property uh one property
off of the corner of 24th and locust street just to orient the board as to where we are
this is the property here there's some new residential housing here this property at
the corner and then apartment buildings surrounding the zoning map for this is is worth uh just a brief
a brief comment this is our lot here you can see the rm1 zone lot this lot here is the existing
location of Ambrosia Restaurant, and you'll see some better photos of that in just a moment.
But that's been an active restaurant use since well back into the 1950s. The application here
before you is to join the current Ambrosia Restaurant site with this lot and expand the
restaurant seating capacity into this lot. I'm pausing on the zoning map just to show the board
that although our lot is zoned RM1, we're immediately next to CMX3 zoning, immediately
across from ICMX zoning. So it is not a purely residential area. There's really certainly a mix
of different zoning types, different base zoning districts located in this immediate area.
Here's the property. This is the existing location of Ambrosia. It's been there for quite some time.
this is the property here that they're seeking to expand into this property here was recently
constructed residential housing so this is the building that we're talking about ambrosia
currently has outdoor seating via a licensed and permitted streetery this is on locust street
and the property as you can see the ambrosia because it's a corner uh has the outdoor seating
on locust street and has some additional approved seating on 24th street just another photo to
orient the board as to the location again what we're looking to do is expand the restaurant
from this structure here into into this one there and just to give the board context of what's
around it these are the apartment buildings that are immediately across the street and the new
residential construction i i mentioned previously photos of the zoning notices that are posted
and this photo i'll pause on this photo members of the board is the rear courtyard area
this area is shared by the homes that are immediately adjacent to ambrosia so our lot
the lot at issue 233 owns a portion of this rear yard space and there are adjacent structures
who have residential owners who also share this space.
You'll hear a lot about this shared courtyard later today,
so I thought it was important to give the board a perspective
of what that area looks like back there.
In terms of what we want to do here, it's fairly simple.
We're going to break through from one structure to the other
and allow seating inside the new building
and a limited amount of seasonally appropriate seating in this rear courtyard area.
By that, I mean no more than six tables.
By that, I mean no more than six tables and only from the months of April until October, not year round and not trying to fill every single space.
What the owners of Ambrosia are trying to do here is to create a very European style dining experience.
And if you go through certain areas that have this mix of residential and commercial use, you'll see many, many situations where there are outdoor seating areas for restaurants nestled into residential areas.
And they think that that is a dining experience people in Philadelphia want to have, and they're trying to expand their offerings to give that.
this photo here or drawing we have heard and obviously are sensitive to using the rear garden
area as there are people who do live immediately adjacent and we're trying to be as contextually
appropriate as we can one of the things that we are suggesting that we do is install a sliding
glass canopy over that rear portion to try and minimize any noise that would come from that rear
area that will not be a perfect solution but we're really trying to think creatively as to
how we can utilize that rear space and be as sensitive to those around us as we can
give the board a sense of what the interior of the new space is going to look like these are
some renderings that just show the additional seating and how things might be laid out
um to spend just a moment on the some of the history of the site uh as you can see here back
in 1959 it was approved for a luncheonette um and it has been ongoing as that restaurant use
since that 1959 time period i believe it used to be called sandy's and it was more of a greasy
spoon type of diner in its first first iteration uh and now now it's obviously ambrosia and has
the ambrosia for quite some time. Here is just the zoning permit going back to show what the
initial use was at that site. And so what we have here really is an expansion of a pre -existing use.
This restaurant has been there since the 1950s. They're looking to attach this additional property
and expand into it. And there's a situation here where the hardship unique to the lot is the
presence of the restaurant that's been there since the 1950s. This lot has always been adjacent to
this restaurant use. It's a pre -existing use that's been in the community. And it's important
for the board to also understand that the process for them to acquire this lot, which my clients do
own the lot now, they acquired it from a short sale from a property that had been on the market
for two years and was listed and marketed for its residential use. It was zoned as a residential
property. It did not sell as a residential property. My clients eventually purchased it
from a short sale and are trying to operate the property as the business. So the longstanding
pre -existing use at this corner and the difficulties that they encountered trying to
sell this property all speak to the hardship. I wanted to just share with the board, there was
some comments at the Civic Association meeting that I'll touch on. There were many comments
from some near neighbors about the permitting and licensure status of the property. I'm not
going to go through this in depth, but I did include for the board in our packet some of
certifications and fire alarm inspections uh that are current uh as of september of 2022
uh just to uh alleviate any concerns than your neighbors that there was a lack of
fire safety and other permitting at this property as you can see everything has been tested
and they are up to date with all their fire suppression permits
um mr chair you you mentioned as i was logging in that we do have a petition that was signed by
over 100 people. That is in the packet of materials I sent to the board. Sample page
looks like this. I will not go through every single page. But there is substantial community
support, including from people, and I'm just pausing on this sheet, this is the building
that's immediately next door. 249 South 24th Street is the next property up, and they are all
supportive of this of this project um we did uh as as we noted we had a meeting with center city
residents association and they did submit a letter of of opposition um i i think that that is
primarily being driven by several immediate near neighbors who do have some concerns about the use
of that rear yard for proceeding areas um i think that when you look at the project over
proceeding areas. I think that when you look at the project overall and what Ambrosia has meant
to the neighborhood, the improvements that it's made to the quality of life, to the eyes on the
street, I think that just about everybody, save for a few neighbors, would agree that this is a
neighborhood asset and something that should be allowed to exist in the immediate area.
And so we respectfully disagree with CCRI's choice here. I understand that they need to take the immediate near neighbors into account. I think there's a larger neighborhood perspective here that should be accounted for, particularly with a business that's had active restaurant use at this corner since the 1950s.
I would like, at this point, to have my clients come on and adopt my testimony, and then I'll be happy to answer any questions the board may have and provide any additional details.
Could Freddie or Georgie, I don't know which of you is on, could one of you raise your hand, please? Raise your virtual hand.
Do we see the hand?
I thought I saw him in the audience.
Yes, it should be Freddy or George.
But if they're not there, Mr. Chair, I will, as an officer of the court, obviously.
Mr. Klein, we take your testimony.
Is there questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
I see a hand from a Jill Webber.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Jill Weber, who is.
Hello, I did.
Ms. Weber.
Ms. Weber, can you raise your hand again, please?
Ms. Weber, can you unmute yourself?
I just did, I believe.
Is that, can you hear me now?
Yes, yes.
Could you state your name as spelled, please, for the court reporter?
so my name is jill weber j -i -l -l -w -e -b -e -r but i'm also on with the lawyer representing us right
now and that's bill mafucci well we we want your testimony right now okay okay do you swear for him
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed let me start my video
please. So I can appreciate Ambrosia believing that they're an asset to the neighborhood. And
I know quite a few people do like them and do like their food. That doesn't make them a great
neighbor. And one of the main problems here is that it has really impacted my, I'm sorry for my
voice has really impacted my my living frankly on a daily basis I cannot even open my windows
because of all the idling trucks that stop right in front of my windows um and you know I I think
I think this would have been a little more tenable I'm not anti -business I own four restaurants
myself and I I understand business I love business um but what what Georgie and Freddie
have not made attempts to coexist on a on a on a friendly level with many of the surrounding
neighbors um so many of the pictures that they showed you show actual illegal activities um for
instance their streetery which is within i think six feet of a of a crosswalk and it's supposed to
be 20 feet away um they recently were cited for a lack of crash barriers when they were cited they
they were reinspected, they passed, and then they immediately this weekend put up more seating
without crash barriers outside. You know, they put up electrical conduit to their streetery
after they knew it was illegal and after there was supposed to be road work on our street and
the paving had been done and they're supposed to take away the streetery within 48 hours.
We finally got our street paved after a month and a half. But, you know, the pattern here is that
they just continue to do things. And so they're forced not to. One of the things I think that is
particularly terrible to us is that, you know, they don't make any attempt to prevent all of
They don't make any attempt to prevent all of the delivery traffic from hindering me and my neighbors and my driveway and my windows, despite the fact that they've reserved more streetery space for themselves that they often just park in, as well as they've not made any attempt to, let's say, play nice until they've received any legal action.
the delivery traffic.
And then they generally just do what they want anyway, including using the backyard at 233 for their warehousing right now for the commercial property, despite the fact they've gotten the, they haven't gotten the ones, they were turned down.
All right. So you're against the expansion.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm against the expansion for sure.
Right. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your call. And thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, can I very briefly inquire of this?
Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, why don't we do this?
You want to ask questions to her?
Just one, Mr. Chair.
Okay, go ahead, proceed.
Good morning, Ms. Weber.
Are you, you mentioned earlier
you own several restaurants in Philadelphia?
And are those also BYOB restaurants?
No, but Ambrosia has an active liquor license.
Okay, so you would consider yourself
a competitor of Ambrosia's?
No, not at all.
Okay, thank you.
and by the way the the restaurant there's no saturation in restaurants all right right thank
you very much for calling it is there anyone else in the council mr chairman yes uh thank you for
accommodating could you state your name please william mafucci m as in michael a ffu cci right
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do do you live in
area, sir? I live in the Philadelphia area. I'm not in Center City. I'm the attorney. I'm the
attorney for Megan, for Jill and her husband, Evan. Right. Okay. Proceed. All right. I'm also
the attorney for Megan Robb and Terry Scott, who own the property at 2322 Locust Street. That's
the lot that is immediately continuous to the existing Ambrosia restaurant, as well as the
outdoor rear courtyard portion of 233 South Locust Street. Likewise, I represent Claire
and Claire Welty and Axel Zielinski, other users of that courtyard space. Now, my clients have been
joined. It's not just a few neighbors who oppose this. My clients have been joined by dozens of
people who oppose this. We submitted a petition to the Center City Residents Association. Many of
the other objectors may be participating. This is not everyone against just the two neighbors.
We have two categorical objections, one of which is general and one of which is specific.
The general objection is, as Jill began to explain, and as you'll hear some more,
is that Ambrosia's restaurant activities in its existing location have already caused
numerous serious problems, problems about which current management has been cavalier
and unresponsive. And any expansion of the restaurant into the residential space
next door would exacerbate those problems. The specific objection is that Ambrosia's
management is insistent on having outdoor eating space, even though only during seven or eight
months of the year in the rear courtyard of the residential property that shares, that would
immediately completely destroy the residential atmosphere and ambient beauty of that courtyard,
which constitutes literally half of the footprint of the other four lots that share.
Now, before I address some of the specific objections that my clients have, I want to
address the question of hardship. Hardship is not and cannot be the presence of a restaurant
next door. To suggest that the property, 233 South 24th Street, that there's a hardship that
warrants its use, that makes it impossible or impractical to use the property as a residence,
is patently absurd. It's been used as a residence, adored as a residence,
including by some people who may be on this call for decades. During the last year it was listed
as a residence and we've spoken with the realtor there was lots of interest. Yes it was purchased
through a short ceiling because the prior owners were wearing a divorce. There is no hardship.
There cannot be any hardship and excuse me Mr. Chairman excuse me council I think we need to
I think we need to move on. We have a lot of cases today.
move on we have a lot of cases today all right that's that's
All right. That's that's fine. All right.
All right. Allow me to address the devastating impact that the outdoor dining would have on the ability of my clients.
Megan Scott. Megan. Are they are they here?
They are. Yes, they are present. Megan Robb and Terry Scott.
You're testifying for them.
Well, no, actually, I'm going to I'm going to just introduce them and they will and they will testify.
uh so terry terry scott megan is a professor uh terry is available he will testify i'm just
introducing who they are uh if this uh claire welty who happens also to be a professor
you're confused who do you want to testify now first it will be terry terry scott okay cool
Call, have her raise her hand.
No, Terry is a man.
Terry has his hand raised now.
Okay, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Excellent.
Yeah, my name is Terry Scott, T -E -R -R -Y -S -C -O -T -T.
Right, do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Yeah, well, thank you for this opportunity for letting me speak on behalf of the residents around us and my wife, Megan, as well, who live at 2322 Locust Street, which abuts both the Ambrosia restaurant currently and the 233 South 24th Street for the proposed expansion.
Are you for the expansion, sir?
I am against the expansion. And the reason is because of the immediacy of the neighboring property and the direct harm it would cause to the use of enjoyment of our of our home.
All right. All right. So, Mr. Weber, do you have any questions?
No, I don't have any questions for Mr. Scott.
okay all right so maybe maybe just to uh elucidate more of the points i'm not sure if i'm able to
do a screen share or anything like that um but our our backyard is is shed essentially shed by the
the space of the 233 lot and this is a space that we enjoy regularly um we're already contending
with the front and so yeah okay so do you have anyone else to testify uh we we don't but we
what we'd like to do one of the things that that terry couldn't present is a video a very short
it's a half a minute video that will give you a a much better sense as to as terry puts it
the immediacy where's the video sorry where's sorry where's the video it's we're gonna put it
right now. Put it up right now. Thank you.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS VIDEO MEANS, REALLY, SIR.
THANK YOU FOR THE VIDEO.
SIR, YOU'RE STILL MUTE.
Yes, I just wanted to explain that the video brings you into the courtyard space, and it shows you, it's a shared space.
I understand.
All right.
Okay, is there anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to testify?
able to join us she i see no hands thank you um planning commission
good morning chair bergman good morning board members ian hegarty here on behalf of the
philadelphia city planning commission my last name is spelled h -e -g -a -r -t -y right do you swear
from tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do proceed sir thank you
very much good morning board members um the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RM1 multi -family zoning at this location.
existing rm1 multi -fail
The appellant here is proposing to expand an existing restaurant at 231 South 24th to the subject property.
As council has cited, the earliest record of eating and drinking use at 231 dates to 1959.
And we consider this proposal to be akin to an expansion of an existing non -conforming use.
We further believe that the appellant has demonstrated that the subject property has limited value in residential use.
Ian, you're freezing up.
He fell out here.
Okay, he'll get back on. Ian, David?
Good morning, Chair Bergman. David, F -E -C -T.
Spell your name, please, David. I'm sorry.
Yes, F -E -C -T -E -A -U with the City Planning Commission.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Why don't you proceed?
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think as Mr. Hegarty was saying, we further believe that the appellant has demonstrated that the subject property has limited value in residential use.
We believe that the appellant has shown that the proposed variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties.
And so the City Planning Commission will recommend that the board grant the variance with the condition that outdoor seating be required to close by 10 p .m.
mi2022002205233 south 24th street i vote yes proviso outdoor seating closed by 10 p .m
thomas holloman my vote is yes we're proviso
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
it's no shaheed my vote is yes supervisor jim
okay council that's three votes
next case everyone
thank you council
Number four, MI -2022 -000477 -228 -North 63rd Street, Parcel A.
Brandon Savarin is the attorney.
Letter of support from Chief Ability.
Also letters of support from 24 neighbors,
Chevrolet and the 200th block of Grove Street.
is coming in as a panel
good morning mr chairman good morning council could you state your name and spell it please for the
court reporter? Yes. Brandon Saverin, B -R -A -N -D -O -N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is the owner of the property. It's an LLC called BSDWAY5LLC, and one of its principles, Lionel Love, is here to adopt my testimony.
Okay. Ishmael Shahid, our board secretary, has a few questions.
One second, Chair.
Thank you.
good morning can you hear me yes go ahead do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy um i agree to waive the reading but um i uh i don't step to
its accuracy i'll explain in one second we've we've eliminated one of the refusals uh thanks
to the revised design okay did you email all the exhibits and documents as required such
Okay. Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required, such as proof of ownership, tax clearance, copy of refusal or referral, pictures or drawings of the property, five days, in advance of this hearing? And did you meet with an RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above, Mr. Sheed.
All right. Thank you. Please share your screen and proceed.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board. Thank you for your time in advance today. So this is
the refusal that we're here to discuss. I will actually be allowing the architect to walk you
through the plan. So in literally under a minute, I'll stop sharing my screen and allow you to call
him and he'll begin his presentation. But allow me to just walk through the refusal real quickly.
There are two refusals at issue here. One is a use refusal. One is a dimensional refusal.
We submitted proviso plans in our exhibit packet that eliminate the dimensional refusal, which
I'll highlight here, really came down to this issue, that bicycle storage was within the required
front setback and that was not permitted. We eliminated that bicycle storage facility from
that location by moving it into the building. So that refusal is no longer an issue under the
proviso plans. The use refusal for multifamily use in the RSA 5 district is really what we're here
for a variance on. And just to address the address for a second, the property I'm going to show you
on Atlas. This highlighted is actually 228 North 63rd Street, which is not the property at issue.
The subject property is here. This used to be known as 228 North 63rd A. OPA, through the actions of
my client before this matter, obtained a new address, which for whatever reason was not
reflected on the refusal. That is 247 North Gross Street, as this property is a flag lot with frontage
on Gross Street. Just to give you a little background on these parcels, this is a 5 ,000
square foot vacant lot. I believe it's gravel with a small storage shed, which would be taken
away if this project were to go forward. There is no history of single family use on this parcel
shown by my cursor here. And we would be looking to essentially try and use this large space
by erecting a building that is mostly here, but, you know, reaches forward for access to the street
through the flagpole as it were. It's a difficult property to construct multiple single family homes
on given the layout. The access would be a serious issue so an apartment building is
sort of the more natural format here. With that and I will stop sharing my screen
James Hare or Jimmy Hare is the architect.
Do we see his hand raised?
Mr. Harrah, can you raise your hand?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
James Harrah, H -A -R -R -E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hey, Jimmy. So, Jimmy, you should have the ability to share your screen. If you could walk the board briefly through the zoning plan and or floor plans, that would be great.
Now, I'll make a couple additional comments after that.
Yeah, I just want to make sure everyone can see my screen clearly right now.
Yeah, we can see you.
Awesome. So, as Brandon pointed out, 228 North 63rd Street, Lot A slash 247 North Grove Street is the address we're looking at right now.
And here is the current site plan of the project. You can kind of see the red outline of the site, forming the flagpole lot that Brandon alluded to in his comments.
Just a quick little street view perspective of it right here. You can see the adjacent properties all have porches and ours is at a slab on grade level.
The primary reason for the slab on grade is to accommodate ADA and type B accessible units on this ground floor that you'll see as we go through.
So, no basement on this project, full slab on grade, but one interesting characteristic
of the site is that it does rise about six to seven feet from the front of the property
I believe six to seven feet from the front of the property to the rear. And so to accommodate
to the rear.
that, we have a ramp going in here to two type B units in the rear. And then as you enter the
building, we have an office space and mail storage, utility closet, indoor trash storage that will be
ventilated to the exterior, and then all of our bike storage, as Brandon mentioned, we move that
indoors. Again, just in the rear here, we have two two -bedroom, one -bath units that are again
accessible units and then two staircases that lead to the public right away moving on up to
our second floor here we have one unit in the front that's a one bedroom one bath
has its own mechanical and laundry and unit enter into the kitchen living room with windows through
a light where will excuse me light well that peek out into the alleyway between us and 243
North Grove Street, and then the bedroom off the front of the property, and then in the rear here
you can see we have one two -bedroom, two -bath unit in the middle, and then one one -bedroom,
one -bath unit on the end. Moving up to the third and fourth floor, this unit or this level is
duplicated up. We have the compliant eight -foot setback for a three -story building adjacent to
two two -story buildings, so this first floor unit is a little bit smaller but still pretty good
walking into a kitchen, living room area,
one bedroom, one bath again.
And then in the rear here,
we have another two bedroom, one bath,
and then another one bedroom, one bath here.
Again, that duplicates up to the fourth floor.
And then just some quick facade elevations.
You can see a brick to match the adjacent homes
on the lower levels,
and then a fiber cement siding on the upper floors above
since brick is a little heavy to carry in that setback wall.
any questions any questions for the architect no mr chairman board okay brandon no mr chairman
sorry sorry there i didn't mean to talk over board members now um jimmy just to confirm for
the board despite the fact that the refusal says 13 units our proviso plans uh uh propose 11 units
Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. We removed two units on the ground floor when we removed the basement.
OK. And that was my second question. So there is no basement to this building, correct? Correct. Everything is a slab on grid.
OK. And also there's no roof deck. Is that correct? Also correct.
OK. Thank you. So, Jimmy, if you could stop sharing your screen. I just wanted to show the board a couple additional exhibits here.
uh mr chairman this will be very quick and then i'll i'll uh i'll end my presentation so um in
uh our exhibit packet um i have um letters of support i believe we had 45 total um 30 of which
were within the 250 foot radius that's drawn by the planning commission's tool for to determine
affected neighbors um as i believe you mentioned at the outset here a number of those letters of
support. Probably about a dozen of them are on this block. Here again is the subject property.
We have a number of letters of support that were collected from folks who live on this 200 block
of North Grove Street. In addition, oh, I'm sorry. And this is, this is, there we go. This is the
letter of support that was issued by the coordinating RCO. I won't walk you through it
read it. And finally, there is context here for multifamily. So I have a list here that summarizes
nearby zoning permits that I put in our exhibit packet. And just to graphically show you this
list of properties on a map, on our corner, so this may be one or two doors down from us on the
corner of North Gross and Vine is a multifamily building. There are a number of others here on
the adjacent block of Vine Street around the corner. And then 63rd Street is probably mostly
small multifamily buildings here. That is my presentation. I was contacted by Miss Harley,
who is the block captain for the North Grove Street block so just wanted to see if she happens
to be on I know she wanted to testify but otherwise that concludes my presentation
thank you I'll call her one questions from the board
no I see three no Mr. Chairman no Mr. Chairman right questions or comments from the virtual
floor it ends. Hi, I see four hands up. The first one is a Ms. Darlene Booker -Jones.
Okay. Can I allow her to speak? Please. Thank you.
Okay. Can I allow her to speak? Please. Thank you.
Ms. Jones, can you unmute yourself? Yes. Hello. Hi. Could you state your name and spell it,
please, for the court reporter? Okay. Darlene Booker Jones, D -A -R -L -E -N -E -B -O -O -K -E -R hyphen
J -O -N -E -S
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, my property is right
on the same line as this property.
Proceed.
Thank you very much, Chairperson
and the board. I just wanted to
end up bringing the diagrams
that he did show. It's
shown on the road side
not on the opposite side
where I'm a single family dwelling.
Great. I just wanted to end up reading some information. When I purchased this property
in 1995, there were no such property with the address 247 North Grove Street. The original
blueprint shows a green space and lot leading to 2228 North 63rd Street behind the back of the
houses of Grove Street to an opening next to my property. While attending the RCO meeting in July
2021, I learned that 228 North 63rd Street was divided to include subdivision 247 North Grove
Street. The developer, Mr. Love, did not contact me to discuss the property during the process.
It was not until November 10th, 2022, that Mr. Love met with the group to hear how we could
effectively move on with the project making some changes to the original plans. Since the time of
the first meeting and up to now this project has disrupted my livelihood. First mentally thinking
about how this gigantic three or four story condo building will affect the infrastructure of my 80
year old house. Blocking the sunlight in my backyard and the front porch entrance to put in
car traffic at my front door when the project is completed and when people move in how how it's
going to be the SS trash which I clean up already has my head spinning. Secondly physically thinking
how much cleaning the area would need due to additional people. Finally thinking of the green
space that was will be saved and used for the neighborhood and help the environment. I have
seen cardinals and blue jays eating the berries off my front bush, woodpeckers, butterflies,
and pollinators in my sunny backyard. I have seen what the lot beside my home could look like.
One of my neighbors provided beauty in the space with flowers and bird feeders.
This is such a peace and tranquility in the space. During the years, I have developed a
relationship with the neighbors and their families. Since moving on Grove Street, the
residents became friends. We look out for one another, help with snow removal, keep the
area and alleyway clean from weeds, trees, trash, and on our families blended. We feel
safe and have mutual respect for one another. Be mindful, please be mindful that this area
has some historical impact for most that have been able to move into this peaceful mindset,
comfort, and vigilant and watchful neighbors. Most enjoy and respect each other's space
as we see the evolving of the block beautification. Moreover, with the addition of this green space
environment, we'll present a gathering place for peaceful morale. This urban renewal can set the
standards of how we choose our quality of life for our seniors and kids. This is the first investment
in the area of my childhood. I have witnessed issues of prostitution, drug, unruly gang kids
hanging on the block, and give thanks to God for those longtime residents and neighboring PSA's
community who banded together to get issues resolved i made the right investment in this
block because of the like -minded people who believe in security investing in their homes
investing in the neighborhood all right miss booker yes thank you very much all right but i
wanted to finish this i have asked mr love to make an offer for the process purchase of this section
now established as 247 North Grove Street.
He has not responded.
Well, listen to me.
Listen, Ms. Booker, look, this is not about making offers.
This is not about making offers. The issue is plain and simple. Are you for the property or
The issue is, plain and simple, are you for the...
against it? I'm against it. And thank you very much for your time and your letter. I appreciate
it. Who else is in the audience that wants to testify? Chair, I see a person with the name of
Drew, with his hand up, shall I allow you to speak?
Drew, can you unmute?
Yes, I did.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Andrew Robinson, A -N -D -R -E -W -R -O -B -I -N -S -O -N.
Right, right.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you for this property or against the development?
I'm against this property.
i'm against this uh development all right i think i'm your neighbor right yes all right thank you
very much for your call and we understand what what your position can i go can i go through the
reasons why i'm against it uh if it's different than what we've already heard you can yes well
this area right they want to put up 13 multifamily units we yield 39 people 39 units i think they
said 11 right well originally they said 11 but everything is changing now so we'll just you do
you do the math 39 uh family units two people per unit yield 78 residents question how many
apartments does this project totally one bedroom would be two people would be 26 all right mr
robinson here here it's safe to say that you think this is too much density is that right
Too much density, too many cars in the neighborhood, too much trash, too many automobiles.
If they weren't college student, you can have anywhere between 177 college students.
Move -in parties, loud music, fraternity and sorority parties, rush week, cookouts, final exam parties, graduation parties.
Mr. Robinson, I understand where you are.
Thank you much for calling in, and we understand your position.
Who else in the virtual audience?
care i have a chris harley with the hand up hi good could you state your name and spell
please for the court reporter
hi my name is phyllis harley i live at 209 north could you do me a favor spell your name please
for the court reporter? P -H -Y -L -L -I -S. Last name Harley, H -A -R -L -E -Y. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Are you in favor of this
project or against it? In favor of it. Okay, thank you very much. Do you want to give a short reason
why? Yes, I do. I have three children. I'm the block captain of the 200th block of Grove Street.
I communicate with all the neighbors. I'm for it because there are a lot of negativity
in our neighborhood that I believe this will fix. We have children that walk past that empty space.
it gets dark at
5 o 'clock
and I believe
that the more
people in the neighborhood
and more people to watch our
children I think it would be
safer because we have elderly
people on our block also
that my children go out and
Ms. Harley we understand where you
stand and we appreciate you calling
in and thank you very much
is there anyone else in a virtual audience
yes chair I see two more hands up one is from Eloise Young
hi Eloise Jones could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
my name is Eloise Young
E -L -O -I -S -E Young is Y -O -U -N -G
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes I do
are you a neighbor i am representing one of the impacted rcos hmc square and we are
wait wait wait wait wait wait answer my question are you a neighbor no okay all right could you uh
are you for the project or against the project against okay thank you very much if you have a
reason other than what's already been stated stated but if it's the same as what we've heard
Please, thank you very much.
I do have a reason that's different from what's been said.
Go ahead, ma 'am.
First of all, there's no unnecessary hardship that would not be self -created.
In fact, in framing the situation at a recent meeting with members of the community, neighbors who oppose the project,
In fact, in framing the situation at a recent meeting with members of the community,
Attorney Brandon Saverin described the core question as being whether the community wanted a McMansion, as he called it, or an apartment building on the site.
He did not argue that it would be impossible to build a single family dwelling because it is possible.
That said, all right.
Thank you, ma 'am.
Thank you very much.
We understand your position, and we understand the point you're against.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else left in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I see a Chris Harley with his hand up.
Miss Harley.
Well, unless that's another thing.
That's the same family.
Is there anyone else beside Harley?
No, Chair.
Oh, yes.
There it is.
Yes, there's a Stacey McCoy.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hi, my name is Stacey McCoy.
And as in Nancy D, as in David, I -A -Y -E.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Absolutely, yes.
Are you in favor of the project or against it?
uh i'm against the project okay if do you have a reason other than what we've already heard
stated absolutely uh so uh mr uh mr brandon had mentioned that he had a uh letter of support from
the rco right um i actually have a letter uh my question to mr brandon if i can ask well you
don't ask the question. Okay, no problem. Just state your position. My position is I received
a letter of non -support from Achievability in August. Okay. Thank you very much. No,
my question is if we have a new letter, why aren't the residents, why don't we have this
information? We didn't receive the new letter. Ma 'am, I'm not sure of that, but I understand
in your position, and we'll have to figure out what happened with the achievability, okay?
It just seems unfair. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, wait one more minute. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience? I see no more hands, Chair. Brandon, proceed. Yeah, just to address
that specific, there were three official RCO meetings, all of which, you know, my firm did
the required mailings for. So these were all above board. Different folks attended the different
meetings as the project was revised. This is pretty normal stuff. At the end of the third
meeting, I believe that on the call, the RCO had announced that they were going to oppose the
project, whereas they had actually supported it at the outset. Their first letter was of support
way back when. They then reversed course having counted the votes from that meeting, and I have
documentation in the packet, exhibit packet, explaining what happened there. Okay, thank you
very much. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City
Planning Commission. Board members, in 2018, the zoning map was amended on this block in accord
of the recommendations from the comprehensive plan. This block was changed from RM1 multifamily
to RSA5. The intent of this amendment was to recognize the predominantly single -family context
on this narrow street that was described by the first witness, Ms. Booker -Jones.
With regard to the multifamily use, we recognize the unique shape of this lot. However, given the
total lot size, we do not believe that this variance is the minimum necessary to afford
relief. As a point of reference for the board, if this were a regularly shaped lot of equal size,
it could be subdivided into three single -family lots, whereas the appellant is proposing 11
dwelling units. And we further believe the appellant has not met the burden of demonstrating
that the proposed use will not permanently impair conforming use on adjacent property
by building in the backyards. And so we recommend that the board deny the variances.
Mr. Chair, I'll simply say you have to take the lot as it is. I mean, I think arguments about what would work here if it was regularly shaped are very dubious. The shape is what it is. We didn't make the shape. That's all I have to say on that.
Thank you. We've had quite a bit of testimony about this. What I want to do is take this back
to an executive session and talk to the board members about it. So we're going to continue
So we're going to continue this. I don't believe we meet next week, right? Am I right, Hillary?
this. I don't believe we meet next week, right?
That is correct, Mr. Chair. We don't have any hearings next week. So the following Wednesday.
Right. We'll take this to executive session and then we will vote in public.
Thank you, everyone, for your testimony. And thank you, Brandon.
You're welcome. Thank you.
All right. Number five, MI 2022 -002 -683 -417 East Worcester, Unit 103.
Von Haskins is the attorney. This was a continuance. I believe we have an RCO position
that we're going to hear from and also possibly the council person's office am i right hillary
yes that is correct mr chair um we did we did receive um letters from um two rcos um in support
the coordinating rco the 12th democratic committee 12th war democratic committee
um as well as the wakefield 49ers um and councilman bass has taken a non a position
of non -opposition in this case um if if mr richardson in the audience
and i believe miss haskins is here as well i see her in here hi miss haskins
miss haskins
so i do see mr richardson miss haskins you hello could you unmute yourself please yes i'm here
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yvonne, Y -V -O -N -N -E, Haskins, H -A -S -K -I -N -S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So I'm trying to get, I'm looking to get the RCO testimony in.
And Mr. Richardson?
I'm here, Mr. Chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Do you swear, firm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
I guess the question was whether the Councilwoman is in favor or not in favor.
She is not opposed to granting the variance on this property.
It is a small portion of a huge property that is being subdivided off. It's been encroached upon by the neighbor that lives on the opposite street.
And, you know, so we wanted to make sure that WCRP has the opportunity to handle whatever business they need to handle with this individual.
All right. Thank you. It's the RCO here. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. RCO?
Hillary, do we have a letter?
Yes, we have a letter. We can just read into the record then from the 12th Ward Democratic
Committee. Do you have that, Mr. Chair?
Do you have the letter right there, Hillary? Could you read it in?
Yes. Give me one moment, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
All right, this is from a letter of explanation and support of variance for 417 East Worcester
Street. This is from the 12th Ward Democratic Committee. The meeting was held via Zoom by the
12th Ward Democratic Committee coordinating RCO on November 1st at 6 p .m. There were eight
number eight near neighbors in attendance and two overlapping RCOs Faith CDC RCO and Wakefield
49ers. The property listed on the refusal is 417 East Worcester Street Unit 103 which is a
discrepancy with the attached Column Street address and will be clarified at the ZBA hearing by the
developers. The lot is a triangular piece of property that was not developed with the Nicole
Hines development and the applicant is requesting a variance to transfer the undeveloped area to the
private homeowner attached to the property. The hardship that has been created for the applicant
is a clouded title on their property and they want to subdivide the undeveloped parcel giving
the 1 ,313 square feet to the Column Street address homeowner. The homeowner has been
contacted by 12th Ward Democratic RCO and has stated claim to the unused parcel as their own.
Ward Democratic RCO and has stated claim to the unused parcel as their own. The vote from the
community based on the information presented was in support of the variants. The coordinating RCO
and the overlapping RCOs were in agreement with the community and support the variants requested
by the applicant. Thank you. Cheryl Smith, 12th Ward Democratic RCO. And we've already heard from
Planning Commission, so now we'll vote myself, Aja and Thomas Holliman. Am I correct? Yeah, and I
know if Ms. Haskins has a response or anything that that she would like to add. Ms. Haskins?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are just very happy that we are able to receive the support and we
assume that the material that we presented is on the record and a part of your deliberation.
Thank you very much, Ms. Haskins. So MI -2022 -002 -683 -417, Worcester, Unit 103, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Hige, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you. You have your votes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Everybody have a happy Thanksgiving.
Number eight, MI 2021 -003 -524 -321 -47, North 16th Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
letter of support from swamp poodle neighborhood parcels association with provisos
and hillary i think we have a few other yes mr chair we've also received letters of support
from the north central philadelphia cdc which was the coordinating rco as well as tayoga united
Those letters were support based on a community benefits agreement that was signed and included some provisos.
Thank you very much. Mr. Clinton.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Henry Clinton for the applicant, 3221 North 16th Street, LLC, Clinton, C -L -I -N -T -O -N, and my client who is a principal of this LLC, Rafi, R -A -F -I, B -A -L -K, is on the call.
Right. Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Shahid has a few questions for you.
good afternoon council good afternoon mr heave you agree to waive the refuse the refuse or
referral to stipulate to his accuracy i do did you email all the exhibits and documents as required
such as the proof of ownership tax clearance copy of refusal or referral pictures were drawings of
the property five days in advance of this hearing? And did you meet with an RCO?
Yes, all to the above. In terms of the tax clearance, we have a tax record which will
serve as a clearance. Understood. Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Is that visible? Yes, it is.
All right. So, again, I'm Henry Clinton on behalf of the LLC, which owns this property, 3221 to 49 North 16th Street. And this proposal is for 43 dwelling units on a site that was formerly an institutional use on a block that's surrounded by several large apartment buildings.
One apartment building that was approved by this board in December of this year, a multifamily use, as well as some vacant lots.
So I'm going to walk through the proposal.
This is my table of contents, AA through A11, which I asked to be admitted into evidence.
My appearance statement and the refusal.
So this is an RSA 3 zoning district, but from the testimony that you'll hear today, you'll see that it's really not a single family block at all. It's multidimensional, both institutional uses as well as multifamily.
So we have three use refusals. The two are really one, which is multifamily is not permitted in a zoning district.
And the third use refusal is accessory parking spaces. At the outset of this project, the request was for 48 units.
The request was for 48 units, and we've downsized this to 43 units, and the parking spaces initially were only at 33, and we upsized the parking spaces so that the unit count and the parking count are exactly the same.
So that use has gone away, that refusal rather has gone away.
So there's three -dimensional refusals that now warrant consideration by the board.
The open space is de minimis as it's under 10%.
And as the architect, Russell Nohler, will explain when I had him testify,
explaining why the height is a little bit beyond the code requirements,
why the parking at the rear serves as the rear yard,
and why the front yard is at the same distance from the curb as is the buildings to the south of it.
But again, I think you'll be able to see from the pictures that I show,
what we're trying to explain. The RCO letters of support didn't come in in time for me to put in
this package, but as Ms. Emerson mentioned, we do have several letters of support. So this is a
pretty significant photograph. I wanted to spend a little bit of time on this to give the board
some orientation as to what's going on on the block. So this is our parcel right here where
my cursor is just north of this large building, which is on Allegheny Avenue. So my cursor
at the south part is Allegheny Avenue. This large building is formerly the St. Joseph's Home for
Boys. We believe that this parcel that my client has acquired and wants to develop was once part
of St. Joseph's Home for Boys. It's been very difficult to get aerial photographs to show that,
but I'm going to walk you through some historical photographs to show you that there was a large
building on this plot of ground over 20 years ago which has since been demolished. So currently the
St. Joseph's Home for Boys this is now 62 single bedroom housing units. The rear of the building
has been used as Calvary Chapel for many decades as I understand it. Directly across the street
and this is 16th Street here. Directly across the street to the west of the St. Joseph's Home
for boys is a 82 unit, excuse me, 87 unit apartment complex known as Allegheny Apartments.
And then behind the apartments is a parking lot that's owned by Mount Sinai. Now, this photograph
is from 2020. And that's important because Mount Sinai Church, which is right here, has been
demolished. And Mount Sinai, and I believe the attorney for Mount Sinai is on the call and will
you know kind of support what i'm what i'm saying about the church but mount sinai owns this lot
this lot this lot this lot and then three or four lots on 17th street and the idea is that mount
sinai has combined and consolidated all these lots and is going to build a church with parking in the
rear so on 16th street we're not going to have a church we're going to have parking if it's if the
the proposal is successful and everyone hopes that it is,
we'll have parking facing our project.
In addition, I understand that church will also propose
parking on this vacant lot, which they own.
The church tried to acquire this building
where my cursor is,
which is between the Allegheny Apartments and the church.
They were unsuccessful,
but the developer before this board in October
was able to obtain approval for 27 units
with 11 parking spaces.
So right now, the church is not there
and this structure is not there
because the structure is gonna be developed
into 27 apartments and then the church
is going to build a new church for themselves.
And then further to the north is a multi -use building.
I think it's five to seven units.
We actually met and talked to the owner
and he's been operating that with his father
for a number of years.
So far into the block, we have three residential properties, one of which is a triplex, and I believe there's two single -family.
So if you look at this block, which stretches from Allegheny to Westmoreland, about 90 % or more is non -single -family residential use, apartment use, institutional use with the church, and a proposed apartment building.
So we believe that our project fits within context of the block as it exists now, and as it will exist when there's further development as the years progress.
So now this is 2022. Don't forget, this is a photograph from 2020. The next photograph is from 2022.
Again, this is our parcel outlined in black. And across the street, you can see that the church that I referenced, as well as the large building where the church is.
that the church that I referenced, as well as the large building where the 27 units will be,
have now been demolished. So basically, this whole area to the west of our project will be
developed in the coming years. And then I wanted to walk the board back in time of other photographs.
This is the photograph from 2021. This is the 2020 photograph I showed you, again, showing you
St. Joseph's Home for Boys, Allegheny Apartments, 27 units, Mount Sinai Church, and the consolidation
of all these lots for Mount Sinai Church.
So now I take it back to 2004, because you're trying to determine when the building that
was located on our property, when it was demolished.
So I was able to find an aerial photograph from 2004, showing that the one building that
was here was demolished.
We think it was a mile or sometime between 1996 and 2004.
And you can see that the other buildings I referenced, you know, the church and what's going to be the apartment building are still in existence or were still in existence in 2004.
Another photograph from 2004.
And I had to go back to 1999.
Again, here is the building.
You can see it's one large institutional building that is on our site.
And this almost mimics the footprint of our building. Our building goes a little bit further to the north, but in terms of depth, it's just about the same as what was there. I don't want to, you know, indicate to this board it's an exact footprint match. All I'm saying is that it's close and it approximates it.
and then I went back and got a photograph from 1996 again this is not a great photograph but
this is what I was able to find from aerial photographs to give a board a taste of what's
going on on the block again you can see St. Joseph's home for boys here and again you can
see the outline of the building that was once there same thing with 95 but again the photograph
is not so great. So before I get to the plans, I just wanted to talk a little bit about some
of the changes that we've made to the original submission. And when Mr. Orr testifies, he'll
get into some of these areas more minutely than I will. But basically, we reduced the number of
units. We increased the open area. We increased the parking stalls from 33 to 44. The bike racks,
We had to decrease by one because we increased the trashy area internal to the building.
We added some projected bays and awning and arch envelopments, again, because we had three
community meetings, which required me to do three separate mailings.
But we also had a pre -development meeting back in October of 2021, even before the plans
were presented to the community, just to get a feel for what the community was thinking.
And it's really been a collaborative process from October of 2021 to this date.
We also had to meet the developer outing at a local meeting place in the neighborhood.
And also in August of this year, we actually met up at the site and were able to walk the site and the neighborhood to show what other,
what, excuse me, to find out what other details that the community wanted to see in the facade
of this building. And when Mr. Oler testifies, we'll get into those specific details.
So the community support that we have is North Central Philadelphia Susquehanna CDC,
which really was the leading RCO on this. And again, I have to give kudos to Ms. Russell for
her patience and for her ability to bring all parties together for what we all hope will be
a real asset to the community. At this point, Mr. Chairman, as I'm walking through the plans,
I think it'd be better to hear from the architect, Mr. Oler, if he could raise his hand
and explain to the board some of the changes that we've made.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, Rustin Ohler, R -U -S -T -I -N, last name Ohler, O -H -L -E -R, Harmon Deutsch Ohler Architecture.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Ohler. Is your firm the architect of record for this project?
And you have been involved in this project from the inception until today?
Okay. I'm going to walk through. I'll be the cursor here and I'll walk through the plans and you can just discuss that as we move forward. One of the things I wanted to at least start with, Mr. Chairman, was one of the issues on the refusal concerns are front yard area. And as you can see, we tried to match the building to the north of it. Yes, it's a little bit.
And as you can see, we tried to match the building to the north of it.
Yes, it's a little bit out further than the residential properties to the north,
but we tried to match the context of the building to the north.
Mr. Oehler, is there any comments you want to make about this particular plan?
No, that's correct.
Correct. So on this plan, we're showing, I believe, is this the first floor, Mr. Allward?
Do you want to explain just the parking? Yep. This is a first floor cut through our building
and showing the proximity to adjacent structures on the site and working with the RCO and some of
requests. We were able to increase the number of parking on site from 33 to 43 stalls. We also
increased the landscaping and on -site trees in the rear. And we were able to increase our open area
on the site from 41 % to 43 % as well. As you had mentioned, we are keeping in line with a similar
type buildings to the south of us on both sides, which are abutting the street face. We do have a
buffer on both sides of our building to any adjacent properties as well. We're using one
curb cut to access all the parking on the site. And Mr. Roll, were you also able to design a
trash refuge room internal to the building? Yes, there's an interior trash storage room
on site, which can be taken out either to the front or rear of the property to the drive aisle
through that loading zone. That's just the same plan colored.
This is the front elevation of the property. It was redesigned several times in coordination with
the RCOs. We originally designed it as a larger warehouse, all brick building. The RCOs, it asked
us to revise this to break it up into modules. We added a mansard and kept it more in keeping with
some row home typology. So from the street level standpoint, there's direct entry unit entry doors
to the first floor units, as well as the facades broken up with different colored brick
and pattern so that it'll look like several row homes from the streetscape.
And then, Mr. O, in terms of the height of the building, can you explain the context of that?
Sure. Our building height is 42 feet, slightly taller than the allowed 38 feet in the district.
That's primarily to accommodate the first floor parking and structural deck needed to accommodate the building above
as part of increasing our parking requirement.
So while we're slightly taller than the 38 feet,
our cornice line is still in keeping with a by right building,
which would be 38 plus the 42 inch parapet.
So our building is 42 feet tall,
and it is smaller than both of the buildings to the south of us,
the adjacent apartment buildings.
And these are the views looking to the right on the south elevation facing the, was it St. Joe's
building? Yeah, so the community asked us that we provide all brick facade on that building.
The other side at the moment is siding. There's an infill residential lot there, which we expect
to be filled in and built up somebody would build up against us in the near future we also provide
additional site lighting because the adjacent parking lot doesn't have any lighting so we will
be providing lighting on our building for safety and we're adding security cameras on the entire
building which i believe is in the cba and that'll be tied in or registered with the police department
and also the community group it asked for some decorative fencing and you've added that to the
plans, do I say? Yeah, we were originally proposing a solid wood fence that has been
modified to an estate fencing. And then can you just explain to the board why some of the details
that you've incorporated into the design mimic what is going on in the neighborhood? Yeah,
so basically this slide just shows something that we worked through with the community group. There's
a collection of different residential typology buildings throughout the neighborhood.
collection of different residential typology buildings throughout the neighborhood,
which have been some historical, some newer, which have been constructed over time.
Our building was meant to blend and be a match of those. And again, you know, as I mentioned
previously, designed to look like separate, other than the drive aisle portion,
designed to look like separate row homes from the outside.
And I understand that also with the request of the community, you conducted a shade study?
Yeah, we did a sun and shadow study to see the impact on the adjacent properties,
which there was none. I can go into further detail if you want. And it's far less impactful
than the previous building that was on site because we're occupying a lot less than the
prior buildings on site. And these are just our revised zoning drawings. There's some
bubbled areas in there, which I believe Hank went through. Includes a reduction of dwelling units
from 48 to 43. We increased the open area. We decreased the GFA for the project. We increased
our parking stalls by 10 from 33 to 43. So that's basically it. And the rest has to do with like the
facade improvements and stuff the community requested. Increased landscaping.
Thank you, Mr. Or is there anything else that you think I forgot to ask you?
Not that I can think of at the moment, but I'm happy to stay on and answer any questions.
Yeah, if you could just stay on. Mr. Chairman, I just want to go through some of the zoning
records briefly. The other documents I'm showing are the pro forma documents that you would normally
we see in a zoning presentation, the deed, notices to the community.
And so the zoning records, briefly, I'll go through just to show the board that, in fact,
there are 87 units, the Allegheny Apartments, and there are 27 units approved across the street.
And the new church does have a consolidation plan already approved. So this is the Allegheny
apartments, indicating 87 units. This is a new permit that just was issued for the building
across the street in December of 2021. 27 dwelling units, and not to disparage another project, but
they only have 11 parking spaces, and it was very, very concerning to the community groups that we
have in our project a one -for -one parking allocation, and we were able to accommodate
that. And this is the zoning permit. And this is the church. As I said, there were seven lots that
were already consolidated into one. And the church basically owns the existing lot where the church
is. These are all vacant lots. These are now all vacant lots. So this whole area here is consolidated
as one lot. And the understanding is that a church is going to be built somewhere in this area with
the parking lot facing directly across the street from our parcel. And then also down here, there's
going to be another parking lot that is also owned by the church. Thank you. The only other thing,
Mr. Chairman, I didn't point out, and there's quite a few things that we could in terms of
details of the project, are that in this building, we're also going to have a community room
that is not only for the residents of the complex,
but also for the community.
And it's going to be a real community room
where folks and community groups can have a meeting,
birthday parties, whatever is necessary
as long as proper notice is given.
So I think it's been a real collaborative effort.
I just wanted to wrap up if I could, Mr. Chairman,
and just say that we have a unique situation here
where I understand what the comprehensive plan says
and what the zoning is.
But as we know, we have to look block by block.
This block is not a residential block,
has never been a residential block in full
and will not be as additional projects come online.
So the reality is in the photographs that I showed you,
we're not really altering the essential character
of the neighborhood.
It was once used as an institutional building, a large building.
Our building's footprint, as Mr. Orr actually said, is actually less than what that building was.
We are not going to impair the development of any adjacent buildings.
We have a sun and shade study to show that we're not affecting the light and air of any adjacent buildings.
You can see there's ample space between the buildings right now.
We are basically in harmony with what the neighborhood is requesting.
what the community would like, we're generally in harmony with the code. We are not going to
uh we're generally in harmony with the code uh we are not going to affect or adversely affect
any public facilities uh and with that mr chairman i i conclude my presentation
uh do you have your own are you going to adopt your testimony yes i do mr ball can you raise
your hand please do we see a hand mr balk i know his hand up thank you thank you could you state
your name please and spell for the court reporter yes my name is roslon balk b -a -l -k all right do
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do mr chair proceed
counsel uh good morning mr bulk have you heard my testimony throughout this presentation and
the testimony of the architect of record rushton or yes if you had the opportunity to testify would
you adopt both of our testimonies as your own and as true and correct yes thank you mr bulk
hi questions from the board no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see four hands up chair okay pick pick one um the first one is charles richardson
okay allow him to speak you please
hi mr richardson you've already been sworn
Here we are.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
That woman has no opposition to granting the variance.
Thank you very much.
Who else do we have in the audience?
We have Tina Marie Russell.
Bring, please, Ms. Russell on.
Good morning.
Good morning.
And could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Tina Marie Russell, T -I -N -A -M -A -R -I -E, R -U -S -S -E -L -L, North Central, Philadelphia, CDC.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Correct.
Proceed.
Hi, this is Tina Marie Russell, and I'm the RCO for one of the affected RCOs for this
particular site.
As indicated, there were many meetings held for the site.
The owner and the architect heard the voices from the community when we said we have an historical environment that we want to keep intact.
And so we had many divisions on this drawing to get it to where it's at today.
The community approved the final outcome.
I just didn't hear, so I might be incorrect with this, but if I am, I stand corrected.
I didn't hear the provisos being listed.
And my question is, do I need to list them, or how does that go into record?
I want to check.
I think most of the provisos are in the revised plans other than...
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
We'll check with Hillary before we do it.
Yeah, I was going to say, Mr. Chair, there are some provisos listed in the community benefits agreement, but we also received, which the community benefits agreement is not enforceable by the zoning board, but a number of those, we received a separate list of provisos from Swampoodle Neighborhood Parcel Association, which reflected what was in the community benefits agreement.
And I can just read out what's enforceable if you would like, just to clarify for everyone.
before you start if you can we didn't put our provisos with our cbs our provisos are separate
from our cba so i don't know how that got confused but i'll i'll arrest them okay we yeah i didn't
say we didn't see a separate list i saw a cba with with two exhibits attached to it that's all
i received no separate list of provisos um but the ones that um swan poodle said that um that
are enforceable are a maximum of 43 units, interior storage of trash and recycling, roof
access for maintenance only, and all bicycle parking structures must be located within the
deeded property lines. Okay, so just so I can say again, I don't know why that happened, but
we definitely separated our provisos for my CBA, and they had more entrances in it. I'm not sure
which is enforceable, but we definitely had a separation.
Ms. Russell, this is Henry. I think I can address that.
So Ms. Emerson, on the community benefits agreement, you're right.
There's two exhibits, Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
And Exhibit B is the provisos that we have agreed to.
And Exhibit B is the provisos that we have agreed to, my client has agreed to with the community.
And that's Exhibit B as part of the Community Benefits Agreement.
I don't agree with that. I don't know how that, that we, our provisos are different than we
wanted to make sure they're separated. I don't, can we go back and how can it, how can that happen?
Ms. Russell, the document that we exchanged, I took the provisos that you provided, and they're part of the Community Benefits Agreement as Exhibit B.
And the top says final provisos for 3221 to 49 North 16th Street.
And you talk about the affordable housing, insurance, construction, back alley revitalization, extermination,
written trash procedures
within leases, security
cameras, lighting,
driveway security,
gates, computer
access room,
maintenance of the streets.
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, instead of
going over all this, do you want to
hold the vote until they straighten out what the
provisos are? That is fine, Mr. Chair.
Yes, we can do that.
All right. Let's go to
is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have a caller with the last four numbers, 3552.
Right. Could you bring the person on?
Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, this is Adrienne Fernandez. My last name is spelled F -E -R -N -A -N -E -C -H.
Hi, Adrienne. Yep.
Do you swear to her firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
proceed okay um testifying for 12 to rco we are one of the affected rcos um thank you hillary for
reading the enforceable provisos that i listed i did have one question about the two that um
you're saying are not enforceable which is no more subdivisions on the two addresses and also
So no cell phone, large antenna, the way I listed it, no new variances for those type of data.
So, Adrian, what we're going to do is we're not going to vote on this today.
We're going to hold this for two weeks.
And in that time frame, we'll get straight where our provisos are, okay?
Okay, my list won't change.
It'll be the same list.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, I have a Zanetta Ford with a hand up.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, good morning.
My name is Zanetta, Z as in zebra, A -N -E -R.
Right.
We lost you.
Ms. Zanetta?
Can you hear me now?
Yes, go ahead.
Do I need to spell my name again?
Yeah, please.
Okay, Zanetta, Z as in zebra, A -N -E -T -T -A, last name Ford, F -O -R -D.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am the attorney for Mount Sinai Holy Church of America.
We are directly across.
Okay, sure.
Thank you.
So I just wanted to echo what Mr. Clinton had said, that Mount Sinai is planning on building a church, one to consolidate a lot, and having the parking towards the 16th Street side, and that we're not opposed to the plans that are being put forth today.
Thank you so much for calling in. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience?
Planning Commission.
I'll say no more.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning for this property from RSA 3 to RSA 5 single family.
The intent of the recommended zoning district is to encourage single family infill housing at row house density.
As a point of reference for the board, under the recommended RSA 5 zoning, 11 row homes would be allowed by right on this size of lot.
With regard to the use variance, we believe the appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
The prior use of the property is no longer a physical hardship since the property has been cleared of all structures.
The adjacent multifamily development on Allegheny Avenue is in a different zoning district and so is not comparable as a benchmark for appropriate development on the subject lot.
for appropriate development on the subject lot. Furthermore, we do not believe the anticipated
Furthermore, we do not believe the anticipated
development on lots across the street are germane to the hardship claim. Since the multifamily use
and density of the proposed building do not conform to the recommended RSA 5 zoning district,
we also believe that this proposal conflicts with the adopted comprehensive plan. With regard to the
dimensional variances, the appellant has failed to show that the dimensions are economically necessary
and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood both of these conditions are required in order
for the board to grant the variances while we appreciate the appellant's interactions with the
affected rcos we find this proposal has several fundamental failings when evaluated against the
criteria for zoning variance approval and we recommend that the board deny the variances
thank you this case will be continued for two weeks not not next wednesday but the wednesday
after where um we want to see what um what all the uh provisos are and what's enforceable what's
not before we make any decision on this other than that it's closed right hillary that is correct
mr chair the record is closed except for clarification of the proviso thank you mr
Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Have a great day. Okay. Number 11, MI 2022 -002 -678 -1330
East Burke Street. David Orfanides is the attorney. Letter of opposition from Fishtown Neighbors
Association. RCO was sent, revised plans, but position has not changed.
Mr. Orphanides is being promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Certainly.
David Orphanides, last name is spelled O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Would you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly.
My client is 1330 E. Berks, B -E -R -K -S, LLC, and they are under agreement of sale to purchase the subject premises from the current owner.
In my understanding from our council, the case is going to be held for receipt of an amended refusal from the applicant that reflects revised plans presented today.
Upon receipt, the case will then be voted on.
The record is otherwise closed.
Yeah, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. And those plans, revised plans, were presented to the community group. They were revised to address comments we received at the first meeting. So, and it's our position that, and you'll see, we basically just shifted the project that no new refusals will be created and no cited refusals will be increased with the changes.
All right. And our board secretary has a few questions. Ishmael?
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to interject that the additional documents that I had requested from Mr. Orphanides have been received.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do, sir.
did you email all the exhibits and documents as required such as proof of ownership tax
clearance copy of refusal or referral pictures or drawings of property five days in advance
of this hearing and did you meet with the rco and do you have a letter met with the rco as i
indicated twice we have a letter from them i did send all the materials last week he accidentally
re -sent the posting photos from the first hearing and those were provided along with an addendum to
the agreement of sale that shows we're still under agreement through 12 -22 which is what
hillary was referencing earlier in her comments to the chairman yes please proceed and share your
screen. Thank you. Can everybody see that screen? We can, sir. Okay, thank you. All right, again,
my name is David Orphanides. I'm with the law firm of Orphanides and Toner, LLP, here in
Philadelphia. And again, I'm representing 1330 E. Burke, LLC, the entity that is under agreement
a sale to purchase the subject premises 1326 R, 1328, and 1330 East Burke Street. I have with me
today representatives from 1330 East Burke Street, 1330 E, Burke's LLC, excuse me, from NoMark
from no market architecture, the architects for the project. And then also an appraiser,
Architecture, the architects for the project, and then also
Caitlin Droznak, they prepared a report where we addressed the financial hardship between their
report and my clients' pro forma and their calculations to establish the criteria,
the financial hardship that warrants the granting of the variance in this case.
uh real quickly uh the the three properties um you can see here in an aerial i've clouded them
they are they're contiguous and abut each other you have a 1326 r that you can see here that is
to the rear to the i guess to approximately to the west of the um property known as 1326
1626 East Burke Street. And then next to that, you have 1328 and 1330. So here's 1326R where you
see the cars in the pad here, 1328 and 1330. You take a look at the lot consolidation plan that
was submitted to L &I with our application. You can see here 1330, which is in an 18 -foot wide
lot that stretches from Burke Street to what's called Wilts Street. It has a street sign,
but is not on the city plan. It's not open. It's 15 feet wide. It's an alley that's referenced in
Adede City butting properties, including ours. And that's utilized predominantly as a driveway
to access off -street parking for other properties, again, that abut East Wilts Street.
um you'll hear testimony from my clients that one of the reasons uh we designed the project the way
we did with which was with a singular curb cut from burke street and you'll see that there is
an existing curb cut on burke street presently for a garage of the existing single family home
that's there was because uh we had heard and it was confirmed during our community group meetings
that some of the owners of the properties that abut will street uh concerned about any additional
traffic utilizing it. You can see here 1328 is the same size as 1330, 18 feet wide, stretching
from Berks to the East Wilk Street Alley. And then you see here the very oddly shaped 1326R.
You can see that there's a very narrow strip that extends to Berks Street. It's only a couple
of feet wide. Oops, apologize for that. Zoom in here a little bit. You can see it's two feet five
inches wide, technically creating a very narrow frontage. It is a flag lot, but unlike most flag
lots where you can actually drive down the pole or even really walk down the pole, you can't do
that here. It's only two feet, five inches wide. And then it opens up to an 18 foot wide by 55
feet, seven inch deep area to the rear. It has no frontage on a legally open street. That's on
the city plan. Again, it does front on Welch Street. One of the things you're going to hear
from both the architects and the clients is that utilities run in Burke Street. There are no
utilities in Welch Street. It makes the 1326R lot not only very oddly shaped, but virtually
impossible to develop. And the problem is that they're all under common ownership. There's no
way that 1326, you're going to hear there's no way that 1326 is ever going to be sold off by itself
because the cost to bring utilities down East Wilts Street, approximately 260 feet from Belgrade,
well, more than that, actually 296 feet from Belgrade, almost 300 feet is cost prohibitive.
You're going to hear it's probably, I believe, in the range of about $500 ,000, a half a million dollars
to bring utilities all the way down there.
And the problem you're going to see is as consolidated, it creates an oddly shaped lot because of 1326, but also impacts the financial viability of the ability to develop the properties as they are currently configured or otherwise other than as what we've proposed.
So back to the aerial you can see right here is our property.
You have Thompson Street to the one end of the block and again, Belgrade.
Here you can see Wilt Street.
The alley that comes off of Belgrade and then dead ends just to the south of us.
There is a project here that's accessed off of East Montgomery that was recently approved by the Zoning Board for identical variances, RSA parcel with a structure that touches the East Wilts Street property line, which is the rear property line, doesn't provide the nine foot required rear yard depth.
It doesn't provide the nine foot required rear yard depth. And obviously, with more than one single family dwelling on it, it developed a created a use variance. And here you can see our refusal, which is, as I've stated, the two variances we're going to be talking about and addressing here.
and obviously with more than
But again, these properties do access East Wilt Street, the alley for their parking, as do some other properties. You'll see the zoning archives that I've provided. There was also another RSA 5 property here that was developed for multiple structures that had similar refusals or should have had similar refusals with parking that's accessed off of East Burke.
There's some parking access off the East Wilt, but you had multiple structures and more than single -family use on this large lot.
So you'll see in the zoning archives, and there are other examples in the nearby vicinity where variances have been granted by the zoning board for similar conditions and similar properties that are located literally within a stone's throw, less than that of the subject premises.
Again, you have a variance that I'll show you that was granted here, same variances, and then granted here.
Sorry.
Here's an aerial.
You're going to hear during our, you know, here's our property again, view from the north.
During our meeting with the community group, there's an abutting property owner to the north of us that owns both of these parcels.
The parcel that's a Buttsus 1332, they have a swimming pool lawn and then they live in the property, the building of 1334.
You'll see that our original design, sorry, had our structures set up along our northern property line and that the revisions that we made to address this was to shift the whole property, the whole project to the southern property line to change the location of our drive aisle from the middle of the consolidated lot.
to the northern side but unfortunately you'll see in their letter they still found reasons that that
was unacceptable and those are reasons that were actually worse with the original design and
actually worse with the buy right project again if it were even financially viable which it's not
the original zoning drawings that were submitted show this development five single families even
though the refusal calls it a multifamily. It is not. These are going to be a planned unit
development, five single families. Originally, each one was to have two -car parking. You'll
see in the revised design, the one structure in the rear back here has been changed to provide
access off of Wilt and only has one car parking. That will all be accessed off of a single curb
cut. I'll show you in a second in the photographs. There's an existing garage with an existing curb
cut on 1330 East Berks. But each of these are going to be a single -family dwelling,
both as originally proposed and as we've revised the design. Each one will have a separate building
permit. They'll be separately deeded and separately owned structures, which then creates
a shared drive condition, which addresses and eliminates the possibility of a parking
refusal for the parking off of Eastbrook Street. The proposed height is a permitted height other
than the rear yard depth. And again, you can see the structures as originally proposed come right
along to the rear property line, which is not a front because Wilk Street is not a city street.
And again, as like the other projects that abut East Wilk Street, had a refusal for not having
the rear yard depth. And then again, having more than if you want, if it wasn't for having five
units it would have been for having more than a single principal structure so either way and
you'll see sometimes l and i will write their refusals that they used to write the refusal
as having multiple principal structures but either way having more than one single family dwelling
generates a refusal but i'll have my my client speak but we went to a meeting
advertised meeting with uh we're soon to 14 303 with the fishtown neighbors association and the
main voice there was that property to the north of us. Again, the owner of this property speaking
about the impact it would have on her roses, the impact it would have on her privacy, on her air
and light. As a result of that meeting, we shifted the whole project. And you'll see here before
the projects along the north property line along 1330 and the property line with 1330 and 1332
and then wrapped around the back east will street and coming back up behind 1326.
the back east will street and coming back up behind 1326 and then the revised design
we shifted everything down creating a gap using that same curb cut or a curb cut that shifted
further to the north i'm sorry having a drive aisle to the north of us creating so now the
neighbor to the north has their own yard or lot as separation and then the drive aisle
we push the buildings to the south and then have still have the building that wraps around
creates a little more space between the back of the property of 1326
and then where the structure is going to be at what is now 1326R.
The advantage now is that we can, by consolidating these lots,
what you can't do when they're separate,
the city won't let you do it,
to run utilities over a property that you don't own.
And now we're able to run all the utilities through the drive aisle.
Sorry about that.
And get them out to Burke Street,
which you'll hear from both the appraiser and from my client makes this project viable and
also the minimum variance that's required to make this project and the development of this project
viable um here are some renderings the original rendering of the plan where the project was
pushed to the north that was originally presented to the community group and then the revised
project with it pushed to the south providing that space with the abutting property to the north that
we heard so much from. This is the existing structure that presently exists at 1328 and 1330.
You can see there's an existing curb cut there now. Our curb cut will probably be a little
smaller than that so it technically provides a little more space for on -street parking.
And then this is the back. This is the view from Welp Street.
some additional images again this is the property to the north of us of our neighbor to the north
here's the view of the rear of our property
and here's from Burke Street you can see series of developments existing structures two and three
stories this is the one structure to the north of us on Burke's that I mentioned that has the
that was granted variances as has the multiple structures structures that extend all the way to
East Wilk Street. That was existing. A newer development down at the corner at Belgrade.
Corner of Belgrade and then coming back East Burke Street. Again, a mix of two and three family
dwellings. You have the institutional or educational facility down at the end of the
block at Thompson. And just to get a straight search of Wilk Street, this is the access from
From Belgrade, where you would access Will Street, you can see it's around where they access.
And coming back, here are the homes.
That's the back of the project.
That's to the north of us with the multiple structures that had their refusals.
Also, from Will Street, the properties, the abutting property to the north of us, our property, properties to the south.
And then you can see the dead end of the Wilts Street Alley, other properties using it for parking, and then swinging back around.
And that's the parking of the project on Montgomery Avenue that I referenced that was also granted the same variances that we're looking to have here, have granted here.
One of the things that we have at tab 18, we do have the zoning archive for that project on Montgomery.
And again, you can see the layout that I discussed with the common drive and then five single, a number of single family homes, five of them, just like we're proposing here, went to the zoning board in 18.
And again, the variance is rear yard depth, oops, rear yard depth, and then having five dwelling units.
And then this is the project down the street, the one that I indicated had multiple structures, some of which backed up to Wilk Street.
Mr. Orpides, could you bring your appraiser on? Sure. Caitlin, can you please jump on for a second? And please raise your hand.
Ms. Caitlin, you're allowed to speak. Hi, hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, sir. It's Caitlin, K -A -T -E -L -Y -N, Drosnok, D -R -O -S -N -O -C -K.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Counsel, proceed.
Caitlin, David Orfinides here.
Who were you retained by to prepare the appraisal report that I have up on the screen right now?
1330 East Berks, LLC, who is under agreement to purchase the site.
And it's a pretty extensive review and analysis, both of the subject.
And it's a pretty extensive review and analysis, both of the subject property and of the neighborhood surrounding it,
comparables regarding RSA -5 properties to be developed for single -family homes.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
And without going through the whole report, because I know that the hour is getting late, the morning session has gone on for a while.
Now, as it's present, well, was the price that our clients,
respective clients, paid for this property a fair and reasonable price
based upon your analysis?
What they're under contract for?
Yes, yes, yes.
Assuming that the development that they are looking to do, yes.
But if the, you know, if this doesn't get permitted, or this isn't, you know, proposed, it doesn't really make any sense. I don't I don't believe anybody would would purchase this property without requiring additional variances for development just due to the configuration. So I mean, I bet I don't know if that's a complicated answer, but not without additional variance or, you know, relief.
okay so for the for the for the you know you've heard me speak about and we've discussed the fact
that you know but for the issue with um the irregular shape of 1326 are it the fact that
it doesn't have street frontage but most importantly on on a city street but most importantly the fact
that it doesn't have access to utilities directly in front of it um that utilities have to be
access all the way down the street from belgrade um if it weren't for those those those conditions
uh it would be viable to develop this property as as as it's presently structured as three single
family homes correct correct yeah okay and that because of those conditions it's not viable to
develop it as it presently exists as three separate lots with 1326r fronting on um fronting on uh
east uh east wall street correct correct and that with the five the five units um that the price
that they paid they didn't overpay for the for the property correct correct and in fact they
probably you know got a little bit of a of a good deal actually is that not correct uh yeah i i think
so given the given the complexity of the assignment you know the project yeah so we're not here for
variance because they paid too much for the property, correct? Correct. Oh, no, no, no.
Okay. And again, the five unit, based upon your research of nearby development,
nearby properties, the five unit development is a viable development at this location, correct?
Absolutely. Yep. All right. Thank you. I'm just going to do, I know we're running short on time.
There's two things to tie into that. I'd like to have Tom Famoletti speak because he's with 1330 East Burke Street, and he's the one that now takes their information, runs construction costs, and outsales and looks at the viability of both.
Okay, let's bring him on.
And then also I want to have the architect come on, talk about shadow studies and some of the other issues.
Okay, all right.
Bring him on, please.
Tom, if you can raise your hand.
I'm on.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Tom Familedi, T -O -M -F -A -M -I -L -E -T -T -I.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Tom, you heard Caitlin's statements, and you've read a report, correct?
Correct.
And with your group, you handle kind of the financial side of things and do the pro formas and figure out the commercial viability of the projects, correct?
Correct. And were you actually involved with the project that I referenced behind this property
on East Montgomery? We were in the capacity of the builder. Okay. And you've done a considerable
number of other projects in the community, correct? In the city of Philadelphia, correct?
That is correct. Okay. So you've heard me talk about 1326R. First of all, regarding its shape,
that two foot, five inch strip that goes out to East Burke Street, can that be utilized to
access utilities, the existing utilities off of East Burke Street? It cannot. Okay. And was it
correct in what I stated that it's the only way to access utilities based upon, and I can have
Derek Spencer also come on and verify this as the architect, the only way to get utilities to
1326R is by, is through down East Wilt Street, correct? That is correct. Okay. Which is an alley.
It's not a city street because there are no utilities in East Wilt Street. They have to
be pulled from belgrade correct that is correct okay and and you approximated them in your
That is correct.
Okay. And you approximated in your research with your team and other engineers, what did you approximate the cost to bring utilities down East Wall Street to 1326R?
We approximated minimally the $500 ,000, but could easily be upwards of a million dollars just for the utility work.
Okay. And that's more than what you're under contract to pay for the property, correct?
That is correct.
Does that make, and you've run the numbers, does that, you've taken Caitlin's information, that unique physical characteristic of 1326R, as well as the issue with the utilities, does it make developing this property as it presently exists, single family on 1330, single family on 1328, and a single family on 1328R, does it make that commercially infeasible?
It does.
Okay. Now, you also ran the numbers on what you're proposing, which is five units on a
consolidated parcel, correct? That is correct. And was I correct when I stated that now allows
you to run utilities throughout the property, including the structures that are located back
towards East Will Street, back out to East Burke Street, correct? That is correct. Okay. And when
When you ran your pro forma for the five units, what was the result?
Was it based upon your numbers?
And obviously, we're no kind of volatile economy right now in terms of interest rates, supply chains, cost of construction, labor.
Was it a viable project?
It is. It is right now with everything going on.
It's a minimally viable project, but it is a viable project that we would pursue.
It's not so risky that you wouldn't pursue it.
the percentage was enough that you would still work pursue it, correct?
That is correct.
And what was that percentage that you came to?
Right now, it is at a 14 % profit margin.
And I believe I'm being light on construction costs, but we'll call 14 % now.
We typically target a minimum of 20%, 15 % to 20%.
And isn't it correct?
I mean, we had a conversation with Caitlin that she said that the market, kind of the
the general rule of thumb is 28%, correct? And I can come back on to adopt that statement,
if you will. So right now, the percentage, the profit that you're looking at is barely enough
to undertake this venture as it stands right now. It could easily, if things turn worse in terms of
interest rates, supply chain's cost of construction could actually dip down below where it's no longer
viable. That is correct. So as such, would it be your position that this five units, asking for
five, knowing that three is inviolable, but asking for five is the minimum number of units
on the properties, on the subject premises that's required, the variance that's required
for five is a minimum variance required to make this development of this property viable?
That is correct. Okay.
Counselor, I think you've made your point.
Okay, yeah, I was ready to move on.
How about the architect?
Yep, Derek, if you could please identify yourself.
Derek Spencer.
Mr. Spencer, you're allowed to speak?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Derek Spencer, D -E -R -E -K, S -P -E -N -C -E -R, from Nome Architects.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Derek, you heard my statements earlier today,
earlier during the proceeding
regarding the change in the design, correct?
Yes, I did.
And I'm pulling up the letter of August 12th.
Oh, let me back up.
You and your team at Nome Architecture
did the drawings for this project, correct?
Correct.
Yes, we did.
You did the original design.
You did the rise design.
You did the renderings, the floor plans.
And we're going to talk in a minute to shadow studies.
Correct.
And just in terms of the comments that came out of FNA, would it be fair to say that almost most of the objections came from the immediate neighbor to the north of us?
Yes, most of the concerns were with disturbing the soil in her side yard there, as well as concerns of privacy.
And that would be disturbing if you would be building right up to the common property line between 1330 and 1332, correct?
Correct. That was our main reasoning for flipping the entire design onto the south side of the site
rather than the north was to minimize any disturbance that might happen to her property.
Okay. But if you were to build, let's say if it was viable for us to build a single family home
on 1330, that structure, because the lot's 18 feet wide, would be built right on that
common property line with 1332, correct? Correct. A by right building would be up
Correct. A by right building would be up against the property line, extending upwards of 100 feet back from Burke Street.
against the property line, extending.
Okay. And so the change in the design addressed that concern, correct, by creating the drive aisle along that common property line, correct?
That's correct.
And the by -right building would be right up against her property line. And so decks and roof decks would be right up at her property line, would not have to be set back and could be looking over into her property, correct?
Correct.
And now we have a space where our buildings are set back. How far are they set back from her property line with that drive aisle?
I believe 13 feet to our furthest projection.
Okay. All right. So now we've addressed that. There was a concern regarding emergency vehicles getting back into the development. Did you reach out to the City of Philadelphia Fire Department to delve into that and see what the issue, if any, were there with that?
Yes, I reached out to Julian Sellers at the fire department and we had a conversation about the project and he also reviewed the plans and he sent an email directly to Mr. Dugan of F &A expressing his review of the plans that they did not cause any problem with the fire code.
All right. So there were three comments here in their letter. I think that, you know, regarding the density, Tom has addressed the first one. And then we've addressed the other two there with your testimony.
Shadow study. One of the criteria for the granting of a variance is the impact of air and light of neighboring or budding conforming properties.
You did a, you guys, you guys, you guys, you know more architecture prepared shadow study for this project?
Yes, we did.
And you compared a buy -write design, our original design, and then the revised design, correct?
Correct.
Yes, we compared all three here.
And so here I'm looking at what you did.
Your firm does a great job so everybody doesn't have to flip back and forth and try to figure out where the shadows are,
where you do a Venn diagram and you show where one shadow exceeds another.
So here you have the by right building and our original design and then the red.
Can you just quickly show that where what the red areas in the in the all the way to the right is in the Venn diagram?
Yeah. So the red area is the additional shadow that's cast by the original design over the by right design.
So you can see that the original design was actually worse than what a by right design would be.
And then I believe we have a, yes, so then this one is comparing our revised design to the potential buy -write design.
So you can see that a buy -write design is actually worse than what our new proposed design is.
And then at the different time of year, you have the summer solstice where, again, you compared the original design to the buy -write.
and again you can see that our proposed design or the original design cast a little more shadow
correct than the buy right design correct just on that back maybe 15 feet of the lot but then
with our revised design the revised design is barely cast a shadow on the neighbor's property
at all it's actually you know a much better condition for the neighbor in terms of light in
there both for the as compared to the buy right correct correct yes all right um I have no further
questions for Mr Spencer um are you done yeah I mean I just again just to really quickly reference
um I have another there are a number of other projects like including the one on Montgomery
and the one down the street but in the neighborhood where similar developments were done where
the properties the homes were turned sideways or perpendicular with a common share drive
And those are included at Exhibit 20 of my exhibit book, and I've highlighted where there are RSA 5, and there were similar refusals.
RSA 5, you have one here at 1208 and 1212 East Susquehanna, one here at 1124, 1130, I forget what the address there is, Shackamaxon.
You have some that was on Industrial and others, again, that were RSA 5, like on Brown Street, even outside this neighborhood, South 19th Street.
Okay, why don't we open up to questions from the board?
is that okay questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr church all right questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see miss mary jones with her hands up sure good morning no it's almost afternoon mary
um yes could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
um yes good morning my name is Mary Jones
Yes. Good morning. My name is Mary Jones, M -A -R -Y -J -O -N -E -S, from Council President Daryl Clark's office.
Do you swear, Fern, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Yes, based on the communication from the coordinating RCO, F &A, and near neighbors that reached out to us directly, the council president is opposed to granting of this variance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Planning commission.
I see a handshare.
I'm sorry.
It's a person by the name of Ash Kernan.
You're allowed to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yeah, good afternoon.
My name is Ash, A -S -H, Kernan, K -E -R -N -E -N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, thank you.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Okay, proceed.
Yes, hi, good afternoon, Chair and the Board.
Thank you for your time.
I'll keep it concise.
the the appellants briefly just stated that the primary concerns were stemming from one neighbor
and I just want to go on record and say that that in fact is not true if you look at the community
vote over 75 percent of the households that voted opposed this project and as Ms. Jones just
indicated so does the council president's office there's significant concerns about the density on
this block you've heard the arguments for so we won't we won't have to go into them but suffice
to say the plans as put forth uh make no assurances about uh the prohibition against
access to the wilt street alley which this board is as seen before and the contention and the
dangers of of putting even additional use back there um so it's it's the community's position
and particularly the neighbors that use that that this would be uh potentially burdensome on that
without a minimum proviso that they could not use that, but for that one property in the back.
And then second, I just wanted to go on, just wanted to point out that despite the purported
economic hardship and the rebuttals against that, which they just, or excuse me, in support of that,
literally directly behind this property, there are, there's a multiple, on this block in particular,
there are multiple single family flagged lots. And literally right behind this one is one that
was just recently purchased in 2020, developed as a flagged lot for a single purpose home. So
the idea that this could not be configured other than or but for five additional properties is
just simply not true on its face, evidenced by surrounding properties. And with that,
I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
yes chair i have mr robert wright with his hand up okay i mean i i don't want to drag this out
but i mean if i how about if i do this why don't we let robert yeah and then i'll give you two
minutes to respond is that okay yes all right say your name please and spell for the court reporter
robert wright w -r -i -g -h -t you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do proceed are you for the project or against it i'm against it and i am a neighbor
right sorry i've been a cold if you guys can't hear me um i'm all the way at the end of will
street i really want to just echo what ash said i'll keep it brief um they keep bringing up that
they change this for the one neighbor the one neighbor the one neighbor okay yeah i think i
think ash identified that thank you um and i i do have video you know i know that they said that
there were no issues from the fire department they said that's completely fine i have video
of fire trucks trying to come down that street not knowing how to put out a fire on that property
that they're trying to purchase and and that fire went on probably 20 minutes too long um caught the
other building on fire and they weren't able to put it out in time because the fire department
did not know how to get to it because of the world street issue so i would just like to have
that looked at a little bit okay thank you thank you very much mr wright for calling in and taking
the time is there anyone else in a virtual audience i see no more hands here so could you
take two minutes please yeah what's that can i just i'm sorry can i just make two comments a
A couple of comments. Oh, I'm sorry. Thanks. I didn't hear you for a second. So a couple. So a couple of things in terms of accessing Wilk Street.
The only reason we're accessing Wilk Street is because, you know, we're trying to we're trying to address as many concerns as we could.
So we were trying the most vocal person. I didn't say she was the only person, but she was very.
So we were the most vocal person. I didn't say she was the only person, but she was very vocal and she's our immediate neighbor, right?
It's the reason why we pulled the property away to the south and moved the drive aisle.
And that's the only thing that created the need for one lot, for one property, one home to access Will Street.
We have no problems limiting the other properties not to access Will Street.
The drive does extend all the way to the end.
And one of the reasons and one of the things that was discussed at the community meeting was now vehicles could possibly get down our drive aisle to get to Wilts Street if they can't otherwise come down Wilts Street.
If there was some form of access, we even talked about emergency access, something that could be unlocked or a panic bar or something that would allow a gate for the benefit of the community and the neighbors.
The reason they can't get back there right now to the rear of the property is because the only way to get to the rear of the property is from Wilk Street.
With this design, you'll be able to access the rear of this property from Burke Street.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single -family zoning at this location.
um as we've seen wilt street is not on the city plan it does not carry essential utilities and
can't be used as a street frontage to enable subdivision the lot is also irregularly shaped
and deep the total lot area per unit in the proposal it's approximately 1200 square feet
as a benchmark which is commensurate with the average lot sizes in the vicinity and so the
city planning commission recommends that the board grant these variances thank you so if i could say
one thing I wanted to add with Ian right there. If Wilt was a city street, we could sub, and as
he said regarding the lot sizes, we would divide, subdivide 1330 and 1328 to have lots fronting on
Wilt, but we can't because it's not a city street. So the number of lots that we're proposing
are the same number of lots if Wilt was a city street, and then we could subdivide,
have front and back on 1330, front and back on 1328, and then 1326 R by itself.
all right thank you so as we spoke in the beginning we needed amended refusal
and hillary that'll be uh two weeks from wednesday am i right
um well we'll if we have it by then we can vote it then um it just depends on how quickly lni is
able to process the request but the request has been made all right thank you uh mr orphanages
and thanks for everyone's interest in the case we're going to move on to case number nine
okay case number nine is uh MI 2022 001308 8330 Millman Street it's a resumptive hearing
resumptive hearing uh call Primavera who is the attorney and Paul Boney please
Mr. Primavera has been promoted to panelists.
Hi, Mr. Primavera.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hi, Mr. Bonion. Mr. Chair, members of the board, hopefully you can see and hear me.
Carl. Okay.
When you say your name.
I -M -A, V -E -R -A, attorney for the applicant, David Lockhart.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And Mr. Boni, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Paul Boni, B as in boy, O -N -I.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. And I represent Joan and Brooke Lau, the next to her neighbors.
Right. If I remember correctly, we're at this right now. We're at the point where you're going to present them.
One of those witnesses. Am I correct, Mr. Boney?
No. I think Mr. Primavera has one remaining witness.
Does that have a remaining witness, Carl?
No, I think given what we're trying to do to wrap this up today, and because the record is so voluminous, I think that we have pretty much gone through everything.
I guess Mr. Lockhart would be on very briefly just to get him on the record, and then we would close our case.
All right, why don't we do that?
Mr. Lockhart.
Mr. Lockhart?
Mr. Lockhart, can you meet yourself?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
David Lockhart, L -O -C -K -A -R -D.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, Carl. Thank you. Just very briefly. So, Mr. Lockhart, you're an attorney as well as the homeowner here. Is that correct?
And you've seen the exhibits in the packages that we've submitted, the original exhibits, the supplemental exhibits.
You own the property. You reside in the property. You're familiar with the property.
So is it your testimony today that the exhibits we've submitted, as well as the testimony that I've presented, is accurate and you would adopt it as your own?
Yes, and I do.
Now, when you bought this property, was it on the historic register?
It was not.
And after it was on the register, did you have occasion to try to find a way in conformity with zoning?
to build an addition? I tried. And what was the result of that? As we know,
you have sufficient land mass for zoning, but you now have a historic review as well, correct?
Indeed, I do. And you've heard your own architects and you've seen the exhibits which talk about the
requirements of the Historic Commission and any addition to this property would require
Historic Commission approval? Yes. So not to repeat what's been testified to, but your architect
and the exhibits submitted say that under the Secretary of the Interior Standards, which are
adopted by the Philadelphia Historic Commission, this iconic property would not allow for any
addition to the property that would change the view corridor to the public. That's my understanding.
So what you are proposing today is an addition to this house, but it can't be attached. It had to be hidden from public view so that it would meet the Historic Commission approval guidelines.
Correct.
And you've received those Historic Commission approvals for this addition that's not attached.
I have.
Now, you've, of course, been in discussions with the community association and with your near neighbor, Ms. Lau.
How many meetings or how many hours would you say have been spent directly with Ms. Lau to address her concerns, either directly yourself or with the community association?
In my house, there were four and a half to five hours with Joan Lau present.
There were other meetings with the community association on top of that.
So maybe altogether seven and a half, eight, something like that.
Over a period of four or five months, am I correct?
You are correct.
All right.
And you've, pursuant to the letter of support from the Chestnut Hill Community Association, you've agreed to a setback from the property line with Ms. Lau.
Now, you've also agreed to file a deed restriction so that this addition, which is detached, will not be occupied as a distinct unit, but will always be part of your single family dwelling occupancy.
You are correct. And also, I've added that I would not make it into any kind of visitor center as well.
All right, because there was a rumor, a suggestion that maybe this structure would be a visitor center, but that was something suggested by the community association in terms of a long term, maybe acquisition by the Philadelphia Art Museum.
But it certainly wouldn't be anything that you would want to do since this is your home.
That's correct. I have no intent to make it into a visitor center, and I will put that into a deed restriction.
And not to repeat what's been said, but we know that the historic house designed by Venturi for his mother, it's not ADA compliant, but this addition, which is not attached, will be ADA compliant to allow you to age in place and for your family to age in place?
You are correct.
All right. So at this point, you did receive or are you aware of a letter from Councilwoman Bass not opposing your application?
I am aware of that.
And you have received a copy of the Chestnut Hill Community Association as well as the Chestnut Hill Conservancy position that with the provisos that you've agreed to, that they would support this?
Yes, the Chestnut Hill Community Association had a meeting and after extensive discussion, voted to support it. I think it was about 77 or 78 percent.
voted to support it. I think it was about 77 or 78 percent were on record in favor of what I was
trying to do. All right, so I have no further questions of Mr. Lockhart. Thank you.
Mr. Boney, do you have questions? Yes, I do. Thank you. I'd like to share my screen, please.
Sure. Thank you.
okay um thank you uh mr chair is my connection okay um yeah okay thank you
let me just make this a little louder um good morning mr lockhart good morning sir how are you
i'm good thank you um i have a few questions for you so thank you for being available um
And, you know, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Mr. Lockhart adopted a lot of the information in his materials just a couple minutes ago.
So my questions go to, you know, some of those materials.
So let me begin.
Mr. Lockhart, prior to your current residence, you were living for many years at 226 West
Willow Grove Avenue, a rather tall house with a lot of steps. Is that correct?
In late 2015, as your youngest child was applying to college out of state,
you started looking for a new house. Is that correct?
You were in your early 60s and you didn't want a lot of stairs as you aged. And so you began
looking for a smaller house with fewer stairs, correct? That's what I have written, and that is
correct. Thank you. You considered the famous, one of the houses you considered was the famous
Escherich House. That's for the court reporter E -S -H -E -R -I -C -K, down the street from Millman
Street. But the Escherich House was just a one -bedroom house, and you wanted more bedrooms,
correct? Yes. Seeking a house that you could grow old in, you thought that since the Venturi house
at 8330 Millman, the subject property, was designed for a widow, maybe it would be a good fit for you,
correct? I did say that. 8333 Millman originally had a listing price of $1 .75 million, but it was
reduced. And then when you entered into negotiations, it was reduced further to the
ultimate purchase price of $1 .325 million. Is that correct? Yes. You thought that part of the reason
for the initial higher prices was the seller's desire to profit off of the fame of the Venturi
name. Is that correct? Yes. You ultimately purchased 8330 Millman in June of 2016.
And I'm thinking that you were 62 years old at that time. Is all that correct?
I got to think about the age part. 102954 is my birth date. So whatever it was.
Okay, we'll do the math. Thank you very much. But you were in your early 60s, suffice to say.
Suffice to say.
Thank you.
And there's no mortgage recorded on the property, correct?
You are correct, sir.
I'd like to talk, shift gears for a minute.
You appeared at the historical commission meeting at which the designation occurred in November of 2016.
And you said at the time that you agreed with and supported the designation.
Is that correct?
I did.
uh one of the exhibits in our package um exhibit x um it contains the minutes of the of that
historical commission meeting and it contains a sentence that says he meaning you mr lockhart
noted that he bought the house in part to protect it and intends to live there until he dies
close quote do you have any reason to think that that's not an accurate part of the minutes
I'm not sure it's the minutes.
I think it might be a summary of what was said.
But that was my intention, and it remains my intention.
Thank you.
The historic designation does not apply to the interior of the house.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
I'm sorry.
Is that correct, sir?
That's what I'm saying.
Thank you very much.
I'm sorry to clarify.
there is no easement or contractual restriction of any kind that affects what changes you can or
cannot make to the interior of the property? Correct.
to the interior of the property? Correct. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any
further questions at this time. Are you through? Yes, thank you. Okay. Mr. Boney,
do you have a witness? I do. I first have some opening remarks and to walk the board
through our exhibits, and then I have my one and only witness.
How long do you think your opening remarks will be, Mr. Boney?
Approximately 11 minutes. I've timed it, condensed it as much as possible.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. I represent the next door neighbors, Joan and Brooke Lau, and we are opposed to the
requested variants. We believe there's no hardship, there's no least minimum variants,
and that there's undue impact on the use and enjoyment of our property.
The existing house on the site is indeed a famous house by a famous architect.
We agree it's an important house from an architectural standpoint.
There are many books written about it, and it's discussed in university classrooms.
We don't dispute any of that, and indeed, we appreciate it.
But at the end of the day, it is a house.
It's quite beautiful, especially on the inside, as you saw from the photographs last time.
and various people have lived in the house happily for the past 58 years since it was built.
It was built to be suitable for an older person to inhabit with everything that's needed for living
on the first floor. We will present materials about those occupancies, an important part of
our case. The proposal is for a standalone new construction ADU, which is a use not allowed in
Philadelphia. The applicant's desire for an ADU to accommodate visits from his extended family
is commendable, but it is not a hardship under our zoning code and under many cases, including
cases from our state Supreme Court here in Pennsylvania. It's a bedrock principle of
zoning law that a property that can accommodate a viable use by right, as the existing house is,
cannot qualify for a variance. I'd like to walk the board through some of our exhibits and then
I'll call my witness to the stand to ask her to adopt my testimony and also ask her a few questions
about impact, etc. So I'd like to turn to our exhibits as quickly as possible.
These are our, this is the beginning of our exhibits. You can see from our
listing page here
that we have
my client's deed, we have the
photographs that you saw, we have Mr.
Lockhart's deed, and
we also have beginning
here with
we have a few articles.
There's been really so much written
about this house.
It's really quite
astounding.
The first article is this article in Architects Magazine in which the applicant is interviewed.
The second article in Exhibit G is an excerpt from a famous book on this house,
indicating that Vanna Venturi, of course, this building was designed by the famous architect Robert Venturi for his mother, Vanna,
indicating, and the exhibit indicates that Vanna was born in 1893. As you may recall from our last
hearing, there was some debate about when she was born and how old she was at the time that she
moved into the finished house in 1964. And we now know that she was 71 years old at that time,
and that when she moved out in 1973, she was 80 years old. Just sort of flipping through this
to show that information and of course after her after she moved out the house was sold to
thomas and agatha hughes who lived in there for many years and thomas living there into his 80s
exhibit h is an article with an interview of the hughes daughter also named agatha
who lived in the house from 2009 to 2016, when the house was sold to the applicant.
Staying with the sequence of our exhibits here, our next exhibit I contains the zoning archives,
which shows that the property when it was built in 1963 and 64 was built by Wright.
current or even prior violations of the city code on the house exhibit q i'm going to jump a few
is of course
i thought something where exhibit q is a letter from brooke lao i don't want to spend any more
time on this letter except to say that Mr. Primavera kindly agreed that we can submit
it into the record without the need to spend time on calling her for her testimony and we appreciate
that. We also have a statement from John Lau as Exhibit R. Of course, John will be with us in a
moment, and she can adopt this. There are two letters in Exhibit S. I don't have to show them
to you, letters of objection from two additional near neighbors. Exhibit W, and I'm almost finished
here, Mr. Chairman, are two articles with additional information about the house and its
inhabitant. But I want to spend just a minute on Exhibit Z and AA, which is our last exhibit.
Exhibit Z is a scholarly book that contains a chapter on the Venturi house. We have a
biography of the author as the last page of this exhibit. And I'd like to point out a couple
sentences that the author writes based on her research. In fact, her research includes
interviews with Mr. Venturi and his wife, who's also an acclaimed architect who worked with him
over the years, that moreover, as a residence for an older person who was still quite healthy
in the early 60s, but nonetheless needed a bit of extra looking after and perhaps might later need
a live -in nurse companion, as Venturi's father had at the end of his life, Venturi's mother had
to respond to an, Venturi's mother's house had to respond to an unconventional program providing
spaces for daily life on one floor and facilitating the movements of a need for the domestic privacy
of a caretaker. As Denise Scott Brown, that's Venturi's famous wife, explained, although the
Van Aventuri house is usually described in stylistic and formal terms, functional requirements
were not ignored in its planning. They were merely not discussed in our writing. The house works in
the narrowly functional sense, but it satisfies as well a broader range of functions. For example,
It was intended for a widow and perhaps her companion.
Almost finished here, Mr. Chair, and the next couple of pages, it says the house was designed to be lived in comfortably by more than one person.
And at various times, Vanna shared it with her caretakers, with her son until his marriage, with her son and daughter in law for a period after their marriage with an architecture student.
and finally at the very end with a live -in nurse.
And of course, the Hughes lived there afterwards.
Our last exhibit, Mr. Chair, is also,
it's an online article, a blog, if you will,
by an architect here in Philadelphia
who used to work with the Venturi firm.
I used to work at the Venturi firm.
We include her resume also.
and she writes that the house was designed for Bob's aging mother and needed to allow for her
to age in place in one floor. The first floor consists of a living and dining room, kitchen,
and two bedrooms, one medium size for her and one small for a caretaker. I'd now like to,
those are our exhibits, I'd now like to call my only witness Ms. John Lau with the board's permission.
if ms lau can raise her hand and be uh ms lau you're allowed to talk
hello can you hear me yes
mr chair you're muted maybe
mr boney i think what you said she's going to adopt your testimony
yeah he or she right yeah she and after that a short statement so I have 11 my direct
examination of her is about 11 minutes okay um I think I think where we are we're up against some
I think I think where we are, we're up against some time here. And I think besides that, then we're going to have to open it up to neighbors and planning commission. So we're going to need another date. And, you know, it's no fault of yours. It's just the way the schedule was today. So, I mean, I think your case is open.
time here
We were really hoping to finish today, Mr. Chairman.
Finish the whole thing?
Well, we were hoping.
I don't see that.
I just don't see that.
So, Hillary?
Mr. Jerry, as you know, we have an absolute, absolute hard stop at 1 p .m.
And we do want to be, we have one more case that we want to make some progress on as well.
So, unfortunately, I think this is a good stopping point for this case.
And we do have a resumption date, I believe, Ms. Dandy.
You know, Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I'll ask Mr. Bonney this as well.
We might be able to do this by post -hearing submissions or even affidavits.
This is our third hearing today on single family dwelling.
Hillary, is that okay?
We can do that.
We just need to give the public a chance to testify as well as take the Planning Commission recommendation.
And we can ask the public to submit a letter directly to you.
and that might be a way to do it because the cross -examination I would have is just
acknowledging things in the record anyway, the size of the respective lots, the size of the homes.
So I would be willing in the interest of time, since this is the third session, that we submit
everything in the form of either a letter or affidavit. We know what everyone's going to say
um and if the public wants to uh submit a letter directly to the board uh that would be fine there's
a letter from mr richardson already that uh hillary should have as well as the letter from
um the community association so i don't think there's a lot of additional i don't think we
can do that right because you don't know who else is out there that wants it right we need we need
to give the yeah we need to give the community an opportunity to testify at the hearing um and
and the record would otherwise be closed except for um closing statements from from the two parties
you know it's highly likely that the people who've been waiting for the last three sessions
won't be able to make the fourth so it's probably more due process for them if they're on today
to submit something than to continue it with the likelihood what are the odds that they're
going to be available for the fourth, having sat through three. That's just my thought, Mr. Burden.
Paul, what are you going to say? First of all, I'd be happy if we want to spend a few minutes with
some of the members of the public now to get them so they don't have to return. I only have one
witness. I have 11 minutes of direct examination. I'm sure Mr. Primavera will have a much shorter
across. I can't waive that and do it in writing. I need to present her. This is the sum total of
our case and it's very brief, relatively speaking. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Maybe what we should
do is take public testimony in the planning commission now and then do a resumption for
the um direct and cross of miss lao
you guys agree to that is that okay bye thank you okay
questions from um the virtual audience questions or comments sharing my screen i guess okay
questions or comments from the virtual audience yes i see miss well i see a kirsten
fourth. I see him as Kirsten. Okay. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter, please? Yes, my name is Kirsten Forstoffel. First name Kirsten, K -E -R -S -T -E -N.
last name is forstoffel f as in frank o r s t h o e f e l right do you swear or firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do rasheed uh yes i've joined the call
because i am interested in filing an objection um to i'd say the original um filing uh we
oppose the variance for the 8330 Millman Street. We live about 100 feet from the driveway of 8330
Millman. We live at 226 West Bravers Lane. I guess I should speak for myself, but it's
Myself and my family that live here. We've lived here for over 15 years and we very much love this neighborhood. Our chief concern has been about the potential use of the site as a structure as a visitor center. And I would like that on the record.
myself and my family that live here. We've lived here for over 15 years.
um okay i know that david commented that there will be a change to the deed restriction but i
i do want to file that objection um you know we also have concern uh around elevated levels of
traffic and pollution and parking we are the only uh house on this street that has no parking on
our property, and we rely on the side of our house for parking quite often. If there's more
congestion, if there were buses, there were people and visitors coming, it's a narrow street,
Millman Street is, and it's difficult for cars to pass, pedestrians walking, it's a residential
street. So we're concerned about noise and pollution and more people potentially coming
into the neighborhoods and are already, you know, living here. Okay. Thank you very much for taking
the time to call in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have a Mr.
or Mrs. Florian with a hand up. Okay. Mr. or Mrs. Florian, you're allowed to speak.
Yes. Good morning. Hi. Could you state your name as spelled, please, for the court reporter?
Will do. My name is Florian Kluge, F -L -O -R -I -A -N, last name Kluge, K -L -U -G -E.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Okay, proceed, sir.
Thank you. We are neighbors at 8342 Millman Street. We also submitted a letter to the last
zoning board meeting expressing our concern with respect to the visitor center that Mr. Lockhart
has also noted that will not be the case. I also would like to make sure that that is part of the
record that the visitor center will not be part of this extension. Ongoing concerns are also
related to parking and cars from visitors who come to view the building which is very
gorgeous on a number of occasions. We have a concern with respect to the congestion in the
street. And finally, I have the concern that from an overall perspective, this ADU will potentially
have, from my perspective, has an effect on the integrity of the overall property and will,
from my perspective, also devalue the property going forward. And that is an ongoing concern
for us as a family in that neighborhood
and for the value of our property going forward.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Thank you for taking the time to call in.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Higertie for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single -family detached zoning at this location.
However, the comprehensive plan does specifically recommend
allowing accessory dwelling units in lower -density residential districts such as this.
We believe that the dimensional variance that the applicant speaks is minimal,
and we would note that the Historical Commission has reviewed and approved the design.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variances.
Thank you very much.
So where we stand now, we'll have a resumptive hearing, right?
And Mr. Boney will put your client on.
And probably at the same time, Hillary, we could just have do written.
We could have closing remarks.
Yep, we'll have Mr. Boney's witness and closing remarks.
Lakeisha, do you have the date and time for the resumption hearing?
May I ask that it not be on December 15th because I have a conflict for that date.
Yeah. It'll be February 21st at 930. Could you repeat that, please? February 21st at 930.
Thanks, Chair.
Thank you for your time. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Chairman of the Board, Mr. Primavera. Thank you. Thank you. So here we go.
all right number six mi 2022 003 368
MI 2022 -003 -368 -4701 -15 King Cesson Avenue.
Brett Feldman and Steve Masters.
Mr. Masters has been promoted to panelists.
Hi, Mr. Masters, how are you?
Why don't I swear you real quick,
could you state your name and spell 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.
I'm here on behalf of the objectors.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Brett Feldman, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, now, good afternoon.
Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
I represent the property owners, King Sessing Realty and Chester Realty.
Right. Do you swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay. So let me say this. We had a drop dead time of 1230. We've talked to the staff. We're
going to extend at the one o 'clock. And I think, you know, so we're going to have a resumptive
hearing at a later date. But what I'd like to accomplish today is, I think, Brett, you have
one more person, right? No, Mr. Feldman had concluded his...
That's not correct.
Wait, wait. So Brett, answer first, then Steve, I'll give you a chance to go back, okay? Go ahead,
Yes, yes. We still have one additional witness, Sean Markovich, the head of Cedar Park Neighbors Zoning Committee.
And then obviously we would reserve rebuttal witnesses to the witnesses that they're presenting.
Steve, we did we did remember the last time we thought he had said he had one more person.
my mistake mr chair i thought he was okay i thought he was trying to bring in his rebuttal
um here's here's if we get through that which which i will get through that right and then
see were you going to do an opening yeah i needed to do um an opening because we have a we have an
expert that wasn't retained um last time and so i know i understand yeah so why don't we try to do
this we have to be out of here by one i'm just going to cut it but greg go with your person
and we'll go to steve and steve can do an opening and then we'll see where we stand is that okay
steve sure right it's fine with me i just i just need to there's a couple housekeeping matters
so so i can understand how this is then going to proceed going forward um we um
Um, as, as, as Steve said, they, they now have a proposed another expert or an expert
witness, uh, concerning financial, uh, feasibility, construction, feasibility.
Um, what I would ask though, is our rebuttal witness, and this is to save time.
I thought it was going to be for today.
If it's the next time that our rebuttal witness that go immediately after their financial
feasibility expert witness um so that person then doesn't have to come back and testify
after 10 or 12 witnesses because ultimately uh the big point of contention on this i think it's
going to be over that feasibility financial analysis so steve what are you guys we're okay
on that we we are not we are not of the same uh mind on on this mr chair because if you remember
at our first hearing, Mr. Feldman took two and a half hours to present all of his witnesses
and to break up the flow of our witnesses would be deeply prejudicial to us creating
the context and then the argument. We basically have two primary witnesses that we're going to
be offering you, Mr. Thomas Ewing, who is an expert and also a near neighbor who's going to
be testifying about how he created the by -right plan that we are focusing on. And then Mr.
DeBrun, who is a cost estimating expert, quite a bit more, if you will, he's quite a bit more
distinguished and expert than Mr. Feldman's expert is. But we'll see that more in the course of -
so so let so brett let let me let me say like i think you're going to have your witness today
and what i what i would let happen is mr masters present his case
and then you can come back with your yeah okay i mean i i'll just say
Yeah. Okay. I mean, I, I, but I'm, I'm trying to be fair. I wouldn't let. Yeah. And especially
Mr. Mr. Chair, because many of our witnesses were not even allowed to testify before. So yeah,
that's what I'm going to do. So why don't we start for today? Sure. Um, I now ask that, uh,
Sean Markovich, um, the, uh, I believe head of Cedar park neighbors, uh, zoning committee
fee promoted to panelists okay
hi could you state your name please
do we see his name kovich i don't see his name right now she's right right there
Hi. Hello, my name is Sean Markovich.
Could you spell it please for the court report?
S -H -A -W -N -M -A -R -K -O -V -I -C -H.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you turn your volume up? Is that possible just a little bit?
Sure. Is that better?
That's a little better. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, before we begin, can I get an offer of proof from Mr. Feldman as to what the supplemental testimony evidence is going to be?
Because all we're here is to talk about unnecessary hardship and minimum variance, not about any community agreements that were made.
We're just here for supplemental testimony on that.
I don't know how this person is going to help.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Brett, could you do some opening comments about this witness?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
It is my understanding that on behalf of Cedar Park Neighbors, Sean is going to be speaking about their review of the application and their review of the various development challenges that we had at this property that led them to reach an opinion or decision on what position to take on this.
They also recently just had dealt with a case on the next corner at 4820 Chester with another RTA1 property and faced the same development challenges that the zoning board also faced.
So her testimony is absolutely relevant on the development challenges that we faced, why they came to a conclusion to support this project, and then instructive on what they faced at 4820 Chester.
Mr. Chair, this organization has entered into the record. Significant letters, members and leaders of their organization have put this information in the record, and the court specifically instructed the board to just look for evidence.
Basically, it said you've made certain findings as a zoning board that had no evidence behind it.
This can't be evidence of hardship or minimum variance.
So while I appreciate it.
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to let him proceed and we'll listen to the testimony and we'll weigh it appropriately.
OK, so we're going to allow that. OK.
OK, thank you.
Sean, would you like me to bring up your your letter of support?
or would you rather me bring up an aerial of the neighborhood
and what your committee reviewed?
Why don't you bring up the aerial of the neighborhood?
Is that what you wanted to say, Sean?
Yes, that's fine.
So, Sean, obviously we're very time crunched, but I know it was critical to you to be able
to present testimony on behalf of the community.
Again, you are, can you provide the board your title with Cedar Park?
I'm the chair of the zoning committee.
And in that capacity, what do you do in that capacity?
I'm objecting.
This is not supplemental to what we're talking about today.
um i'm going to allow it right now and try to get through this as quick as possible
yeah sean you may answer we're an rco and we review the zoning application
can you repeat that sean we are co um with this
signed that uh we are required to review and go through the process for the community
we are required to review and go through the process for the community.
Yes. And Sean, can you explain to the board what you witnessed and what you experienced
when you examined this application and what development challenges you saw that you reached
that led your committee to reach a finding of approval?
Sure. So we're familiar with corner line TA, and especially some of the development challenges we had.
Excuse me, this is from IT. I was just going to suggest that you turn off your video while you're talking and we might be able to hear you clear.
so so shut it turn your video off and your volume should get your uh it should be better
try it now is that better yes it is okay um we are familiar with corner lots that are zoned rta
especially corner lots that are um very conducive to transit -oriented development
Just in April, Cedar Park Neighbors was before this ZBA board regarding 4820 Chester.
So we are familiar with how these are harder to develop.
That hearing, the 4820...
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to object again because the court was clear that we have to focus specifically on the unique issues of these lots and not any others and not focus on the RCA1.
Mr. Masters, I hear what you're saying.
So what I want you to do is for her to concentrate on this particular project.
Sure, sure.
Okay. So we recognize that the by right development there is not conducive to the community streetscape with the front loading garages, which was so we felt that this was the least minimum variance that addressed the community's hardship in terms of providing the community as a hardship or to it's not just the developer.
the community's hardship in this case is we desperately need more affordable housing and so
in regard to avoiding the buy right development with the curb cut that would be all along the
corner of 48th and the corner of chester there um the community many people in the community
felt that that was a least variance was to have what was there before no
Yes, I was just going to say, Chair, I think we have someone else who's unmuted who should
not be participating in the hearing at this time.
So there is a hardship to the community with having all of these front -loaded garages that
is allowed in the buy right.
and having experience with rta on corner lots i believe is applicable to this situation
the board heard a case a block away where they approved a higher density to avoid i'm objecting
again so what we want to try to do is stay full yeah no and sean what was here previously was
was the multifamily correct correct yes and and really you were faced with two options here there
There was there was the multi. I'm sorry. I'm objecting to leading questions at this point.
We just need to have clean evidence. Right. Try to have your client just testify.
And. Yes. And what were the what were the considerations ultimately that led the committee to issue a letter of support?
It was the fact that there was going to be a large percentage of affordable housing.
Yes. And that it would keep the streetscape much more intact. Correct.
And you found that the multifamily was consistent with all the other corners up and down Chester Avenue, as we see here. Correct?
Correct. And it's consistent with the historic use of the property. OK. Is there anything else you want to add, Sean?
One thing I'd like to add just that was brought up in the last hearing regarding getting the low income housing tax credits and how that those were not pursued.
Well, in 2020, in Pennsylvania, the total request for low income housing tax units was over $89 million.
And yet, granted, it was only $40 million.
And of that $40 million, only $11 million went to Philadelphia.
The city has recognized that you cannot rely on low -income housing tax credits to put
The city has recognized that you cannot rely on low -income housing tax credits to put in
affordable, and that's why they have developed alternative means, which is usually housing
density bonuses.
And so this is consistent with what the city has also done.
So going for low -income housing tax credits is really, really hard to get.
Philadelphia does not get nearly enough of what is needed.
That was all I was saying.
And do you have any thoughts on behalf of the committee on the objectors now, what they're suggesting is that this should be a duplex dwellings that we know sell at a much higher price than in the neighborhood. Do you have any thoughts on that?
That is not at all consistent with the repeated requests that the community has announced saying that they want affordable, and we feel that it's a hardship to build such large, expensive houses.
We have quite a lot of existing housing stock that are large single -family homes.
They sell for prices that are out of many people's affordability.
And so having a wider diversity and range of housing options is a must in our neighborhood.
Great. I don't have anything further. Thank you.
Steve, do you have any questions?
Sure. Ms. Markovich, did you ever take a look at the the actual design that Tom Ewing created for for these lots?
I'm not sure there were several different iterations that were proposed in the various community meetings outreach.
so did you did you see the the um the version where there was only one curb cut and all of the
parking was through alleys in the back of the homes my understanding is that that is not a
buy right option that require other variances my question is did you see that option
i did okay but your testimony today assumed that all the curb cuts would be in the
as front loading is that correct
my my understanding is that the proposed is not a buy right option the buy right option is front
loading curb cuts that actually wasn't the testimony from from the developers witnesses
that there is no requirement for front loading curb cuts but but i'm asking you your organization
took a position on on saying that it was that there were all these curb cuts that were required
for RTA1 zoning, when in fact, there's a design that we're going to be presenting in detail now
that shows that there's only one curb cut, not very many. And did you intentionally ignore that
or did you ignore it by error? No, we were presented with the potential drawings from
the developer, and that is what we made our basis on, is what was proposed to the community
at the community meetings. I did not see any proposal from the developer for any alternative.
Right. This was from Mr. Ewing. Do you realize that Mr. Ewing is a past chair of your RCO,
past zoning chair? Yes. Okay. So you would think that he would be fairly qualified to understand
the needs of the neighborhood would that be correct i would not agree with that statement
he's not been active or involved in the organization in decades he lives in the
neighborhood though correct he was your zoning chair for a while it prior decades ago correct
okay i have no further questions thank you all right so see how long would you need to do your
opening um probably um five minutes minutes probably five to six minutes why don't we do
this why don't you do your opening and then talk about you know where are you going to be
and then what we'll do we're going to end after that okay
okay and then do we have a date for the for the next we will get we will do we have a date
we would we would hope to have a dedicated date um because we we with having expert testimony
it will be somewhat time consuming okay so why don't we do this why don't we we'll look at that
hillary okay no we we do have a date mr chair and we are planning to a lot more time to this case on
that that next date okay because we did not have the time that we thought we would have today
and what date is that
The February 21st at 9 30.
Is that going to continue to be a virtual hearing?
Is that going to continue to be a virtual hearing because I'm actually going to be out
Because I'm actually going to be out of the country that week.
of the country though.
There will be virtual.
Why don't you do your opening, Steve?
All right, sure.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
I wanted to kind of catch us up on where we're at with the case right now
and how we see the important issues moving forward.
At our first hearing, Mr. Feldman presented a number of witnesses
for about two and a half hours of testimony.
The vast majority, the vast bulk of the testimony during the first hearing
was not in any way supplemental.
It was a rehash of the exact same evidence that was already in the record.
This was troubling because, number one, it took up a lot of time that we could have been using to get our witnesses out in front of you.
And number two, it kind of muddies the water because it makes it less clear as to what are the real issues before us.
The issues before us, according to the trial court, is unnecessary hardship and minimum variance.
And if you look at all of their witnesses, they essentially gave almost all of them, except for two, gave the same exact testimony that they gave the first time. And that testimony, the court said, wasn't enough evidence in the record to actually justify the zoning board's rulings and conclusions on unnecessary hardship and minimum variance.
There were two basic distinctions that they offered in this first hearing that was new, and that's what we're going to be focusing on.
Primarily, they came upon, and we objected at the time, but you let it go forward, and now we have a cost estimating expert as well.
They brought in a cost estimating expert who's essentially whose testimony was that that a a a development that was consistent with duplex housing, whether it's completely by right or whether it's whether there are some slight variances connected to it.
but it's essentially a RTA -1 compliant proposal, an option, their testimony was that the cost totally didn't work on that, that the developer would be underwater, could not afford to build those units.
And by chance or by design, the 76 units that's proposed is just the bare minimum, the minimum variance that's necessary. That's really the only new supplemental evidence that they brought.
They also had a another planning expert to who works for the same firm as Nancy Templeton, who decided to throw her under the bus and say that her testimony was invalid from the first hearing.
That's a problem, Mr. Sheriff, on a number of bases, because number one, the courts are very clear that a witness or an expert cannot change their position in the midst of litigation.
And in fact, the party, the applicant, can't argue one thing at one hearing and then another thing at another hearing.
That's a bedrock area of law.
um so that's that's a problem there but but but moreover um their their new witness that came
to to testify for ch planning had no evidence he just kept saying over and over again no one would
ever build duplexes at that lot um it was his kind of fervent conviction but there was actually no
no like basis that he gave us so what we're left with is that essentially the whole case of you
know they they argue the same things they argued before the lots are too big but then their witnesses
conceded but you could subdivide them and make them into appropriate lots and put duplexes on
them and they said but you know uh historically uh it was multifamily and then they conceded that
there is no basis for any historical reference in the zoning code to justify a hardship on the basis
of history and bygone days and what used to be as opposed to what is now. So what we're left with
is the question of, is a duplex -only development economically viable or not? If they're correct
If they're correct that a duplex development would not be economically viable, then that would be a basis for hardship.
that a duplex development would not be economically viable
It doesn't give them the second thing, though, which is the minimum variance.
Now, we're going to be presenting you with Mr. Ewing's testimony, who is, his academic background is as an architect, and he spent 40 plus years being the top development person at UPenn with developing all of the huge projects that the University of Pennsylvania has done in that neighborhood.
And he did costing of this and basically developed that by the buy right. We contend it's a buy right one curb cut version of the duplexes.
But we also have a very, very seasoned cost -estimated expert who has worked for many of the top firms, both construction -wise and actually dedicated just to cost estimating, who is going to testify to how the numbers were basically kind of cooked by Mr. Feldman's expert, and he's going to explain why.
So that's really kind of where things are coming down.
um if if we if you'll find as as our expert is going to show you that is perfectly um is perfectly
viable to put duplexes basically where there are duplexes and single homes built all over the city
on a regular basis so it's it seems incredible to to imagine that there's some lot in west
philadelphia that for some reason you can't put the kind of duplexes and single family homes that
you can put everywhere else in Philadelphia. But then you go to the question of minimum variance
and their arguments on minimum variance are fairly nonsensical. They basically say, well,
if you compare what you could do with RM1 to what we're doing, RM1 will let you put 79 units and
we're only putting 76. So that's clearly the minimum variance. Well, if we were in an RM1 lot,
then maybe it would be valid to compare what is allowed under an RM1. But we're not. All of these
lots that we're talking about are RTA1s. And when you look at minimum variance, the issue before you
is what's the minimum variance and the least modification necessary from an RTA1 lot,
not from any other lot that they cherry pick because they like what they see in RM1 better
than they like what they see in RTA1.
They bought these properties, Mr. Chair.
They paid money for it.
They knew what it was zoned for.
And yet now they're acting like it should be,
we should wave a wand and make it zone something different.
So that's basically what we have for you to look forward to.
So when we get, you will go first.
Obviously the next time it'll be put your witnesses on
and Brett, you'll get a chance to respond.
And I thank both of you for your patience.
And Mr. Shimmer, if I just may, so the way Steve outlined it, the one thing I will agree
is the absolute critical nature of that economic analysis, if you agree with us versus if you
agree with Steve's witnesses.
And that's why I really do believe that those witnesses need to be put at close right after
another because to ask their witness is going to go and then six hours later or five hours later
a rebuttal i hope it's not i hope it's not six hours i don't i don't i don't know i don't know
i don't know how many witnesses they've got 12 or 13 witnesses so that's what i'm just i'm asking
the board to consider this issue because so i think i have considered it and i think what i
want is mr masters to have his case he didn't put anybody in the middle of your presentation the last
time so i think we're going to do that okay so mr masters will have the floor and you'll have a
chance to come back thank you both very much all right thank you is there anyone in the audience
from the 9 30 list that uh the case has not been called
mr chair this is hillary i i just want to um reiterate quickly that the resumption date
for 4701 to 15 King Sessing Avenue
is February 21st, 2023 at 9 .30 a .m.
Okay, thank you, Hillary.
Thanks, everyone.
Sorry, I kept you a little later today.
No problem.
Good job, everyone.
Have a good one.
Thank you.
Have a good one, everyone.