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.