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.