and and the board members themselves have a private meeting that is not public
so that might be the second meeting that you were wondering i was not in attendance at that either
okay um they had that then they voted on their own 8-1 that's the uh revisions that were made
mr malucky was aware aware of the revisions and had been provided those uh he is talking about
the site diagram uh which i walked through montalbano that he did not receive until today
that was a new document that had to be created obviously this is as you know not something you
usually see for a zoning board matter so we actually went above and beyond to even produce
something like this but that that is what mr malaki is referring to thank you all right mr
malaki malaki i'm sorry all right if you can summarize that would be helpful yeah sure i mean
My summary is that, you know, setting aside the Northern Liberty Zoning Board, I think there are a number of neighbors in the immediate vicinity, as evidenced by the petition I submitted via email, that reject or do not believe that the height-related variance is de minimis.
the petition has eight signatures on it. Additionally, I believe there's at least one
other neighbor who has joined to oppose the height-related variance and does not believe
that it's de minimis. And in some, I mean, this is a very narrow exception to the law where
variance should be driven by hardship. And because of that, I think we would ask that the zoning
board to get the variance under the de minimis doctrine. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may,
I'd like to ask Mr. Malucki a few questions. Please do. I will be very brief. Mr. Malucki,
you said you own 331 West Wildey Street, correct? I do. And when did you purchase that?
uh august of 2019 2019 okay um and that was new construction when you purchased it
2019 okay um and that was new construction when you purchased it it was all right and that faces
south towards center city correct yes um and that property was uh uh which one called that
property was built pursuant to a variance correct wait uh i i don't have any knowledge of that so
i'd rather not answer okay uh mr chairman i i have planning plans and the variants uh they
were submitted as part of my packet i don't want to belabor the point but uh at a minimum it needed
a variance for um front loading parking and there are other issues that you know we can get public
record that it is it's already been submitted as part of the record thank you anyone else who would
like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand. Mr. Chairman, I have a few more
questions. I'm sorry. I'm going to be as fast as possible. But Mr. Malecki, regardless of whether
you're aware of any variants or whatnot, you do have front-loaded parking, right? Basically,
you drive off the street. Yeah, of course. Okay. And you have a roof deck? Yes, we do have a roof
deck that's why we are opposing a roof deck being built higher looking down on our roof
and uh your roof deck also faces south towards center city right our roof deck has a 360 degree
view so i wouldn't say that it faces any one direction okay how how high is your roof deck
relative to other roof decks around you in the adjacent uh houses so our our roof deck is higher
than either of the roof decks on either side but our roof just just to note our rooftop is 38 feet
tall 38 feet tall with a parapet built 48 inches from the center uh height of the rooftop the
midpoint height which is in line with code uh you you cut off there but i think basically it was
so we have a 38 foot roof deck which is the tallest roof deck in the immediate vicinity
but it is in line with code. And we have a parapet that extends 48 inches above the
midpoint of our rooftop. Okay. I would just like to point out that 48 inches is too high
of a parapet by code. But do you have any obstructions of your southern view at this
time? I mean, you can see it. The houses are going to obstruct their view regardless, but
you can see the building right over there. I mean, I don't really know how to answer that.
I can't see forever to the south. That's fair. I think you answered it.
So what is it about the height that you object to, Mr. Mulliken?
what's that what is it about the height that you object to yeah can you hear me so stand
standing on the roof deck uh and looking across the street um we will be looking up at our
neighbors who are looking down on us and so right now uh the way that our house is positioned if the
roof were to be and so so again on this diagram uh our roof deck is actually only five feet
removed from the street not not the 10 feet indicated but on this diagram if our uh if our
neighbors had a deck that was also 38 feet tall uh similar to our deck then uh when everyone was
seated there there would be no no ability to to look over um and see what we were doing uh look
into our gatherings at our house right now uh with the deck being built uh higher than 30 feet
built up to 41 feet um the angles are such that uh neighbors would be able to look into our roof
deck from above um and so uh and again if uh if they built uh an apartments or a deck on top of
that it could go even higher um so so i think the argument was stated that i just need to you know
we're spending almost an hour on this case and i'm not suggesting i'm not suggesting that it's
not important to any either side but i we hear this a lot we live in a row house neighborhood
houses are stacked against each other there's always the potential that someone can see either
in your window or in your yard there's no space so if someone were to build a high rise a block
away they can be looking down in two blocks away three blocks away they might be looking down into
your your your roof deck as well and again i'm not suggesting that you know that life's going
to change a little bit, but I don't see it as that big of a deal because we live in a row house
neighborhood. But I think we would suggest that based on the fact that there's no real
that based on the based on the fact that uh there's no real reason for the this building
to be built taller than 38 feet just rather than essentially only only by design choice
i think i can sum this up yeah i think we've gone over that a number of times please
so uh mr i understand your concerns um i i just want to clarify one thing and then i have one
final question for you. So your original roof deck setback was feet seven inches per the approved
plans as what I pulled. Did you change and add additional roof deck tiles to make it a five
foot setback? I'm unclear. I don't have any knowledge of the plan. So were you involved
in adding this is relevant this is relevant i i just want to find out if you did that in as
permitted work or not understood understood let's not i'd rather not go down that road if we don't
have to all right chairman i have one last question and i think this will clarify everything
for you uh mr malecki if i were to offer you uh privacy screening above the we're allowed by code
to add a privacy screening above our railing along the frontage that the West Wilde frontage
that you would be able to see for the 332 West Wilde Street house? Would that assuage your
concerns if there was a privacy screening so that nobody could see over that into where your house
is? I don't think I can answer that without being able to review the designs in more detail.
Again, I was only provided with the mock-up as of this morning after discussing it on October 1st.
So it's very difficult for me to be put on the spot like that and be asked to agree to something like this in a hearing.
I will just be up front. There is nothing in the view diagram that shows any kind of privacy screening.
All I'm offering, Mr. Chairman, is an additional privacy screening, which would be basically 100% opaque at the railing line.
and would take care of any visual sight issues that Mr. Malaki might have at his property.
I have no further questions.
Thank you.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
And we're going to have to limit the testimony between two and three minutes.
We have other cases.
Yes, Mr. Rubin, you have now been promoted.
You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Thank you.
Hello?
Can you hear me?
Yes, who is it?
This is Matt Rubin.
Oh, Mr. Rubin.
Okay, please identify yourself.
Name and address.
Matt Rubin, M-A-T-T-R-U-B-E-N.
And on some written city documents,
my first name is my full name, Matthew, M-A-T-T-H-E-W.
Thank you.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Rubin.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board, applicant, the attorney.
And I want to be clear that I am a board member
of the northern liberties and neighbors association i am not here in my board capacity i am here in my
capacity as an individual resident who lives at 1000 north oriana street which is next door to
the 331 west will de property where mr malecki lives and across west will de street from the
proposed uh project um and i will do my absolute best to keep this brief and i will also do my best
not to repeat what has just been discussed as best i can thank you of course i'll do my best
first off um i am here to express concerns about this project i will say right off the bat i
appreciate the architectural inventiveness and the appearance in the renderings that has been
designed by the architect and i would be much more comfortable with this if the materials and
the windows and the facade were things that could easily be enforced by the ZBA and by LNI,
which we all know they cannot. And so I'm just unable to take their word for it at that and
overlook anything else simply because of that. And so here are my concerns. My concerns are
they have lots that are a little over 1,350 feet. They have made a decision instead of orienting
them more conventionally as two 20 and a half foot wide by approximately 65 or 66 foot deep
lots to build, as you said, Mr. Chairman, row houses like we have in Philadelphia.
They've decided to turn the houses the other way for approximately 33 by 41 foot lots.
Now, normally it's not my business how you orient your lot, but when the way you orient
your lot creates conditions where you're seeking variances, then it becomes all of our business.
and so they oriented the lots a certain way which apparently relieves them of a
And so they oriented the lots a certain way, which apparently relieves them of a open space requirement. But then on that basis, they're saying they don't need a seven foot setback. And I would like to point out that a seven foot setback would require them in this lots to have approximately 17% open space.
And by not having a seven-foot setback, they have 0% open space.
And the concern that was raised by Mr. Whalen about the difficulty of underpinning if they created basements, underpinning is only an issue if you don't have the seven-foot setback.
If you abided by code and having the seven-foot setback, you wouldn't have an underpinning concern.
So my concern is that the height of these buildings, along with the massing, these are 4,500 square foot finished internal living space buildings based on what was said at the RCO meeting.
They originally had double garages, so they had 4,100 approximately square foot of space.
When they went down to single garages, they did not take the opportunity to keep the living space at 41 and redesign the houses to be slightly smaller.
They just tacked on another 400 square feet of living space.
They will not consider digging partial basements.
They wouldn't even have to have total basements in order to go down to permitted height.
They've made a claim of soil conditions, and I have heard nothing from the attorney or the architect of what those are, with the exception that on a nearby lot, there are old growth trees and they have concerns about root system.
This is a high elevation.
This is not a flood risk.
And as the board fully well knows, people dig partial basements all the time in all kinds of condition in Philadelphia in new construction.
And so my concern is not with the design.
My concern is not that they want to build large houses.
My concern is that they have created a situation where they need variances, and the amount of massing and square footage and height are being created by their lack of willingness to do very normal things like make even a partial basement or orient the houses in a more conventional way.
And finally, as per the roof decks, number one, these are enormous roof decks. And I am concerned as a neighbor, not because I understand we have roof decks in Philly, and they're going to look down on me no matter what. But when you have zero open space, you have no conventional yard, you force all the sunlight, daytime, and other kinds of outdoor activity up onto those roof decks, which makes them a much higher stakes proposition for the nearby neighbors.
And at a 41-foot starting point, they are exposing people on all four sides to all of that potential activity.
The last thing I would note is a detail, which is I appreciate the increased eight-foot setback of the roof decks, but unless I'm reading the drawing wrong, and this hearing is the first time I'm seeing a revised drawing in this regard, it looks like the stairway access to the roof deck, with some decking surrounding that stairway access, is nowhere near eight-foot setback from Wildey Street.
and in my understanding that is not what was asked for. I would like a uniform at the minimum
eight foot setback as they said they agreed to and unless I'm misreading the drawing and I'm
happy to be corrected the stairway access up to those roof decks is considerable and it goes way
less than an eight foot setback from that we'll decide. So my concerns are about the height and
massing overall as a result of their choices which they are then claiming give them hardship
that they themselves have created, and more specifically about that roof deck setback.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and the committee, and I'm happy to take any questions
from the board or from Mr. Whalen.
Ruben, I know you in a very long time, and I know your work in the Northern Liberties
community.
Are you suggesting that there might be some opportunities
uh if the if you were to continue to have a dialogue with the developer and its architect
about some of the issues that you raised yes yes mr chairman that's exactly what i'm suggesting
and and with respect to the applicant i appreciate the design thoughtfulness and i do have to echo
what mr malecki said this roof deck issue is coming up at this hearing because this is literally
the first moment i have seen this and to my knowledge i don't know if anyone else saw the
particular resolution they're proposing on that roof deck which as i noted to my eye does not
conform in my opinion to the spirit and letter of what we thought they agreed to in that regard so
that is an example of why i think dialogue would certainly be helpful thank you mr chairman thank
you um mr chairman you might imagine i have a couple of questions here uh i know but i'm just
very very quickly i'm happy to answer um mr rubin uh we obviously met uh throughout this project
um mr rubin uh we we obviously met uh throughout this project correct we did and you appeared at
the rco meeting yes and i did uh the public one and i i understand you also uh appeared as a board
member at the nlna uh board meeting correct yes and nlna board meetings are also public they're
just rarely attended by people because they're not usually very interesting okay fair enough i i was
told that it was not a public vote, but I'm not quibbling over that. And in fact, Mr. Rubin,
you and I personally had multiple phone calls with regard to this project, correct? Yeah,
I believe we had at least two. Okay. And in fact, the eight foot setback of the roof deck
was actually your idea to quote cure what the issues were with neighborhood visibility and
over large roof decks correct um i don't know why you're putting the word cure in quotation marks
because i don't recall saying that but yes the eight foot the increase the increased setback
was indeed my idea um as was the um some kind of solid um uh paneling as opposed to purely open
fencing around the roof deck because of the increased visibility of what an open fencing
would be so i was not thrilled about increasing to the appearance of mass but trying to anticipate
mitigate what at the time were something like 750 foot square feet roof decks that could be a
potential nuisance that we would all be living with for decades. Understood. But so you would
agree with me that we actually adopted and incorporated your personal comments that you
made with regard to this project. I would agree that you stated agreement with them, but I would
not agree necessarily that you incorporated them because I had no opportunity to see revised
drawings until just now. And as I noted, I'm not convinced that the revised drawings reflect what
I thought the agreement was. I would simply agree to disagree, but won't belabor the point.
Mr. Rubin, you actually built 331 West Wildey and 1000 North Oriana Street, correct?
Yes, I did have them built.
You had those built, and now one is your home and one is Mr. Malecki's home?
That is correct.
okay um and would you agree that at the rco meeting you made no statements in opposition to
this project well as you might know mr whalen um the way the nlna's rco meetings go is that
the applicant proposes and makes a presentation and the committee and neighbors ask questions
and then the applicant and anyone associated with them is asked to leave the meeting and
then there is further discussion and a motion made by the zoning committee so um i would agree
with your characterization of the portion of the meeting that you were present at but i would not
agree with that as a characterization of the entire meeting nor by the way would i agree that