I just wanted to hear.
Go ahead.
Let's get your client to adopt your test.
finish what you were about to say yeah i was just going to say i know there were some emails sent
around to the board about the rco meeting that we didn't have one and we do obviously have proof of
that so i just wanted to uh make that clear and uh we submitted the rco's letter and we had two
meetings um that we included in the packet so just wanted to clear up the any of that confusion
Good notice. Thank you. And your client? Byron Watson. Yes. My name is Byron Watson.
Mr. Watson, please spell your first and last name. Sure. First name Byron, B-Y-R-O-N. Last name Watson, W-A-T-S-O-N.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir. Thank you. Ms. Pritzker.
Byron, have you heard my testimony today and do you believe it to be true and accurate and do you
adopt it as your own? Yes ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board? No. No. Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Yeah, we have North Central Philadelphia CDC. Okay, whoever was representing that RCO,
please identify yourself. Spell your full name. Tina Marie Russell, T-I-N-A-M-I-R-I-E-R-U-S-S-E-L-L.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
I do. I said please proceed. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to clear up some things here,
some comments that were made. One, it was said in the beginning that no one received this letter
or the summary. The letter and the summary was sent out in March when we had our first RCO meeting,
I mean ZBA hearing. So I didn't know I needed to send it again because I thought it would already
be in the files. So the first letter we sent and the only letter that we sent to the ZBA and all
parties involved, including the applicant, was sent in March prior to the ZBA hearing, which was
continued. And then we had a second continuance. And now we're here today. I then also stated that
there was an active activity to reach the RCO. I received an email about a week ago,
which I did not know was in there. I was actually, someone went to my attention. I did not
see that email. And I received, I was told that I received one phone call. So I just want to
clarify that. And obviously, it was also said that no letter was sent, but yet, as you can see in the
packet from the attorney, she does have the letter and the summary. So I wanted to clarify that as
well for the record. So all parties involved did receive a letter from the RCO and a summary from
the RCO. And I'd like to get the other activity that was stated that was not sent. I'd like to
that scratch from the record because that is not true. Also, I'd like to say that no one from the
RCO ever said that there was no board, no R-community meetings. All communities have
been documented, and we actively engaged in hosting these meetings with the applicant to
ensure that those meetings were held because we are fully engaged in our community and make sure
that our community has a voice. So we had the meeting and one of the rationales for the denial
was not that we're denying, what we're denying is the way the variance is requested is stated
because most of the people at the meeting were not clear about what the applicant was asking for
because if they're looking to, somebody determined that this is what was determined,
They do not mind having the existing building being used as apartments, but that wasn't a request on the variance change.
The variance change said they want to do an addition.
And this is the part that the community had did not, most of the community did not agree to.
They did not agree to the variance change for the following, for the extension, I should say, for the following reasons.
One, the size and length of the extension will cause shade and wind changes to the other properties.
And I needed a study done to see whether or not, you know, what that shading would mean to those existing, you know, to the house to the left of the property, because they're going to be going further out with their extension, as well as height.
So that also will cause some type of an issue as far as the wind and the movement of the shading from that particular extension.
They also wanted the community said that they don't mind.
They also wanted the community said that they don't mind the existing property being used as apartments, but they'd rather have, and if they want to do the extension, they'd much rather keep it as a single family unit as opposed to, because that's the variance.
So Varian says that the applicant has to show hardship.
And so far, everything the applicant has stated is not really showing a hardship.
Because when they bought the property, he knew what it was there for.
And I'm still trying to figure out where that hardship comes in at.
Remodeling that house as is is not a hardship.
It's no different than anyone else.
And in our community, hundreds of people are really renovating existing houses as is.
They're not putting extensions on it.
We also, they also talked about the pilot roof, and they wanted to make sure that if
they don't, they rather, it has to, well, so many different pieces to this.
So we want to say there's different components that the community would like to agree to
if, or at least have a word in if this variance is passed as is.
But right now, we just want to tackle one situation at a time, and that is whether or
not you want to take this single existing property and make it into a triplex or make it into a
duplex so the community is saying they would grant a duplex or a single family that's pretty much
what they're saying as far as the existing and the applicant is saying that they have a buy right to
make an extension so the question on the table from what and this is why they were so confused
us which way to go, which was, if the question on the table is, do we make a triplex or a duplex
or a single family? So they're saying, listen, we'd rather have a single family. However,
if it gets to get granted, we will okay a duplex. And that's the way the community
read the variance request as it was stated. So it was kind of convoluted. We have a lot
seniors on that block and they really just couldn't put a firm nail to that. And I'm at
loss myself because it is stated differently. So is the situation about the extension or is it about
the change in the variance, which is a duplex, a triplex, or a single family? And that's pretty
much where we stand at with this. I don't know if it sounds confusing, that's because we're still
confused by it so summary single family if it still gets passed we rather do a duplex
and the rationale is as i stated they didn't show hardship and the size and dimension of the
of the existing is conformed with the existing historical nature of that neighborhood
and if you add on to it it needs to be some type of study done to see how
that that extension will affect the surrounding community
what i heard you is say mentioned in your testimony something if it were to be approved
as a triplex there was i'm paraphrasing there was were there provisos you were the community
what are those provisos well if it's it depends on what it is that it gets approved by see that's
the whole thing let me finish if it were approved as a triplex which is what the application is
asking for are there provisos that the community wants you'd like to have implemented as a triplex
and if so what what are those provisors um now that i know about the buy right i'm not sure how
to even perform this but i would say that they they did not want the extension right they were
okay with the apartments as is and not with an extension on it if it's and again these are these
ifs if it has an extension then they don't want to pile it they don't want to have all the um
balconies etc they want definitely want a trash plan they want to make sure that there's no one
living in the basement the basement all right slow down one second when you say they don't
want a pilot are you referring to a pilot house for a roof deck exactly i don't think and correct
me if i'm wrong rachel there's no roof deck proposing this is there no so there's no roof
deck being proposed i remember okay so um all we're proposing are you looking at the are you
looking at the current plans i'm asking i'm asking the attorney for the applicant and she's stating
on the record the proposal is not to include a roof deck which would would necessitate a pilot
a pilot house okay great so that goes away no roof okay great and no living in the basement
house okay great so that goes away no roof okay great and no live
that's fine we don't have living space proposed in the basement we just have an office down there
well that's same excuse me chair can i interrupt for one minute yes ms pritzker i believe in the
proviso plans form the request for the decks was represented having been made at the request of the
the community. Is that correct? The rear the rear decks not the roof deck yes. Right for purpose of
trash storage or whatever correct? And open space correct chairman. Right you're right with that.
So that would address the that would address Ms. Russell the trash issue. Right because we
suggested that because there was the applicant had no other recourse for the trash for the second
the third floor okay we understand that well if we put some type of outside porch there would that
be a place where they could hold their trash that is in the that is part of the proposal
right but then but then we also said that if there's no decks then they can actually keep
all their trash in the lower in the basement level so they want to actually extend the basement as
well um on the if they pull out they also want to pull out the basement and actually dig out a new
basement for the for the accommodations of a quote-unquote office space but the community
doesn't like that idea they want to keep the basement as is and keep the um the um
the building as is they really don't want an extension on it um but again we're kind of like
at odds now because we don't understand you know we didn't understand the whole point of the buy
right part that was not disclosed so now we didn't have any discussion on that so i'm trying to
improvise the best i can with this type of information so we can't do trash for all the
units in the basement because only the bottom has access so it's a safety issue and um so that's why
we you know put the decks on the back to be able to sort of solve that issue and not have to have
other people go into the right so the other proviso then would be not to extend out that
basement level i don't know again what we can do with that all of that by right so like right
exactly basement is a buy right and all and all and just to just to shed a little light um one of
the things we tried to do it as the our architect provided was really be considerate with a minimal
addition you know we have a 67 foot rear yard so to you know we could have gone back all the way
to nine feet of a rear yard and we haven't so we really have a quite a modest addition and the
reason for it which we tried to explain was given the fire and the damage done to the building the
way that it is it's a very odd layout um even if it was to be a single family it's an incredibly
odd layout given the damage and that was part of the hardship there was actually a fire at this
property which the board can clearly see from the photos this is not just a pretty good shaped shell
with an open box i mean this building is in terrible condition for almost eight years now
um so the and there's no height uh insofar as an addition that extends from the roof it's just all
in the rear um and all and i don't believe that it would really affect wind conditions um given
again it's it's all the additions are viral and i respect your opinion on that but we need a study
i'm sorry miss russell i'm sorry okay if you look at the picture right here just showing you
you can see that the neighboring house
will be affected by that extension.
They're going to definitely have some type
of an issue with that. I just think that it's
not fair to that neighboring property
for you to extend out and be so
different than everyone else on the block.
I need one more time, please.
Thank you. I apologize.
I can comment
along the lines of
property to
the south, the sun
rises and it basically always shines to the south so our building would shadow to the north
the property to the north is owned by byron so the only property where that would really gain
additional shadow would be the vacant lot directly to the north of this building
thank you all right is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand there's a couple members in the community that are having trouble figuring
out how to raise their hand from their phone um is it star six is it star nine i'm just i don't
typically dial in so i'm not it's star nine it's uh star nine and then uh and then star six thank
you chair we have byron watson you may unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
Mr. Watson, please spell your full name
Mr. Watson, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
and I'll swear you in.
That's the owner.
He was already.
Oh, yeah.
I thought there was another one.
I apologize.
I'm sorry.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Yes, we have Heather Logan.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chat.
Thank you, Ms. Logan.
Hello.
Spell your full name and I will swear you in.
heather h-e-a-t-h-e-r logan l-o-g-a-n your address
two zero two two west glenwood avenue you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth yes i do and how far away is that where you're at how far is it from where
you reside to this property it's directly behind me oh behind you thank you please proceed
So we, I am a concerned resident. I was in on the RCO meetings that we had with the community.
The majority of the people on our block are okay with having, and I can also speak for the block
captain because she's my aunt. With all due respect, you have to testify on your behalf.
not a problem i can i can do that um i don't have an issue with the building as a whole or with the
um additions that the applicant is trying to do for the property this building has been an eyesore
in the community um to have him come in and beautify the building would be a blessing for
the community as well. We've also asked Mr. Watson to work with the community as a whole,
and he has agreed to all of those concerns. The meetings that we had, we did bring up the
basement easement and things of that nature. His architect did explain what those, why he needed
the basement easement, and the office space in the basement. All of those things are absolutely
fine. I can state for myself, I don't have an issue with anything that this project is going
through at this time thank you chairman i think you're on mute
thank you i apologize anyone else to testify in this case
yes chair we have crystal merit please unmute yourself and please wait for the
good afternoon ma'am or please please spell your full name i'll swear you in
yes my full name is crystal c-r-y-s-t-a-l merit m-e-r-r-i-t-t and your address
2433 north 20th street thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir thank you man please proceed um i've been on this block and i'm not
quite sure um if i don't you know i don't remember well i've been on this block for maybe five years
i have never no one has never come i don't even know who who's supposed to be representing our
block but i am the assistant block captain on 20th street um mr byron um came and and we welcome
now i went around and and and the community on our block because that's where the uh
the property will be rebuilt on our block and we are so excited to have that building redone
and and and he also is contributing to the community by helping us fix up um these lots
pick gates around them um um and we welcome that um i don't know who miss tina marie is
because she already spoke so i'm sure i can you know kind of say i never met her i don't know her
I don't know why she's saying our community here on 20th Street, because we don't know who she is.