Chair and his 33 attendees, and you can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is Ismail Shahid, who will be functioning as our vice chair for this meeting.
present Mr. Chairman and James Snell our board member present Mr. Chairman also here is our
board attorney Hillary Emerson and our ZBA hearing supervisor Lakeisha Dandy
before we begin here's our virtual format be advised the proceedings are being recorded
by participating you a knowledge agreement to be recorded the video will be available by contacting
tanyasunkett at phil .gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying. If you are 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 prompting question.
And finally, the question -answer box on the screen is not for comments.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumpit.
Let's look at continuances for today.
Case number eight.
mi 2022 003 395 1510 north 25th street that case is continued and number 10
M -I -2021 -004 -545 -636 North 11th Street, that case is continue, attorney moving party.
Are there any comments about the two cases I've just continued?
I see no hands raised, Chair.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
also no hands raised all right and number two
number two mi 2022 003 778 2708 commerce way this case has been withdrawn are there any other
Any request for withdrawals?
I see one hand raised by Harry Cook.
That's not letting me.
Mr. Harry Cook, are you in the audience?
Hi, good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Harry Cook.
Good morning, Mr. Cook.
Could you say your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Harry Cook, H -A -R -R -Y -C -O -O -K, Anastasio Law.
All right.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I represent Burlum Town Watch and Civic Association.
Wait one minute, sir.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, sir.
Your case is MI -2022 -002 -637 -7248 Rising Sun Avenue?
That is correct, sir.
And it's a dual appeal.
I just wanted to update the board.
I believe Jared Klein is counsel for applicant who's here.
They are going to, and this is contingent upon what Mr. Klein is going to represent on the board, but the appellee developer is going to abandon the pending, the application that's subject to this appeal and has unilaterally decided to go with another buy right.
and has unilaterally decided to go with another by -right permit.
As a result, this appeal will be -
So, Mr. Cook, why don't I bring Mr. Klein on, right?
That would be, yes.
And also Leonard Reuter, please.
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
And Erica Briggs, sir.
And Erica Briggs, too.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Hi, good morning. Mr. Klein, could you state your name and spell for
the court reporter, please? Certainly. It's Jared Klein, J -A -R -E -D, last name Klein, K -L -E -I -N,
from Blank Rome, 130 North 18th Street. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. All right. While others are joining.
oh sorry leonard hello yes hi uh leonard reuter uh l -e -o -n -a -i -d -r -e -u -t -e -r senior attorney for
the city of philadelphia all right do you swear a friend to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do and miss briggs good morning chairman erica briggs e -r -i -c -a -b -r -i -g -g -s
right okay do you swear from the tell truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
yes i do mr cook we'll go back to you thank you mr chair um so as i was stating um i think uh
you know jared mr klein is going to represent to the board that they have unilaterally decided to
abandon the subject uh permit and go with another by right permit and upon those representations
this appeal then becomes moot, and we would be withdrawing as a result along with the council
office. All right. Mr. Klein? Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct. So my client obtained ZP 2022 -006317
on August 10th of 2022, and it is the owner applicant's intention to develop under that
permit not under the permits at issue in the appeal okay thank you miss briggs um chairman
our position is in accordance with mr cooks okay and mr reuter i'm sure you're fine uh yeah i'm
fine i just want the record to be clear there are actually two separate appeals i do i have i i'm
going to call two out okay and i was not clear ms briggs you are representing who in this matter
i'm i'm representing council member phillips oh okay okay all right so uh thanks so so case
number five mi -2022 -002 -637 -7248 rising sun avenue that case is withdrawn and case number
9 -MI -2022 -00 -877 -7248 -Rising -Sadamino. That case is also withdrawn. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So we're going to start with, let's go here,
uh Tupacockett Street case number four MI 2021 -005 -028 -224 -30 Tupacockett Street
Steve Masters is the attorney Michael Phillips is the attorney for the property owner
and Leonard Reuter is the attorney for the city
good morning mr masters good morning mr chair members could you state your name please and
spell for the court reporter my name is steve masters s -t -e -v -e m -a -s -t -e -r -s right do you
swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do right mr phillips
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Michael Phillips, Claire Harrison, Harvey Bransburg, PHILLIPS, 1835 Market Street, 14th floor, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
You're on behalf of the property owner, permit slash permit holder, Topa Hopkins Mansion, LLC.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And Mr. Reuter, you've already been sworn.
Um, counsel tells me that Mr. Phillips, you want to make a motion?
Yes. Um, Mr. Chair, we, uh, are here on, uh, Mr. Masters' client's appeal of building permits
that were issued, uh, to conform to a Commonwealth court opinion that reinstated certain provisos,
um, that were, uh, ordered in connection with my client's development.
um that were uh ordered in connection with my client's development of this property
uh and mr master's uh appeal relates to whether or not uh the approved plan conforms uh to the
am i still here hello
it actually uh mr chairman it looks like at least to us i think your your video is frozen
um at least from my end oh looks like it's back we're back we're back okay okay my apologies so
uh quite a bit of that okay uh yeah we are here just relating to provisos uh that were issued
back in october 2017 and went through a long journey of being reversed upheld and ultimately
the commonwealth court uh reinstated provisos issued by the board related to parking along
west pastoria street excuse me mr chair this this is actually my appeal so if mr
phillips has a motion i think he needs to get to his motion because
mr phillips what's your so we have a pending variant uh appeal that's scheduled to be heard
by the board on april 26th that seeks to legalize um the parking along pastoria there were 15 spaces
that were prohibited by this proviso.
We have support from Councilwoman Cindy Bass,
and I believe that if granted at the April 26th hearing,
that would move this proceeding
because we would then be proceeding
under that reissued zoning permit that allows the parking.
So in the effort of administrative efficiency and economy,
we would propose that this hearing
or any determination be deferred until after consideration of the variance which could moot
this entire issue. Mr. Masters. I'm going to share my screen, Mr. Chair.
So the zoning code provides concerning appeals to the zoning board of adjustment that
that the zoning board shall make a decision on the appeal within a reasonable time after
receiving the appeal. In this case, I'm going to present now a timeline of what we're talking
about with this appeal. December 22, 2021, the appeal against LNI that we're here for today was
time -stamped and received by the zoning board. One month later, on January 18, 2022, we had our
first scheduled hearing. There was a request for a continuance by Mr. Phillips. No testimony was
allowed, and the board granted that continuance. Two months after you've received the appeal,
on February 15, there was a second scheduled hearing. Mr. Phillips made a motion to dismiss.
That motion was denied. There was a continuance that was granted to Mr. Phillips, and no testimony was allowed. Then four and a half months total passed after the appeal on May 4, 2022. The third scheduled hearing was held in this case.
You heard oral arguments, and then the board continued this case for a hearing on the merits. Then seven months transpired until today's hearing, and this is the fourth scheduled zoning board hearing.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, it's our contention that the zoning board, if you were to continue this case one more time, we believe that even today you're not within the reasonable time mandate that the zoning code requires of you to expeditiously act on an appeal.
It's been quite a bit more than one year since this appeal was received by the board. And therefore, we contend, number one, that there is no basis whatsoever for postponing of this case.
But number two, what Mr. Phillips wants to do can only be done if the two cases have been consolidated and are related to each other.
There are many, many cases that happen before this board that have some relation to each other.
There could be cases happening on the same block.
There could be cases happening with the same property.
Mr. Phillips hasn't made any motion to consolidate the appeal.
And in fact, he can't because this appeal was brought by us against LNI and the appeal that he's going to be prosecuting in front of you in April was brought by the.
prosecuting in front of you in April was brought by the property owner. So there is no unity of
parties that would allow for that kind of a consolidation. And therefore, this case has to
move forward today. If it doesn't move forward today, Mr. Chair, we will be going and seeking
contempt, another contempt action with the Commonwealth Court, because the Commonwealth
Court has instructed us to seek administrative relief from the from LNI and from the zoning board,
which we which we attempted to do, which we did with with with all proper form and in good faith.
And if the board continues to refuse to move forward with our case and to give us the hearing
that we we deserve, then we have no choice but to go and seek sanctions, not just against Mr.
Phillips' client for the last
five years for defying
the proviso of this board
but also against the board
if you refuse to
move forward today. Thank you,
Mr. Masters. Leonard?
I mean, the city's position
is that
if, let's say, this
case were to move forward and
the court were to find the
permit that was issued invalid
you know, some some other form of relief. Presumably, there would be an appeal from that
either taken by the city and or Mr. Phillips client. And in the meantime, there is an
outstanding permit application, which already got a refusal, which is already scheduled before this
board, the result of which would, in fact, moot this entire case. So I mean, it's kind of at that
point irrelevant i mean if if they if the permit is deemed invalid but a new permit is issued uh
in you know after assuming again obviously i'm not predicting that the board would grant that
variance but certainly if a variance uh were granted that would definitely moot this case
the sit you know the city wouldn't i mean the revocation of the permit would really be kind of
you know again it would be moot it wouldn't matter because it would be a new permit that had taken
place um so it makes sense to to me and to the city to wait and see what happens with the variance
case uh just because again i think that it would the outcome of that very well may moot this case
in fact it probably moots it anyway uh there's an argument that the application itself moots
moots this matter um but uh you know i mean that being said we we have uh the two city witnesses
that were subpoenaed, Mr. Bednar and Mr. Montaigne, as I believe is in the audience,
who are here, will defer to the board on this. But again, my fear is that this is ultimately
becomes a waste of time. Well, Mr. Chair, the reason it's not a waste of time is because what
Mr. Phillips has brought in April is not a typical variance request. The only way that the board can
give relief to Mr. Phillips' client is if it finds that the proviso is no longer applicable
to the property. This is not a case where it's not a regular variance case whatsoever. The
proviso controls everything about what can happen at Mr. Bilby's property once that proviso was
entered in 2017 so if we don't go forward today we don't clarify what this proviso requires and
what it doesn't require and what its parameters are then we're going to have the same the same
level of of um the same challenges um but at this point uh we there there really is for for five
years now or over five years, we've been waiting for this board to clarify what is allowed under
this proviso and what is not. And this is the day to do it, we submit, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, if I may just briefly respond.
You can, Mr. Phillips.
And I'll be very brief. First of all, the Commonwealth Court has already made the
decisions of Mr. Masters' protestations based on that, I think, are misplaced and misguided.
But I would say that if this does not proceed today, we're looking at April 26. And to date this back to 2017 is disingenuous because that's when the original hearing was. But this has gone up and down to the Court of Commons Pleas, to the Commonwealth Court, back to the Court of Commons Pleas, back to the Commonwealth Court.
So there's a long procedural history here. And this is a typical variant, the other case on April 26th, that would, again, absolutely move any prior permit that was issued because it would be a brand new zoning permit that controls the use and dimensional requirements of this property.
of this property. So I'm looking to administrative efficiency and not proceeding with a long
So, you know, I'm looking to
hearing that could only become moot in three months. And in three months, the variance is
denied. We can immediately pick up and address the parameters of the proviso consistent with
the Commonwealth Court's order. This won't happen in April. We will go to the Commonwealth Court
and seek sanctions against Mr. Phillips' client and against the Zoning Board.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. So thank all three of you. We're going to grant Mr. Phillips'
motion, okay? Thank you. We're going to go to case number one.
MI 2021 -004 -548 -4306 -08 Parkside Avenue.
Darwin, Bovet.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, do we want, so we are going to have an alternate board member joining us shortly, but should we, don't have, sorry, give me a second to find the number.
Should we do number six first?
We could, sure.
okay number six then we may be able to do the north 11th street cases followed by parkside
okay all right okay we should have we should have our alternate board member joining about
10 o 'clock okay number six mi 2022 003 270 2301 east tayoga rachel pritzker and brandon
sabrin are the attorneys involved letter of support from harrogate civic association letter
of non -opposition from councilman squillett good morning brandon good morning good morning count
or rachel yeah i just want to make sure that chris class can be added as well just it'll save some
time okay he's the architect sure um rich why don't we start with you why don't you uh state
your name and spell for the court reporter? Sure. Thank you, Chairman. Rachel, R -A -C -H -A -E -L,
Pritzker, P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R, 1521 Locust Street, Suite 605, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
And Brandon, could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. B -R -A -N -D -O -N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N, with the same firm at the same
address okay do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do yes and mr class could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
sure christopher class of design blends architecture uh chris c -h -r -i -s class c -l -a -s -s
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do miss pritzker could you identify your client in relationship to the property
yes absolutely our um i apologize brandon do you have the llc yeah our our client is sep viva
lofts llc um they are authorized to act as the applicant by the property owner who is the city
of philadelphia okay and mr shaheed has a few questions for you good morning council do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Yes, we do.
Have you all sent in all of the required documents five days in advance to this hearing? Yes. Yes.
All right. You all can proceed to share your screen. Thank you. I'm going to be brief,
Chairman and members of the Board, and then turn it over to Brandon. Again, this is for 2201 East
Tioga. My name is Rachel Pritzker. I also represent the applicant again who has permission
from the Philadelphia Land Bank to move forward with this application. I was involved with the
submission of the application to the Philadelphia Land Bank back in February 15th of 2021. I also
was responsible with the applicant and with the land bank to make sure we had a completed application.
it's worth noting in the event that there's any opposition to this case that I spoke with the
executive director of the land bank who has let me know and allowed me to share that we are the
only qualified application that this property has seen the property has been held by the city for
almost two decades and again we are the only qualified application that the city has seen
for this property I worked through the process to obtain the community support as the board has
written notice of, in addition to obtaining support from Councilman Squill's office and
working in completing the civic design review process. I'm happy to be here for the board in
um for the board in the event there's any questions related to that process but i'm going to turn over
the event there's any questions related to that process, but I'm going to turn it over to Brandon
to brandon saverin to present the case and um again i'm here if you have any questions or need
anything related to what i mentioned thank you so much okay thanks uh mr chairman and members of
the board so um if you are inclined to grant the variance today we have submitted revised plans
that are two pages long. The revised plans simply remove three units from the project. So
this is a 70 -unit proposal to be developed on a site that has been vacant, as Rachel mentioned,
for several decades and is contaminated to some degree by the industrial activity that occurred
there prior. I'm going to get into that shortly. I will mention that there's two refusals that
this application triggered. One is due to the fact that in the property's ICMX district,
there's no residential use allowed. The other has to do with the landscaping that is being
offered around the property. So I'll share that refusal in a moment. But before I do that,
I'm going to allow Chris to share the project plans and go into specifics on that landscaping
refusal.
I'll then go into specifics on the use refusal.
So Chris.
Brandon, you have a picture of she could you show us something first, like what we're going
to look at?
Yeah, absolutely.
And Chris is going to do the same.
But you know what, Chris, Mr. Chairman, I'm so sorry, but I sort of figured Chris would
do that.
He probably.
That's fine.
That's fine.
Go ahead.
okay so i'll share my screen thanks chris
okay is it able to see that yes okay um so i'll try to be brief but uh what you can see is uh the
site is currently vacant it's just over 31 000 square feet uh with street facing east tayoga
CEPVIVA, and Witte Street, there is adjacent development across from Witte Street of a
residential property and some existing larger scale buildings, but predominantly the neighborhood
consists of residential zone districts that have been split by a rail line and its associated
to industrial districts.
Let me just skip to a floor plan.
So we've identified two areas,
Sebiva Street being primarily dedicated
to vehicular access and Wade Street pedestrian access.
We're proposing a significant amount of parking
on the ground floor, knowing that that's a desire
to hire for this location with some public space
fronting Tioga Street and its associated utilities
along Sepp Viva Street.
From the two refusals that were generated,
first being the residential use.
As I mentioned, this fabric consists of predominantly
residentially zoned districts.
And this lot that we're looking at is capped by residential
development to the plan east. You know, we feel that it is certainly appropriate to continue this
fabric into this location. The number of dwelling units that were selected for this property was
based on the significant environmental cleanup and costs associated with the stormwater management to
to make the project feasible.
As it relates to the variance requests for the landscaping,
the zoning code requires us to provide landscaping,
not only to buffer areas of parking,
but also to provide interior landscaping
that intends to break up long spans of spaces.
In this plan, you can see that a majority
of the site building is being covered up by the parking,
which makes it difficult to provide interior landscaping to break up the spaces because it can't be put in areas where it is mostly drive lane.
In an effort to meet the requirement or, you know, fulfill the spirit of the code,
we provide a significant amount of landscaping that surrounds the drive lane so that it screens it from the public right away.
the reason that this refusal was generated was because of its location and not being dispersed
between the parking spaces which we elected not to for reasons I previously mentioned
so we are still exceeding the amount of landscaping but the refusal comes into its
actual location which would require it to be dispersed and between the spaces and lower our
between the spaces and lower our actual yield. Moving up to the typical level as you can see
actual yield.
the remainder of the building is predominantly one and two bedroom units. Building forms still
complying with all the dimensional constraints of the ICMX district. Our building design consists of
predominantly brick facades that try to tie into the uh the nature of the adjacent buildings and
their uh factory inspired designs uh while still maintaining a residential feel and proportion
uh because of the the more residential oriented districts uh surrounding it
brand is there anything additionally that you'd like me to touch base on while i have the
presentation. Chris, let me just ask you a few questions. So to reiterate, there were no
dimensional refusals triggered by your design. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And the project
offers 62 car parking spaces. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And as far as that landscaping refusal,
I think what I heard from you were the couple factors making it hard to comply were one,
that a large majority of that parking lot is covered by the upper floors of the building.
So those plantings wouldn't be able to get a lot of natural light.
Is that fair to say?
Yes, exactly.
And then secondly, you know, it's sort of a compact design in the interior of the lot.
So you don't want to be doing plantings like very close to drive aisles.
Is that also fair to say?
Right.
This allows the site to operate much more efficiently for vehicles passing, you know, through the site, allowing a wider drive lane.
Okay. And, you know, to sort of make up from that, both on the interior of the site to the east and south, and then in the street, you know, the sidewalk right of way on the other sides, it looks like we're doing a pretty, pretty good amount of interior, sorry, perimeter planting on your landscaping plan that you're showing there. Is that correct?
Yeah, so on the areas of the right -of -way, we're providing a significant amount of new street trees along the sidewalks and then internally landscape buffers that will screen all the parking within the site.
Okay, and Chris, last question. This is just so the board can identify within the exhibit packet. This landscaping plan was something that you submitted to the CDR review board, is that correct?
Correct. We had a civil plan, which I can attach here. This was presented both to the Civic Design Review and to the community.
Okay. Thank you. So, Chris, if you could stop sharing your screen, I'm going to take over there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. Let's see if I can. Okay. Members of the board, I'll pick up from there and I'll also try to be brief.
So what I have on the screen right now is a portion of the application that one has to make to the land bank to apply to acquire the property.
And the acquisition of the property would be completed if the board chooses to grant the variances we're seeking today.
This is one of many pages of the application, but the reason I'm highlighting this one is this sort of paragraph is a written commitment that half, 51 % or more of the units, and that's right here where my mouse is, would be set aside for affordable housing, meaning that half of the units in the building have to be rent limited so they're affordable to people making 120 % of AMI or less.
And I think within that, there's actually 10 % of units that would be dedicated to folks making 80 % of AMI or less.
But a full half of the units in this building are going to be rented at a controlled manner that's not market rate.
Let me see if I can get to my next page here.
So just to give the board a quick sense of where the project is located, where my mouse is, a little difficult to see is the property.
Here's Aramingo Avenue, the portion that has a lot of drive up shopping centers, if the board members are familiar with that area.
And then here is I -95, Betsy Ross Bridge.
And here to the west of the property is Frankfurt Avenue and then the L on Kensington Avenue.
So this property is sort of, you know, in the middle of the Aramingo corridor and the Frankfurt and Kensington corridors.
And as Chris mentioned, this is an interesting little neighborhood in that there are perhaps one or two active industrial uses across the streets on the south side of Tioga Street, but our north side of Tioga Street is almost entirely residential.
but our north side of Tioga Street is almost entirely residential. A lot of it's been
residential for many decades. And then within recent decades or the last decade, the industrially
zoned parcels that immediately surround the property were converted to residential.
So as a result of that, I'm sorry, and this is our refusal just to kind of get back to that for
two seconds. Here's our refusal that says that residential living is prohibited in this ICMX
district. Here's our refusal regarding the lack of interior landscaping. Let me go to this. So
this is a report that the applicant had commissioned by a city planning firm. And that
land planner who authored the report, and he's available today for questioning, his name's
George Ritter. This is a field study that his firm completed. What this map looks at is not
what the zoning designations are, but what the actual uses of the properties are that surround
the subject property, which is here. And what you can see is that this large parcel to the left on
your map, this would be the north, still is industrially zoned, but this is a warehouse or
factory that has already been converted to residential use. This is called the frame factory
lofts. It is permitted and therefore I believe has 52 dwelling units. This is another residential
building that is another conversion, which I think may have just completed construction or
is under construction that has 47 units at 2215 East Tioga. And these, I'll call them
tan parcels here are largely lower density, like single family home residential blocks.
So sort of the point of this map is to say that while across Tioga Street, there may be more
diversity of uses, this cluster here, which again is represented on the zoning map here where my
cursor is, despite the zoning, this is truly a residential neighborhood. And what that means in
terms of impacts on this site, to go back to our map, is that this is a very poor candidate at this
point for residential, for commercial or industrial use, which is what the zoning designation would
allow. So why is that? Our frontage on Tioga Street is only 100 feet long. And as a result
of that, to avoid cars or trucks from backing out onto Tioga Street, which would be dangerous,
one or both of our side streets would have to be used for circulation and these are residential
streets because that's what the uses along these streets are they're residential as a result of
that putting an industrial or commercial use here especially with deliveries which would be made by
truck almost certainly would introduce really a noxious hazard to the neighbors and as a result
of that, we have support to make this property a residential property from the RCO. This is our
RCO letter. We also have a letter of non -opposition from the councilman. So what we did beyond sort
of having this planning evaluation made is we had a commercial development firm called Wright
Partners evaluate the site. This is a firm that actually builds small commercial buildings like
like drugstores, banks, urgent care centers, sort of like your smaller end of new commercial users
because the property is vacant. So anything here is going to be brand new. It's going to be ground
up. And what this firm concluded is that, as I mentioned, the property can't accommodate the
circulation of larger medium trucks. And that further, the development of a smaller commercial
structure is infeasible on this site because it's not at least 200 feet wide. So because of that,
this would be an unusual building for a new commercial building. It would be a very narrow
one that would be unlikely to attract sort of a grade A commercial tenant. It would not be the
kind of building that a good commercial tenant would be looking for because it would be very
narrow and it would have very poor car and truck access. So as a result of that, that's a problem
particularly here because of the past environmental contamination on the site. So I only have a couple
minutes left. I'm going to take you through the history of the property very quickly and explain
how that led to the environmental contamination and how that contamination means added cost to
develop this site, which we need, you know, very sort of safe, sure use of this property to pay for.
sort of safe sure use of this property to pay for so this in front of you is a permit that shows
that and there's many of these in the archives since 1933 the advent of the zoning code
starting then and for a few decades after this was a galvanizing plant it was a plant for the
the galvanizing of metals. And what happened, if I can flip to a permit from the 70s here,
is that by 1974, at the latest, the archive reflects that that use had been abandoned.
The planets had shut down. So this is a 1974 permit indicating that the building was vacant.
And then by 2013, sorry, 2003, another permit indicates that L &I had come along and demolished the plant building for lack of maintenance.
Sometime after that, the city actually acquired the site, perhaps for something like tax delinquency.
So the sum total of that is that it's been either vacant or abandoned or used for illegal purposes like dumping and illegal storage for half a century. So there's been nothing productive here for a very long time.
Um, what, what is precisely the, the environmental impact of that past galvanizing use? It's that the company Urban Engineers that conducted the phase one environmental review on this site found these three issues, that there are metals in the soil above statewide standards for acceptability, that there is free floating chemical products in the shallow groundwater table,
and that there is at least one large underground storage tank probably that was used for petroleum
fuel. These issues have to be remediated regardless of what the use of the property is.
So this is a summary letter by the firm that did the phase one that I just showed you.
And what they concluded in terms of next steps here are that the above preferred remedial action,
which is capping, I'll describe in a second, would be the same regardless of residential
or commercial slash industrial redevelopment of the site. So the applicant or whoever would
develop this property has to pay for environmental remediation regardless of what is going to go on
here. And the applicant actually put together this model that showed, and I'll point out in a second
what A and B mean, but they looked at two different development possibilities. And regardless of what
is developed here, there are some very large fixed costs that have to do with cleaning up
the contamination. And those, in a very brief manner, I'll tell you what has to happen is
most of the site needs to be capped with a new concrete podium. And any portion of the site that
isn't capped, perhaps because we do want some landscaping. The soil has to be removed. It has
to be replaced with new soil. And the old soil has to be sent to a special facility where it can
be scrubbed of chemicals. Finally, we have to have a very sort of high -end stormwater management
system because we can't let our stormwater just seep into the soil as normally happens. It has
to be captured, put into a tank, and then piped directly into the sewer system so that we're not
running even rainwater through the soil. This is all for public safety. And we would do these
things. And that letter by the environmental firm concluded that those actions would safely address
what's going on here. But because they need to be taken, it adds a lot of expense to any
development of this site. So the question becomes, you know, what type of project can cover
these environmental -related expenses and the tremendous expense of building any new building.
And because the site is not well -suited for commercial or industrial use,
perhaps we could attract some tenant for those uses, but it would be risky. And it certainly
wouldn't be a flagship sort of grade A tenant with good finances. They're not interested in
a site this narrow that depends on narrow residential streets for access. That all means
that residential is the only safe bet. And further, there's a minimum number of units that
has to be developed to make sure that we can finance the development of even a residential
building. So this A and B here on this slide, scenario A is the 70 -unit building. Scenario B
is a 65 -unit building, which we also analyzed as an alternative. And if we're going to do this
commitment to affordability, which is important to the seller of the property, the land bank.
What it means is that a 65 -unit building, this model shows, would not...
What it means is that a 65 -unit building, this model shows, would not return a steady, positive cash flow until year 13 of the building's operation.
The first 12 years of the existence of a 65 -unit project, the building would be losing money.
That's not going to be able to attract financing.
A 70 -unit building, on the other hand, would return a positive cash flow in its second year of operation and thereafter.
So what that means is that 70 units, given a margin of error of one or two units, is really the minimum number of units that can be developed here and make this project work financially.
Therefore, that's what we call the minimum necessary relief under the law, to the extent that there's a minimum necessary relief requirement on this property.
I think I can pretty much wrap it up there.
I would like to bring on one or two folks from the developer team to adopt my testimony and maybe add one or two comments.
But again, we believe that the industrial or commercial development of this site simply is not feasible.
That represents a hardship.
We can't comply with the code, therefore.
And that 70 units is the minimum that would make this project feasible.
So can I give you the names of the folks I'd like to bring on, Mr. Chairman?
Okay. So those individuals would be Justin Kaplan and Blaine Stoddard.
Mr. Kaplan?
Brandon, Phil Balderston is on the call.
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So in lieu of Justin, we have Phil Balderston.
Thank you, Rachel.
Phil Botterston has been allowed to talk.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Philip Botterston, P -H -I -L -I -P, Botterston, B -A -L -D -E -R -S -T -O -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Phil, first of all, are you authorized to speak on behalf of Sep V. Valaft's LLC?
Okay. Did you hear the full extent of my testimony this morning?
I did.
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it was.
Would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own?
Okay. Anything else you want to add, Phil?
No, I think that's fine.
Okay. Thanks.
Questions from the board.
Oh, Mr. Chairman, we did one additional because there's a partner investor in this process. I'd like him to adopt my testimony as well.
Oh, sure.
Thank you. And that's Blaine, who's on, I see.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Blaine, would you unmute yourself if you're there?
Yes, he's unmuted. He just would need to speak.
Hi. Hi. State your name and spell, please, for the court reporter.
Mr. Stoddard, are you available?
He is unmuted, though.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Seems as he's having technical difficulties.
Okay, fine. We're fine.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands raised thank you i'm sorry there's one uh okay oh alturo hall
hi could you state your name please hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
please yes alturo hall a -l -t -o -r -o last name hall h -a -l -o do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Proceed. On behalf of the Commerce
Department, I'm requesting that the permit at 2201 East Tioga Street be denied. The site and
questions within the thriving and established industrial section of the city. Additionally,
the operation of the current adjacent industrial users would be negatively impacted if multi -residential
development becomes their neighbor the cohabitation of heavy industrial operations comprising of
sound smells vehicles deliveries uh adjacent to residential housing often leads to community
complaints, followed by punitive measures against the industrial user and
followed by punitive measures against the industrial user and requires potential location.
This site is currently used, would be used for industrial purposes, if could be,
and the characteristic support is continued use as a viable industrial site.
Once again, the project would also create negative consequences for the industrial user and adjacent residents.
so therefore we we request that uh it be denied thank you chairman yes i'd like to briefly respond
to that and then i'd like to um allow angel rodriguez who is the executive director of the
land bank to speak as well it's been kind enough to attend i just want to mention that um we do
have a land planner um and we did submit significant documentation and proof to the validity of the
use here. I don't believe we have obtained any documentation, proof, or information aside from
Mr. Alturo's speculative testimony related to any negative impacts. Again, the property has been
held by the Land Bank and the City of Philadelphia since at least 2000. It's now 2023. There have
been no applications that are qualified related to any commercial or industrial use. There has
not been the denial of the ability to do so. And again, the testimony provided by Mr. Hall has been
speculative at best. Additionally, I just want to mention that we did have a number of community
meetings where we did have to submit certified letters requesting attendance at both a community
meeting and CDR hearings at which Commerce Department did not attend, neither did anybody
from the community to voice any opposition for this project at all or any concerns related to
its location near any other commercial or industrial buildings. I want to just allow
Mr. Rodriguez to speak, and then again, happy to answer. Is he in the audience? Yes. Okay.
Mr. Rodriguez, you're allowed to speak?
State her name, state his name again, please. Ms. Angel Rodriguez, can you unmute yourself?
Certainly. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Hi, yes. Could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter? Certainly. Angel Rodriguez, A -N -G -E -L. Rodriguez, R -O -D -R -I -G -U -E -Z.
I'm the executive director of the Philadelphia Land Bank. All right. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed, counsel. So I just want to
report to the board that point in fact what Ms. Pritzker had mentioned was true. What we're
talking about here is uh if anyone has been utilizing it in the industrial corridor they've
been doing it in illegally occupying city -owned properties i can tell you that uh through
extensive conversations with the commissioner of public property the council office and even
our own internal piece this is why we allowed this property to be conveyed out as um for
residential development um we do require all developers to meet with the community and if
there were any opposition we would have tried to address that issue we did not see that it
was brought before the philadelphia land bank board it was affirmed and we sent it to council
council res resolved to allow for the disposition so as proposed uh and what's being brought before
the board at no point in time in commercial when we have public property meetings did commerce ever
raise any objections to this. So I would just say that we've been through this process for
several months. I was a little shocked about hearing this now. All right. Mr. Pritzker,
do you have any questions? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I really do apologize to have to do
this, but because a court would likely deem the Commerce Department to have standing to bring a
court action. And because I am not an expert in the planning field, I have to bring on the
gentleman who authored that planning report to briefly sort of back or give his own statement
as to a summary of his report. That's going to be a requirement in the event that this was to
go to litigation. That should only take a couple minutes if I could bring him on.
What's his name?
George Ritter.
mr ritter hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
ritter state your name again please yes my name is i -t -t -e -r okay do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed um george in a moment
George, in a moment, I'm going to ask you essentially to summarize your report.
i'm going to ask you essentially to um
But just before I do that, can you provide the board a brief explanation of who you are and your knowledge and experience, keeping in mind that I've already put your CV into the record?
Yes. I've practiced in the field of land planning now for more than 35 years.
years. AICP certified. I've appeared before numerous planning boards in both Pennsylvania
and New Jersey to discuss subjects of land use planning and issues. I've also appeared
as an expert witness in the field of land planning before the Superior.
I have a BS in landscape architecture from Penn State University and a master's in
okay Brandon he seems to be going in and out yeah we'll do the best we can so Mr. Chairman I just
would like to make a motion to admit Mr. Ritter as an expert in the field of land planning
Okay, thank you.
So, George, you've sort of heard the back and forth between myself and the Commerce Department
representative.
Can you summarize your report insofar as it addresses the current flavor of land uses
on our side of Tioga Street and what sort of use on this property would be more appropriate
in terms of industrial or commercial versus residential?
uh yes essentially what we did is we went out and did a
both north southeast and west of the property uh and took a look at what was actually going
on in the neighborhood as compared to uh what is some of the properties are actually zoned
which we all know many of these names really reflect the current uses on the ground.
What we found was it is particularly suited for residential development
because the neighborhood within which it is sitting has substantially changed over the years.
uh what were industrially zoned and developed properties have been converted to resident
uh it's been pointed out that basically to the uh west of the property west of septiva street we
have uh brandon i think brandon just for a point of information i think you've covered
what he said okay i mean why don't why don't we try to move him a little bit
George, thank you. Yeah, you're cutting in and out a little bit, but thanks, Mr. Chairman,
I understand. And George's full report is also in the record. So that's fine. The last thing I just
wanted to touch on to clarify, Rachel and Mr. Rodriguez's statements is that I believe this
project was sort of flushed through public comment opportunity at the land bank board meeting during
the RCO meeting regarding this variance and during the CDR process. While I believe there were, I
think, four out of 18 attendees at the RCO meeting for the variance expressed some degree of
opposition, none of those were industrial or commercial users. Those were just certain
individuals who live in the neighborhood. So that's the point. There's been no industry who's
come out of the woodwork that we have a problem with this. All right. Is there anyone else in
virtual audience who has a comment. I see no hands, Chair.
Hi, Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. My last name is spelled H -E -G -A -R -T -Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Proceed. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Board members.
Board members, this proposal completed Civic Design Review in July 2022.
Just as a note, the CDR process and the CDR recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation.
The comprehensive plan recommended industrial zoning for this block when this neighborhood was remapped in 2017, according to the comp plan.
The community recommended ICMX and PCPC accepted that, and that was eventually incorporated into these neighborhood remapping that was adopted by City Council.
That was done to retain the industrial zoning, but also allow commercial uses.
That was done to allow additional business options for these industrial properties, while still promoting uses that are generally compatible with industrial zoning in this industrial area, which extends well beyond the blocking question.
That was done to allow additional business options for these industrial zones.
While the City Planning Commission is generally supportive of affordable housing, and we appreciate the challenges of redeveloping this site, the Comprehensive Plan does specifically recommend discouraging residential uses in the Aramingo industrial area.
this is part of the adopted plan and the language is very clear. The Aramingo industrial area is
broader than just this block that's been analyzed by the Appalance Land Use Planner and extends
quite a good distance to the southwest. The ICMX zoning here has two rationales. First,
changing use from industrial to residential introduces additional households into this
legacy industrial area, which has heightened exposure levels of air and soil pollution.
And second, industrial, sorry, new residential uses degrade the viability of existing industrial
uses as described by the representative from the Commerce Department.
The proposed use, therefore, directly conflicts with the recommendations of the comprehensive
We further believe that the appellant has not shown evidence of unique physical circumstances
that prevent the range of uses permitted in ICMX.
Lots of this size are routinely developed with light industrial and retail uses throughout the city.
We disagree that the site is totally unusable for these uses.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the use variants.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Savard and Ms. Pritzker, I'm going to have an executive session relative to what we heard today.
We'll do that next Wednesday morning.
Do we have a date for next Wednesday?
what's next Wednesday's date um January um 25th yeah yeah and we'll vote on that next Wednesday
at 9 30 yes next Wednesday morning at 9 30 okay and thank you everybody for your your input
thank you okay so we want to do do we have our person Hillary John yes Mr. Chair um John Monluck
has joined us as an alternate board member.
So what we're going to do is we're going to do the housing authority
cases, okay? Exactly.
Exactly. And then we can move on
to Parkside. Yes. Okay. All right.
thank you.
Ismail Shahid is going
to recuse himself from these two cases.
Number three.
Mr. Chair.
Yep. You're going to need someone else to
read it.
Yep. Yep.
We'll do it.
MI 2021 -005 -318 -649 -North 11th Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney and also, where's the other case here, number 7, MI 2021 -00519 -610
North 11th Street. Zen Jin is the attorney. Letter of support from 14th Ward, Democratic
Executive Committee with proviso. Good morning. Good morning. Could you state your name,
please and spell for the court reporter yes my name is zhenjin z -h -e -n j -i -n 1617 john f kennedy
boulevard suite 1838 total of your pa 19103 uh here on behalf of the applicant right do you
swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do um do you stipulate
to the refusals right and um have all your paperwork has been in an appropriate time
within five days? Yes. Okay. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. There is a preliminary
matter with regard to site control I want to address to the board. I believe, so this property
is a Philadelphia Housing Authority property that was licensed to Philadelphia Chinatown
Development Corporation. That licensing agreement unfortunately expired on December 31st of last
year. However, we do have a representative from the Philadelphia Housing Authority here today
to verify that my client, PCDC, is still authorized to move forward with the application.
We also have pending signed agreements of sale that will be coming soon, which we can then
forward to the board so the board may make a decision. This is per my conversation with
This is per my conversation with Ms. Emerson in the last day or two regarding the situation.
Ms. Emerson in the last day or two.
Hilary, are we okay with this?
Hilary?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Why don't we bring on the PHA representative and we can take care of that.
And then Mr. Jin can do the remainder of his testimony and we'll hold for the receipt of the agreements of sale.
Thank you.
I believe Mr. Xconde should be available to answer on behalf of PHA.
Mr. Xconde, oh, there he is.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Can you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yeah, it's Cyril Xconde, first name C -E -R -I -L -L -E, last name is Cyril Xconde.
Right.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Skande, can you verify to the zoning board that Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation is, in fact, authorized on behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Authority to move forward with this zoning application?
I can.
Thank you. And there is a pending agreement of sale that should be executed shortly, giving the rights directly of the sites to my client, and that would be forthcoming shortly, correct?
Yes, that is correct. If not this morning, then sometime tomorrow, to be just enough to get the signature finalized.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, is that sufficient for the board?
That's fine. Why don't you start your case?
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Xikande, for coming today.
Thank you.
I'm going to go ahead and share with the board the application for 610 North 11 first and then
followed by 649. We have submitted to the board previous documentation relating to 611 and 649
North 11. I have up before the board right now the refusal. Can everyone see that? Yes. Thank you.
So this is an application for essentially single family style housing in a RM1 district through the use of subdivision.
To give a little background to the idea behind this, my client, Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation, was given access to the land from Philadelphia Housing Authority with the condition that they build affordable housing.
And in order to give the best result for the affordable housing side, my client looked at the property, which is a single larger property for RM1 zoning, which incidentally would allow four units normally by right, and decided that in order to meet the affordable housing goals and in order to be able to sell the properties to those owners in the future,
the best possible way is to simply subdivide and redesign these as smaller single family units.
We met extensively with the community to discuss this particular project. There is a
benefits agreement and a marketing plan, all of which are also submitted as part of this application
exhibits, and we would ask that to be incorporated. Those negotiations essentially is to ensure that
people in the neighborhood would have the best ability to access, and that it would be a fair
and equal access to all when these projects are completed. The neighborhood does prefer to have
a single -family residential and has no objection to the change, considering that ultimately from
a density standpoint, we essentially have the same number of uses on this lot. A rendering
is provided, and this is essentially how the property may look once completed. As you can see,
we're going to try to keep the brick facade. That is something the community will prefer,
especially in red brick. And the way the properties will be divided, the access to each unit,
three would be on the street here, and one would be facing 11th Street. Each of these would
essentially be a single family house. The property's main variance is in fact a lot size.
We do want to point out that despite the fact that we have reduced the individual lots to
build the single units, we are leaving still rear yard space for these units, as well as there is
an access alleyway on the side. But again, these will be essentially smaller single family houses
that allows a lower value for income requirements
and therefore meet the affordable housing requirements.
So with regard to lots in the area,
So with regard to lots in the area, while not more than 80 % or 60 % of the lots may be that small, there are smaller lots in the area.
well, not...
So these lots and this design is not out of character with the neighborhood altogether.
together the need for the affordable housing and the goals of the development itself is in
conformance with the goals of the community. And therefore, we did receive support from the
community for this application. So again, the primary variance is for lot size. And in order
to meet the goals of providing the affordable housing, we do need to ask the board's favorable
consideration of the lot size variances and the use as single family, although ultimately it is
still four units in total on this site. This is the floor plan before the board. There are no
basement on the design. So this is first floor, second floor, and there is a third floor. There
is no basement and these will be individually accessed. That's its own small single family
unit. I'm happy to answer any questions, and my client is available to verify my testimony.
You want to present the second part? Is there a second?
Yes, I will go ahead and do that one as well.
When do you present that at the same time, right?
Sure. Thank you. So I am now going to share with the board the other application, which is the
649 North 11th Street.
Oh, I'm sorry, this did not come up properly.
Here we go.
All right.
So this is the second application, which is 649 North 11th Street.
This application differs slightly from the first one in that this particular lot is zoned RSA 5.
However, I'm going to move to the refusal simply for the subdivision of the lot, same as before, it is a lot size issue.
I'm going to move to the site plan and photos, which will make it easier for the board to see why we're asking for this particular variance.
So this is a large lot that runs from street to street.
In order to meet the goal of providing both affordable housing and yet maintaining a single -family style, we are proposing to have essentially a single -family house on each end of the lot facing each of the street, which will provide the ability for the development of two smaller single -family houses meeting the goal of affordability.
and still they're substantially sized at 1080 square feet,
the lot will simply be divided down the middle.
I want to point out this is not the only lot in that area
that has been divided in the past in this format.
So the smaller lot is not, again,
is not out of character with the neighborhood as far as the lots
and the use will continue to be a single family use.
Again, with the coordination with the RCO
and discussion of the proper ways to present this to the community,
we once again receive support on this particular request
as far as our variance requests from the RCO.
And this one is a variance from RSA 5s to two subdivided RSA 5 lots,
which will also be developed individually as single -family houses.
The floor plan, once again, is a three -story structure,
much like the other one without a basement uh each will have their own rear yard and each will
be used as a single family house again my client is here to verify my testimony why don't we bring
your client on sure um can we have uh miss uh caroline uh a -u -n -g be identified
Ms. Caroline, you've been allowed to talk.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Caroline Ong. I'm from the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation.
Hi, could you spell your name, please, for the court reporter?
Sure. It's spelled C -A -R -O -L -I -N -E. Last name is A -U -N -G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Ms. Ong, did you see my presentation and hear my testimony before the Zoning Board?
Yes. Can you verify my testimony is true and correct and adopted as your own?
Yes. Thank you. Okay. Questions from the Board?
None. No, Mr. Chairman. All right. No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands here high planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission with regard to 649 north 11th street in 2017 the zoning map
was amended from rm1 to rsa5 in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
this is a large through lot the proposed configuration is consistent with several
adjacent properties and with the physical features of the lot the city planning commission recommends
that the board grant the variance with regard to 610 north 11 street in 2017 the zoning map was
amended in this area and the property was intentionally left as rm1 multifamily although
separate lots are proposed the redevelopment substantially conforms to the form requirements
of rm1 and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variances
Thank you. We're going to continue this until we have the agreement of sales. The case is closed except for the submission of the agreement of sales. Am I right, Hillary?
Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair.
okay thank you all right thank thank you all right number one mi 2021 004 -548 -4306 -08
parkside avenue darwin beauvais is the attorney for um
the applicant and steve masters is the attorney for the protestants
mr chair this is hillary i just want to note for the record um on this case it will be um yourself
um ishmael shahid um i believe it's back in the room um and uh john monlock yes uh mr snell will
need to uh be leaving shortly thank you yes i'm back mr chair all right thanks ish okay
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Darwin Beauvais. That's Darwin, D -A -R -W -I -N. Beauvais is B as in boy, E -A -U -V as in victory, A -I -S as in Sam.
I'm counsel for the applicant, and I am located at Dilworth Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right, dear.
Right.
Mr. Masters?
Yes, I believe I was already sworn in.
You were already sworn.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Steve Masters, M -A -S -T -E -R -S, with the law firm of JustLaws.
I represent two RCOs who are in opposition to this application.
And if I remember, this is a redemptive hearing.
That's correct.
Beauvais, we were partly through your presentation, if I remember correctly, right?
That's correct.
So why don't we pick up from there?
Yes, and just to reorient the board, again, about this application, this application was originally designed in 2020.
The proposal included 15 residential units with commercial space and was issued initial refusals for rear yard, open space, density, and height.
The ZBA heard arguments in May 2021 and June 2021.
The community was very, very much up in arms about the project, and we pulled back and we did a complete redesign in October of 2021.
With that, we actually, L &I gave us the ability to amend our refusal, and the project was ultimately reduced to 12 units with a commercial space.
Refusals only for the deck and the setback and rear yard, still height.
But then we pulled the project back again, and we reduced the height.
to make it compliant and we took out the commercial space based on the the the cries of the community
now so that's the project as it stands right now when we were here last um i i just want to do a
couple of housekeeping things um what the i will the applicant is 801 north 40th street llc and
And the applicant's managing member is German Yakubov, who is here to testify.
So German will be testifying throughout this presentation.
We had an additional witness who spoke at the last hearing, Salim Lukas.
Salim Lucas and with that we were able to establish our position with his interpretation
And with that, we were able to...
as to what's going on in the neighborhood. Since then we did continue this matter
And that was heard in September 20th of 2022.
And it wasn't until, I believe, 30 minutes prior to our 9 .30 hearing that was scheduled, we received supplemental whatever.
I didn't even open the email from opposing counsel.
So I do ask the board to hear my loud objection for him relying or submitting any of those exhibits that he sent at, what, 9 a .m. this morning when we had months to prepare for this.
All right.
So with that said, I want to start.
Mr. Chair, can I do an opening at this point?
Because in the last hearing, we altered opening.
We did openings, and then I did my presentation, and then we continued it for me to continue my presentation.
And I just gave the board a background.
So, Mr. Masters, this is what we'll do.
Mr. Beauvais will start, and I'll give you plenty of time for your opening when it's your turn, okay?
And let me assist.
Mr. Beauvais, how many witnesses do you have?
Just one.
Proceed.
Thank you.
I would like to call German Yakubov. He's on the line.
Mr. Yakubov, may I give him permission to speak?
You are allowed to speak?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. German Yakubov. First name is German, G -E -R -M -A -N. Last name is Y -A -K -U -B -O -V, as in victory.
right do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do so swear and affirm all right proceed uh darwin yeah uh german so just just to start with
housekeeping again um the owner of the property is 801 north 40th street llc correct yes and
your relationship to the llc i am the managing member okay um what i what i'm starting with
is our exhibit 18 photos of of the property can you tell me what we're looking at sure well we're
looking at an irregularly shaped uh parcel on the corner of parkside and belmont avenue it is
adjacent to uh the mural that was painted on the neighboring um property party wall okay and
was there any discussion about moving this mural yes um for the last going on three years now
um we've had extensive discussions with the community the mural arts program the business
association which um was heavily responsible for the mural being placed there to begin with
um and we've committed to moving the mural across the street to the park that is there
um we were going to fund that um move mural arts was in support of it and they've issued a letter
of support which i think is attached to the application as well as uh the west um belmont
business association uh who also issued a letter of support and who has uh many people on the board
Senator Hughes and others who are also on that board and on the letterhead of that letter
of support. So, and that is exhibit 16 for the board edification. So, and here are other
views. Right. So that view is of the common driveway to all of the properties that are
Parkside Avenue they all have a garage and that is the common driveway that allows them access to
their garage okay and let's see okay I'm technically challenged here okay I just okay let's start with
with the actual design plans let's go to exhibit five and for the board that will be page 27.
okay can you tell me what we're looking at here sure so we're looking at a site plan of the
okay can you tell me what we're looking at here
proposed structure um which pretty much conforms to everything that we could physically conform
it to right so we reduced the height to be 38 feet the um the rear yard um i think we got a
refusal on that because the city considered the rear yard as that alley in between the two buildings
So let's slow down. So this is a three -angle piece parcel, and street frontage was identified. Where's the front of the street? Where's the front of the lot?
So there are two fronts of the lot. It's both on Belmont and Parkside. And the rear was identified as that alley that we have right there. So I think we needed a nine foot backyard. And it's just not feasible to have a building that would have a nine foot backyard.
The best we could do was a little bit more than five feet for a backyard, which is not really a backyard.
It's just an alley is what it comes down to.
And that also accomplished another concern that the neighbors had.
The neighboring property did not want a building attached to theirs.
So we set the building back five feet as to not disturb the foundation or any digging that would go on there.
And also it accomplished by it accomplished us getting the open space requirement that we needed for this, which was also difficult to achieve.
OK. So you're providing a roof deck.
We are. The roof deck is going to be for just one of the units on the top.
So it would not be a common roof deck for the entire building. It would just be for one of the units on the on the top floor.
and just a comment this is the only property on the block that is this shape and it's really
the only one that is not a rectangle so it comes with all of these physical restrictions and
limitations okay so then i that's not my background i don't know is there a tv on or
something okay um all right so we in essence have three refusals we talked about the rear yard um
the density well first can you tell me about the height sure so the height is 38 feet um we
We dug slightly below the grade. That's another concern that people in the neighborhood had. They were concerned that there's a river running through the area. And when we did a geotechnical report, the same was confirmed. Water was hit relatively high off the plan.
So in the previous building, we had a basement. We've eliminated the basement. And in this case, we've dug down just the bare minimum, which is around three feet, to establish a footing. And the first floor is recessed down about three feet slightly, mainly for handicap accessibility.
That ramp on the side that the city considers a backyard will act as a handicap ramp to get into the building.
this along here yeah
okay and if you can compare well if you can tell me the program so describe the floor plan
sure there are you too um what this this is also addressing the density issue because i believe
we're only allowed four. You originally had 15, and now you're having 12. Correct. So
mainly it's three units per floor. There's a one -bedroom apartment, there's a two -bedroom
apartment, and then there's a studio per floor. It gives a wide array of possible tenants to
occupy these units. We've eliminated the first floor commercial space based on a lot of the
tenant, a lot of the neighbors concerns. Some said it was going to be people were going to die
because of the commercial space that's there because there's a lot of traffic on both Parkside
and Belmont. In addition to that, the sole reason for the previous commercial space was that it was
going to be a baseball museum coffee shop that um was going to be run by one of the associations
and uh outside of that kind of pre -planned you know altruistic use there
Outside of that kind of pre -planned altruistic use, there is no viable commercial use on that space.
There is no real foot traffic there.
This would be the only commercial space on that corner on Parkside Avenue between Belmont and Girard.
Okay, I think we're getting ahead.
So you have one and two bedrooms.
um so i just want to and that's the top floor here here's what the proposed building is intended
to look like that's correct okay um and that's another view
that's correct yeah so we've set it back away from that alley because people had concerns and
also gave us an opportunity to use the space in the rear there for uh for dumpster access
and now this is the former project where you had the commercial correct okay now you can explain
so so in this case this was the initial proposal that we had before the community
you can scroll up just a little bit back to the site plan as you notice the building is directly
attached to the neighboring property. We've set it back, as I said earlier, and that should have
alleviated that concern. This is no longer a five -story building with an elevator. That's
what the initial proposal was. The initial proposal was that there was going to be a common
roof deck pretty much on that top floor that would have allowed much more people to occupy that
space so we reduced that as well um those were like the really big changes and the other is
the commercial space um the commercial space that you know would have um created a lot more foot
traffic in that area potentially and you know the neighbors did not want that additional foot
traffic given the the high activity of the the charter school across the street they were
concerned that that already has bad traffic and this was going to add to that traffic
okay and what was the height of this building the height of this building was uh 55 to the top of
the roof okay and that is the previous uh rendering which showed a five -story building
with that cafe on the corner which people were afraid somebody was going to turn in
uh and drive into it um and that was one of the uh the the concerns
now okay drove into the park across the street and we'll we'll we'll get into
to that later on um i want to direct your attention to exhibit six which for us it is on page 39
for geotech you mentioned earlier about digging in and finding uh a water table um
now you you do a lot of construction you also are an architect by by training um explain to me
the significance of this geotech report sure i'm not an architect by training just to clarify that
Matt, I'm objecting at this point because to explain a geotechnical report would require a level of expertise that the witness has just confirmed that he does not have.
If you want to present testimony on a geotechnical report, we're going to need the author or another geotechnical engineer to do that.
No, I'm not asking him to explain the report. I'm asking him to explain the impact of having the benefit of this report.
i'm not i'm not understanding how that's okay i i i continue my objection mr chair because
we're gonna we're gonna allow the testimony i mean i i think where you what i heard was he's
not an architect and your question is you've done a lot of construction in the past and that's your
question about how's this report compared to the construction you've done in the past that's exactly
or with this particular project.
Okay, sure.
And Steve, I hear your points.
So we've done hundreds of construction,
hundreds of buildings where we've built from the ground up
and we've had to excavate.
Sometimes we hit water and it makes the project not feasible
the project not feasible because the water remediation becomes um cost prohibitive in
because the water remediation becomes prosperous.
this case we were able to mitigate that by raising the building out of the ground and not having a
basement so instead of being at having the footing at um seven feet which is what the initial
proposal uh showed um which would be which was on the the previous plans we raised the building to
only be three feet below ground which still leaves about four feet of um space between the water and
and your initial proposal um you you were you looking to go underground correct we were going
to have an underground space for storage for the commercial space and it was maybe about seven feet
below the ground. But now you find out through this report that it seems unlikely for you to do.
Correct. Okay. All right. I now want to direct the board's attention to exhibit nine,
59, which here is on page 59.
This is a comparison of similarly approved projects in the area.
I'm objecting to this exhibit, and we've we had argument on this at the last hearing
that my understanding of the board's direction to each of us
is that we only are to focus on the unique situation of this lot
and not bring in any other properties
to make any analogies for hardship or for anything else.
And I respectfully disagree.
First of all, we're using public information.
Second, to say that you have to look at a lot isolated and not in relation to other properties goes against what we're doing.
So I respectfully believe that we can look at the density of nearby projects as we try to have the board decide this one.
We can look at the density, take a look.
But I mean, let's, you know, I think it'll speak for itself.
I'll go over to it very quickly, please. Okay. So, German, right? Well, let me ask you a couple
of simple questions. Are you familiar with the area? I am very. Okay. And you're familiar with
the different projects and properties that are at that area? I am. Okay. Does this list reflect
what you believe is going on in that area correct um this i created this list uh based on um you
know i've been developing in the area for close to 10 years um and this is what we've seen and
this is i'm in the area almost every day uh and the the biggest uh difference between the properties
that were approved as recently as a year ago by this board um or the previous board the they're
all single -family zoned lots that are equal in size, if not smaller, that have been approved
for six units or 12 units at a time. More recently, the lot at 1717 North 42nd Street,
as well as 1715 North 42nd Street, which is merely a block and a half, two blocks away,
on a single -family zoned lot, the same RCOs approved a 12 -unit building. There are two
six -unit buildings but they're adjacent to one another i'm objecting to a testimony about the
rcos and the square footage is the same as our law that that's hearsay whatever whatever someone
else does i can understand that mr yeah not if it's public his own his own um it's not hearsay
if it's public record there's no records that are being introduced here that's because it's public
record so um mr chairman members of the board right just in in just in terms if if the board
so choose to get granular and look at the i think we had this from the later i remember seeing this
the last time yeah well i understand what you're trying to see right yeah and here are the actual
permits that's that's the point that i'm trying to make so now i i do want to bring the board's
attention because I think we can it's getting to the crux of the matter here let me go to page
247, which is our exhibit 17. There has been several community members who have stoked the
247 which is our exhibit
flames against the applicant. And I would like the applicant just to explain what he has
experience for the last few years as he's been trying to develop not this property, not only this
property, but others. So, German, why don't you tell me what's been going on with the particular
neighbors in East Parkside? Sure. So, there has been a concerted campaign to single me out as
the developer that everybody decided to rally against and not support any of my projects.
This was evidenced by countless protests outside, letters that have been circulated throughout the
community, mainly by Brian Harris, as he's the author of the most recent one that you just kind
to put up there. Even in the previous RCO meeting, it was evident that it was personal
because somebody said so it was. And there's really no other reason to explain it because
every other project that comes along that is of denser or similarly dense proposal gets approval
from the RCOs. So this one is, again, singled out mainly because of me, of who I am. And
it's unfortunate. Did they ever try to miss, I think the term of art now is provide disinformation
about the project? Every step of the way, from posters that were out front, from petitions that
were circulated. Every step of the way, they have misinformed the residents in order to stoke
fear and anger to gain opposition. And it's evidence so in the fact that, you know, at the
one RCO meeting, they said that they don't want anything. And then when I gave rather, they didn't
want a commercial space. So when I took the commercial space out, we're like, we never said
that. And we asked them for copies of the RCO meeting records, and they refused to comply with
those. They have nothing to hide. I don't understand why they wouldn't do that. They've
also held a developer roundtable, if you will, and failed to invite me, even though I am the
largest landowner in that neighborhood so it is a you know it's if it's not one thing it's it's
another so let me just get this straight because you you said a lot in there are are you saying
that that they have been they they have been refusing to communicate with you and that they
uh intentionally will tell you they you've experienced that they intentionally told you
we want commercial but then turned around and say we don't want commercial and you were at an rco
meeting where that conversation took place but yet they failed to give you any type of i'm just i
mean in general this is this inquiry is fine but this is a leading question i did not finish my
question i know but i'm objecting that i still did not finish my question one at a time please
Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me. Finish your question. And then, Steve, I'll give you a chance to your comments. Okay. Finish your question, Darwin.
Yes. So, German, I'm asking, right, you were at an RCO meeting where they told you we want commercial at one portion. And then they said, no, we don't want commercial.
So it's the other way around. They said that they didn't want commercial. And then when we when we proposed commercial, they said they don't want commercial. So we removed commercial. Then at the next meeting, they said, no, we want commercial.
OK, so because you had a scheme with commercial, correct?
Correct. The initial proposal had commercial.
So wait a minute, Steve.
um so my my objection is that is that darwin is leading the witness the the the area of of
questioning is a proper area but when he leads the witness and tells the witness what to say
that's that's not allowed so so i'm going to allow where we were i think we got to the point
where we needed to be he talked about his experience of the rco so darwin thank you
the chairman what what what are we all looking at right now these are posters that were um
posted up and down uh this looks like belmont avenue um
posted up and down uh this looks like belmont avenue um across the the properties uh on on
the doors and they just haphazardly went ahead and posted on all of them 4292 is my property
and they posted a poster on that as well okay do you think you had the permission of the tenant
i don't know i don't know yeah and that's common space it wouldn't be there's multiple
tenants in that building. And what is this that the board is looking at? Sure. Yvonne Haskins
was the previous attorney for the RCO. And she went on a Facebook rant in a Facebook group
to again stoke anger and and vitriol uh by utilizing my race as a um i guess fuel to
flame the fire of a developer coming in and taking you know and building in the neighborhood
Mm -hmm. Mm -hmm. Okay. And there's various other – explain – what's the board looking at here?
Again, the previous attorney for the RCO is responding to a comment to, you know, to, again, stoke fear and anger to me personally, but also into opposition of this specific project.
and there's there's more of the same and and again this is a perfect perfect example of
misinformation this was never a 96 foot 15 i mean it was 15 unit proposal but it was never 96 feet
um and that is just a uh the tip of the misinformation iceberg that they have been
perpetuating on this campaign. Okay. Thank you. I'll reserve any additional questions on redirect.
Okay. Mr. Masters. Yes.
um Mr. Jakob um you testified that there was no other commercial spaces um anywhere near your
property is is that is that correct no I said that there were no commercial spaces between
Belmont and Broad Avenue on this portion of Lancaster or on this portion of um Paroxet Avenue
Right. But then you testified that there's a school across the street from your property, correct?
Yes, there is. I wouldn't consider that commercial.
Is it residential?
It's institutional.
Okay. How many children are at that school? Do you have any idea?
I do not.
Objection?
What's the objection?
Relevance. How many kids are at a school?
Well, the relevance is that...
So, Steve, the relevance is that...
Why don't you make your point what you're trying to say?
Yeah, sure. So, Mr. Jakob, have you ever seen children go into stores to buy snacks and treats before and after school?
Objection. Speculative.
I'm asking him if he's ever seen that.
I have not, no.
You've never seen children go into stores to buy snacks or treats?
No, typically all the buildings that I've been around to that are schools don't have a corner store near them.
Right. But you have a building that you could put in a commercial space on the first floor that could provide snacks and treats to children. Isn't that correct?
I wouldn't be running that business. I have no idea if anybody would want to operate that business.
or somebody wanted to operate that business they would have built something there on this vacant
lot that has been sitting empty for the last three plus decades well you proposed a coffee
shop isn't that correct right that which was going to be heavily subsidized uh -huh and um
that by the larger proposal are you are you telling me that you don't think that the children
who attend the school across the street would be hungry and thirsty from time to time and can come
what i do not understand the nexus is he suggesting that kids are not going to eat
because he doesn't have a commercial component no i'm suggesting i'm suggesting that are you
suggesting that kids will be darwin darwin darwin listen i think steve i i know what you're trying
Steve, I know what you're trying to say. The point of the matter, you're saying he could have had commercial there that students could commit to.
to say the point of the matter you're saying he could have had commercial there that
Right. So so why don't we move on from there?
OK, a lot of students, Mr. Chair.
OK, Mr. Yaakov, we don't know how many are there, Steve.
Well, maybe we'll have some testimony from from other witnesses on that.
Um, Mr. Jakob, you testified that, um, the same RCO groups that are opposing you have
supported other development projects.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Um, have they supported a large number of other development projects or just rarely?
You'd have to determine, I mean, I don't know what large number or rarely means.
Well, are they, do they have a reputation for never supporting development projects
occasionally supporting development projects or supporting development projects on a more
frequent basis? I think he already answered that question. Based on that list, it was pretty
apparent they've supported all of those projects with higher density than they chose not to support
mine. Uh -huh. So you're basically saying that these RCOs are pro -development. That's what you're
saying. Objection. You asking for a conclusion? He's just explained his experience. You're
So what's the objection to that?
Listen to me.
I think that's the conclusion.
So here's where we're going.
I mean, Steve, you could say, do they believe they supported?
Not a lot.
Just, you know, I think he's already said it looks like they've supported a lot of projects in the area.
Right.
He did.
So, Mr. Yaakov, you're testifying that these RCOs are not routinely in favor of or not routinely opposed to development projects from these other developers.
No, just me.
Okay, right.
And for some reason, you believe that that has no basis other than they don't like you.
Absolutely.
there's no nothing about the blight that you cause in the neighborhood that could possibly
be the reason that they that they are opposed to the efforts so i i think i i think steve you know
you might want to relook at that question i mean if you said you know is there a blade he created
i mean i don't know the blade i mean we're gonna have we're gonna have witnesses mr chair of blight
okay so why don't we wait till then before you say i know but i don't mind i don't mind addressing
that i don't mind addressing that at all um i'm cross -examining him now so that's why okay go ahead
no i don't mind addressing that so the blight that he's talking about is a property at 4204
at 06 parkside avenue um a mr yakub you actually can't testify now you need to respond to questions
from he is responding to your question no i've i asked you whether whether their opposition
to you as a developer with this project
could be related to the blight
that you cause in the neighborhood.
You just, your question assumes that I cause blight.
So Steve, I think his answer to you is
maybe they'd look at this one project
that I have is what he's saying.
So I think I'll allow that testimony.
Right, well, would it surprise you, Mr. Jakob,
to learn that it's more than one project,
that there are a number of projects
that you have in the neighborhood
that are perceived to be bringing
and perpetuating blight? Absolutely. I would love to know which other ones are perpetuating blight.
Okay. Well, we're going to have testimony on that when it's our witness's turn.
Right. But to talk about the property that you're talking about, 4204 and 06 Parkside Avenue,
that property is set to go before the ZBA next month. And your clients have opposed that project
every step of the way making it financially infeasible to build. So I wouldn't say that
I'm the one causing the blight here. I would say that it is your clients. Are you disputing that
it's a blighted property? Am I disputing that it's a blighted property? No, I'm not disputing
that. Okay. I have no further questions. Chairman, right? Did you just indicate that
blighted property, the so -called blighted property, you're in the process of addressing
it now? I am. I've been in the process of addressing it for several years, but the
neighbors have continued making it financially infeasible. They're talking about a large,
historic, beautiful twin mansion that will require expensive windows and expensive restoration.
And we've asked for eight units in each building, which are adjoining one another,
and they refuse to grant that. They refuse to support that. And without those several
additional units we can't make the project financially work it's not like i can you know
rub my hands together and say here voila it's it's done there you know there's resources
there you know there's resources especially in the current environment that are needed in order to
especially in the current environment that are needed in order to
rehabilitate that property all right a property that is designated historic correct okay and you
are working with the historic commission the historic commission has approved my plan it's
the neighbors have not okay understood so if at any point in time you could pull the trigger and
and start we have absolutely we've actually been in the process we're before this board next month
in order to ask to once again increase that density to eight units in each building to be
able to financially make the project feasible and to fix it we've been we've been trying to do that
for the last five years okay so i hope the board does remember this objection that's that's that's
a gratuitous comment that's unrelated all right i withdraw that i i i think that may be not a
comment we want to hear right now yeah darwin do you have any more uh witnesses no no but i would
like to tie everything together wouldn't that be more proper at the end after our way i i think what
we want to do darwin we're talking about how we're going to tie both sides together at the end okay
You will have an opportunity.
All right.
All right.
Thank you, Sherman.
Can you start your case?
Can I share the screen?
Oh, here, let me stop sharing.
You did.
Oh, okay.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
I am representing Centennial Parkside CDC and East Parkside Residents Association, and we will have as witnesses after my opening.
Joyce Smith from Centennial Parkside, Brian Harris from East Parkside residents, and then two near neighbors, LaVon Coker and Lucille Coleman.
I did want to just review the testimony briefly from the last hearing.
So this project in a previous iteration came before the zoning board in 2021.
And the board wisely voted to deny the variance. So this is basically a redo of this project. There was an appeal that the developer had made to court, and then they had decided to withdraw that appeal and then try again with the zoning board.
It was going to be a one -year rule issue, but since a lot of time has elapsed, that is no longer the case.
The retail that the developer had asked for back in 2020 and 2021 was a community -style cafe, and there was 15 units, and there was an excessive height.
Um, the, um, the planning commission was clear, um, back in, in 2021, um, that the degree of the proposed variances exceeded the minimum variance to afford relief. Um, planning commission has historically said in this case that there is some hardship from the dimensional aspects of the refusals because of the shape of the lot.
But that doesn't mean that the developer has a hardship that he can't build by right and put a number of units on the lot.
With the commercial space, he can put, I believe it is four units on top of the commercial space in the property.
So now this project is modified again to 12 units, no commercial space.
and there's absolutely no hardship for the lack of commercial space that's required on the first
floor because he proposed it in the past and he said it was a viable option when he came before
you before. There's also no testimony that's been given to you to show you that this is the
minimum variance that's required. In fact, Mr. Jakob just testified to his own vague feelings
that he needs to put this number of units in order to make the project work. There's no
performance, there's no cost estimates, there's no numbers, there's no hard data whatsoever
to tell you that a certain number of units is necessary for financial viability.
a certain number of units is necessary for financial viability.
We're going to hear from the two community leaders about their many, many years of interactions
with Mr. Jacob and how he's distinguished himself in the community by his own choice
of actions to prolong blight and to insist on development in a way that is not aligned
with the goals and the vision of the two RCOs that I represent.
So I'm going to, at this point, ask for Joyce Smith to raise her hand so that she can be
the first witness.
can i also can i make an objection right because mr masters continues to use the word blight
and and he uses it to his benefit but yet he's not an expert as per the city planning commission
as per the land bank as per the different redevelopment authorities uh the philadelphia
housing development corporation they which is actually a legal term that has to be recognized
that that's regulated by statute so for him to continually use that term i find it offensive
and i ask that he doesn't use it um well mr chair so i i'm speaking in terms of the community's
perception no you made statements yes i am but but darwin we both were in city council we both
dealt with blight as attorneys so so you know that we why are you bringing that up right what
what is that you're bringing my personal life into this right i don't understand stop using
the word blight okay okay okay so so i steve you could testify to what people do what you're you're
basically say what people are telling you, right? I mean, Mr. Yacob has admitted that his property
is blighted. So he said that one particular property was blighted. And then I think what
he said was, if you had more, could you please tell me where they were? I think that's what he
said. So why don't we bring your client, your source with this one? Hi, could you state your
name, please? Yes. And spell for the court reporter. Yes. My name is Joyce Smith. My spell,
my last name is S -M -I -T -H. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Receive counsel. Ms. Smith, so can you tell the board what your
position is in the community? Oh, sure. I'm a resident of East Parkside. I also serve on the
board of Centennial Parkside CDC, and our mission is to preserve, promote, and revitalize East
Parkside through partnerships with businesses, institutions, and programs that engage our
residents and also create opportunities so we can grow a thriving community.
Back in 2016, did you work on a comprehensive plan for development in your territory?
Yes, we did. We've also, the CDC, have an established real estate committee
Two stakeholders formed a community development board that includes members of the Centennial Parkside CDC, East Parkside Residence Association, and neighborhood residents.
We also hired a consultant with Equitable Innovations to complete a community equitable development strategic plan for our neighborhood.
And to help implement that plan, the CDC onboarded a full -time project manager.
And if I can add, our councilwoman, Jamie Gossier, she really respects our work and the time and effort that the community and stakeholders has put into our development goals and plans.
and that is why we have our support. And did you also work with the previous councilwoman?
Yes, we also work with Jamie, I'm sorry, Janie Blackwell, who,
and the Planning Commission, where we remapped and rezoned our area.
So, Ms. Smith, before we get into this project in particular, could you tell
um the members of the board whether um your cdc has ever supported development projects in your
neighborhood um yes we have um i attend at least 90 of the rco community meetings um and we have
support them um we do ask excuse me i'm sorry i have something oops oh sorry can you hear me
Oh, sorry. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, glitch there. Yes, we have supported it. We, we are concerned about density. We do have a lot of density projects coming in. And a lot of them, if I must say, have been with Haverford Square.
I'm sorry, a little glitch there.
Sorry.
And we do ask, not just half of a square, we have asked other developers if they can compromise on that or negotiate to decrease some of that density when we want to put too many units in one structure.
Yeah, so we have approved and disapproved some.
Okay. Now, in this project, like I said earlier, this is not the first time that this project came before the RCO. Is that correct?
Oh, no. We've been addressing this project for a really long time. I think it's almost two years. At the onset, we were very hopeful that we would be able to negotiate something with the developer, but unfortunately, in spite of our efforts, the developer, we felt, the community felt that the developer was not open to a reasonable project that best fits our community.
At our first RCO meeting in March, I think, 2021, the majority of residents voted against the project, density again, and because of the developers' continuing resistance to listen to the community, at our second RCO meeting, the opposition grew, and over 100 people, excuse me, unanimously opposed the project.
at. And when you talk about density, are you talking about the number of units that he was
proposing to build? Yes, the number of units. So was your CDC open to any kind of like
accommodation or or compromise um with this developer yes yes um the community was interested
in um it uh the commercial uh at the bottom and i know that um the developer did say that there
was some opposition uh there but the community as whole um did not have a strong opposition to the
to commercial because we we ultimately would like the developer to build uh per the code
right which was a commercial on the first floor and and four units above that is that correct
the community as a whole yes okay um so you've heard the testimony today that the developer
seems to feel that there's a vendetta against him or some kind of a personal grievance.
Is that your understanding? How do you describe what's happened between your organization and
this developer? Well, I was dismayed to hear him say that. This is about the business. It's
nothing personal. This is about the density. This is about what the community is concerned about as
far as number of units that this applicant um proposes and his unwillingness to even consider
or listen to the community over and over about what we've asked for so this is not
personal at all please don't take it that way it's just the business of it are you aware of any
um code violations that this developer has um has received at other properties in your neighborhood
Objection. Objection. Right. Based on his criticism of my presentation, he actually wants us to stay on the property. I see no relevance with the other properties.
Well, well, Darwin, that's that's that's interesting for you to first present all this testimony and charts about other properties.
But then when we talk about other properties, it's now it's now off limits.
So in other words, Mr. Masters, ask your question if she knows.
Sure. Are you aware of any code violations that were received by other properties that Mr. Jakob has in your neighborhood?
Okay, so let's look at some of those in our exhibit binder.
My objection continues, because what does this have to do with the current project?
This is exhibit C in our binder.
we're looking here yes mr masters answer darwin's question
uh so we're trying to to get to the bottom of why um mr
We're trying to get to the bottom of why Mr. Jakob has felt that he hasn't gotten the warm reception from the community that he believes other developers have.
And this is directly relevant to it because the community is not focused, not just on personal animosity, but they are focused on the destructive nature of the destructive things that he's brought into the community with his other properties.
so you were aware of his grievance and you you prepared a response to show
this this was this is how you prepared a response for a grievance that you magically said oh we
didn't know that there was a vendetta but maybe there is one because oh okay so so so there was
There was a lot of testimony that the neighbors did a lot of things with signs and all that
said against your client, Mr. Beauvais.
So, Steve, do me a favor.
Go over this and just present it, but try to move on once we do.
Okay, Ms. Smith, what are we looking at here in 4204 Parkside?
Just hold on.
I have to bring my screen.
Yeah, 4204 Parkside Avenue.
From my understanding, the developer has owned that since 2015, around 2015, and I know that residents have filed numerous -
Objection, how does she know that?
Well, I think that's -
I don't understand.
I looked it up on Philodox.
Okay, are you talking about the Atlas website?
site yes i have a subscription to the philodox um the mortgages okay oh so you're responding to
how you how you know whether whether um mr jacob owns this property is is that what you're
responding to mr smith that's correct okay i believe the um mr jacob's attorney was asking
you how you know that there are violations? Is that your objection, Darwin? No. She said
he's owned the property since 2015. Ah, okay. Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Chair,
she has researched it on public records that Mr. Okay. She answered, I'm fine. Okay.
I'd like to add to that. Whenever we have properties that are major blighters or
problems in the neighborhood that's that we routinely do that. Okay.
Did you also research who owns 4206 Parkside? That's correct. And what did your research
discover? We also, that is also a blighted property. It's been like that for a number of
years. And that's when we, you know, we understand that we trace the owner on that. Okay.
and this is a violation of imminently dangerous on 4206 parkside yes it's in pretty bad shape
and it's for that block for the 4200 block of parkside which is a historic block national
and local registry it's the worst two properties on that block okay i believe we have some photos
also of the that property
but i i i object to all of this this is the well i don't see the relevance i don't see the
connection right what he's showing here is a historic property that has to go before the
board next month. Okay, so I think your client, Mr. Beauvais, testified that these were problem
properties that he had, and it's a problem because he can't get it done, but he identified that this
is the problem that he has because when Mr. Masters talked about a problem, he brought this
up himself. Right. Yeah, so what we're having here is testimony as to why the community may
have some concerns about this developer and projects that he is proposing in their neighborhood
because of his track record of what he actually has done with other projects in the neighborhood.
And I think that's very relevant when we're looking at the third tier of the issues that
this board has to decide is whether there's an unnecessary hardship, whether it meets minimum
variance, and whether this is in the public interest. And the evidence as to a developer
who has a history of maintaining and perpetuating blight
or blight -like conditions, if I'm going to blight it.
or blight -like conditions, if I'm going to blight -ish, something like that, if we're not
going to go into the formal blight certification of the Redevelopment Authority, that's very
relevant to this board deciding whether a variance is justified because of whether it's in the public
and trust. I don't understand how these properties are connected to the variances
that we're seeking. Are you trying to link intent, right? That makes no sense. And I
continue my objection. You are trying to say that other properties are linked to what's before the
board today and i do believe earlier so mr so mr bouvet listen i here's where i i i come down on
this your clients spent a lot of time talking about the neighbors don't like them there was a
you know a whole series of signs put up about them and things of that nature and when we started
mr master started talking about blight he raised these two issues he said hey i have two properties
he said they're in bad shape what he said but i'm trying to correct it so well i and that's
what we're talking about now these two properties are in bad shape so i i think that steve mr
masters you've made your point about he has some properties that need some work right or blighted
whatever we want to call it but i think we're about ready to move on okay i just i these are
the photos that i just wanted to to introduce into the record okay the photos that came in at
8 30 this morning well there were some that were from a couple days ago which is why the most of
these photos have been have been in the exhibit binders since september but i wanted to show that
they continue the blight continues even within days of this hearing but not the first three
the first i believe the first five photos are from are from this this past weekend and then
And this one, Ms. Smith, is this a photo of a property on Viola Street?
This property abuts the property that the developer owns on the 4200 block of Parkside.
I cannot exactly say the address, but it is abut the property that the developer owns
on Parkside.
it sits between 4263 and 4269 um viola street and this has been like this for years
i live up the street i leave up the street from this when you say this has been like this can you
describe what it's been like um people park on it uh people dump on it as you can see it's a tire
um there it's trash there it's it's an eyesore okay
what are we looking at in this photo um that is the properties um owned by mr uh by by the
developer okay and where is this located um i believe um it looks like it's the property
420 um i'm sorry i think it's 4206 or 4204 i mr uh the developer can give you the addresses
if that's not big.
But these are the ones that we were,
the properties that he admitted are in bad shape?
Is this a gap?
Are these Parkside or Viola?
I have no idea.
These are Parkside.
These are 4204, 4206 Parkside.
I have no idea.
We've been staring at this property for a while now, Steve,
and I think we're ready to move on.
All right.
Ms. Smith, do you have anything else that you wanted to add in summation?
Yes. I just want to say, first again, this is not personal. We have no vendetta against
this particular developer, only about the density units. We welcome development. We just say,
if you can follow the zoning code. Let me just say, every step of the way, we have tried to
work with this developer. I was a little put off when he said we weren't. We are not anti -development.
and the community is not unreasonable. We just want to promote and support what is appropriate
and reasonable and keeps within the character of the neighborhood and how we can uplift our
community. Ultimately, our goal is to work with developers and investors who are closely
aligned with our missions and values. But we also understand that we have to compromise or negotiate
on projects that may not align with these goals.
So we just asked the developer work within the zoning code.
So we just asked the developer, work within the zoning code. And that would be that way. I think that would be a great compromise. Thank you.
Thank you. So now I'm going to ask Brian Harris to raise his hand.
Oh, yes. Sorry about that. Mr. Bobak.
Yes. Ms. Smith, you're still there?
Yes, I am.
Yes. So you're the executive director of the CDC?
No, I am not.
I am the interim board president.
You're the interim board president.
Yeah, and I've served since 2015.
Okay, thank you.
When was the last time you met with the applicant?
Actually, I believe I talked to him.
I ran into him this summer.
I'm sorry, let me ask it differently.
When was the last time you convened an official meeting on behalf of the CDC to meet with the applicant?
Okay, I know our counsel was on our behalf, did reach out and tried to set up a meeting with the developer before, I think, before the RCO meeting.
I know a counsel on our behalf was instructed to do that.
So is it safe to say you haven't met with the developer?
I think it's safe to say that the developer did not respond to our request to meet with him.
So the fact is no meeting has taken place.
Yeah, but not on our floor.
That's fine.
That's fine.
I just, I got that.
Now, when it comes to, you mentioned like they were showing all these violations for properties.
Has he ever fixed up a property? Is there a property that you can say that, oh, it was dilapidated before, it was in bad shape, but now it's fixed?
I can't speak to that. Thank you.
So you don't know if that's ever happened.
That's asked and answered.
Proceed. Proceed.
I can't speak to that.
All right. Earlier today, you were saying that as we were going through the process, that he had some opposition, but not all opposition. That was a little bit confusing. Can you explain that to me?
I was thinking about the first RCO meeting we had. There was some residents that did not oppose it. But at RCO meetings, we take a vote. And the majority at the first RCO meeting was no. The second RCO meeting we had, it was unanimously no. And it was more residents at that second meeting.
Okay. So, yeah, I just wanted some clarity. Thanks. So when it comes to the CDC, I heard you mention that you had a comprehensive plan. Was that ever shared with the developer?
Well, I didn't share the comprehensive plan, but I have had email correspondence with the developer. This, I think, was back in August. I think it was 2020. Yeah, where I shared what our community vision was.
I sent him reports done by Brandywine Realty Trust Research Scientist, a fellow from Haverford
Square, and I also sent him to support what I was saying, and also a plan that was submitted
by the University of Pennsylvania.
Okay, but you sent all those reports, which are authored by great entities and interest
groups, but you never sent.
the CDC's comprehensive plan? No, but our counsel would have. Let me just say this. We have spoken
to him at our community meetings and have spoke directly to - At our community meetings? I thought
you said CDC. Okay. So we have conveyed that to him. We have conveyed that to the developer.
you've conveyed what I'm sorry we have conveyed what the community's vision is and what we would
okay we'll get to that I just wanted to know like you know I heard you introduce yourself
to the board saying that you everyone your board commissioned a comprehensive plan
I just wanted to know was that ever shared with the developer um it sounds like it wasn't but
Um, it sounds like it wasn't, but it sounds like that you shared other reports from interest groups.
it sounds like that you shared other reports.
So, um, and interest groups that was all based on reports that we, um, had commissioned them.
So they were not, okay.
Maybe I'm using the wrong term, but you know, the, the, the Brandywine Realty Trusts,
research science everything but the cdc comprehensive plan you gave him reports
but still it it still captures the essence of what our vision and plan is for the for our
community developing these reports and these reports were given to him at an rco meeting
no sir i just want clarity no i emailed them to him you emailed them to him and he received them
and and at any point in time did you email um uh time for the cdc to meet with him
other than going through your council we at this time we've had representation throughout
And we instructed our council to set up those meetings.
Thank you.
You sent him email directly about the reports.
That's correct.
So let me, let me ask you just a couple of more questions.
In your comprehensive plan that he has never seen, do you discuss that site?
No, sir.
But we do discuss the issue with density, affordability.
So are there any uniquely designed lots identified in your comprehensive plan?
No, sir.
Is there another triangle lot?
No, sir.
I'm going to object at this point to what is the relevance of drilling down deep into a CDC's comprehensive plan.
How is that possibly relevant?
I think my understanding where Mr. Bovee is, he's trying to get the relationship between the RCO and the neighborhood group and the client.
And they said a lot of things.
Did they, in fact, ever communicate with him?
I think that's where we are.
Thank you.
One last question.
What do you want?
We thank you for asking that.
I think that we've been saying this all along for two years.
We would like the developer to build according to the zoning code.
And I just want to also say that as far as the commercial space is concerned, there is so much foot traffic.
Not only is there a school, there's the Japanese house. There's all this foot traffic.
There's a Japanese house. There's a Pennsylvania, there's a horticulture center.
There's the Please Touch Museum. There's all along the Parkside Edge.
The Fairmont Park Conservancy has done so many improvements and continue to do improvements.
um the the whole um things like philadelphia is there for events um at the parkside there's
runners there's bikers um it's a we have cultural uh cultural um events that on the parkside edge
so that is a lot of stuff happening on that corner or in that immediate area and then you have
right down the street the uh man music center so why did people reject his coffee shop
that was at the first um hearing that was at the first hearing um there are a few and it was a
significant step because he was told that nobody wanted the commercial portion that that was at
the original hearing and no one and not everyone objected so we're saying ma 'am if he please um
abide by the zoning code we would much appreciate that and we're do you understand the risk that he
he's in because he had i'm objecting that that's that's that's calls for speculation
right you're asking for speculation no i'm asking her opinion that he he if she knows
submitted to ellen i a coffee shop and he he met with opposition so he says all right i'll take it
out but it seems like he still has met with opposition i and and and and i'll just leave
You know what, but this begs one more question. I'm sorry.
Well, I mean, I'm sorry, but the testimony is that I reached out to you and asked to create a meeting for your client and my clients, and that never happened because of your end.
for your client and my clients and that never happened because of your end and now you're
saying that that that there was some kind of a of a gap or something that's missing
from the community let's see what is one last question let's see what his last question is he
has one more question let's see what yes yes those those um um the hold on let me get the right
addresses. Are you familiar with 1238 Belmont Avenue? 1238 Belmont. Yes, I believe so.
It has 84 units.
84 units?
Wait a minute.
I would need to see a map.
I'm going to object that this is going beyond the direct information.
She said at the beginning of her testimony that they have supported projects.
So I'm just curious as to what projects.
Well, that would lead to so many questions about so many projects, and that's not all of it.
That's not enough.
If she doesn't know where that property is.
That's not a district, I don't think.
What about 1715 North 42nd Street and 1717 North 42nd Street?
1717. Yes, I'm familiar with those two projects.
Did you support, did the CDC officially support them?
Yes, because the developer did negotiate the units.
He came down on the number of units.
Much like my client.
Objection.
No, I'm quick to.
It's not.
All right, I'm done.
I'm done.
All right, are you done, Darm?
So, Steve, you have three more witnesses?
Yeah, they're very quick.
So let me tell you what I'd like to try to do. It's like 12 .04. We'd like to get done if we can by 12 .30. We have to be done by 12 .30 for the staff, et cetera, right? And then what we'd like to do is take written closing arguments.
Okay. So could you see if you can get your next clients in?
Yes. Brian Harris is the next one.
What was that name again? Brian Harris. Okay, yeah, he's here. He's been allowed to talk.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
No, I think that's the wrong one. Mr. Harris, if you're in, can you please raise your hand?
all right
I don't see him in the audience
he's under
Joyce Smith
I will allow him to speak
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
Brian Harris
R R I S
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do proceed council um hi brian can you um can you tell the board what your role is in the
community chairman of east parkside resident association living on parkside avenue for about
35 years now, and I love my community. So are you, when did you first become familiar with this
project? We first started with the mural. They would talk about moving the mural, and so we all
started paying a lot of attention. There's a baseball, Negro Baseball League mural at the
corner. And the developer was volunteering to move it across the street. So that's when I first
became aware of it. Okay. And then what was your role in the various meetings that the community
had with the developer? So I chaired the coordinating RCO since our office is closest
to the project. So I coordinated two meetings on behalf of the community and the developer
also tried to coordinate a meeting with the developer and the community at the project.
So you had two community meetings and then did you have a meeting at the location itself?
Yes, we did. We had a meeting at the location itself. The developer came.
Yes, we did. We had a meeting at the location itself. The developer came.
In fact, he bought a tow truck driver with him that, and maybe one other person, but yes.
In the course of all of the community meetings,
can you summarize for the board what the basic concerns were of the community and what the
votes were at those meetings? Sure, thank you. So the first meeting I coordinated had a 41 to 12
in opposition to the 15 -unit project. Then the second meeting we had a 100 to 0.
100 to 0. A hundred of my neighbors joined me via Zoom. We had so many people we had to have a
tally a person to tally the names the addresses and the uh email addresses because it was such
a heated heated meeting in fact at one of these two meetings the developer even caught one of our
uh elders in the community a liar i mean it was really hot and heavy but i did a everybody told
me including the councilwoman's office i did a real good job keeping everybody even and us had
And we had, I thought, a very good meeting, except for the occasional emotional outbursts from the developer.
Was the 100 to 1 vote, was that an unusual, 100 to 0, was that an unusual tally for your community?
Yes, it was the largest one by far.
We don't usually even get 50 people to attend.
The 41 was high.
But 100 people?
No, we've never had that before or since. And that was just a beautiful thing.
Do you, from your perspective, do you believe that the community first told the developer that you did not want a commercial property and then told the developer that you did?
Thanks for asking that question. Our community is not a monolith, even though we voted 100 to zero. What we're voting 100 to zero on is the number of units cramming 12 to 15 units in a space designed for four. And commercial is not something the community, I think, is ever going to consider.
So when some people say, well, maybe we'll give a few units, the community keeps trying to find a way to compromise.
Some people say, well, let's give them the commercial.
Let's give up on the commercial.
Let's just let them get a few units in there.
But he still keeps coming back with 12 and 15 units.
And so it just became a real turnoff for the community.
And that's why they approached me complaining, asked me when is the next meeting.
and I keep telling them when and that they'll have their chance to communicate dialogue with
the developer directly and let them know how they feel. Do you recall efforts that you asked me to
do to reach out to the developer's team and set up a meeting with the leadership? Yes. In fact,
numerous times we keep waiting for you to get back to us and say, yes, I'm going to have a meeting
with him. Just like our last attorney, Yvonne Haskins, reached out to him on our behalf, met
with him, had an imbalanced, which he described in the last ZBA meeting as a dishonest conversation
with him where he said he claimed rights he didn't have. And so now that's been established
in the last ZBA hearing, we still felt maybe there's some hope here we can negotiate. We
really want to work something out so that that corner is is uh has a beautiful but not an
overwhelming uh building on it but yes we have asked you when we asked our last attorney
you know can you cop can you can you compromise with the developer because he's a little more than
we should be expected to negotiate with right he's this developer he's got all these units
he's got plenty of resources he's gone around the community telling people i don't want the
community to have resources when why wouldn't i want the community to have resources so but he's
more than we can handle i mean i've had a conversation with him uh and i thought it was
a pleasant one that's why i'm surprised to hear him say there's something personal it can't be
anything personal i don't i'm not built that way but what i'm trying to say is that yes we have
asked you we asked the last attorney but we also realize we might be an overhead an attorney and
him against us, the community. So to make it fair, we asked our attorneys to talk to him and see if
the professionals can figure this stuff out. Okay, I have no further questions. Thank you.
One more question. Brian, you heard all of my testimony earlier today. Can you say whether
Can you can you say whether you agree with it and adopt it as your own?
you agree with it and adopt it as your
I certainly do. Thank you, Darwin. Yes.
You want to you have any questions? Yes, I do have questions. Mr. Harris.
We're I heard you say that you you've had nice conversations with with my client. Is that correct?
No, I said one nice conversation with your client. I did have a brief text conversation with him around the idea of a developer named Eamon Brown wanting to speak to him on our behalf, on the community's behalf. This happened a year ago. And I said, wow, this is good.
the elected officials are going to get into the conversation maybe they can help convince them
to talk to us to compromise with us to find a way we can all make our community better
instead and then i call and then instead of the elected official getting back to me with the
results of he and mr yakubov's meeting he ignores my five calls and texts to him i'm talking about
the elected official, and then I look at his campaign finance report, and I see in March
of last year, he received $5 ,000. I said, wow, no wonder he's not calling me back. And that's
why the community is so upset, because he does things to undermine what we're trying to do,
and we're trying to work with him. And then he's back on us, like, we're the ones that are bad
here we're the ones doing something dishonest sir sir sir sir sir let let the lawyer has a
couple things to say please please i apologize chair go ahead mr harris did you just suggest
that some sort of campaign donation was given and that's why you're in this situation no i'm
stating the facts sir yeah but you're stating the fact he didn't even have his phone over
You're trying to establish a nexus that
a phone call was no longer given after a campaign donation. Are you trying to make that nexus?
I withdraw that question. Are you aware of any advertisement?
print or through media, the protesting my client.
Excuse me, Chair, the witness is on mute.
Sir, you have to unmute yourself.
Sorry about that. I don't know how that happened. Thank you.
Were you able to hear me?
I did hear your question about was there anything in print or in media?
meaning against the developer in this project that's what you're saying right yes okay thank
you so the community and i'm thinking the numbers were 200 people it was a large number of people
signed a petition against this developer maybe that's what you're referring to in addition to
that the community put up signs all over the community in addition to that the community had
a rally. And I heard the developer
or someone say earlier that
his son was on a developer's property.
The tenants in those properties
decide what's going to go in front of them.
It's not just up to him. If they're opposed
and appalled at 15 apartments
being built on a lot that's big enough
for four, they don't have the right to
take that. Mr. Harris?
That was in print. That's why I said it, because it was in print.
Go ahead. So that was
in print. So
did you go on
W -U -R -D
i did yes and to talk about this project did you go on channel six to be interviewed
to talk against this project thanks for asking the channel six visited our huge rally that rally
must have had i don't know 50 people maybe more with signs people took time out of the middle
of their day to raise signs and point to mr harris mr harris mr harris mr harris could you
just answer that question. Did you give an interview on Channel 6?
What I'm saying is that Channel 6 came to the rally and asked different people what's going on.
Okay, so you didn't get an interview, but you, based on your testimony, you observed Channel 6
interviewing other people in support of the rally, which was against my client.
No, I'm saying even, yes, I'm saying they interviewed me along with other people.
Oh, so you did get interviewed. OK, so the answer is yes. All right. Let me see. Did you. So and those that you being on the radio, on TV and print, that was between the first RCO meeting where you said like it was.
That was between the first RCO meeting where you said it was 12 to 50 -some -odd people, 12 people in support, versus the next RCO meeting when it was just 100 people to zero.
If I were to guess the timeline, it was one meeting, then this media blast, then another meeting, correct?
so you're saying i'm sorry you're saying there was a meeting with the community
you had an rc you started your testimony saying you had an rco meeting i believe your council
said can you tell us what the vote is what the vote was and and and when you described it i
believe you said there were 12 people in support but then at the next meeting you said it was a
hundred to zero am i correct and i'm just saying between that first meeting and that last meeting
right there was you talked on you you you went on w u r d you there was a print campaign and
people were interviewed at the rally no the i don't i don't remember i don't call it exact
date of the rally. Was it before the first vote or the second one? It had to be before the second
one, but that would only be a guess. Okay. So it sounds like it could have happened. All right.
Let me ask you this. What do you want at that site?
thank you for asking what i want is secondary to what the community wants what the community wants
is the planning uh what planning says makes sense for a rectangle lot which he knew it was when he
bought it and he can't a lot beg your pardon a triangle lot you mean yes he has a triangle lot
And so what the community wants is four units and commercial. Not everybody. We all have our own opinions, but they want four units and commercial, and they're willing to compromise.
Yvonne Haskins tried to compromise with him for five, for six, for seven. I think it might even went higher than that. And there was no common ground that the developer and the community could come to.
But what the community wants is less traffic, less trash, less confusion, because we have a fire station, we have a school.
The same developer who owns one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine properties, let me finish, please.
He owns not, he's about to build 84 more units on Belmont Avenue, which will give him 139 units in those two blocks that meet up at Belmont and Parkside.
What the community wants is much less traffic, much less confusion.
It's going to be bananas around here when all those units are finished.
If he gets the two, and if he gets the two more, he's asking for a 4204 and 4206, and then other developers follow suit, you know, it's right now you can't get up and down Belmont Avenue on a Friday as it is.
When 84 units comes in line, the community's not going to be able to live there anymore.
The community wants its beautiful community restored to the way it used to be.
So, Mr. Harris, I appreciate your concern.
So when it comes to the commercial component, are you saying you don't want it or you're okay with it?
Because I heard you talk about, you know, crisscrossing and traffic.
I think you're concerned about vehicle and pedestrian engagement.
I meant, so should there be a commercial component or should there not be?
So it's a community question.
It's not a Brian Harris question.
Brian Harris can answer it, but the community is a little, just a little split on it.
The majority, I think, want it with a small number of units, but there are a few who don't.
I was asking about the commercial portion.
That's what I'm answering.
So you said smaller units, right?
Are you saying you want a smaller commercial portion?
No, no.
I'm saying less than 12 units.
What's commercial?
I hear your question.
I'm answering.
I'm sorry.
I apologize.
How about, let me just state it this way.
He initially proposed a coffee shop.
Now he doesn't have a coffee shop.
Should he have the coffee shop?
Thank you for your question.
I keep answering it.
Some of the community, a few say no.
give him more part give him more units and see this is why it's important for when steve reached
And see, this is why it's important for when Steve reached out to you for you to take in a meeting.
out to you for you to take in the meeting
And so we could have had this kind of conversation and figured it out for once and for all before we even came before the board.
Some people don't want commercial. They want a few more apartments so that he can get close to his number.
That's the opinion of some. Some want commercial and four units or five units or six units.
that's where the community is at it's it's not completely unified on whether they want commercial
or not it's two different approaches let's talk about it let's figure it out let's make sense out
of it that's what the community wants okay thank you okay so i have i have one more witness that's
very very quick well i i think i think we've run out of time well we have eight minutes at this
point well remember i still have to open this up for comments from the audience right and i also
have to go to the planning commission so we're going to have to have a resumptive hearing
okay and i appreciate both of you uh you know your comments and things of that nature but
we're just going to have to have a resumptive hearing too we have a possibility of a date
yes chair it will be um you think it will be like 30 minutes or do they need longer i i i think if
if we just had the witnesses and uh and uh open up to the audience and the planning commission
i think it's 45 minutes and then we would take written um summations yeah you want to make it
an hour just to be safe okay an hour okay well then the date would be uh april 18th at 9 30.
okay thank you both both you all right thank you thank you right okay
is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called yet today this morning
i see no hands chair okay thanks everyone i'm sorry there's one okay mr ali
should i promote him i mean allow him to speak
Mr. Ali you're allowed to speak
Could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter
Jihad J -I -H -A -D
Ali A -L -I
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes I do chairman
Did you have a case that wasn't called
Well actually chairman I just want you to clarify
that for that resumption hearing
that witnesses will be able to testify
for that resumption hearing
oh yeah okay thank you that's all sure so what i what i said is we're going to have
they finish their witnesses and then we'll also go to the virtual audience
thank you mr chairman okay all right no no one nobody else case wasn't cool
oh there no hands up chair okay thanks everyone have a good one good job everyone have a good
day, y 'all. Have a good day, everyone. Thanks. Bye. Thank you. Have a good day. Have a good day.