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,