The block is well trafficked by children at all times. There's some disruption, as you may have seen in the photo that was shared by the property development team because of the collapse of the two single family homes that were further down the block.
trafficked by children at all times.
And I believe that you're going to see a proposal for a zoning change for 631.
And we're very concerned about the proposed shift of this block from single family to
multi-family, multi-unit, and potentially CMX2.
Keeping to the topic today regarding 627, I think that aside from the potential danger
of having seven cars or more in and out of that driveway in the middle of the sidewalk.
Actually, I'm sorry, to say one more thing on that topic, that the development team stated that
there's a curb cut in an existing driveway on 627. While there is a curb cut, it was not legal.
The previous occupant of 25 years used to park his car there and take it out about once a week
And as neighbors, we respected the use of that fake driveway, but that's very different from
seven cars coming in and out every day. I think that although people were generally in favor of
having a home built up to the street front in the front of the proposal that fronts onto Thompson
Street, there is a lot of concern regarding the five units in a backyard in the middle of the
city block the comparison to the Montgomery 5 had to do with the fact
that the Montgomery 5 actually allows I think 50 feet between the back of the
houses on Montgomery and that project whereas this one I believe only allows
about 30 feet so that is a consideration regarding air and I'm unsure why we need
to build seven homes on a lot that zoned for one home many of which would be in
the middle of a city block it just doesn't seem to make sense and it would
affect our day-to-day and the safety of children walking to school so thank you
for hearing my concerns on on behalf of an attendee of the neighborhood zoning
committee meeting I would ask that you oppose this project
what else wish to testify in this case please raise your hand here we have
Kevin O'Neill. Kevin, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Mr. O'Neill, please identify yourself, spell your name for the record, and give us your address.
Kevin O'Neill, 613 East Thompson Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19125. That's K-E-V-I-N-O-apostrophe-N-E-I-L-L.
I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
uh thank you good morning um i'm a neighbor on this block i'm very familiar with the project
and a couple things i would just like to mention i'd like to reiterate what was already said about
the fna rco meeting um very well attended and almost unanimous opposition to the project
really didn't hear much from anybody that that really found uh you know there wasn't much support
for it there was a lot of for a lot of various reasons um i have my own personal reasons which
i'll go through in a second um briefly i just also would like to point out we've collected
uh 27 signatures from local neighbors that are in opposition that's been submitted to the board
as well excuse me excuse me this is sharon soletta i just wanted to say that we did receive the
petition uh with 25 signatures and two digital signatures however we didn't receive it until
nine minutes before these hearings started and it therefore was not
provided to the Board in advance. And I've never seen it either. I was not
provided with any of those signatures as well. Okay, we can provide a copy of that
for you. Regardless, there's clearly a lot of opposition from immediate
neighbors to this project. So the three specific reasons I'll go
through briefly. So multifamily is not permitted in a single-family district. I
I understand that the concept is townhouses, but essentially it's a four-story multifamily building.
That's what's being proposed.
It creates a lot of awkward situations here.
You're going to have walls with essentially no windows right on a property line.
That's unfortunate.
I don't think that's really how RSA 5 was intended to be used.
As far as the height, we appreciate going from 40 feet to 38 feet.
40 feet to 38 feet but again um even at 38 feet and then with the roof deck on top of that
But again, even at 38 feet and then with the roof deck on.
that's just very much out of scale with what's here on the block there are three-story houses
that actually step down in the back so they have a two-story section and then a one-story section
and with this driveway that's getting created right there um the fronts of these the fronts
of these new homes will actually be um about 25 30 feet away from the backs of the existing homes
We think that's not an appropriate setback.
Typically, it should be closer to 50 feet.
If these four-story homes were built on a typical 50-wide city street, that would be one thing.
But to sort of shoehorn them in the back right up against somebody's rear yard is a little unusual, and it creates an awkward condition.
And then the last thing, the really concerning issue for everybody, is the curb cut and the traffic in and out.
So there's Alexander Adair School, which is two blocks up the street, and Penn Treaty Middle School, which is directly across the street.
And, you know, before and after school, this is a major pedestrian thoroughfare.
It's a parade of parents and kids back and forth, and this would be extremely disruptive.
I think seven cars coming in and out would create a lot of extra congestion.
And, you know, I don't think that this is an appropriate proposal for this block.
it's a residential block it's a highly trafficked pedestrian area and I just
would also like to note that I realized this was reviewed as a multi-family
project but I believe that this if this had been reviewed by parking standards
for single-family a refusal would have been issued if this were RSA if this were
a sub subdivision project and this would be required to be shared lots to be
able to provide to provide parking in this way i believe because the zoning department reviewed it
as multi-family they sort of skipped over the parking and that's why a refusal wasn't issued
but i but i believe it should have been um so for those reasons we ask that you please
deny this project chairman am i able to respond yes please okay so um i just want to comment that
um just to the issue with the windows on the property line i mean that's not an rsa 5 or rm1
or cmx or any of those really you're not supposed to put windows on a property line because if
people build attached then you would lose your windows anyway so just to make that distinction
which i'm sure the board is aware of um as far as um the setback typically you get nine foot rear
yards not 30 foot rear yards in rsa5 so we're providing almost three times what we need to
provide if we were able to set it back even further we would have um that would then encroach on
Wilts Street even more. So it was kind of a balance of providing it so that there was enough
of a setback from the existing homes, which again, 30 feet is more than the nine feet you typically
get. I think a 50 foot setback is just not reasonable or even feasible for this site.
Again, but as the architect had mentioned, that was something that was heavily considered for
this project. In addition to the comments about multifamily, the only multifamily that's being
provided is the carriage house in the front that the community actually was supportive of. The rest
of the units are all meant for single family use. None of them are multifamily. As far as the
parking is concerned, I don't want to make questions or any suggestions about how the
examiner reviewed it because I wasn't there when they reviewed it, but I do believe that the way
that we're providing parking obviously didn't generate a refusal. And a lot of times we hear
concerns in the city about not providing parking. So the alternative would be no parking or seven
cars on the street, which I don't know that that would make it safer for any students or schools.
You know, this is a city that we're living in. There's a lot of schools in the middle of a block
in residential neighborhoods. And it's just, again, something that people have deal with in
different ways. We are providing the gate specifically so that there's some type of a
barrier, the in and out. And we were even open to figuring out additional ways with lighting and
stuff of that nature to make sure, again, there's no interest for anyone to harm anybody. But we are
working in the confines of the city. The last thing I wanted to mention is just, again, this
was completely, you know, to put one single family home on 8,000 square feet just is not
reasonable. I know that that's, the community has mentioned that this is RSA 5, and so
you know, that typically when you remap something to RSA 5, you want one home, but I don't think
the code contemplates having one single family home on an 8,000 square foot lot that you know
sometimes we do remappings entire blocks at a time and it doesn't take into consideration for
example that there's a warehouse on this block as well so just wanted to kind of mention those
points and again just kind of clarify as far as some of the other comments that that Kevin
uh had mentioned thank you here we have ash i'm sorry please please ask you can unmute yourself
Please, please. Ash, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
and wait to be sworn
Yeah, for any other folks who wish to testify, if you could give us something new and different, we'd appreciate that.
Good morning.
Good morning. Ash, please spell your name, first and last name. Give us your address.
First name is Ash, A-S-H. Last name is Kernan, K-E-R-N-E-N. Address is 1318 East Berks Street.
That's obviously right next door.
It's two properties removed from the subject property.
Thank you.
You're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Please appreciate it.
Yeah, so I respect the idea that we don't want to go down the redundant path and continue to repeat ourselves.
But I just did want to reiterate and add just one or two additional items.
you know, with all due respect to Ms. Pritzker and Ms. Reister, they're being less than forthcoming
about the community concerns, which is evident through the testimony of my fellow neighbors.
This project was overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed by the community. You know, just again,
we have significant and ample concerns about the safety, about access to emergency services,
as evidenced the other day by this fire that occurred out back here. But in addition to all
that you know one additional issue is is that we're we're presupposing that the occupants of
this particular property are only going to be having one car um so yes granted there's only
six parking there's only six spots in the the property itself but uh it's it's very likely that
the single families will have multiple cars and and thus the overflow will get pushed out onto
the street um in addition to that you know i know right now we're in particular times with covid so
there's kids aren't in school but when it comes back the uh the adjoining block there with the
school they make everybody move their cars during the day which further amplifies the surrounding
parking situation um so i think that in addition to everything else that's been said um there's
there's likely to be an increased burden on the parking um and again we do have significant
concerns about the ingress and egress right in front of a school um and just for the record
I did want to state and clarify that that is definitely not a warehouse next door.
That's a private garage that was used as part of a private residence for years.
Not to divert, but yes, recently it was proposed as commercial, which the community, again, overwhelmingly and vehemently denied.
The idea is that we want to keep the character and nature of this community and this black single family without this sort of, I don't want to use it for ridiculous, but this overwhelming density issue.
So I just want to emphasize to the board about, I just want to say that the community strongly opposes this.
And I would respectfully ask that you guys vote no against this proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
anyone else okay chair um we have five additional hands is your call if you want to continue
unless it's something new and different uh we do respect the time you've taken to be on this call
on the zoom call this morning uh i think we pretty much heard uh from the four or five witnesses uh
the concern so again not to be long-winded on my end if you have something new and different
or if you don't have anything new and different and you just want to get your name on the record
we can identify you and move on.
Justin, you can wait to be sworn in and unmute yourself.
Justin, please spell your first and last name and give us your address.
It's J-U-S-T-I-N, first name, last name Klaus, K-L-A-U-S.
My address is 1309 East Montgomery Avenue.
We're not affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you for everyone's time.
I hope none of this is too redundant.
I took some notes while the presentation was being made,
and I just had some things that I thought I would bring up that maybe others haven't.
I'm new to this process.
I'm new, actually, to the block.
I lived previously around the corner and moved in just after the Montgomery 5 project, I guess, was approved and had heard how bad that was for the neighborhood and how much, despite everyone's objection to that, it was able to proceed somehow.
And I found that to be kind of surprising and was a little bit of a wake-up call for me about how the process.
and was a little bit of a wake up call for me about how the process sir justin uh reason for
Sir, Justin.
your opposition for this project please oh sure yeah i'll just go through my go through my notes
here um so there was there was a i'm not sure if these are legally valid reasons or not i'm just
going to say what my objections are um montgomery 5 approval was used as um a precedent for why this
should be approved. I'm not sure that that's a very in-touch case because everyone opposed
Montgomery 5. I would also say with respect to light and air, I think it's also quite out of
touch to say that five 38-foot buildings in someone's backyard are not going to remove
light and air from the surrounding buildings. I mean, that's preposterous. The Montgomery 5
buildings have dramatically impacted the feel of that area already and then to put five more
buildings back there I think there's really no argument that that won't impact light and air
quality in that area. I've also not heard the concept of outdoor green space mentioned at all.
I do not know what the legal requirements for that are but the fact that we're not mentioning
that in this is surprising to me it was mentioned that if we wanted smaller houses or larger houses
rather or if we wanted fewer houses that they would just have to be larger I'm not sure what
logic that's based on but who says you have to cover every square foot of the lot with buildings
that doesn't make sense to me um i think uh yeah so as far as just the green space just
quality of life is the other thing that i think is is important here you have everyone around this
um proposal objecting to it for a variety of reasons and i guess i don't understand
whether that's um a valid reason to uh deny this project or not but it seems fairly obvious to me
that um this would not be a project that's supported by anyone around it um i know that
for example the builder of the montgomery five declined to work on this project because of the
uh uh community uh proposal to project that's that's immaterial at the moment so you could
summarize it appreciate it yeah no that's that's all i have to say thank you thank you for your
time everyone i just want to adjust justin's comments about the green space we did discuss
that at the community meeting um i know that maybe ally could um discuss that in more detail but we
we talked about doing sort of uh the drive aisle space uh in the rear with the parking where you
can have it where there's grass that comes through it it's very hard to accommodate the
sort of back and forth concern of parking no parking parking no parking um and then wanting
green space so for us uh and the green space is really not going to be visible correct correct