So my first witness is the Council President, Darryl Clark.
you uh is the councilman there good afternoon council president please identify yourself
with a record spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in councilman you can unmute
yourself you got me yeah yeah good afternoon good afternoon please let's spell your first
and last name council president and i'll swear you and this is uh council president daryl clark
councilman fifth district d-a-r-r-e-l-l-l-a-r-k-e you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i absolutely do swear thank you mr please proceed
Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Zoning Board and all
members present. Ms. Jones will be laying out the technical nature of the whole issue of the
granting of this permit. This permit was clearly granted. As we said in ERA, this is a long
established residential community. There was actually some issues with respect to the CDR
where it referenced only one particular property
that was in proximity that was residential on that corridor
as if that was the predominant level of activity on Gerard Avenue.
Anybody that knows anything about Gerard Avenue in that particular area
knows this is clearly commercial related.
This whole issue with respect to the density,
the issue with respect to the granting of remit,
And I believe that, Mr. Chair, as you were the architect, chief architect of the Zoning
Code Commission years ago, and it was passed, and the premise of that was to rezone, remap
the city of Philadelphia.
And clearly, if that particular area had been remapped, and I'm still not clear as to why
it was not by the Planning Commission, it would have been remapped as a commercial activity.
So the whole premise that that should have the ability to be a residential site was clearly
not necessarily only within the spirit of the code, but clearly an error that happened on behalf
of the City Planning Commission for not officially remapping that area, although it was commercial
use for 30 years. This particular community will clearly be impacted in an extremely negative way.
During the course of the CDR meeting, they have raised multiple concerns about its impact
of a building that, in all due respect to the property owner, don't frankly think it was a
relatively attractive building at all. It was essentially a brick wall placed directly across
the street from two-story low-density properties. The historical nature of it,
Yorktown in itself was actually way beyond just that simple community. It was actually
a dream of Reverend Sullivan, the great Reverend Leon Sullivan, when it was understood that
the investment in the community should be done by individuals of color at that time,
an investment that grew out of his mission and his need to create self-sufficiency,
his need to create investment in our people. And it was a cornerstone of that neighborhood
and the cornerstone of a movement. It was clearly intended to continue to be such a
a low-density type of neighborhood. This particular building is not only out of character,
it defeats the purpose of the long-standing belief that this section of Yorktown
continues to have such a historical character. The issuance of this permit was clearly
technically questionable and then the subsequent withdrawal and the subsequent permit issued by
for demolition tells me that I well it tells me that there's
tells me that there should be some levels of concern about the issuance of this permit.
During the course of the conversation with the design review committee,
the reference of possibly having commercial on the first floor was essentially swept aside
to make some level of consistency as it relates to the commercial nature of the block.
So I think that this is clearly a wrong-minded, an affront, frankly speaking, not only on
this community.
I don't think that the developer in this case, frankly speaking, really cared about the benefits
of this local neighborhood and the long-standing history of this neighborhood.
So this granting of this permit should never have happened. A whole lot of balls were dropped.
And if in some way, shape or form that I was one of those balls that was dropped, then
I stand guilty. But it is clear that I nor anybody else in that neighborhood knew that
that was not a commercial location, which it had been for 30 years. So I just think that this is
clearly not the appropriate place to put such a structure. It clearly has impacted that local
community in a significant way. I know this may not necessarily have anything to do with the
zoning, but the reality is that with the closing of that Rite Aid and the subsequent closing of
the CBS two blocks away has basically taken away any access to pharmaceuticals and that immediate
a need for those people in that community and all the other things that come along with
these types of stores in retail in a community, a community that was already underserved by
commercial and business activity. So there's a lot of issues. And so, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully
request that we deny and rule in favor of the appeal and deny and permit to build this
overwhelmingly large wall walling off our Yorktown community in the heart of this historical area
of North Philadelphia and the 5th Council of Matic District. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just for clarification, correct me if I'm wrong, it's sound to me,
And again, I may be wrong that had there been some discussion about a mixed use, meaning some commercial component, that that might have been something that would have allowed this conversation to move in a different direction.
Am I accurate?
Did I hear you correctly or not?
No, I'm not getting into the design and how many units or anything.
That was a question that was brought up by the members of the CDR.
The community was opposed to the construction of this residence of development, period,
because of the size and the nature of it.
They wanted to maintain a solely commercial.
So I didn't want that to be construed as to there was an attempt at a compromise by the community.
I thought I heard that, but I wanted to be clear on it.
No, no, that was a question that was brought up because the facade when asked by, I'm not
sure who exactly asked that question on that committee, because it appeared to be some
commercial space, but that was just a lobby for the residents.
And so there was a whole lot of issues surrounding that, but this is not something that community
supported in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Whalen do you have any questions for the council president
no I do not chairman thank you all right and and I know council president you got a lot of stuff on
your plate and I'm not going to hold you here all afternoon so I'm going to ask the board if they
have any questions but uh of the council president uh regarding his testimony no no they're not um
i would also note the city has no questions thank you thank you thank you council president thank
you thank you very much mr chairman thank you members of the board thank you thank you
um miss jones yes i know that was your one of your witnesses do you have anyone else
i i do i just have um a couple of people from the community that desire to speak um
Excuse me, this is Sharon. I'm not sure that those witnesses are relevant. This is not a variance case. It's really only the legal issues that the board is considering today.
I understand that, but my argument, our argument was based on the section 14-101, section one of the code to demonstrate how this property basically,
I understand that, but my argument
basically how it does nothing to preserve or enhance the realm, it adds unneeded density,
so I just wanted to...
I'm sorry, Ms. Jones, but that, for a buy-right permit, those really aren't considerations.
If I might, and to respond to that also, the general provisions in the zoning code, in
the 100 section of the zoning code are essentially the rationale for why the zoning code exists it
simply says this is what we're doing with the zoning code we're creating these restrictions and
it is the rest of the code and the specific provisions in the code that lay out how the city
is going to comply or comport with those initial provisions so when city council passes all these
other provisions they're basically like so and for instance the provisions that allow this to
be a by right use in rm1 that city council by passing you know those use tables and those
dimensional requirements that apply to rm properties says that they by definition that
the existence of that code provision is saying that city council believes that it is uh in full
conformity with the purposes of the zoning code in other words it's in full conformity with the
purposes of 103 what we're talking about here is a disagreement about whether this project should
be by right at in uh in this zoning classification or in this particular neighborhood or whether
this property should have been remapped but both of those things are arguments about legislation
that are for city council to address there's no legal argument here about why this permit
application didn't meet the requirements of the code they're simply saying this shouldn't have
happened and i'm not disagreeing that i have no idea whether it should have happened or not i
don't live in the neighborhood and i you know we have full respect for council president clark's
position and his interest in his constituents and we have full respect for the people that
live in the neighborhood nevertheless this is an rm1 property and the code allows this
and the belief that maybe that provision shouldn't apply to this property
or this should have been remapped so that this wouldn't have been allowed,
that's not an argument that could possibly be successful
in order to invalidate the permit.
It's simply an argument to maybe as a policy matter
to not let it happen again by remapping other locations
where you may be worried that this would happen or something like that and again i'm not saying
that because i have any position whatsoever on the on the project itself el and i and the city
are taking no position on whether this is a good project whether the building's pretty or whether
you know the fact but the fact is is that there's it there's no legal argument here that i've been
able to discern at least not on the notice of appeal as to what what was actually wrong with
the issuance of this permit other okay i don't i think the count miss jones well i think the
councilman laid out what we would probably be hearing from uh the folks in the neighborhood
i can't imagine them with all due respect offering anything new and different and if i'm wrong
correct me. I just don't want to burden the record and delay this, have this hearing go on
longer than we would normally care to have it go on. Again, I'm not dismissing anyone. We
appreciate the fact that they're calling in and the patients, but unless you really think it's
absolutely necessary I'd like to move on uh that I mean that's that's fine I do believe that the
the neighbors would have been um the neighbors would have been able to give it a more specific
experience with this project, but however, if the question was if LNI bases any of their
The question was, if L&I bases any of their decisions off of this portion of the code.
decisions off of this.
And if they don't, then I just want to move to the second part of my argument.
And, you know, the city will go ahead and stipulate that if the neighbors were allowed to testify,
that they would testify that uh the project would have adverse impacts on their neighborhood
that's that's again that that's what they would test we're not stipulating that would in fact have
that uh impact but so we'll just we'll accept for the sake of argument that they would have
made that testimony that's where i'm getting at thank you all right so so miss johns we can
proceed from there all right okay um i did get just get a message if um if you'll allow it chair
the council president is is back um can he please just raise his hand
again council president you've been unmuted you can speak now just identify yourself council
President, you've already been sworn in, just to identify yourself. Thank you, thank you. So
I was trying to be respectful in my earlier testimony, but the reference to
the board and all the participants being burdened by having the community
speak, frankly speaking, having taken time out of their day, again, I think is a continued affront.
Now, this whole issue with respect to the steamrolling of these local communities, because somebody, and I'll call it like it is, and I know it's on the record, because somebody screwed up and didn't adequately remap that area of the city, frankly speaking, is just so, so, you know, disconcerning to me.
this issue about the law department, who I thought, frankly speaking, represented the
city council of Philadelphia. And I've always said on the record, councilman, when you were
a council person, that the law department is clearly in conflict. Here they are, an attorney,
the legal representation for the city council of Philadelphia. But yet they're in here defending
and taking a position on behalf of L&I.
It is clearly a conflict.
That should not even be a part of the record,
and they should not be a part of this particular case in this instance.
So I'm just, you know, this whole issue with respect to how the zoning board
is dealing with these communities, right,
and just allowing these developers to come through utilizing technicalities
whenever possible and just changing the whole character
of neighborhoods across the city with no sense of respect, no sense of caring, and I'm trying
not to bring this whole race issue into it, but you know, I continue to see this affront on these
neighborhoods, particularly in these neighborhoods that frankly have had a traditional minority
community. So I cannot just sit here without saying that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, you and I
have been friends for a long, long time, but this whole notion, first, that you won't let the
community people speak because it's a burden for people to have to listen to that. It's just so
insulting. And then this issue with respect to law department, you know, representing clearly
in conflict of the representation of this council office. And then this whole notion of how people
are treating these neighborhoods without any regard for what they care about because of simple
technology so technicality so i just had to get that i apologize if i came across as trying to
insult people it's you know we have mr chair you know i mean i have to find as a burden
well a burden is so far as we have about 13 14 more cases this is the two then maybe you know
all the respect when people sign on for the job you know we had 80 people testify no 108 people
testify in the city council the day before yesterday right public comment that's the job
that i signed on for and we sat there and listened to those people i'm familiar with that i was i was
there i listened to it and sometimes we just the board just would like to have some folks come on
and give us something new and different uh to hear the same uh argument over and over again it just
well that's a part of what we do yeah well all right i respect what you're saying i appreciate
You know, if you don't think that we hear a public comment, that's repetitive.
that's repetitive. I know. I know you do. I listen to you guys more on Thursdays.
I know, I know you do.
I listen to you guys more on Thursdays.
That's a part of the job. So if the community people want to speak, then they should be allowed
to speak. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Jones. Yes. I think we left off. You have some
witnesses? I do. The first person we have is Ms. Renee Drayton. If she could please raise her hand
and so she can be promoted.
She's been unmuted.
Ms. Drayton yes yes good afternoon I believe I swear you in hi Ms. Drayton can you put
your name and address on the record please and I'll swear you in where are you Mary
did we lose her i don't know it's here she was promoted to panelists in era she's been
sent back to an attendee she gonna mute herself to speak thanks uh miss sunken
miss tonera can you hear me yes i can hi can you put your name and address on the record
and please spell your last name i can my name is renee drayton last name spelled diaz and david
R-A-Y, T like Tom, O-N as in Nancy, resident is 1321, Patrick Henry Place, Yorktown, Philadelphia, 19122.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Okay. First of all, thank you. I wanted to say hello to the chairman.
I see that Sean Whelan is on this call as well.