some properties located directly across the street, again, that I was concerned
about regarding the direction of travel, but the request from those neighbors was
that we come out on the Kimball and then head west on Kimball. It was also
these neighbors that largely asked, you can see at page 18, that we raise the
height of the rear of the building to what would be compliant in RSA 5, which
is 38 feet and put the deck up at that level off the back of the fourth floor
rather than out the back of the third floor at their third floor level. We've
already gone through exhibit 15 which is the interior photos if the board would
the board like to see anything more regarding the interior of the property
otherwise I'd leave it to you to review them at your own just showing the ground
floor industrial use the parking that's in the rear that they use right now the
showroom that they presently have on the ground floor and then the offices and
whatnot that they have upstairs is there any need for me to go through that any
further anyone else anyone have any questions any board member have any
questions so far? No, it's not necessary. And again, I'm sorry if I'm belaboring this.
no okay and again I'm sorry if I'm belaboring this it's just a slightly
different situation because of the president's presence of represented
the rest of the parties so I've already gone through 2035 and the Planning
Commission can speak for that I took the liberty of including the industrial
district dimensional table at tab 16 I think there's going to be some
questions that will be raised later on regarding whether or not the property if it were remapped
to irmx which would allow for the residential use we're proposing whether it complies as it's
been revised with those requirements and i have them here for the board to take a look at we may
be discussing those down the road either in my closing or my cross-examination the use is allowed
an industrial district, obviously showing that multifamily is not. This is on, again,
on exhibit 17 now, has to do with the uses in industrial district. And then I've
also included the parking requirements from 14801 in this exhibit. In case
there's any, I believe there may be some questions regarding, it shows the one to
do parking for the residential use so then there are maybe some questions
regarding whether or not we've questions regarding the refusal and whether or not
we've satisfied some of those requirements and I provide that for
everybody's benefit so that we can refer to that as any of those objections are
raised there are allowances for certain adjustments to the requirements that are
i can't say but it gives the gist of a lot of residential units here at the time of the cdr
submission it was 256 apartments with 120 underground parking units i will say that
their parking both for you'll see after this the zoning archives for 2201 they are accessing their
off-street parking from the numbered streets not from washington avenue which is not a zoning issue
or zoning matter, but you can see from their own exhibits that 21st Street and 22nd Street
are much wider, 20 feet wider, than what Kimball Street is. This is from their own, and I'm looking
at, I think it's, excuse me, one second, joining page five of the CDR submission.
Again, showing the I2 mapping that they have presently for those parcels on page 5 of their CDR submission.
This, I was very curious about page 8 of their CDR submission because it seems to show 22 in the upper right-hand corner.
It seems to show 2201, which I'm circling, which is the larger square, and 2201, which is a smaller rectangle, as being shown in what I'm assuming is, as I showed earlier, was the non-industrial.
they're showing as being the non-industrial color, IRMX, whereas, again, our version of the 2035
plan that we pulled shows that it's being, one of them being IRMX, the larger one, and the smaller
2201 being ICMX. But what's also interesting is they show our parcel in red as CMX3, which would
be fantastic because it would, you know, except for the industrial use, but which would be
grandfathered but even our residential use will be permitted but this is contrary to the 2035 plan
i don't know if this is the 2035 plan or where this is from but it's not the 20 version of the
2035 plan for the central district that we pulled so um they might want to explain that but this is
the nature of their development project at that time again showing the number the number of the
size not much different than what we're looking at in terms of our building in
terms of height and here's 2201 again residential and commercial mixed use
same variances that we need I mean they needed at least the variance and then
just flying through and we again provided this more so you can see the
how Washington Avenue is changing, what the plans for it are, what you've already
approved, what's coming to you for approval, which is less, which is more
dense, more residential units than what we're proposing by far. And then at the,
here you have some renderings of what they're looking to do. So I leave that to you all look
at we can maybe get back into that on cross-examination
as well exhibit 22 shows the approval and i apologize for the resolution of
the plans um i can't provide email i'm not sure
if this is out of turn just a little bit but i will
stipulate to the fact that what mr overnees is
showing are documents relating to two projects that don't
relate to today's presentation uh you will hear about them
at length next week one of them is also what you previously approved um you know again i'm happy
to stipulate that they are what they are thank you and i can answer any questions that the board
might have that in some way relate to those projects uh during my presentation but i would
object to continuing in this path now thank you appreciate that the only thing i would change is
that obviously we think it's relevant whether it's in terms of a value view argument or otherwise
is because it's changing it's asking for similar variances as we are asking here we know every
property stands on its own there's no such thing as precedent however it is changing the scope and
nature of what washington apple is um just like the existing zoning classification and what might
be proposed at the 2035 plan and then my last exhibit that we have here is the um showing all
these different on our block of Washington Avenue and that's exhibit 23 23 are two existing one of
which is going to be filled and then all the other existing curb cuts that there are a lot of them
on Washington Avenue with that I apologize for how long I went on oh this is interesting so down
Down at the southeast, southeast corner, one last thing, up 20th in Washington at the
at the southeast corner, one last thing, up 20th in Washington.
end of our east end of our block across the street are the offices of OCF Realty.
They are in a building itself that has a curb cut on Washington Avenue. So and
that just to show you that this curb cuts extend, continue to extend to the east and as
you know I think the board is familiar with Washington Avenue from the full
length of Washington Avenue from river to river. I would ask that Chelsea, I'd
like to have them to adopt my statements again. I've tried to speed this along as
much as possible. I appreciate that rather than me going through and asking my
clients all these. But Chelsea, did you hear my statements today? Yes. And are they
too inaccurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Would you adopt them as
your own yes is there anything about them that you would change or correct uh no very good
and jenny did you hear my statements that i made to the board
yes and are they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt them as your
own yes and are there any is there anything you would like to add um to supplement what i stated
about anything any of my statements or change correct i have nothing to add okay and i just
reserved the right to call both of my either or both of my witnesses on on rebuttal but with that
i conclude my my case in chief okay um stenographer i think we might want to take a five or ten minute
break uh because i suspect that the uh rebuttal is going to be somewhat lengthy and i understand
And I don't know if you have a head count yet, Tanya, but give us a sense of how many people are going to be testifying.
So, currently, I see that there are about eight hands up thus far.
All right.
Chairman Chico, I apologize, Ms. Sunkit.
I apologize, Ms. Sunkett, for interrupting you.
I thought you were done.
Chairman DiCicco, just to help you out,
I would guess that my presentation will be a maximum of 10 minutes.
Before my presentation, I do have just a handful of questions.
I'll try to keep them as narrowly tailored as possible for Chelsea,
and I apologize.
I missed Chelsea's last name, and Jenny, and I missed her last name as well.
on our behalf
Horry Fybush will be testifying
and so will Jose Hernandez
and then I am told
that there are a number of other
individual residents
who would like to testify on their own behalf
so with that
can we take a five minute break
I suspect the
sonographer would like to have a break
does that work?
be back in five minutes everyone?
yeah it's true thank you sounds good great job
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're waiting for Carol.
When Carol gets back in, we'll proceed.
I'm back with coffee.
All right.
Sorry for having me up.
No, no, no, no.
We're just getting started anyway.
Everybody's ready?
Tanya?
Tanya?
Yes, Chair.
Ready.
All right.
Mr. Whalen, before we begin, well, state your name and, you know, identify yourself.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and the board.
Sean Whalen, Vintage Law, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
I'm representing today Ori Fibush as the president and owner of OCF Realty, which is on the block,
and as one of the representative owners of 2101 Washington Avenue, which you just heard about at length.
If I may...
Before you begin, I'm not sure if I swore you in that you get sworn in.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
and before you begin if you have any questions for the appellant's witnesses you can begin with
those if that works for you thank you very much i know we're all kind of muddling through here in
the beginning this is a little bit out of order but david mr orfinetes if you don't mind i would
like to ask a few questions i think most appropriately directed to chelsea i believe
your last name is Hwang. I apologize if I said that wrong. So if I could ask Ms. Hwang a few
questions, I'll try to keep it brief. I don't have any objection to that, Sean. Please. Okay.
Muddle through, as you said. Kind of like normal procedure and whatnot being relaxed. Act 15 says
we can relax procedure. So yeah, let's just try to get everything out there, all the cards on the
table so okay so miss Wang you testified that you're going to continue the
industrial use but you're willing to give up the manufacturing at the use
correct she's muted Chelsea you have to unmute
miss Wang would you like me to re-ask the question there you go oh yes please
a repeated question because i just stepped out oh no problem at all uh so i just want to confirm
you testified that you're going to continue the industrial use uh but you're willing to give up
the manufacturing portion of that use uh if approved today correct correct okay um now this
is currently uh in your current business um vehicles access the first floor of your business
is that correct yes okay uh do customers access that floor uh right now a lot of time we don't
uh we're not letting only customer come in to unload loading the material
okay so a vendor may come in to drop off could i could i i'm sorry to interrupt but
i'd like some clarity your question is you'll continue the industrial use
I'd like some clarity. Your question is, you'll continue the industrial use.
So my question is for the lawyers. If sales and display of the material is all that's going to take place there, is that still considered industrial?
No, this is exactly my first question.
Okay, that's right. I think we get to what needs to be a new refusal, because the application refusal specifically addresses existing quote manufacturing of granite countertop and associated warehouse space.
I'm not trying to jam up Mr. Orphanides on this. You know, that can get cleaned up however it needs to be. That's not the thrust of my my opposition today. So, all right.
And just, if I can interject, I think, you know, we, there were a number of things that were described. And if through the process, something, it'd be one thing if we were adding something in that might, even if it was by right, and then I would say, okay, you know what, we'll come back and we'll add that by right industrial use later.
But we had a list of industrial type uses, and we are now removing that, just like eliminating
a barrier. I don't, I mean, some people might argue that we should, every time we make a change that
eliminates a refusal, that we should get a new, we should do an amended application and get a new
refusal so everybody knows exactly what they're talking about. It's not how the process works. So
generally, as long as I'm taking something away, which it sounds like we have an agreement that
we were going to reduce the extent of the industrial use, then I don't think, I disagree
that there's a need for a new application or a different refusal because we're just removing,
just like we reduced the number of residential dwelling units from 37 to 30. With that being said,
can I just say one thing? With that being said, I think it's still an industrial use because
I'm not sure it's building supplies and I'm not sure that even though building services,