who have spoken over the last uh you know six to 12 months about this project um you have to you
have to testimony on your behalf only okay then i'm testifying on my behalf so my primary concern
is the negative impact that this project will have on the safety of families living on the block.
As you've seen in Mr. Orfaniti's presentation, Kimball Street is a very narrow one-way street
with minimal traffic right now. Many people actually turn down the street and then seeing
how narrow it is, they get scared and back up. This creates a safe play space for families and
children on the street. And we currently have nine families on the block with children younger
than six years old. And I think that one thing that this pandemic has shown us is the need for
safe play space for children, including in streets like ours. We oppose the project using the rear,
I oppose the project using the rear garage door for ingress or egress onto Kimball Street because
it will create more traffic on our narrow street, making it less safe for the children, pedestrians,
and bikers in the neighborhood. And by increasing traffic on Kimball Street, it will also be more
difficult for families to temporarily park in front of their houses and load and unload their
cars, which we frequently do. This would be the only active curb cut on the south side of Kimball
Street. As Mr. Orfaniti said, there are two. One of them is their property, which we've lived in
our house for six years and have not seen it used once while we were there. And the other one is
directly next door at the next fab building. And they have spoken with neighbors and agreed not
to use that back entrance because of how narrow Kimball Street is and how it will negatively
affect the neighbors. Additionally, directly across from the proposed egress, which is my
property, there are two trees and a telephone pole, which will only make it more difficult for
any cars, including trucks, to make that turn out of the property without hitting and damaging
these. And because our street is so narrow, a number of neighbors' cars have been damaged by
people driving down the street and increased traffic would only worsen this problem. The cars
that exit the building will then have to turn onto 21st Street, which is a very dangerous intersection
because there's very limited visibility and a number of pedestrians, including patrons from
the methadone clinic at the corner of 21st and Washington, often cross that intersection. So I
think that's another, you know, potential danger. So, and with my house sitting across, directly
across from the garage door, I'm concerned about the headlights shining into my living room at,
you know, all hours of night with cars exiting. And I know that we spoke with Mr. Orfanides
about that, and we talked about which direction traffic should go. And I don't want direction,
I don't want traffic either way on Kimball Street, but this seemed to be the lesser of two evils.
The second major concern would be the massing of the building casting shadows on our house and
neighboring properties. It will cast a large shadow in midday as as Mr. Orphanides showed
and this is the only building on the 2,000 block of Washington above three stories
that will eliminate a large amount of midday sunlight from our property and surrounding
properties and we appreciate the changes to the design by adding the tiers in the rear of the
building and realize that some shadow is going to be inevitable but we think I think that it could
I think that it could have been more thoughtful design to move the massing forward towards Washington Avenue to decrease the impact.
have been more thoughtful design to move the massing forward.
The property also does not fit in with the rest of the block as it currently is.
And ideally, what I would like to see is on the south side of the block to be filled in with townhomes to fit with the rest of the houses on Kimball Street
and create a more aesthetically appealing block similar to what is currently being built on the 2100 and 2200 block of Kimball.
I think this would be a much more thoughtful project if the developers would have split the lot into an RSA 5, similar to what is being done on those projects.
The third concern would be the roof deck noise, which Mr. Orfanides again brought up earlier.
My house being directly across from where the roof deck would be, I'm afraid that it will limit privacy.
I have concerns about privacy with people looking into our bedroom, which is on the third floor, or onto our roof deck that we have.
You know, I think that that's a huge concern as well as the increased noise on what is now a very quiet and residential street.
And it's one thing to have a single house put across from you where, you know, a family has a roof deck, but it's a very different issue to have a shared roof deck for 30 units across the street from you.
So in summary, you know, Mr. Orphanides referred to the changes on Washington Avenue and referenced the projects at 2100 and the 2200 blocks.
and I agree that the neighborhood is changing
and I look forward to that change
and I do not oppose development on Washington Avenue
but I oppose bad development
and feel that any development should be thoughtful,
attempt to fit in with the surrounding existing properties,
improve the aesthetics of the area
and try to minimize the negative impacts on near neighbors
and I strongly oppose this
because I feel that this project does none of those.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the board.
Thank you, Mr. Hall, for your testimony.
Any questions for Mr. Hall?
seeing none tanya we'll move on to the next witness
there's a number on the phone 2016 is the last four numbers are you prepared to testify
yes i am and if i could ask that all who wish to testify and are prepared to please keep yourself
muted so we don't get background noise thank you you can go forward you said
2-0-1-6 is that correct correct are you getting background noise yes
okay hoping i've eliminated some of that are we hiring everybody before they get started
what's that mr mr chairman
do we need to swear each of the people that i will as soon as he i get his name i'm gonna
that's what i've been doing okay individually so you state your name and address sir for the record
my name is murray spencer i'm chairman of the sasna zoning committee
and the sasna office is at 1901 christian street 19146 and i live in 1725
I'm sorry you broke up
You live
I live at 1725 Christian Street
In the same zip code
Thank you and
Mr. Pressure do you swear and firm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Let me spell my name
For the record
M-U-R-A-Y
Last name is Spencer
S-P-E-N-P-E-R
I had it down as pressure okay all right please proceed with your testimony okay so we wrote a
letter of opposition based on having four meetings with the client I mean with the applicant the
first of which was an architectural review committee which is part of our vetting process
for large projects like this that took place on January 8th our first meeting with the community
He was applying Wednesday.
It was rather quick.
That's what the applicants wanted to do, and that was January 15th.
There was such opposition and lack of clarity in the project, some of which Mr. Whalen noted in his testimony.
So we had a meeting with the near neighbors on February the 8th, and the applicant came back on February 19th with a revised set of plans.
In fact, they came back with revisions with each meeting, which I thought was rather incredible.
We didn't ask for that.
that we probably thought they would have missed and synthesized more of the changes into a plan
plan instead of reissuing or redesigning at every step but some of our objections
instead of reissuing or redesigning at every step.
are as you've heard today well one of which is the process is only taking 42
days to get to this and by that I mean we started out in January 8th and ended
on February 19th the larger projects that mr. Whalen mentioned the 2401 and
21-on-1. We support those projects, which are much larger, understandably. We took six months
to vet and get through and revise. If everyone's happy with them, I'll be coming back to testify
next week for 21-on-1, as long as it's not on Monday because my wife's having surgery.
One of the big objections with the architects at the first meeting was that it is basically
be a point slab tower. By that we mean it's a rectangular
building and the case is east-west. And one of the issues that came up was
the fenestration. We thought that maybe there were too many windows on the
east-west side. Maybe, I mean, too many that might not be allowable
with code. There's only a foot setback from the property line on each side.
And if someone else came and decided they want to do a similar project
with a similar setback, there would be 12 feet
between windows, and once you got down to the second floor,
if anything ever dropped into the second floor,
how would you ever get down and get out the window and pick it up,
you know, the trash would accumulate there?
That's just another building.
We addressed the initial meeting trash storage.
We don't think this is enough, but in the first meeting there was very little.
I did add, and I followed them for adding, we worked with the neighbors on Kimball with regard to the access in and out of the building.
I'm not sure that that's been fully resolved.
I thought it had been, but hearing Mr. I think Hall's testimony, me and I have been, we, Mr. Whalen also, not punch toes,
but commented on the handicapped parking, additional trash stores,
elevator uses, you know, the truck access.
I mean, we just think that this project might have merit,
but it probably needs a little bit more time, you know,
to put the residents and to smooth out some of the architectural issues,
if they can be smoothed out at all.
I think that's probably going to wrap up my testimony at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Spencer.
Any other witnesses?
I have a question for Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer, this is David Orfanides.
You went through when we met and when the community group meetings were,
architectural review committee, community group meeting.
um when did you when did you ultimately issue your formal letter regarding any object remaining the
result of the community group meeting any remaining outstanding issues you had with
the project what day did you issue that letter uh i have it in front of me and it was issued
can you hear me now we can you you cut off at issued uh july 8th july 8th um that was the date
of the letter and would it be would it be fair to say would you disagree with me if i would say
that it was emailed out to the ZBA, to David Zega, you, Franz Pierre from Councilman Johnson's
office, Madeline Chacumba, and myself on Thursday, July 9th? That's probably correct, yes. Okay, and
that's the day before we were required to submit all of our materials for the hearing, which was
five days before today, which was July 10th, correct? I would not know that, but if you say so, yes.
Okay. So would you disagree with me? Well, let me ask you a question. Do you, in your position with SOSNA, do you interact with Nicole Kodeiker on a regular basis regarding SOSNA matters and zoning matters?
Oh, yes, definitely.
Okay. And what's her position with SOSNA?
She's the executive director.
would it uh were you aware that on july 1st wednesday july 1st that i
emailed her and uh mishacumba from nowak providing them
with notice of today's hearing and ask and requesting
their position positions are you aware of that
Are you aware of that?
okay and were you also aware that on friday
And were you also aware that on Friday, May 15th at 4.46 p.m., that I also emailed Ms. Kodeiker, and in that email, I was following up on an email, a prior email, which I'll get to, and it says,
following up on the email below in our conversation on the street the other day
regarding at least receiving a draft of SOSNA's position letter. This will not only
help ensure that we have enough time before the rescheduled slash continued
ZBA hearing to address any comments in advance thereof, but having that
information will help me better advise the ZBA attorney and administrators the
status of the case for that rescheduling. Thank you for your assistance and
cooperation. Were you aware that I sent that email on May 15th asking for
feedback and input from sasna i don't recall but if i was copied on the email i would have to say
yes because i'm sure i probably read it okay well you weren't but i generally most of the interaction
goes directly to nicole correct at the very least and you said that you have communications with
her on a regular basis correct i do okay i do and were you aware that on march 31st
I sent an email to Ms. Kodeiker at 9.28 p.m. Tuesday.
Nicole, I hope you're doing okay through all that's going on.
We all seem to have a little extra time on our hands these days, and so I'm ready to roll when things improve and return to some semblance of normal.
I wanted to follow up on the status of Sassan's position letter for this project.
I know you had previously indicated that you provided prior to the CBA hearing, which was originally scheduled for March 18th.
While that hearing was obviously continued, perhaps we can get it sooner than whenever the new ZBA hearing date may be.
Thanks for your help, and stay well, be safe.
Regards, David Orfanides.
Were you aware that I sent that email on March 31st, trying to get some feedback to further work on the design of the project,
and that on April 3rd, Ms. Kodeika responded,
Hi, David, I'll be counting votes and writing the letter next week.
Thanks for your patience.
Were you aware of any of those communications in my efforts to try to continue to work on the project since the last community group meeting and zoning board hearing, and that we didn't receive any feedback until last Thursday?
Were you aware of that?
I cannot recall.
But I'd like to say that normally we don't issue our lawyers until the week of the meeting, number one.
Number two, if we had given you a preview of the letter, and you made changes, that would have forced another community meeting at the very least.
And your clients seem to be intent on getting this through as soon as possible.
That's why I think you went to the ZBA in January when, you know, there was a lot of opposition, or maybe it was February, but there was still a lot of opposition.
but you know it would have it would have required yet and we just set up our zoning protocol to show
a lot of other rcos have across the city and the zba itself um so we you probably be another month
or two out once we got our protocols together and had our first meeting which is now together for
i think in august so but online is i mean that may i don't know that i necessarily agree with
you stating what we would wouldn't do David if I if I might I I know this is
sort of awkward to do in this situation mr. chairman I'd like to object just to
this line of questioning because I certainly understand the situation of