timing that mr. orphanetes is in and you know it all days matter but I think mr.
Murray, Spencer said that there was a SOSNA letter was issued. It was issued on whatever
date it was issued. And it says whatever it says. I don't have a copy of it. I think he,
I believe Mr. Spencer said that it was in opposition. You know, I understand that it's
always nicer as the developer to get that earlier rather than later. But, you know, as developers
attorneys, we get it when we get it, unfortunately. So I'm unclear as to where we're going with
all this. So to where we're, and if I can just respond to that, is that Mr. Spencer, through his
statements, is painting a picture to the board that more, that despite us complying technically
with the requirements of the zoning code regarding meetings with the community, that it could have
benefited from more meetings, more tweaking, more changing, and that we made those efforts to try to
make that happen and he said is normal they're normal processes to wait I
I obviously have an email where it said back in April I was going to be getting it the next week,
obviously have an email where it said back in April I was gonna be getting it
the next week and these are not normal
and these are not normal times. So my client, because of the request for continuance at the
first hearing, which was granted, because as is also often the case, you go to a community
group meeting, you hear what they say, and you make revised plans and to present them to the
board. You don't always go back to the community group before you go to the zoning board, but
that's what this group wanted us to do and the board agreed and granted that so that we could
go back and vet the changes we had made based upon the first meeting. We're ready to present
to the zoning board at the first scheduled hearing six months ago, five months ago now,
back to the community. We did that. And then we didn't really hear anything after that. And there
was no opportunity to continue to work with the community. So I don't appreciate what's being
conveyed that somehow there could have been more meetings, or there could have been further
there changes to the projects, as he said, tweaking or revisions. And we wanted to, and we
weren't provided with that. The other thing is, Mr. Spencer, did you read the letter that you
signed, the letter dated July 8th? Did you read that? Okay. And do you feel that that letter
accurately represents to whoever reads it what the current refusals are, what the current
proposal is? Is it your position that it does? I know it states the original refusals,
but do you feel that it accurately conveys where we stand, where we stood as of the last
community group meeting, when you would have written your letter, where we eliminated the
FAR refusal, eliminated the parking refusal, and where we stood in terms of the only remaining
refusal. Our letters are basically overviews of the process of number of meetings that we've had.
It's not an exact verbatim statement of what happened at the meeting, number one. And number
two, let me just remind you that at the February 8th meeting that we had in the Sassna office on
a Saturday afternoon with the near neighbors, that the meeting started out well, but when
it started going against your client, you literally folded up your book and said, we're
out of here, you know, and then you kind of hinted that you may go ahead and build an
as-right project, which we may not like, you know, so we were kind of left dunking.
All right, well, then we had a community group meeting after that, and I continued to try
to meet.
With that being said, I'm just asking questions and I'd like some answers. So paragraph two of
your letter states, the applicant for the project presented to the Sassan Zoning Committee and the
community seeking to build an addition on an existing two-story countertop granite business
on Washington Avenue. The project has two refusals. FAR required 500 and proposed 544.
Required parking is 19 spaces and proposed is 15. This letter was written after we presented to
the community group a plan that reduced the FAR to 463, which is below the
required 500, that had compliant parking 15 spaces for 30 units, and yet in your
letter you represent that there are these two refusals still remaining. Can you
explain that? No, I can't. Okay. So is it, okay, so you're right, so you're waiting, Mr. Spencer,
you're writing a letter to the zoning board that does not even accurately reflect what was in
front of the community at the last meeting. Is that not correct? David, it's not going to negate
effect that across five groups the architectural the architects that's not my question please i'd
ask the chairman i asked mr spencer mr spencer hello everyone's talking over him hello hello
everyone's talking over one another we can't hear a thing it's difficult enough trying to figure out
what's going on because i i can't scroll this letter i'm at the mercy of david or whoever
not being critical not being critical but you know so it's it's we got a
problem here right so answer the question mr. Spencer and then David you
have any more questions don't that's that's the extent of my questioning for
mr. Spencer okay what that is you said you're done and here yeah I mean I don't
need you know at this point I have no further questions we can we can leave it
all right are there any other witnesses uh chair yeah we do we have nine witnesses prepared to
testify however it is 12 57 and we have a 2 p.m session just read my mind i don't know how we're
And we have a 2 p.m. session.
You just read my mind.
I don't know how we're going to be able to get this done today.
going to be able to
Mr. Chairman, I think we can probably wrap this up faster than you anticipate.
I know it's gone on a long time.
My wrap-up presentation will be, you know, five to seven minutes at most.
My testimony, my witnesses are done.
And my understanding is that the remaining, you know, usually there's a procedure when we're all in the same room that you can say, how many other neighbors are here in opposition, even if they don't intend to testify, and they can stand up or raise their hand or whatnot.
My understanding is that that's where we're at.
I don't know how to logistically do that without requiring them.
Well, why don't we try to get everybody's name and address on the record?
i'll swear them in and i'll just ask are you in favor or opposed at a project
without getting into the specifics and if we need be we can continue this to another date
but that might be unless someone has a better idea i don't know that's fine i actually uh
it's a good idea informed that yeah the the witnesses are not intending to testify they
just want to raise their hand as you know with regard to the project or okay
something where you say if they have anything different to add I do believe
that there is another community group that is within the area that is not
just the neighbor or not unless a just but they should maybe have the
opportunity to speak as well well as an RCO I don't again if that's the way it's
going to play out we're gonna have to continue this okay I'm just I'm just
verbalizing because i don't know if you can hear from so i don't i'm not here to make the decision
understood understood understood mr chairman why don't we get the nine names as you intended to
one record anya that's going i guess it's going to be up to you uh so i i i have one offer i have
one offer mr chairman that i think might speed this along uh it is my understanding through zoom
meetings that the organizer of the meeting gets a formal printout of everything that's
written in the chat session, we could just have the individuals write their names and addresses
into the chat session, if that would be okay. No, I would like to go forward with allowing them
to get their name and address on record, just in case they want to speak. We want to allow them.
Okay. Absolutely. We're starting with the first person is Dimitri Kushner.
You can now
Use yourself and speak
Hi, this is Dimitri Kushner
I live at 2014
Kimball Street
Just to keep it short, I oppose this project
Mr. Kushner, would you spell your name for this
Sure, it's D-M-I
Last name
K-U-S-H
And you swear if I'm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you. State your comment again.
I'll keep it short. Sure. I live on the on Kimball Street on the south side.
I oppose this project and I agree with everything that my neighbor, David Hall, testified to.
Twenty hundred block Kimball. I'm sorry.
Twenty hundred block of Kimball, correct? I live on 2014 Kimball Street.
14 thank you next person
jose hernandez do you wish to testify at this time
he already did so yeah he did mr hernandez was one of my witnesses he and mr feybush are just
on because right i'm just calling who has their hand up okay they're just going to move through
adopt my testimony laura hummer do you wish to speak at this time
uh yes i would can you hear me yes my name is laura hummer l-a-u-r-a h-u-m-m-e-r i live at 2033
kimball street
miss hummer do you swear in a test to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth
And your position on this case is?
My husband and I are opposed.
We agree with Dave Hall.
In addition, we are concerned about trucks using Kimball Street at all in any capacity for this property.
Thank you.
Okay, I have an additional login for Murray Spencer.
Are you on two devices or someone else?
are you on two devices or someone else mr spencer already testified right but i'm
Mr. Spencer already testified.
just going through the list there's two names on here so is it someone else
okay we're going to go down to marcus ferrera next hello can you hear me yes okay marcus ferrera
I'm also on the seismozoning committee, but will be testifying on my own behalf.
Please spell your name for the stenographer.
M-A-R-C-U-S.
Last name is F as in Frank, E-R-R-E-I-R-A.
Thank you.
And your position in this case?
I'm opposed.
I'm not sure if I heard.
Did you give us your address?
1620 South Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146.
A considerable distance away, but we thank you for participating.
Right. I do have quick comments.
I want the zoning board to be aware that the Office of Transportation Information and Systems
James has done a plan to revise Washington Avenue so that instead of the traffic sewer that it currently is, it's going to be downgraded to three to four lanes of traffic with buffered bike lanes.
Having a curb cut mid-block is very contrary to the plan.
I don't mean to interrupt you, sir.
I appreciate your taking the time to be here.
I think a lot of that was covered under testimony by Mr. Orphanides and Mr. Whale and the attorney.
I think we've already covered that.
We do appreciate that.
Thank you.
We have a call-in user 5.
I don't know.
Is that a phone call-in?
I don't know your phone number.
Could you identify yourself if you wish to speak?
This is Mr. Chacumba speaking.
He did not keep his promise.
Today, that street has not been widened.
And that was one of the conditions of me not opposing him on 2101 Washington Avenue to widen Kimball Street.
Because Kimball Street, the people are parking on the curb.
And all the city, all they got to do is get one complaint from his incoming homeowners that they don't want them parking on their curb.
Then the street will be blocked off totally and there will be no parking on the street at all.
because it's illegal to park on the curb.
And almost every part of Kimball Street requires you to park on the curb.
Now, as far as curb cuts, you cannot stop people having curb cuts if they have a business there.
Now, you're assuming that because you zone the IRMX that these people will give up their business,
which is I2, and convert to IRMX.
If they don't, they are allowed to keep that curb cut because they will be grandfathered in.
So whatever plans these people hope to have for Washington Avenue depends upon whether or not they hope they can get rid of the businesses that currently exist on Washington Avenue, as I do, that they will be willing to give up their curve cuts.
I doubt that.
And besides, this business would have a right to continue as a granted place even if they don't get the commercial, get the residential.
I feel that people, if they are willing to go for residential, they should be given the right for residential.
And this thing of trying to block them because of a curved cut, it's just ridiculous.
They didn't block Ori when he wanted to put up his buildings, and his buildings are far much taller than that one.
All these people came out to block this poor man who only is putting up 30 units, not 120, which is five times more.
Shacumba, you're all over the place.
I appreciate it.
I'm not trying to go over the place.
Shacumba, you've been on for over four minutes.
I said I was going to hold this to three minutes.
We've gotten a little bit more time.
We appreciate your concern.
Well, the point of the matter is, like I said, let me just finish this up, okay?
That this gentleman, curve cut or no curve cut, is asking only for IRMX.
He's entitled to that because of all the other properties that you have already given it to that are five times more units than his would ever be, okay?
And this excuse of a curve cut and the rest of this stuff is full of it.
And I hope you will not deny him the right to bill and meet the only requirement that he's asking for is I-R-M-X.
Thank you very much.
It's good to hear from you again.