I will just lastly show before I...
testimony i will show just this is what the homes looked originally with you see that you know that
mansard roof and the community really didn't like that it was brought up right up to the property
line um and so you know in in uh revising those plans you see that you know the homes are a bit
setback now we added the street trees removed that mansard roofing uh you know dropped it down
about a foot um and you know we're really you know looking forward to uh to this development and
again from a density standpoint from a lot with lot area standpoint this is squarely in line with
all the surrounding um buildings and this would take what is essentially a large vacant unused lot
of land and add some homes, which will improve security, add additional funds to the city
in form of taxes, and really will be a benefit to the community.
So without further ado, I'd like to ask Doug Bomar if he could join for a moment.
Mr. Bomar, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Will you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, sir?
Yeah, it's Doug Bomar, D-O-U-G-B-O-M-A-R.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Doug, you heard my testimony and everything I noted a moment ago.
Would you agree that everything I stated is true and correct?
And would you swear that or affirm that that testimony can be adopted as if it were your own?
And I usually leave it at that.
But seeing as you've been working on this project closely with the community for the past two and a half years,
could you briefly just tell the board, I know it's been a while since you were in front of them back in October,
But your interactions and dealings and how you've worked to ultimately obtain, you know, over 60 percent support at that January meeting of East Mount Airy Neighbors.
Yeah, I think, you know, you covered a lot of the of the changes that were made, but I think I would say the process here has has worked sort of as intended.
I mean, we we originally bought the property in 2019. We've been discussing it with the RCO and with the community at large and the near neighbors for, you know, nearly two years.
As you mentioned, we've along the way, multiple RCO meetings, you know, side meetings, zoning board hearings, historic commission.
We've heard feedback and at each step we've considered the feedback and made changes based on that feedback.
And we think truly that the project is better for it.
All the design changes we've made, we think we're in a better place than we were at the beginning.
And so that's why I say I think the process has worked as intended.
At the end of the day, we're ending up with something that I think is better for everyone.
Originally, in your initial plan, you did not intend to preserve this existing structure that has been historically nominated. Is that correct?
That's right.
okay um and are there additional costs that are not going to be involved from a development
standpoint of maintaining uh that property up to the historic standards and rehabilitating it as
opposed to demolishing and building new construction sure i i mean certainly the one
thing that didn't improve is our financial outlook for the project but um but again it's
something that we think is better for the the project itself in the neighborhood and the
preservation of that house, although it may not be architecturally significant, was something that
the neighborhood considered significant. So we were happy to agree to preserve it.
And we're glad that it was, we were glad at the time that it was brought to our attention.
And Doug, you've run ProFormers and economic, you know, financial projections for this
um no no i mean if we if we do if we reduce the unit count it would be it wouldn't be a viable
project and and we don't think it would be a contextual project at that point either if the
houses instead of being 24 or 2500 square feet were you know 3500 square feet or we just don't
think that that would be contextual in terms of size and we don't think it would be contextual in
terms of what we would need to you know what the market uh price would have to be in order for it
to seek financial viability, you know, although I don't think we would get there.
Thank you. I have no further questions. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Question or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair. I think that I swore you a couple minutes ago, right?
Yes, you did.
Okay. Proceed, sir.
Okay. The problem with the numbers that they're banting about, 60% and that type of thing, none of those people were affected neighbors.
And as was pointed out, all of the near neighbors that were in attendance are unanimously opposed to this project.
um if there's something to be said for you know the near neighbors and and and uh actually uh
following what it is that their their rules they've done that rules but they're what they would
like to see as a uh as as something in their community and the councilwoman always supports
the near neighbors so as such she is going to oppose uh the granting of this variance because
of the fact that near neighbors are unanimously uh opposed to this uh project at this point
thank you any other questions or comments from the virtual audience chair we have a nina curlet
ms curlet you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
um yes thank you my name is nina curlet
could you spell it please for the court reporter i'm sorry n-i-n-a-c-u-r-l-e-t-t
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
uh yes proceed um i just would like to reiterate uh what charles richardson
said about the vote count we um we're very careful we have a ballot that we send out
that specifically asks people, did they receive a letter so that they can identify themselves
as near neighbors? They must submit their addresses in the ballots. And we do cross-check
against the city's near neighbor list. I believe that we filled out our meeting summary correctly.
And actually, there were fewer near neighbors at this meeting than there were at the past RCO
meetings for this project there's always been opposition about this project it's very dense
it's very tall and there's a lot of concern about how this will affect the property next door which
is a designated historical community asset it might belong to the current owners being the
applicants right now however it is a significant building for the neighbors of east mount airy
the reason the lot next to it is is open i'm going to call it open not vacant is because that
property was the mehan house mehan who was a essentially a gardener he ran nurseries in the
area and the whole expansive property was indeed his garden as well as many many lots in this area
where there were greenhouses and workers houses who worked the greenhouses so it is very concerning
that although this house has been designated that the applicants are choosing to show plans
that essentially set this house up for demolition by accident to try to build a shared driveway for
so many properties in such a a dense configuration with a shared driveway against and around the bay
window to me is i find it preposterous and insulting especially since at the hearing
at the designation hearing the applicants actually said they planned to demolish the bay
to which the historical commission said um you can't really do that objection
that's fine that's the reality my concern is that that day is at risk that the house is at risk
it is far too dense and there simply is not there there there
It is far too dense, and there simply is not, there has not been demonstrated any type of hardship that would necessitate building in this manner at this location.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling in.
I appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
anyone else in the virtual audience
chair we have susan o miss o you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
susan o s-u-s-a-n-o-h do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. I do. Proceed. Hi, my name is Susan O and today I'm testifying as not only the nearest
neighbor, I live at 108 Meehan, but also the neighbor that's had the most involvement to the
proposed project for the past two years outside of the zoning board volunteers of my RCO and the
countless hours they've poured into this project alone. There's three key points that I'm going to
add and emphasize as to why specifically the 106 Meehan lot bears no hardship to prove that the
applicant must build two properties as opposed to one as originally proposed, along with my
opposition to the variances for 109 Pleasant. Before I go into my points, though, I do want
to say on record myself and make aware to the zoning board that the neighborhood votes that
were taken at the RCO meeting in January be counted as illegitimate due to the fact that
there were persons voting in that room that do not live in the vicinity of this neighborhood,
let alone near neighbors, and have direct conflict of interest with this project. Therefore,
should count those votes as null and void and irrelevant to the decisions in this particular
variance. So my first point, there are 53 homes on the 100 block of Yann Avenue. 68% of the homes
are either two attached rows or semi-attached homes. You add single-family standing homes into
that equation and that percentage rises to 75 percent because of the density of our block it's
even more crucial we keep any breathing space in between the homes as possible in order to maintain
the character of the mehan block while also citing from the zoning variance criteria to avoid
to afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the lot use not to
mention 102 mehan will be having their three windows completely obstructed of sunlight in
the process, even more so with the proposed two homes. Adding two additional homes in one lot
would make for four attached row homes, with the fifth being 102 Meehan, only inches from the
attached four. My second point that is that of utmost concern are the risks and dangers associated
with underpinning. That is well-versed in this room and need not be reiterated. This is why there
are stringent laws and procedures in place to avoid accidents or worse irreversible or catastrophic
damages should only be happening in absolutely necessary hardships where there are no other
viable options to which this project is not and the applicant has yet to show in hard proof my
basement at 108 stands at only five feet tall at my height at five four i cannot stand upright and
must bend down in order to maneuver anywhere in my basement, making the physics of side-by-side
construction even more difficult and problematic. In addition to that, the past couple years till
today, we've been experiencing foundation issues within our home. I have photos of cracks
that we've had to, you know, manage ourselves. This alone has been a huge concern as a homeowner
without the additional burden of having to deal with upheaval, ground-up construction,
agitating the foundation of our home even more. With three young children, in addition to the
obvious property damages that were never even considered by the applicant, the risk-to-reward
ratio cannot be justified and should neither be deemed as necessary to this project.
I'd like to end with a precedential case that was decided in 2012 from the PA Common
Wealth Court from Society Hill Civic Association versus the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment cited, where the asserted hardship amounts to a landowner's desire to increase profitability or maximize developmental potential, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania consistently rejects requests for dimensional variances where proof of hardship is lacking.
The betterment of community is subjective and to each their own. We are entering this hearing with the neighborhood already starting from an environmental and neighborhood character loss standpoint, losing more of our green spaces and mature trees in the name of development.
losing more of our green spaces and mature trees in the name of development.
It's been a long and arduous two years for both sides.
I just want to thank the board and Chair Bergman for your time
and very serious consideration with your decision and the weight it bears for us.
Thank you. Thank you.
I have some questions for Ms. O.
Go ahead.
Ms. O, good afternoon.
you were at the hearing in October 2020. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And at that hearing in October
2020, you were under oath as well, correct? Yes. Okay. And at that hearing, you stated that,
well, at the time, there was only one home that was going to be built, and that would be closer
to uh the 102 million uh property not uh your property correct well the dimensions weren't
laid out i mean it's an open lot you can put it anywhere within the lot well but the plan last
time in october was uh there was only one home that would be built on uh the 106 million lot
and that was only that was only because there was going to also be a proposed driveway on
Meehan. Correct. And you objected at that hearing to having a driveway next to your home and stated
that you would rather have a house next to your home. Isn't that correct? No. Okay. Well, you
understand that that we had the transcript and that is, you know, of record. Um, you've had
conversations with, uh, uh, Mr. Bomar, correct? Yes. Okay. And you've had, uh, you've texted him,
um counsel you you have revised plans right yeah how many pages uh well actually they are not
revised plans because they were submitted as part of an amended refusal so um the the revised plans
uh are not so here so here's here's what i want to do i want to have our all the plans
reviewed by our attorney we will meet in an executive session next week and we will vote
next wednesday morning absolutely thank you thank you i mean i will ensure that uh those two pages
that we have uh are what uh um the uh council chair the board has as well right thank you very
much thank you maybe excuse yes thank you so number two i believe is continued as well as number three
If I'm wrong, just someone correct me, but MI 2022-00456-2227 Bryn Mawr Avenue.
Mr. Orphanides.
Mr. Orphanides, if you're in the audience, can you please raise your hand?
chair i don't see mr orphanetes at this time all right i'm going to move forward in case
he gets on later so i believe number
number five is continued number six mi 2022 000 310 3200
200 Red Line Road.
Chair, Ms. Bezidlow is coming back in as a panelist now.
Give me one second to start my video here.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. Jennifer Bazzidlo, B-A-Z-Y-D-L-O.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And could you identify your client and their relationship with the property?
Sure. Paul Santini, he should be on this call as well.
He is one of the partners in the LLC that is the tenant of the property.
okay mr holliman has a few questions for you please good afternoon counselor do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy it's a referral but yes i agree
thank you did you email all of your exhibits as required such as proof of ownership
proof of ownership tax claims copy of the refusal or referral picture of the
pictures or drawings of the property five days in defense this year did you
meet with the RCO and do you have a RCO letter yes to all of that please
proceed to share your screen great all right hold on sorry I did the wrong
thing i apologize uh there we go
okay there we go all right so as i said my name is jennifer basilow i'm here today representing
um the proposed tenant of 30 of spot number 35b of 3200 red lion road uh paul santini one of the
partners is here with me today and the proposed um business is santini grill which i'll get into a
little bit later in my packet here we have let me just move this so I can
scroll appropriately okay so we have the packet with the referral the lease which
I'm gonna skip past a lot of it because it's a big shopping center corporate
lease tax clearance RCO letter we have a unanimous letter of support from West