you start removing the soil and the underground storage tanks there could be additional wells
that are required for the quarterly monitoring by the DEP and then extra soil may need to be
removed and offloaded off site. So even if even if you're able to develop the site and let's
to say it's even the lower number of 175, and you're able to get a tenant, you know, rents,
does the project work as a CA1? It does not. Even if we're able to rent it at the market rate that's
going for in that area, with the cost of construction, the cost of development,
we would not have any sort of positive return. Okay, thank you, John.
um and i just have um david plant um i have some questions for david plant as well if we can okay
hello yes sir can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
yes david plant p-l-a-n-t-e 5900 ridge avenue philadelphia pa 19128
thank you do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do okay mr grigos david when if you recall um after we had the initial
with the pushback you were you were engaged by John and his team to look at
see one uses is that correct correct and you ran a number of different
correct and you ran a number of different potential scenarios i did and some of those
had a 38-foot building is certainly possible and the medical office building would be feasible on
the site you see a one zoning dimensions i'm sorry can you repeat that last in other words the height
the height of the building you could you could build a three-story 38-foot building would be
that's right we we looked at a couple different scenarios and and one of them um one of the i
would say two or three most likely um is a three-story uh medical office building yes
and typically what you would have in that is the ca1 um auto oriented is building set back from the
street parking field in the front that's right that's typically what retailers or other users
would want and and that would have a bigger impact on say the park in terms of approximately
building shadows that correct that's right so an arrangement like that most likely would be
similar to some of the other properties for example the convenience store that's just a blocker or a
block and a half to the south and that's a parking lot in front access from chew avenue and then a
loading area and trash enclosure in the back so we would need to service any kind of retail we'd need
a service area in the back and that would be accessed from slocum street and you know that
That would, in your opinion, would have certainly a bigger impact than the current proposed
building on the park and meeting the neighbors.
Yeah, that would have much more impact, and there would be much more activity.
And as I think you touched on before, a use like that, you know, we looked at a couple
of different uses but at the extreme end a convenience store would generate uh it would
be approximately a 4 500 square foot building and that would generate approximately 20 times
as much traffic as a 33 unit apartment building so that would really be
obviously a very significant impact compared to the apartment building
And I raise this just because one of the comments from the community was safety, walkability of 2 Avenue, and traffic.
And I just want to confirm, David, that your opinion as an engineer, that the CA-1 use has a much larger impact on those.
Really, all of the other realistic CA1-compatible or compliant uses would generate much more traffic than the multifamily use.
And how about one of the other comments was warm water.
Did you talk about the warm water management?
This is a green roof, a green roof building.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
so you know this should this should certainly have a significant upgrade of what is existing
in terms of storm water management that's right that's right there's no storm water
management on the site and the site is is mostly paved today the green roof is not required we
don't trip the requirement for um for storm water management but it's provided to comply with the
um rm1 uh bonus density bonus arrangement as though we were uh in in the rm1 district
um but so you didn't you didn't um trigger stormwater magic but you're doing additional
is to improve the project i think maybe maybe the punch line that i was trying to get to there
is that if this was um developed as a ca1 compliant property no stormwater management
would be required or provided great so so this is actually this project actually addresses the
concerns that's right um thank you um and um i'll just turn this over to the board for any plans
and i'll reserve um a time for a closing if that's okay but um we also have an evidence
2035 i have some letters of support which i will get to
get to, apologies. I look forward to seeing everyone in person soon. Oh, I know. Can you
make that a little larger? Yes. So this is a letter of support from a neighbor three blocks
away um and um you know one of the things they say is um you know a lot of the neighbors are
sort of been uh reluctant to come out because of an aggressive campaign with few local neighbors
so i'll leave the board to review that letter for what it's worth an additional letter of support
um from a neighbor two locks away um uh and how they believe that redevelopment of the site would
be an improvement. I also have in your packet for review just a letter from our broker who
looked at the site and said that CA1, it would be very difficult to place CA1 tenants or CA1 uses
at this site. And finally, I just want to just add that we had four meetings. We really
We were hopeful that there was discussion, but the discussion was really that residential was a non-starter and multifamily was a non-starter.
um um and you know when we tried to to engage and um you know even speak with the councilwoman's
office who said you know maybe maybe there's a density and we reduced the density but um you
know the the answer was was really that um the campaign was this is this is commercial use at
the pleasant playground that we're going to um we're going to build up against the pool and put
the pool in shade. And, you know, we're targeting the neighborhood, you know, opposition to how
this was going to impact the pool and that we're going to shade the pool. However, you're going to
see even from the opposition's shadow studies, it even shows that, you know, the pool is not in
shade, especially the three months of the year that the pool is open. You know, I would say that
any project probably in December would cast shade on portions of it. But this was sort of what we
were up against. I even reached out, I was happy to continue the discussion, but the discussion
has been really, it's either a park, it's hydroponic garden, or we're going to oppose
this multi-family use. So with that, I'll turn it over to
Council for their presentation and we'll reserve time to close if that's okay.
Oh thank you. I just have a couple of questions on Cross for your witnesses.
I'll start with Mr. Plant. Mr. Plant, did you visit Chu Avenue, the Chu Avenue property?
yes i did okay and um did you create a report of your findings the findings that you testified
about uh i have not i we've prepared um various sketch studies for the alternative plans and of
course the plans that have been submitted okay and did you provide the neighbors with any of
those sketch studies? I have not. Okay, thanks. And that means you also didn't provide the
neighbors with any kind of report since you say you didn't, you didn't create a report. Is that
correct? Okay, thank you. And then my next set of questions is for Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Thomas, can you hear me?
yes i can okay great um you were testifying earlier about a brick house environmental report
uh yes did you did you provide that report to the neighbors i believe that was in the
supplemental package um that you provided to the zoning hearing board
i'm sorry say that again the the brick house report um was from a previous
uh gentlemen looking to purchase the property um where that report was uh produced so no okay um
and then all right so i'm gonna um
well was the condition of the lot uh factored into the sales price when you purchased purchased it
Was the condition of the lot factored into the sales price when you purchased it?
And the location was also factored in, wasn't it?
Now, you deal primarily in residential real estate.
Is that right?
That is not correct.
So what is your primary business?
Sure. So my experience in the city of Philadelphia goes back about 11 years. I worked with a company, PRDC Properties, in various portions of the city with David Perlman and developed probably over 50 projects, ranging from residential apartment buildings to commercial properties to office buildings to larger developments of homes.
with each property, we look at what is the best use for that property and what's going to be the
most sustainable for that as well. Okay, but the company that you're working with that's
seeking this variance is Audax Homes LLC, is that right? That's correct. And that company, Audax
homes specializes in uh residential real estate isn't that correct uh yeah i own um many different
companies um we have audax properties audax homes we have uh we're just talking about audax homes
for right now so is that correct that's correct audax homes isn't isn't a isn't a party here but
keep going okay um so you've concluded that a commercial use on this property is not viable
right correct okay but you're aware that there are several other commercial businesses operating
within two blocks of 6717 Chu aren't you I am okay and um you're familiar with the quick stop
food market at Vernon and Chu yes okay and that's been there for over a decade right
i don't know that but i could come to that conclusion okay and um hong's laundromat
are you familiar with that yes business and that's also been there for over a decade right
uh yes okay and um emmanuel johnson funeral home
not familiar with that no okay um and today on two avenue between hoarder and sharp knack we have
wellness zone medical weight loss alexander foot care learning laughing and growing child care
academy pizza and steak master and harris hair salon all one next to the other correct yes
okay so how how would you define not viable yeah i would say uh historic use
as old as some of those are, are not the same as supporting new construction for a new
use on a property. Lots of different factors have changed. Cost basis has changed. Construction
costs have changed. So historically, I don't know if some of those places are making money
or if they're not making money. I can't attest to that. Okay. So you mentioned making money.
you're aware that evidence that a zoned use being less financially rewarding than a proposed use
is insufficient in and of itself to justify a variance, aren't you?
Objection to legal conclusion.
So noted.
All right.
I will rephrase the question.
um when you say not viable for new construction are you speaking from a business perspective
i am okay all right those are all of my um questions for this witness can i just redirect
a couple things um john just to be clear um even if there's historic uses uh down the block
in your opinion with your experience in construction could you develop this site
and I'll use the language of the code to make it economically viable economic use of the property
in today's conditions and that's my first question we cannot and are you aware of any
new construction ground up retail commercial or office uses within a two or three block radius
of the site? Not on a secondary market such as this. Thanks. Are there any other witnesses who
Are there any other witnesses who would like to testify?
would like
Is this for their case or our case?
Madam Chair, I have Janet Mills. Janet Mills, who has her hand raised?
No, pause for a second, Jason.
Ms. Hyman, I'm assuming you were finished.
yes i'm finished when i cross thank you okay
but going down to sunken
oh no i believe madam chair was do we have other witnesses for the attorneys
that's yes that's what i did ask i'm sorry are we speaking about our witnesses or or the
um mr mr greco's witnesses we have we have a case to present should i should i present that case now
that would be good okay thank you um all right uh my name is stephanie hyman i'm an attorney
representing four clients who are near neighbors to the property at 67 17 shoe they're kevin smith
uh at 30 301 vernon road stephanie reed at 307 vernon road laverne faxson at 329 vernon road
and Bonnie Suckerman at 6708 Shoe Avenue.
We are asking that the variances be denied
because the applicant has not met its burden
and Pennsylvania appellate courts make clear
that it is a very heavy burden to demonstrate
that it has the sort of substantial, serious
and compelling reasons for these variances
that the law requires.
And we'll now outline through testimony and evidence
that first, the applicant does not demonstrate
an unnecessary hardship exists
that warrants use variants to allow a 33-unit multifamily residential apartment building in the
CA1 district. The applicant has indicated to my clients that pollution from the property from a
previous gas station there presents cleanup costs that are so wildly difficult and so wildly
expensive that the only way this property can be viably developed is by allowing for this
33-unit multifamily residential apartment building, and that's simply not the case.
the cleanup costs are totally overstated.
We'll show that the applicant knew or should have known
about the pollution when this property was purchased,
and we'll present an expert report to show
that the pollution is isolated to a small portion of the property.
It's not a threat to neighboring properties.
And far from worsening or even remaining static,
it's actually improving and resolving over time.
And the estimated cleanup costs are modest
and have been grossly overstated by the applicant.
And you heard me say that these are modest costs and they're also optional.
And that's because any and all cleanup costs taken on by the applicant are not mandated by any statute or regulation or any authority.
and you'll hear me discuss Act 2, which is the statute that governs this cleanup cost and is
geared towards granting a liability waiver. So you'll hear me present evidence about how Act 2
is purely optional, voluntary, and is actually quite rarely used by property owners in the city
and has been rarely used over the 26-year history of the Act. So the purported hardship by the
applicant is a hardship by choice. It's a hardship that the applicant can opt in and out of at its
choice, and no one requires this property to undergo a penny of cleanup. Further evidence
will also show that the applicant cannot demonstrate that this variance is the least
modification necessary to address optional hardship costs. And we'll also show that the
33-unit apartment building is going to harm the adjacent properties at Vernon Road, the single
family uses, the single family homes there, and the Pleasant Playground. I'll be calling three
witnesses, Bonnie Zuckerman, Kevin Smith, and Robert Dixon. And I'd like to begin by calling
Ms. Zuckerman, if she could be promoted to panelist.
Does she need to present something?
Jason, is her hand raised?
Sorry, Madam Chair.