for higher level transitional housing for independent adults.
for higher level transitional housing for independent adults. Finally, all other
traditional arguments aside, we submit that the Board has ample grounds to grant the proposed
group living use in accordance with the protections afforded by the Federal Fair Housing Act
as a legitimate and federally protected land use, as well as in accordance with Philadelphia's own
fair housing ordinances that mandate equal opportunities for housing, such as the one
that is proposed here. At this point, I would ask for my client, German Yakuboff, to come on.
I have just a few questions for him, and then that will conclude, for now, our presentation.
Mr. Chair, just, Meredith, I don't have a copy of your memo. It's missing in all the different
versions of your exhibit binder so I'm would have been in the one that I sent you last last night
Steve I didn't I didn't see anything that came in last night you you responded to my email
yes but I didn't I didn't notice that you said that there was no changes so I didn't look oh
I'm sorry I thought the memo of law was in the last version I apologize but it is in there
yeah so i'm going to ask that um that i have an opportunity to i haven't read it and and what she
said doesn't make any sense to me so i i would like to i would like to submit a memo um after
so i don't we may not get to a place where we could even we're hoping we do but yeah okay that's
right all right so why don't you bring your client on and you'll make sure he has a copy of that memo
yes mr chairman
good afternoon hi good afternoon could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
sure german yakubov g-e-r-m-a-n y-a-k-u-b-o-v do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do so swear and affirm counsel thank you german we talked a
little bit about it during the first hearing but just so the board can hear it in your own words
Can you just describe what type of leasing arrangements you envision offering here?
Sure. We intend to rent for not less than 30 days and up to one year leases for anybody that is able to qualify both on income level as well as passing a background check like we do for the several hundred other units that we own, both in the neighborhood and in the city.
And in this specific case, this building is designed for people that can't necessarily afford a full apartment on their own and or require only a relatively they don't need a 12 month lease.
They might only be in school for maybe six months and they only need it for six months and don't need the full space.
It's a shared space where they share a kitchen.
They mostly, I think, have their own bathrooms.
And after meeting with the community, after reading the Councilwoman's letter, I think
we proposed 50, and we'd be more than happy to revise that.
We have offered to revise that down to 32 units, not units, sorry, 32 occupants.
that would also lessen the impact, even though the code, the building code would allow us to
have up to 50 based on the square footage of the building. Just briefly, can you just describe how
you intend to manage and staff this particular property? Because one of the big concerns,
of course, that we heard from people was how do you ensure that people are safe and that
the property is being managed and occupied safely. Sure. So just from a tenant underwriting
perspective, that part won't change. They would still have to meet income requirements. They would
still have to meet background check requirements. In addition to that, from a physical onsite
management directly behind this, what you see on the screen here to the left of that black line on
Parkside Avenue. We're in the process. We're under construction on a 48-unit apartment building
that is kind of to the left right there where you see a garage. Those homes are no longer there.
So there'll be an on-site management team there that'll be both maintenance, leasing,
property management. And if you go back to that map, I guess, right where it says 1521R,
uh to the left uh of the right by the firehouse there there'll be an additional 22 units there
Um, and on the corner, there'll be an additional 14 units that we all got permits for.
and on the corner there'll be an additional 14 units that we all got permits for so
So, you know, well, we have over a hundred units just kind of on Parkside Viola within,
you know, a three minute walk.
And then further down Belmont Avenue, there's a 73 unit building that is also maybe a four
minute walk, um, that'll have again, you know, probably collectively we'll have about five
people staffing um staffed for the number of units that we have in the general area that will also
support this specific building from a maintenance perspective from cleaning up the street and block
like we typically do making sure there's no trash anywhere and anything that goes along with
managing the property for the avoidance of any doubt in terms of the use itself are you providing
any other services to these residents, such as, you know, medication, assistance, anything that
you would expect to find in a nursing home or a facility like that? No, this is no different than
four roommates renting a single family house.
That is all I have for Mr. Yakubov at the moment. Of course, I would reserve the right to bring him
back up uh should should that become necessary uh and then i would also just at the appropriate
time like to be heard on an objection to mr masters attempting to introduce uh the transcript
from the rco meeting but that can be at the appropriate time before we do that why don't
we let mr masters um cross i am i'm i'm not well i i can cross for a little bit but basically i'm
to be reading word for word what what mr yakubov told the the community um and and um what his
words are are his words um so um i i can hear you all right all right let's hear the objection
yeah mr chairman um i don't believe there is any precedent for this board to to have a zoom
transcript introduced as evidence with that transcript having not been authenticated by
an actual court reporting or transcription service.
We have absolutely no way to verify the authenticity of that transcript that he is attempting to
use that was simply prepared by the Zoom platform.
It was not prepared by a court reporter, and I believe there's no precedent whatsoever
ever for the board to allow that type of testimony or evidence to be introduced.
Steve?
Both Meredith and myself and my clients and her client were all part of the Zoom conversation.
It was decided that we could record the Zoom conversation and create a transcript.
that's um they we are all the witnesses to to this transcript um being a a um a proper and a
correct uh recitation there are as you'll see by going through the transcript when we go through
it there are sometimes there are misspelled words there are sometimes uh phonetically the
the AI thinks that it's, it's one word and it's different. But the Mr. Yakubov's language was
very clear. His words were very clear and they were totally picked up by, by the Zoom. So we
deal with transcripts all the time and I'm happy to swear an oath that this transcript is true and
correct based on me being personally there the whole time and i and our clients can do that too
and i would imagine that um meredith was there the entire time too she could do that as well
um so um i i think that that it's it's quite helpful in this case uh because um this is the
unvarnished um words of of her clients and they um they they are what they are
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay so meredith we're going to allow it in um anytime during it you can object and say what
you want about parts of it that doesn't see right but we're going to allow it in okay
i understand and i'm not saying you have to agree to that okay steve um okay let me uh because i i
think it would be it's my preference to to say it and and to and to and to read some of the excerpts
of the yeah as opposed to just cross-examining mr yakubov now because he apparently uh seems to be
watching his words better today than he was uh well why don't we just start yeah okay okay uh
i'm looking for the for the uh sharing
good afternoon again members of the board steve masters on behalf of objectors
I wanted to first point us to the language in our zoning code on special exceptions.
We have highlighted the burdens that Meredith and her client have in the violet, purple, and the green ones for us.
So in a special exception, there are many burdens that are placed.
Just out of curiosity, could you mention that you gave copies of this for the board when
you came in?
And I texted Meredith.
Oh, okay.
She knows you did it.
In the beginning.
Did you receive that, Meredith?
No, I got that.
I got emailed her.
And I was just going to ask, can Steve please identify his clients for the record?
I don't recall if that was done during the first hearing.
My clients are the Viola Street Neighbors Association.
Thank you.
so meredith and her client have the have the initial burden they have to present evidence
that their use meets the definition of a use permitted by special exception in this case we
have a supreme court opinion that says absolutely not their use does not meet any of the criteria
for special exception and that's going to be my first my first argument second um they have the
burden of showing that there is not going to be any significant harm to the community we have a
burden after that of of responding to that but they first have to demonstrate that what they're
proposing is is something that would not be harmful to the to the community and in fact
In fact, we have substantial evidence showing
that it is massively harmful what they're proposing.
We're gonna be having a statement again
from Council Member Gaudier.
There are multiple groups that weighed in.
There's 102 petitions against this.
And this is much more intensive
than the 16 units multifamily project
that this board only recently denied.
So it would be kind of impossible to say
that a group living, this transitional living situation
would be not as harmful as what the board already found.
So that's our second argument that we're going to go through.
The third argument is that the applicant's own testimony
shows a profound disregard for the health and welfare of both the neighbors and each one of
the residents that he is going to put into this group living situation. It's shocking what we
will go through, what we will hear from his own words. And then fourth, this violates the two-year
rule because we're going to show you um uh the the the plans for uh for the 16 unit and the plans
for the group living and they are the exact same plans they there are no differences in any of the
dimensions in any of the in any of the of the of the spaces it's literally the same plan they just
changed words on it and they said this is where the bedrooms are going to be for the 16 units
and this is where they don't even call them bedrooms or beds
because uh or or beds because they as we we're going to see they don't provide beds or furniture
because as we're going to see, they don't provide beds.
to the people who are going to live in this group living and that's that's up to the that's up to
each of those um residents to provide for themselves so uh let me go to uh uh the first
one i wanted to to go to was um the uh the pa uh the pa supreme court's decision yes steve
Um, Cheryl would like to ask you a question. Sure. Okay. Um, I'm just hearing that you're gonna object to this hearing on the basis of the two year old, but you're gonna leave that as last. You're not gonna start with that and then go into the other argument.
I mean, I'm not trying to tell you, but if it violates the two-year rule, then we should
then, then, then, then like, it's, it's, yeah, yeah, it's, well, a lot of these are, are, I hear
what you're saying. If you would like me to, to, to, to flip to the, to that one, I, um, I, I can
certainly do that, but, but our, the first one on the Supreme Court case, I think is also a game,
a game over um argument so but that's
substance not procedural
yes so okay so your rule issue is more procedural and so okay you know and then if that kind of
doesn't go well then you get into substance yes okay all right and again i'm i'm i don't
I don't wanna tell you how to do your case,
but I just, if you're gonna go into all the specifics
and then you're gonna say, oh, and by the way,
we shouldn't even have had this hearing anyway at the end,
I'm not sure that's the best way to proceed.
So this is page 263 of Objectors, Exhibit Binder,
Um, this drawing is from the, um, this one appears to be the, the group living.
So, you're saying the drawings are basically the same, right? The last case, although it's more people. Am I correct?
sorry can i just get clarification mr masters are you giving like an opening statement because i
thought you were going to cross mr yakuboff i'm not going to cross mr yakuboff because i'm going
to read i'm going to read from his statements in in the record okay so i thought you were going to
do that because he's so technically where we were at is he he testified and so if you were going to
have him respond to some things that you were going to say i think you need to do that first
i am going to have him respond to um based on what he said at the at the rco meeting i'm going
i'm going to look at the transcript and and you and use those words that way so so you're going
to be asking then to call him as a witness as part of your presentation just to clarify where
we are procedurally because technically that's still there right because we were still in merida's
presentation right i know oh i'm sorry i do want to start my own presentation i thought that that's
what i did i thought that i said i am not going to cross-examine i didn't hear that quite but
So that's why he's done at this point. He's done. Yes. Right. OK. OK. Thank you. Meredith, are you OK? Do you you you're following that? You're kind of quiet. Yeah. I mean, I would I would object to Mr. Master seeking to call my client as a witness that wasn't in any way identified prior to this hearing.
He certainly has every right to cross-examine him, but with respect, if he was intending to call him as a witness in his case in chief, that is something that we should have been notified of prior to today.
I'm not planning to call him as a witness. I'm going to read his words in the transcript and present the board with his own words.
Are we going to do the two-year rule first?
Dave, you're gonna do the two-year rule.
Yes, so this is exhibit nine in our exhibits.
These two drawings, one of them is for the 16 multifamily unit,
and the other one is for the group living,
and they are identical.
Here we have beds and baths, kitchen, living room space, more kitchens, beds, baths.
And this drawing shows identical configurations.
Now this is the one for the 50 people?
And now it's down to 32, right?
uh according according to what we just heard it sounds like it's down to 32. but this is the 50
unit or 50 person building i'm going to call it yes so um you have utilities it's not
so well i think you gotta interject a minute on the two the two-year rule so
so i'm i'm not sure that this is applicable here because these applications were filed at the same
time it's not that one was filed and then another one was filed and because of the denial of the
first one this one was um this one was denied so i don't think i don't in my experience the two
year the well used to be the one year rule but the two-year rule applies to subsequent applications
not to ones that were already pending.
So I don't think that actually applies in this case.
My understanding is that there's an LNI code policy