materials for each the the substance of the applications are extremely similar and i will
start by presenting the information for 2303 delancey place um in which case the property is
an rm1 i should say again since the arguments are the same the properties are located in an rm1
district and the applicant is seeking use of the properties for eight dwelling units in the existing
structures we are short on lot square footage in the case of 2303 we have 2058 square feet
of lot size the required amount for eight units is 3360. in the case of 2319 the lot area is 2019
feet but with the same required proposed or required square footage for the eight units as 3360.
and i'll scroll down for geographic purposes uh to orient everyone the properties are located
between 23rd and 24th street along delancy place 2303 is located at one end of the block and 2319
is is approximately a few houses from the other end of the block same side of the street
as this aerial map will show there is a drive aisle in the back actually a full street but
basically a drive aisle in the back uh and affords that uh approximately two compact
parking spots per property in the rear and again the surrounding area is generally listed as rm1
for multi-family use some additional photographs this is again only of 20 uh 2303 i'll present the
material shortly for 2319 but as you can see the the houses of a similar structure all along the
The houses have a similar structure all along the block.
block, they are three.
They are three stories tall with basement allowable height increase to up to a fourth story, which is not sought at this time.
Here's some photographs of the frontage of 2303 and the rear of the property.
and the current plans in front of you show the the plan submitted to the rco seeking
uh eight dwelling units uh each one bedroom units there is no intention for studios or micro units
here um and i i will say at the outset that the applicant is prepared to accept a proviso for
uh fewer units to to accommodate the opposition that has been presented or will be presented
at today's hearing and is prepared to accept the proviso for less than the eight units.
Some photographs of the interior of the property show that it is pretty wide and open,
spacious in the halls, and unit sizes would be adequate enough to handle the density that
we're seeking. The applicant himself or itself has had years of experience in locally self-managed
rental properties. They maintain in-house management and maintenance and have, with their
standing on the reputation, have been able to receive approval for similar density variances
over the last three to five years in the area. And just some photographs. This is the basement
of 2303. This is the initial page of the agreement of sale. As with 2303, the applicant is under
contract about to close on the property, whereas with 2319, they are already the owner of the
property and the deed is attached there too. We have the tax clearance certificate for 2303 as
well as 2319, which I'll share again shortly to just briefly go through. Pictures of the zoning
posters and before I go into some of the support we have I just would like to indicate that
there are several properties on the block again this is an RM1 district several properties on
the block including most notably 2301 which is I'm sorry 2305 which is the immediate adjacent
property with and is approved for legally has seven units allowable in it the based on this
the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood that has allowed greater density in properties
with smaller footprints, we believe that there will be a hardship with the disparate treatment
for this property, especially where the exact neighbor or a direct neighbor to this is allowed
seven units for their property, and that the highest and best use of these RM1 properties
is to provide for greater density but with more affordably priced units. As you can see from the
layout that that was presented it is very common and we have very similar orientation to those
properties in the neighborhood with the front rear unit types and again that that is more than
the applicant is more than willing to accommodate by decreasing some of that density but this is a
very common orientation for multi-unit properties in the area front and rear
we do have support from several neighbor owners on the block uh and and just to point that out
they are uh located at 2305 2301 2323 and then across the street there are several there are
three continuous buildings at 2308 2310 and 2312 who do not oppose they those properties are six
seven, and eight units, respectively. And so let me bring up very quickly the information
on 2319, if I may. Nope, I'm sorry. Give me one moment.
23.03.
I apologize.
Give me one second just to get to the correct document.
Okay, here we go.
Okay. Are you able to see the 2319 binder in front of you?
are you able to see the 2319 binder in front of you now yes could you just make it a little bit
larger yes i can thank you thank you um so very similar situated property other than it being
further down the block um the property is located at the other end of
delancey place and we are again just showing whereas 2303 is at this end of the block 2319
is at the farther end of the block
frontage photos rear photos this one has a a gate to access the parking
similar layout as front and rear orientation for the eight units.
Interior photos demonstrating very spacious property that can, we believe, accommodate
the increased density.
And here's a copy of the deed for Delancey Place or the exemplar of the first page.
tax clearance certificate, photos of postings, as well as neighborhood statements of support
slash non-opposition from the same parties who were supportive of the 2303 property.
We would like to note that in several instances, we understand there's opposition. We did meet
with the RCO and have had several discussions with counsel for some of the opposition.
The applicant has proposed, and in its plans, does indicate dedicated trash areas for interior
use and private trash pickup for all of its properties.
They have also been willing to offer dedication to the beautification of the neighborhood,
willing to plant trees and provide annual street cleanings for the neighborhood as they are a local self-managed property owner
and participates in the neighborhood on all of its properties.
In dealing with the opposition, we do believe that some of that opposition feels to be overstated
in that we've seen several instances of signatures from tenants who are either transient or
in some particular instances, as testimony will show, where there are opposition from occupants
of the subject properties themselves who are vacating within the next two weeks. And so we
don't believe that their opposition should be given any weight. Similarly, we believe that in
review of some of the opposition there are uh there is credit being given for multiple members
of the same households and in certain instances we have found that we have support from the record
owner uh but there is opposition from tenants in the neighborhood or tenants of those properties
and we believe that the the owner support should should trump that um mr chair respectfully i just
I just want to object to the classification of signatures that we haven't even presented yet.
I understand. I understand your points.
So here's where I'd like to be is I'd like for you to maybe have your testimony adopted by the owners of both properties.
And then before I go to the virtual audience, I'll go back to Mr. Anastasio and he can present his case.
Is that OK?
That is, and so long as I would like the opportunity to rebut any opposition testimony.
You absolutely will, and so will he.
So why don't you have your testimony adopted by both?
Very good.
At this time, then I'd like to call my fact witness, Anthony Messieri.
Mr. Messieri, you can unmute yourself and wait for the share.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, Anthony Messieri.
A-N-T-H-O-N-Y
M-A-S-C-I-E-R-I
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Crick.
Thank you. Mr. Massiri, have you had an opportunity to hear my statements presented to the board today?
Do you believe my statements to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt my statements as if they were your own testimony?
me yes i do thank you uh mr massiri um could you please uh indicate for me uh what it is what
um could you please uh indicate for me uh what it is what efforts and understanding
of support that you've received for this application
yes uh you know we've we've obviously spoken with uh with with vern and i've met with many of the
neighbors on the block and um you know our understanding of their concerns about density
um you know it's a mixed block consisting of more multi-family buildings and single family buildings
you know, ranging from singles all the way up to any unit building. And, you know, we merely seek
what is already existing on this one block. We do have support from people on this block.
We are very experienced in the, you know, the development of these buildings and maintaining
the original historic character. And we are willing to reduce unit count and, you know,
work out an agreement where we participate in the neighborhood and clean the streets and plant
trees and and um you know be a good neighbor and is it your is it your testimony to the board that
you are you are prepared to accept a seven unit approval for these buildings at this time
yes i think that the important thing to note is the square footage of these units
you know they there's one at 350 one at 400 but by and large most of them are in the 500
up to 600 square foot range um there are far smaller units throughout center city philadelphia
in Rittenhouse in Fittler Square.
It's a 20-foot wide building.
It certainly has the scale and size
for this moderate increase in density.
And is it your understanding
that the property directly adjacent to 2303,
the property located at 2305,
currently is approved for seven units?
It's actually a 2301.
It's currently a seven-unit building, yes.
Thank you. And have you had an opportunity to review some of the opposition that's been presented
in this case? Yes, I have. And is it your belief that the opposition
in some cases is from properties that are quite a distance away?
Yes, there's some opposition from, I believe it was either 15th or 16th Street, which is not even
the same neighborhood. And is it your understanding that you've obtained the support or non-opposition
from certain owners of properties, whereas you've understood that some of the tenants of those
properties are in opposition? Yes, correct. At 2308 and 2310, we have letters of non-opposition
for eight units. The opposing side has presented letters of opposition from tenants of that
building. Similarly, our building that we have since closed on 2303, one of those tenants
voiced opposition, but they will be leaving the property in May of this year. So obviously,
we have issues with granting any weight to these type of letters of opposition, as well as
minors and four people in one household. Okay. I'd like to reserve Mr. Mysterious
testimony for rebuttal at this time, but I believe that's all the questions I have for him on this.
So what we'll do is we'll let Mr. Anastasio go, and then what we'll do is we'll open it up to the
board and the virtual audience. So Mr. Anastasio, why don't you present your case? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I ask council to close his screen so I could share my exhibits, I do have a question,
a couple of cross for the witness. Go ahead.
Sir, when did you purchase 2319?
I don't have the date in front of me, but we closed on that a few months ago.
And when it was marketed and sold to you, how many units was it sold to you?
What did you buy?
How many units?
It was a buy right five unit building.
But how many units were actually in the building?
I'm not sure.
That's not really, I understand the point that you're getting at.
Physically, yeah.
how many units did you buy physically? It's a five unit by right building. I understand that,
but how many rental licenses did you have for the building? I actually, I do not recall. Okay.
Would it surprise you that you only had three? No, that happens a lot. Okay. Would it surprise
you that when you purchased this property and you say you don't remember how many units you
actually purchased, there was only three apartments in the building? Well, when we
seek out these properties and look for them, we always pay attention to what's buy right.
Understood. Did you pay attention to the interior of the property? Did you walk the property
before purchasing? Yes, of course. Okay. How many units did you see? And you're under oath,
by the way. Well, yes. When we walk these properties, Vern, we know what the buy
Well, yes. When we walk these properties, Vern, we know what the buy-write count is. And we walk the properties with... I'm explaining to you what our process is.
I didn't ask you your process respectfully, Anthony. I asked you when you testified that you physically inspected the property prior to purchase. When you walk through the property, how many apartments did you see?
And Vern, I'm telling you...
The answer should be a number.
Yeah, and I do not remember because we look at square footage and buy-write counts,
and we do our analysis and our walkthrough on what we're able to do with our development.
Okay, so when you walk through the property,
it's your testimony that you don't remember how many units you saw?
Correct.
Okay, would it surprise you that you actually saw only three apartments?
No, it would not surprise me.
Okay, but it surprised you that the MLS listing, which I'm assuming you reviewed,
had photos of three apartments in the building no it would not surprise me okay uh your your
attorney presented photos of 2319. mr kirk could you please uh produce those again for the board
sorry you said 2319 yes sir the interior photos
Thank you. Anthony, could you tell me, did you take these photos?
Yes, I did.
Okay. And was this, when did you take them?
I took those a few days after the interior demolition was complete.
I see.
Was that before or after L&I shut you down for doing work beyond the scope of your building application?
It was before, but that's not the entire story, if you'd like me to address that.
There was a violation issued and a work order stopped.
Is that correct?
So I met the inspector on site to review the demolition, which was all interior walls, as you can see.
You can also see, for the record, we kept all door and window trim.
There were doors on site, all the balusters, stair railings.
I understand. I'm just asking if you were aware that there was a violation issued for working beyond the scope.
Is that correct?