42 years, is that right?
That's correct.
And despite that, you're still willing to wholeheartedly support what the appellant can do as a matter of right, which is up to five units in that one building. Is that right?
I can't oppose that.
Very well. Very reasonable. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
May I add one other thing?
There are four or five or six houses on my side of the block, starting from the corner down, which are owner-occupied and single-occupancy.
Very well. Thank you.
I don't know if Mr. Crick has cross.
I do not have cross for this witness.
I have no further witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
Just in conclusion, there's, like I said, this is a beds and heads situation, not one scintilla of evidence or any sworn testimony that to go above and beyond five units per building needs to happen because there's some sort of hardship here.
There just isn't.
Thanks.
Mr. Correctee, I have any quick comments.
i i would like to if i if i may just if it would um for the board share one of one of my screens
with with the petitions that were shown um by mr anastasio and if possible um question my client
as to the the petition that was signed question his client about my petition well i i would like
to ask questions regarding the signatures on your petition. Did your client circulate them?
I don't get it. No, in rebuttal to the evidence presented.
I don't understand how that's relevant. You know, it's a material piece of evidence
that if it's going to be rebutted, you would get the person who circulated it.
That's basically how you attack a piece of evidence.
so so what here here mr correct the the issue is going to be why don't you summarize and you
object to some of the signatures it's as simple as that i mean i i think we want to move this along
understood as as indicated before we do object to some of the signatures as either being redundant
or parties that are outside of a reasonable distance of the property uh and also uh in
contradiction to the to the signatures of the of some of the owners of the property and we just
believe that that opposition is overstated on those petitions. I do respect that there were
two witnesses that came on today that testified themselves, and the weight of their testimony
will be given what the board elects to do with that. In summary of our position,
it has been stated that the applicant is prepared to accept a lesser amount of density than what
has been sought, but above the by-right petition, or I'm sorry, the by-right allowance of five units.
And we would hope that the board at this time would grant a variance with such proviso.
Thank you.
Questions from the board for either parties?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Chair, we have a Mr. Wade Albert.
Mr. Albert, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Mr. Albert, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Wade Albert, W-A-D-E.
Last name is A-L-B-E-R-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
So I am counsel for the coordinating RCO, the Center City Residents Association,
and i'm with the law firm of stevens and lee uh first off i want to apologize about i uh i looked
through my records it looks like that we sent the rco letters uh regarding our uh our decision on
march 29th 2022 so uh sorry if you did not receive that um but uh regardless of that uh we held a
virtual meeting uh for the community uh on the same day that our letter was issued and at that
meeting uh there were eight neighbors uh who spoke regarding this project um the overwhelming
position of those neighbors was negative uh largely for the same reasons that mr anastasio's
witnesses uh said today their concerns were about parking their concerns were about potential for
renting properties as short-term rentals as airbnbs or something of that sort and based on the um
the positions of the neighbors, a number of which of those eight.
the positions of the neighbors a number of which of those eight five lived on the 2300 block of
Delancey place we voted to oppose both of the projects that are before you right now
and in addition to the reasons that were communicated by the neighbors the the zoning
committee itself for CCRA did not believe that the applicant in either case met their burden
of establishing any reason for unnecessary hardship.
So for that reason, on behalf of CCRA,
we respectfully request that the ZBA deny variances
with regard to both of these cases.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Ms. Kastenberg.
Ms. Kastenberg, you can unmute yourself
or wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter please hi my name is judith kastenberg j-u-d-i-t-h last name
kastenberg k-s-t-e-n-b-e-r-g right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed i live i'm an owner at 2313 delancey on the same block as the
two projects um i live in a single family but i have two one clarification and one question
earlier it was presented that Cypress Street, the alley that runs behind the block between Delancey
and Spruce is a city street. It is not. It's actually an easement owned by the people on Delancey.
Then my question is, it looked like the documents that Mr. Crick showed in support of the project
were all from owners of multi-unit buildings on the block.
I wanted to clarify that
because I believe single-family owners were in opposition.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
And I don't want your question to Mr. Crick.
He's an attorney.
So why don't you just give us your position?
It would be easier.
It seemed to me that the people in favor of the project
own multi-unit buildings on the block.
have the same interests as the developer right and what's your position i oppose the project
you know i live on the block there's i love the renters um you know they're terrific people but
there is an enormous amount of trash and turnover etc thank you very much for calling in are the is
there any other comments from the virtual audience chair we have france pierre mr pierre you can
then mute yourself and wait for the chair. Mr. Pierre, state your name and spell for the court
reporter. Hello, good morning. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, that's Franz Pierre, that's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, fellow board members.
At this time, Council Member Johnson's office, we do join the near neighbors as well as the RCO in opposition to the appeal.
Thank you very much for calling in, sir.
Thank you.
Any other comments that would add to this from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Daniel Rader.
Mr. Rader, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Rader.
State your name.
It's spelled for the court reporter.
Daniel Rader, R-A-D-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth?
The whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
We are owners on 2316 Delancey, and we wanted to register our opposition.
I'm here with my wife, Carolyn Canuccio, registering our opposition.
uh to this um thank you thank you very much for calling in is there anyone that has anything
different they would like to present in the virtual audience i see the heads at this time
chair planning commission thank you sir uh good morning uh david fecto city planning commission
mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
multiple family zoning at this location. There is no unique physical condition of either 2303 or
2319 Delancey Place, which are just over 2,000 square feet each, that would prevent them from
being used in conformance with the zoning code. Based on the lot area, each lot could house five
units by right, so eight is not the minimum needed to derive value from the land.
So eight is not the minimum needed to derive value from the land.
The applicant, having failed to show a hardship, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the variance for both properties.
Thank you.
MI 2021-005-247-2303 Delancey Place.
and MI 2021-005-224-2319 Delancey Place.
I vote no for both properties.
Carol Tineri, my vote is no for both properties.
Thomas Hollowan, my vote is no for both properties.
James Snell, my vote is no to both.
Mr. Mayor Shahid, my vote is no to both properties.
Thank you.
Thank you, both counsel.
Thank you.
MI 2021-003215-2625 West Oxford.
Raymond DeRizio is the attorney.
Letter of support from Brewery Town Chargerswood Community Civic Association.
chairman dorizio is coming back in as a panelist now council state your name and spell for the
court reporter good morning mr chairman and members of the board raymond dorizio d-o-r-i-z-i-o
and I am representing 2625 West Oxford Street.
The owners, Kevin Dixon and Vernet Dixon.
And I believe they're on the call.
You swear for them to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Our vice chair, Carlton Harry, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. DiRizio.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you did I ask you if you've met with the RCO uh no but we have and yes I have
submitted those documents at those times okay great you may proceed to share your screen
thank you okay so if you could just bear with me one moment because I am operating from my iPad
okay so this is 2625 west oxford street as i stated um basically what my client is seeking
to do is have a business or professional office space on the first floor with two dwelling units
on the second in the existing structure. They're not seeking to make any changes to the exterior.
This property or the deed, I'll go through that. Mr. Dixon was granted this, obtained this property
2004. Here are some of the plans. There's several, several pages. And I think I attached
doubles of them. But essentially, I'm going to get to the last page of it, because it's going
to give you a better view. Here is that on the first floor, what my client has is a space for
events basically in office. It's going to be a meeting area. She does non-profit work so she has
various interested parties that come in and have meetings regarding some of the ventures that
they're undertaking and as she has talked about and Mr. Dixon has talked about at the RCO meeting
that it would be open for the public to use as a meeting space or a gathering place for projects or
or meetings that involve the community or individuals from the community that need it.
The second floor, there would be two one-bedroom units.
Basement would be utilities and such.
These are some more of the plans.
I'm going to get to some photos of the property.
There's the property in the center.
Next to it is a similar property.
um these this is the street it's oxford street closer to 27th um there is work being done in
the neighborhood there are several multi-family properties that are being built i believe on
26 23 there's going to be a four unit property that is being built these are the surrounding
streets mainly residential a map i have a tax clearance here
mainly residential a map. I have a tax clearance here that I attached and I
also emailed one in separately on the same date I submitted the packet that is
more updated tax clearance. We have met with Brewery Town Sharswood, the RCO.
This is a vote total. I believe they sent in their letter independently. It's a
letter of support or non-opposition. My client lives on the block. They've been residents of
the community for several years. We don't believe that there's any negative impact based on this.
And in fact, it will provide a benefit for the community and that, you know, the office space
meeting place will be available for use by members of the community when needed.
So with that, I would just call my clients to certify my testimony.
So Mr. Dixon and Verne and Kevin, are you on the call?