You're once again muddying the record by putting words in my mouth, in Meredith's mouth,
and in general creating an argument that doesn't exist.
Come on. Pay attention here. Go ahead.
All right. So we showed we showed three pages of single family dwellings, and you're saying that that these few dwellings on on this block of Viola Street mean that it's a multifamily block. Is that your is that your position?
it's not my position that's what my attorney wrote but i don't know if that list is exhaustive
further she's listed every other property that's within five feet away of this one
on one block over that has tons of properties that are multi-family use
german german do you deny that at the at the rco meeting um you repeatedly said
when asked that you could not identify one single person who would not be permitted to live in your
in your building i don't deny that you're denying that i do not deny that okay you don't deny it
you so and and you agree that multiple neighbors tried to get you to be clear and to and to and to
have at least some basis for understanding who could live in your building and who would not be
welcome. The neighbors wanted me to answer questions that were suggestive of both racism,
classism, xenophobia, and a myriad of other things that I refuse to engage in.
Do you have any concern whatsoever for children who are going to be living in your building and
who may be exposed to to all kinds of of dangers and and terrible situations do i have any concern
for children the children's have parents do these children have parents you're telling me that there
are people who are going to be living in your building you you said you didn't think they were
going to be right because i said i said because the amount that it costs to stay there would be
significantly impractical for anybody with a child that can afford to stay here but would
rather have a single one-bedroom apartment they would rather live in the one-bedroom apartment
that was my testimony and that's what i said but if they that's what you read into the record
and if a child if a child accompanies a parent and sleeps in the same bed as that parent
why would they why would they incur an additional rental charge well because that's not what that's
not what we've offered that's never what we've testified to is what would happen we never said
that we were going to have children sleeping in the same beds as their parents once again
you are creating boogeyman arguments to scare everybody and you're telling me that if someone
has like a are flunging you creating far-flung arguments and you want me to create whatever it
is if someone just just take a break here a minute let's get back question answer and that's
Okay. If someone has a young child, a infant, a toddler, you're going to charge them separate
rent and you think they're going to be sleeping in a separate room? You're implying that we would
rent to them, right? So I don't know what that person would qualify for. I don't know if that
person would even be able to rent an apartment. I don't know if they have good credit. I don't
know if they have criminal back. I don't know what it is, right? So once again, you're creating
scenarios that are far flung that have might never been in practice to make for me to make
a decision for me to smear me in some kind of way. And I just won't engage.
Are you saying that it's a far flung suggestion that people have babies and that they want to
keep their baby with them when they live in a building?
My far flung suggestion is that you are suggesting that that person would be a tenant.
And I don't know if they would or they wouldn't. I also don't know if they would be able to
qualify i don't know if we will be able to deny them for a myriad of reasons i don't know if
we're able to exclude families or not exclude families right so there's there's a myriad of
assumptions that you want me to assume and answer that i just won't engage in i don't have it once
again it's irrelevant we're asking for a group that you're done you're done thank you um i think
we go now to uh well questions from the board
yeah um so we know that this is a special exception case
um i just i'm just trying to wrap my brain around uh the impact uh that you
think that this project will have on a block that's
Project will have on a block. That's primarily single family. Um, so are you professing that there will be no impact number of, um, of people infused in a single family home and a single family block? Primarily?
primarily single family um so are you
Is that your argument? Yes. Okay. And, and board member, if I can just also respond. It is the evidence that we presented shows that it's not a primarily single family.
block. And the document that's up on the screen is very clear evidence of the context of this
particular block. Yeah, I noticed that there are some multifamilies, but for the most part,
you know, it's a majority single family. So, okay, so you're saying that infusion of this
amount of people in one home will not make any impact, have any kind of impact, whether it's
judgment or not I'm just sure so I don't impact at all and I'm like for real well hold on if we
were to build there are three lots here if we were to build three six-bedroom six-bedroom houses
which a lot of those houses are right that's 18 bedrooms if each one of those bedrooms had two
people and it's 36 people and we were fine was said you're right 50 people is a lot we're fine
with reducing it down to 30 right and that was the feedback we got from the neighbors okay thank
you any other questions from the board yes okay i want to get to just what the requirements are
in terms of the proofs that are being offered here so let me make sure i'm understanding
what's being requested here um you are asking to put um 50 people in this facility is that correct
it's it's a building as let me say as many as 50 people right and we were fine with reducing
that down to 30 and it's a building correct there wouldn't it's not a facility well okay
right okay so the criteria that you have to show to get a special exception include
traffic, that there's not going to be any congestion in the public streets or the public
transit systems. So are you saying that having 50 transient people in this neighborhood is
not going to cause any traffic congestion or congestion in the public streets or with
respect to public transit facilities is that your testimony well i think there's more to that than
just this would create that i think it would be no i'm sorry well it's asking you
the question is is is that your testimony you are basically saying
that there will be no effect is that no more of an effect than if it was a single family home that
was there for three on three different lots that would be at least six bedrooms big as as the other
ones are there will be no no more so than that okay all right so then the next one is density
an overcrowding of the land are you saying is is it your testimony and this is just just based on
what you're saying that there this this proposal that you have would not cause any overcrowding
of the land is that your testimony no more so than three single family i'm asking you
is it your testimony that this will not cause an overcrowding of the land? That's correct.
Or no. It will not cause any overcrowding. Okay, fine. Then the next one is about light
and air. Is this going to affect the natural light and air to adjacent properties?
It won't. This building is smaller than the other ones. It occupies 66% of the property when we're allowed to go up to 75. It's 38 feet tall, and it's fully detached. So you can walk all the way around the entire building. It's got a large backyard, so it will not affect anything.
Okay. And then public facilities. Is it your testimony that this use will not cause any undue
Will not cause any undue burden on water, sewer, schools, parks, or other public services.
That's correct.
And you're saying this based on what?
I'm saying this based on the fact that this neighborhood has had at least 70 homes demolished.
in the area not only that they ran a brand new water line and sewer two years ago in the street
the largest park in philadelphia is across the street from this property um there are countless
public transportation um routes available within walking distance so i don't think any of that
would be overcrowded and it's sitting on vacant land where houses used to be on let's that be
countless i i can't count but there's at least a half a dozen public transportation buses
trolleys uh you name it okay so six is not countless right okay anyway all right so then
the next one is about impairment, permanent impairment to the use of adjacent conforming
properties. Is it your testimony that having this many transient people in a neighborhood
here where, even if you want to say that there are other multifamily uses, there are none with 50, up to 50, that was the testimony, up to 50 people, transient people in this neighborhood.
Can you repeat that? I'm sorry.
the question is one of the one of the criteria that you have the burden of proving is that there
won't be any permanent impairment to the use of adjacent conforming properties by this use that
you're proposing so if you know what impairment is it means that it causes a harm to the use of
adjacent conforming properties no and I would say I don't think this is non-conforming it's a
it's a it's only use allowed say non-conforming I said it causes harm to adjacent conforming
properties, i.e. that conform with the code or whatever permissions may have been granted.
Yeah, I don't think this does.
And that's your testimony.
That's correct.
All right.
And then there's no danger to the general health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding community.
None whatsoever.
testimony okay all right all right and then uh this is consistent and we're not in conflict with
the spirit of the zoning code and the city's comprehensive plan that not not at all that's why
it's a special exemption and not a variance or refusal special exception it is but okay all right
And just with respect to board member Gaston, I just want to make sure that the proper standard is being applied here.
Our memo of law provides reference to various cases that note that our obligation with regard to the specific detrimental impacts that the board member just took German through is not actually technically triggered based on case law until an objective produces its own non-speculative
objective evidence that the proposal is likely to cause harms. And with all due respect, that has not been done.
I'd like to differ with you. You have a burden. With special exception cases, there's a shifting burden.
The person requesting a special exception has to show that they are, they meet the objective criteria that I mentioned, okay?
Understood.
And after that, the burden shifts to anyone objecting to it, and their burdens are different. Their burdens are the ones that we've talked about before with the, which is, what is it?
That the burden shifts to any one objective.
It's too, and it's, they're speculative.
It's the detriment to health, safety, and welfare,
which is part of what the objectors have to prove, okay?
And that is not supposed to be speculative.
There's supposed to be some kind of idea
that this is something that really could happen as opposed to what might be imagined could happen.
So again, I don't agree with you about the case law.
Understood, board member. Like I said, our memo of law has several references to
cases that make it clear that there is a discrepancy between the Philadelphia Code and
way that courts generally apply these cases but with that said with that said we we do submit
our code is different okay and so if what you're referencing just like i said to mr masters
if what you're referencing is some other codes that do not apply here then the standards are
different that's not totally agree with you that the standards for a special exception in other
parts of the state may be different than what we have here all right questions for our attorney
none at this time all right um questions from the virtual audience but we'll start here first
okay anyone here want to make comments oh i i need my testimony to be adopted um
yeah i'll i'll take care of that for you look why don't we just anyone want to make comments
in the audience here. Come on up, please. Mr. Chairman, before he has his testimony adopted,
since he's going to have his client up there, for the purposes of the record, I do need to
levy a standing objection. Viola Street Residents Association is no longer an RCO registered for
this property. So for purposes of the record here, I do need to levy a standing objection.
This was not the case when this case first started, but based on the current registration of RCOs, Viola Street Residence Association, Mr. Master's Client, is no longer a registered RCO for this property.
Thank you very much, but it's so hard to have testimony from the public that wants to come up.
I think that's on.
Good morning.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Joyce Smith, J-O-Y-C-E-S-M-I-T-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay, so let me start out. Are you in favor of this practice or against?
I'm against it.
Okay. We've had a great deal of testimony. I mean, and you, you know, several meetings. Is there anything that you can mention that we haven't heard yet?
Go ahead.
Okay, first of all, I hadn't planned to testify at all.
I hadn't planned to testify at all.
sure okay but listening to um the applicant's um perspective or his testimony i i have no choice but
to i have no choice but to speak um first of all the site uh used to sit uh two two um
residential homes they did not have six rooms because they were not even though they're on
historical side they did not have six bedrooms secondly i live on the block sure the majority
of the properties or homes on the block are single family i walked up and down the street
to confirm that we do have apartments we do have apartments in the larger homes three maximum
i can definitely tell you this project will have a negative impact on the quality of our lives
Also, there's accelerated density going in that immediate area right behind this site, six family homes, six single family homes on the 4,200 block of Parkside, and some of them were duplex.
50 apartments are now going right, almost right in back, right back of these, this project.
There are other proposed projects right in this really small area.
The density that is being exacerbated in our neighborhood and in this particular area by this developer is...
And in this particular area by this particular by this developer is going to definitely impact our lives.
The density, the traffic, the congestion.
I don't even know how we're going to live like that.
So there's more I can say, but I'm going to let it go with the issue.
Is this your client? Yes.
Would you, could you, why don't you get your testimony adopted while we're doing this? Sure.
um choice can you um were you did you listen to my testimony earlier today and in the prior
hearings that we've had on this case yes for everyone and do you agree that it was true and
accurate and do you adopt it as your own yes um can you also um explain whether um another
organization has taken over the the rco status for this project yes centennial parkside cdc who
we work with we we work together uh there are the three rcos in our neighborhood we all work
together and support one another and at this point am i going to be um now representing that
that entity in in in this case yes okay i don't know if you have any questions to this client
yeah uh i i have i think one question for miss smith um miss smith um are you familiar with
uh a fundraiser that was started for the violet street residents association uh concerning this
particular property yes to to uh to raise funds for legal counsel yes okay i just want to share
one thing, and then I can, this is for rebuttal purposes, and I can submit this to the board
after the fact. So does this look like a printout of the website of the description of the
fundraiser? It says, help Viola Street residents defend our neighborhood. The Viola Street
Residents Association is rating $30,000. Does this look like the fundraiser?
i'm going to object that this has nothing to do with miss smith's testimony so what's the relevance
here why don't we do this let's let's let her answer the question if she can right yes yeah
so um and do you see here where it says the east parkside community is already saturated with a
sizable number of group living residences on surrounding blocks you see where it says states
that yes so my question is you've made some some statements here about the impact that you believe
that this particular group living facility is going to cause but the standard for a special
exception is not whether it's going to cause impact it's whether it's going to cause impact
beyond what another group living facility would cause so what what is it that you believe about
this specific group living facility that is going to cause significantly more harm than the other
group living residences that exist in your community already? I'm objecting to the question
because it assumes facts that are actually false. We don't have to, as objectors,
argue the the basis of of the impact of various terrible or or not so terrible or mostly terrible