this list of names i believe this is 11 names that should be with us if if more haven't joined
you'll see that all these addresses are 200 block of DuPont Street this last one is a 200 block of
Cram Street also several neighbors I think that's three neighbors down the bottom here also on the
200 block of DuPont that can't attend due to work conflicts but are previously on the record from
prior meetings in opposition and we should be able to hear from them after my presentation
um going back to this uh the the character of the block is uh front-facing properties
no driveways on dupont street um the reason we requested this reconsideration because mr o'brien
did submit a letter um there was a couple things that we didn't agree with but a decision was
rendered uh before it was that his letter was actually received we didn't have a chance to
respond to it um the council i'm sorry the chairman uh in november did uh ask us if we wanted to
um continue the matter and hold the vote to compromise up to that point compromise had been
discussed the and and none of these neighbors are here for personal gain they're all here to
preserve their neighborhood and the character that that they appreciate and love um they want
to keep the property facing on dupont street the discussion has always been this is a wide lot
uh it's this is a single family lot um it can be subdivided but i believe it can be subdivided
as by right over the counter and two properties can be built facing on dupont if the developer
so chooses uh that's that should be by right a compromise was discussed that if more properties
were desired by the developer, that a third property could be built back here on Fleming
fronting while maintaining front-facing properties on DuPont Street. That's been rejected by the
developer. The developer's wish is for properties facing on Fleming Street. After we were here in
November, the developer, not Mr. O'Brien, the developer did attend a general meeting
of Manioc neighbors and he he brought what all he brought this proposal which had been discussed
previous of essentially removing the corner property altogether which had been proposed to
front on Fleming so if you can see this this is the plan of the applicant this is Fleming Street
This is where our property is today facing DuPont.
The application is to put Fleming facing properties 1, 2, 3, 4.
front Fleming facing properties one two three four and I believe I wasn't present but I believe
that the developer did present the the compromise as what we see here cross off this house
let's leave that vacant and we'll just put our three properties on Fleming still
with rear-facing parking but nothing here and it was it was floated that we could
deed restrict this lot or do something with it again the neighbors and the RCOs feeling that
this corner property is a prominent anchor property essential to the character of this block
that that's not a compromise to which they were interested but it had been discussed before and
they'd always, you know, sought a proposal and a compromise that would include front-facing
properties on DuPont Street. DuPont Street, excuse me. Excuse me for interrupting. What are the
dimensions of that property at the corner that's X'd out? On the Fleming Street side, what is the
with i don't off the top of my head um i can't see those numbers there see if we can get in there
is that a number there does that say 28 i i don't want to guess i i i don't have that number off the
top of my head um but as these are facing on fleming um yeah i'd like to know if we can see
that if we can get that uh before mr chairman yes sir mr the parcel a the corner lot is 28.125
feet wide on fleming street and 50 feet deep on dupont street okay so so was there any discussion
about flipping that corner
so the frontage
would be on DuPont?
That was the
compromise sought by the
It was always
voiced as
I'm sorry if I'm ringing.
I have a
mechanic trying to get me to pick up a car.
I don't know how to turn that off.
was that was that mr maybe mr o'brien you can answer that was that something that was taken
into consideration yes turning that property around it was it was considered by the applicant
but was not doable um and if i may mr chairman we're here on a motion for reconsideration
Under the Board's rules, under 6.3, the burden is to produce a special circumstance that
could not have been known at the time the Board made its decision.
The RCOs have identified my letter dated January 13th as the special circumstance.
um this is not under my understanding a rehearing of all of the facts uh it's whether or not my
letter does present a special circumstance i don't believe it does and i'm prepared to respond to
that but i want to give mr wise an opportunity to address the his client's position that
my letter to the board is a special circumstance that should alter the board's decision thank you
for clearing that up as you know i'm not an attorney so i i kind of lost my way i'm trying
to figure out a way in which we can maybe hopefully figure a way to developing those that property
and an address yes shower so sharon seleta the reconsideration was already granted that is not
the issue that's before you now the reason that it was granted was because there were materials
submitted that the parties opposing Mr. Weiss's clients did not have an opportunity to see before
he voted for projects. So really what the hearing should be limited to at this point is consideration
of the new plans that were submitted and voted on. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Mr. Letta. So at the beginning of my comments I did mention that letter and we did receive
a decision on our reconsideration petition granting and scheduling the hearing in April,
we're here in September. So as I was referencing the issues that were noted in Mr. O'Brien's
the issues that were noted in Mr. O'Brien's letter the day before the decision was made.
letter the day before the decision was made.
The comments in the letter seemed to reference compromises that were similarly dismissed,
which we felt was a mischaracterization because those compromises had been presented
previously to my knowledge. And as you brought up, Mr. Chair, the neighborhood who obviously
are passionate about this and feel strongly about this application changing the nature of this
block and the neighborhood presented by an equitable owner not presently in possession
with limited hardship, no hardship.
There's no hardship supporting any variance
where the lot is large enough to build not one,
but even two by right properties, single family,
and the neighbors and the RCOs
that offer a third property as a compromise,
their wish was that the properties front on DuPont
and maintain the character of that block
as it's present there right now
where this building is currently occupied
and currently maintaining that character.
I do, as I was stating,
clumsily, John Hunter and Celeste Tortister
are on the line from Central Roxborough
and John Carpenter and Kevin Smith
from Maniunk Neighbors
as well as I can see the participants now
but I believe there's 12 Neighbors
that were interested in appearing in opposition
from the 200 block of DuPont
where this directly affects them
but the bottom line is that
where there is no variance, I'm sorry
where there is no hardship, no support for a variance
and where a variance would change the character of the block
add congestion, add a curb cut on DuPont
where there hasn't been one before
and where the other contention in Mr. O'Brien's letter
was that this was a minimal variance being sought
which it's not a minimal variance
where you could subdivide this down the middle
and build two structures
and if you needed to get a variance
that would be for three total structures.
This is an application for four to fill the lot
and even turn it onto the side street
changing the character for nothing more
than financial maximization.
We ask for the board to reconsider
and deny the variance
and if I'm able or if it's appropriate now
Mr. Chair for the for the RCOs to be heard or at least I'd like to hear from Mr. O'Brien first
and then we'll go to witnesses very good thank you thank you so under the rules of the board
in order to reconsider I mean Mr. O'Brien Mr. O'Brien we hear you but a little bit of an echo
maybe you can get closer to the mic uh maybe i can adjust my volume i'm going to stop my sharing
if bill you need to take over i think you can do that is that any better much better thank you okay
so under the rules of the board uh in order to grant reconsideration and this hearing is to
this has been scheduled to consider so the board may consider the allegation that my letter of
dated January 13th is a special circumstance I submit that it is not and I'd like to share
if I may my screen
Mr. O'Brien again you're not considering what you are arguing that was did you
appeal the grant of reconsideration when the board because you could have
appealed that to the court did you well had i known we were going to have
seven months delay maybe maybe i would have but
at this point the effect of the grant of reconsideration was to vacate
the original decision we are now considering what happened after
the hearing in November? What changes did you make and should they have been approved?
Let me respond to that. My understanding is that because this had been
My understanding is that because this had been continued or the vote was suspended pending the RCOs and the applicants pursuing an opportunity of possible compromise and that there were documents, plans, produced, exchanged that were not part of the record.
Thank you.
that it would have been, if the board did not grant reconsideration, it would have been
likely remanded by the court on appeal because of these matters that were not part of the record.
So they're now been submitted, and I suppose they are now part of the record. But if this
is going to rehash the entire case, I'm prepared to do that in a very quick manner.
Let me share my screen.
Mr. O'Brien, it's actually, it's so that it is for a limited purpose.
There were documents that were submitted.
There was a revised plan that was submitted after the original hearing.
The community did not have an opportunity to comment on those or give feedback, and
that's why you're here today.
So the revised plan was the proposed compromise plan.
um bear with me i'm trying to is my document now being shared yes okay so uh we can go down to uh
the post zba hearing documents which are on pages 50 through 87. the plan that was offered
eliminated the house on parcel A, which is the corner lot that we just discussed, and
building attached row homes on the remaining three lots.
uh the this is an image of the original development plan can you see that
well well the original development plan um proposed four attached structures extending from dupont
to the entire depth of the lot 28 foot wide homes attached with roof decks pilot houses and a rear
deck through several meetings both with committees and with the community a lot of modifications
were introduced the pilot to reduce massing and scale the houses were narrowed the pilot houses
and roof decks were eliminated to conform with the open area dimensional requirements the rear
decks were removed to restore it on on street parking space where the curb cut is the curb cut
was narrowed to the minimum allowed 12 feet and to provide five foot sidewalk clearance as the
planning commission requested the entrance stairs were recessed and the window wells relocated to
the side yards so we made all those changes and then at the close of the hearing the board
suggested that we the two parties pursue the possibility of compromise my client proposed
to build three houses on lots on parcels b c and d that the corner lot would remain open unless and
until both civics agreed otherwise. My letter on page 50, which I can bring up, provided
that there would be a deed restriction to enforce that because that was the remaining
issue that had not been addressed to the satisfaction of the civics, and that is that it was too
dense now again um the board should be reminded that um these lots what we're basically asking
the board to do is to allow rsa five-dimensional requirements apply not rsa3 and there are many
reasons to support that. If you look at page 16, which was Exhibit 5A of the zoning packet,
the red marks are my marks, the circles and the triangles. The circles are RSA 5, the
the triangles are RSA 3. At least I cannot discern any pattern. It is some areas in the
triangles or RSA3.
You can...
same block go back and forth between RSA 3 and RSA 5. In fact, if you look at the very
corner right here where my cursor is, the next page, and this was Exhibit 5B, takes
that corner and show so here's the parcel work in question it's rsa3 the rest of the fleming street
block is rsa5 across the street is rsa5 and caddy corner is rsd3 um but both these corners
as depicted in Exhibits 6 and 7 of the zoning package, pages 20 through 41 of the document
that I submitted.
Both of these corner developments were developed to RSA five-dimensional standards.
This area A across the street from 270, lot sizes are 783 square feet.
The section, the houses B are 1,320 square feet.
Both, again, well below RSA 5 requirements.
The proposed lots for 270 DuPont, the subject, are 1,406 square feet, a de minimis departure.
from RSA 5 requirements. So there is nothing that is contrary to the neighborhood despite
the representations that the civics make it. If you look at the zoning plan, which is page 12,
I have to try to reduce this if I can. Bear with me so you can see it. The Fleming's
You would think from the representations made by the Civic that DuPont was like Benjamin
of Franklin Boulevard.
The dimensions of DuPont, both the street and the cart width and the sidewalks are identical
to Fleming.
There's no distinction.
One is not a major road.
They're both the same.
And when you look at the houses across the street depicted in the photograph on page