Mr O'Brien representing the applicant and you asked him um quite pointedly I would suggest in
in my recollection before you made uh the decision did Mr O'Brien did the applicant wish to
um consider a compromise and he said he did so I think that is indicative of something um
I won't go too much into the details of that, but we did make as good an effort as we could when we met with...
We did make as good an effort as we could when we met with
Mr. Abrams by himself. Mr.
O'Brien had noticed but for some reason wasn't there and we spent probably 40 minutes with our
zoning committee from both Central Rocksboro and from
MNC. Included in those is an architect, a planner, and
And a developer, an active developer who lives around the corner on Cram Street, we came up with every possibility we could around a compromise, trying to explain what were of importance to us and how we thought we could arrive at a three house solution.
And clearly, if you're sitting at a table discussing a compromise where the buy-right solution is two houses and the applicant is asking for four, you're focusing on a solution that revolves around three houses.
We had a very straightforward direction that we wanted to go and we got resistance continuously coming back to that same plan that was suggested to us and was included in the documents that we sent through to the ZBA.
You will see from that plan that it's a compromise solution, which, you know, is a very clever trick in sort of negotiation where you suggest the compromise, but you attach so many conditions to it that that compromise on the surface looks good, but it's always unacceptable to the other party.
it's a typical negotiation in union negotiations and so that's what that was and so we end up
really coming back to you and to this board and just saying um pretty much enough is enough
we've tried uh we can see a way forward that we'd be happy and would give the compromise solution
um i i don't think that there's any more to be said we've exhausted what we said
we have 20 people who've turned up three times and there's 13 of them are here listening in yet
again they're very local they're very committed they're very specific and doesn't matter what
mr o'brien says about rentals and ownership they know what they want and it isn't this
and so we ask you to deny the application completely i'm just a little bit confused
Maybe you can clear it up about the compromise being a, I guess, not in good faith.
First of all, look at this.
The plan that is shown here is not the plan that Mr. O'Brien latterly at the very end of his negotiation showed to the Planning Commission and got, whether it's non-opposition or support, I don't care.
this is the plan that was from very early and is a four-house row solution that goes right from one
end of the side to the other and is different from the twins that he that was proposed to us
later so that's the first correct me if i'm wrong am i looking at something this is isn't this three
houses no this well there's four houses with one hexed out well three houses get built and no house
gets built on the x out area correct correct that that would be the proposal but at the same time
if you look at it um the the house that's x x out and was in mr o'brien's letter was a compromise
is one of four lots and that x out one would just be a temporary deed restriction which somehow
would be under the control of the rcos who would at some future point decide that it could be built
on because they decided it wasn't so bad but at the same time Mr. Abrams at his discussion with us
told us that first of all because he was only building three houses at the time and he would
never know if he ever built one in the future would strip down the uh the materials so they'd
have inferior materials and he couldn't tell us what they would be and also the end of the
road that was facing Newport would be a blank end of a property which would be rendered in some
temporary material because he would always hope that this fourth house would somehow be built in
the future so we'd be looking at a blank wall with a profile of a pilot house and inferior materials
in front of it would be an empty lot which would have no specific owner and could be just a
detriment to the neighborhood and it retains the other thing that we were opposing to
opposed to which is the curb cut on DuPont Street giving access and having
all the problems of having these properties turned at 90 degrees and
therefore overlooking the adjacent neighbor's garden for no good purpose. The
The only good purpose is for this arrangement to make the maximum amount of money for the applicant so that he can offer this property for sale to a future developer as four locks and offering.
only good purpose is for this arrangement to make the maximum
Who else?
Who's next?
Thank you.
Kevin Smith.
Mr. Smith, please identify yourself, spell your name for the record.
give us your address um this is kevin smith president of manioc number neighborhood council
k-e-v-i-n-s-m-i-t-h
if i'm to tell you the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do um and my address is 471 ripka street um
So, actually, Corin, can you put up page 28 of our letter to the Zoning Board with the
RSA-3 map?
Apologies, bear with me. Let me find it.
I think it's the next page.
Oh, I'm sorry.
oh that's the exhibit one if you have the full letter
oh there it is well that's it
so this one
yeah so this shows the RSA 3 development
in the area
this lot and this has been said but this lot
is RSA 3 the applicant is attempting to
rezone it to RSA 5 by variance
but it's an RSA 3 lot
and i'll point out that because the developer proposed a terrible three house plan it doesn't
make the four house plan any better that we had already rejected the community's core concern
core concerns here are preserving the dupont streetscape and keeping the rsa3 zoning on the
dupont facing side the applicant has disregarded this core concern entirely with every one of his
proposals. And even a flurry of irrelevant comparisons has no bearing on the case. It's
an RSA 3 lot. It's developable as an RSA 3 lot. And the DuPont streetscape is something worth
preserving. And I think if Corrin goes down to the next two pages, there's a series of photos
of what that street looks like I think it's over here it should be just the
the next page on what you got up there
Are we there?
I'm still seeing the RSA3 map.
Oh, okay.
Let me, you're not seeing.
You're not seeing what I'm seeing. Let me try again.
Is that it?
That's it. That and the next page are the 200 block of DuPont.
And these are the types of houses, and this is the streetscape,
And this is what we're trying to preserve, which is side yards, front porches, front setbacks.
It's a look and feel of the street.
It's a streetscape, and it's RSA 3.
And Bill left out of his comparison this mansion across the street, directly across the street from 270 DuPont.
So, I mean, that's basically it in a nutshell.
There's no hardship, no hardship, no hardship, and no hardship.
And it's RSA 3, and he's trying to make it RSA 5,
and all of his compromises ignored the community concerns
about the DuPont streetscape and maintaining RSA 3.
So all of the other bells and whistles he hung on the other design
are not relevant to the community's concerns.
Um, that, uh, I think is, is what I have to say.
That, I think, is what I have to say.
Chair, we have Tyra.
Can I briefly respond?
Yes, Mr. O'Brien.
Just, I will concede that the houses, uh, on the 200 block of DuPont Street were all built before there was a zoning code.
Um, I don't know what relevance that has.
the civic group civic this civic association supported development of attached homes
across the street and caddy corner built to rsa5 standards um the rest of the block flooding street
block is all rsa5 um i'm being repetitive okay understood i'm trying to figure out what if
anything in the rs rsa 5 classification would be acceptable to the community i'm i'm i'm not
i'm at a loss on that one but the next witness please tyra you can meet yourself uh it's
actually elliot duhan using tira's device elliot e-l-i-o-t yes last name i don't see that person
I have Tyra next.
Ms. Sunken, it sounds like a neighbor is using.
No, a husband is using the vice device.
I didn't realize I was logged in as Tira.
We got it straight.
Give us your name again.
Please spell it for the stenographer.
Elliot Duhan, E-L-I-O-T-D-U-H-A-N.
Address is 256 Crams Avenue.
and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do and where is your home and relationship to this uh property uh it's a block down from dupont
thank you please proceed i wanted to speak to the character of the houses which is utterly out of
sync with everything on that block of dupont uh mr o'brien's mr o'brien's cherry picking of other
examples are completely out of uh completely out of order the examples he picked are geographically
close but completely out of sight because of the tabography of manioc the neighborhood is
the neighborhood is asked for certain concessions while mr s uh 100 mr smith point out he appears
to have made concessions but none of them were substantive and it's a negotiating tactic to say
we've made a lot of offers the neighborhood was unwilling we were happy to have those concessions
but they don't address any of the substantive points of that block of DuPont and the character
of the neighborhood. The neighborhood has been fully opposed to this development as is since
inception. I also quibble with Mr. O'Brien's characterization of the neighborhood council as
supporting the row houses across the street. My recollection is we were opposed continually and
finally reached a compromise when it was clear they were going to be built. So that doesn't
carry any points with the neighborhood. When were those houses built? Does anyone know?
Early 2012. 2012 and the letters and the support letters from the Manioc neighborhood council
are included in exhibits six and seven. When was that again? What year? 2012 was when they were
completed. All right it wasn't me. That was the uh those those were the ones uh where the library
used to be the others were earlier okay i just was curious the neighborhood was opposed to them all
all right just curious when that took place okay thank you
i also have elizabeth fisher
miss fisher please identify yourself spell your name for the record
give us your address and hopefully you will give us something new and different
Okay, my name is Elizabeth Fisher, E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H, last name F-I-S-C-H-E-R.
I live at 4538 Maniunk Avenue, 19128.
Where's that in relationship to DuPont, 270 DuPont?
I'm at the corner of Maniunk and DuPont, so one block up.
Okay, thank you.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I am on the board of the Central Roxborough Civic Association, and I'm the district rep for the area with 270 DuPont.
And I'm also a member of the Mania Neighborhood Council.
And as far as Mr. O'Brien's continuing to show other properties that the civic, you know, and I'm not sure if he's talking about MNC or CRCA approved.
uh it's my understanding as an attorney that every every decision here in front of the zoning
board is supposed to be based on that property and not being considered and that the decisions
And that the decisions that civics or the planning commission have made in other cases are not supposed to take precedence over the individual facts of the specific case.
that civics or the planning commission have made in other cases are not
And in this case, I feel like I attended numerous meetings about this property, and it seems that it's continuously been a bait-and-switch type of situation.
and at the zoning board hearing in or at the zba hearing in november uh chairman de chico you
specifically said well what about three houses come back give me a plan for for three um and
that does not seem to be what happened and i'm confused as a member of the civic and on the
board and i like to think fairly involved in these things that i don't feel like we are getting the
right the true story from the developer and i don't feel that this is something the community
wants and i feel like it's being shoved down our throat thank you but again i i must be missing
something your compromise plan is three houses correct mr o'brien yes yes it is okay all right
it still would require variances i i understand that but as the last witness said that i said i
asked you guys to go back and would you consider three and they she said yes they would but she
doesn't understand there's something else going on here but i only see three in your latest version
i can only suggest mr chairman that um somebody believes that dupont street is more special than
fleming street and that it is somehow a slight to dupont street to have these houses on fleming
Street. If you look at the zoning plans, the two streets, the cart widths and the sidewalks are
identical. There is, because of the configuration of the lot, there's no way to put three houses on
it and provide one curb cut and turning radii for garages without configuring them facing
fleming street the civic insisted that any three lot three house plan would have to be
two houses on dupont one house on fleming and that's just not possible but we don't know what
why it's not possible mr chairman uh uh it just i don't know i'm just going to ask that question
what is the what are the dimensions of of the property property line on dupont
i believe it's 50 feet the entire entire footprint yeah i have to bear with me i've
got to bring up a plan i don't remember the exact number but it's it's a it's a double wide
right that's what i want it's a large lot if it's 50 foot you if you could you can do 225 foot
with right in november i i in november i had the numbers um and it was proposed that a a lot line
relocation uh down the middle would provide room for the developer to put two uh on dupont facing
on dupont no driveway no curb cut maintain what the neighborhood um uh feels as the character of
the block uh as you drive down um dupont um and the name and all we all we hear is that the
agreement is sale and the price is secret and you can't do it that way but i think all right i i
hear financial hardship which is not a hardship my question was physically you could put two houses
there of course of with 25 foot or so width okay let's get them then the problem comes back yes
that is physically possible but because this property is now encumbered by a non-conforming
multi-family use it has a value based on its income that doesn't support that development
but that's not relevant for a variance yeah i understand understood understood code the code
does allow financial considerations variances and that's all we're asking for is financial variances
i just wanted to use okay all right gentlemen gentlemen let's get the next witness please
thank you council chair we have four more what uh six more witnesses is your call
how many more it just went to six i mean i keep repeating this at every hearing unless somebody