I can't remember his name.
I apologize.
Who was the last person to testify?
Excuse me, Chair, this is Sharon.
If we could call the other attorneys
in order to have them promoted.
In addition to those I had listed on the summaries,
Jennifer Bizzidlow is also representing.
Jim Moss.
I'm sorry. Mr. and Mr. Anastasia have been promoted.
There's also Mr. Harry Cook, Mr. Daniel McElhatton, and Mr. Philip Yampolsky.
Y-A-M-P-O-L-S-K-Y.
Mr. Cook won't be joining us today, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cook will not be joining us.
Mr. Gerald Moss has his hand raised.
Mr. Moss, Mr. McElhantin is on.
Is it Mr. Yampolsky?
Am I pronouncing that correctly?
Y-A-N-P-O-L-S-K-Y?
That's correct, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mossky.
Why don't, let me do this.
Let's start with Mr. Matione.
I'll swear everybody in, okay?
So, Mr. Mattione, please identify yourself, and I swear you in.
Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
We're from the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Next on my list is Mr. Moss, Jim Moss.
And I tried to promote Mr. Moff, and he declined.
if you're available for this hearing please raise your hand and accept the promotion
we could also ask mr yanplofsky who is in the audience and um miss bazidlow to raise their hands
i'm already promoted this is jennifer is it blue
please spell your full name i'll swear you win uh me yes okay uh jennifer basidlow b as in boy
a as in apple z as in zebra y d as in david l as in larry o as in oscar 4500 worst street
suite d202 philadelphia pennsylvania 19124 you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. Mr. McElhatton. Good morning, Your Honor. Daniel
McElhatton, MC, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N, 2000 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, 19103.
Swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do, sir. Thank you. Mr.
Anastasio. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, 19107. We're from the tell truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes,
I do. Thank you. Mr. Jampolsky, please spell your name and I'll swear you in.
I'm muted. You're muted, sir.
Mr. Yampolsky, you need to unmute.
There you go.
There you go.
Thank you.
Philip Yampolsky, Y-A-M-P-O-L-S-K-Y, 936 County Line Road, Greenwater, Pennsylvania, 19010.
And if you can speak up a little louder or increase the volume, that would be helpful going forward.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who needs to be?
I know Mr. Moss.
He's got his hand up and he's muted.
Mr. Moss, good morning.
Yes, can I be heard?
Yes, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Gerald Moss, J-E-R-R-O-L-D-M-O-S-S.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Thank you. Did I leave any attorney out? Are there any other attorneys involved in
I do, sir.
Thank you.
did I leave any
this case? If so, please raise your hand. All right. Vern, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong,
you may have, your witness may have been the last witness we were taking testimony from.
That's right, Mr. Chairman. We wrapped up with Gary Vernick, and I have three more witnesses to call briefly.
And I believe Mr. Vernick said that he was not done with his testimony.
I believe he said that also. And I would ask everyone who's on this call.
Thank you.
It is obvious with the number of attorneys we have that this could be a prolonged case.
We would ask that when you testify, please do not continue to repeat what has already been testified to.
We would appreciate that very, very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And with that, I would like to call Mr. Vernick back to the stand.
Mr. Vernick has been allowed to speak.
Am I on?
Yes, sir.
Please identify yourself, and I'll swear you in.
Gary Vernick, V-E-R-N-I-C-K, 215 Vine Street, Philadelphia on 9106.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Vernick. Please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Vernick, can you pick up where we left off in explaining to the board why you believe that this appeal should not be granted
and that it's an overreach in asking as it impacts negatively you as an immediate neighbor?
I was telling the board prior to the continuance that
we're one of the oldest, if not the oldest neighborhood in the city. Our infrastructure
is similarly extremely old. I have two buildings within 50 feet of the Painted Bride. Both
buildings require pressure pumps in the basement in order to get water up to the third and
fourth floor. I'm not a water engineer or a utility person, but I understand that it's
caused by the infrastructure and its age and its deteriorated condition. Likewise, I built a new
house on the 200 block of Vine 12 years ago, and the gas company could not give me enough pressure
to put in a tankless water heater. Whether that has changed since then, I can't tell you. But that
was the story 12 years ago and as far as I know our our guests and its its lines in our street
have not been changed so I put that out because here we have 75 units I'm fairly sure that they're
going to be okay because their connections will be large enough to supply all of their needs
but I question what the effect is on the rest of the neighbors by them taking what they need
for 75 units. The point being that the massing and the size and the number of 75 units
is simply too much for this neighborhood. The other thing I was telling you before we left
off is I need to set the stage for this particular block. And I know the chairman told us that
he drove down it and he looked around personally a month or so ago.
But New Street is one lane of travel. New Street runs to the south of the Painted Bride building.
Bodine Street is a little alley, and that is basically zero lanes of travel. You're lucky
if you get a subcompact down it, let alone a truck, which leaves Vine Street. The 200 block
of Vine Street is a block and a half from the I-95 off-ramp of Callahill Street. And so
when you put 75 units on this block, and I understand that there are 12 parking spaces
within the building because of some kind of zip car loophole that that is in compliance
but that and I'm not even speaking about the people that live in the building and have cars
And I'm not even speaking about the people that live in the building and have cars that are going to be dumped on the neighborhood.
If he's legal with parking, he's legal, period.
But that there's a whole host of other people that will be coming upon this property and will have to access this building from movers at the middle or the end of the month to move in people in the beginning of the month.
And in a 75-foot unit building, I wouldn't be surprised that in the summer months that we don't see four or five trucks pull up at the end of the month and four or five trucks pull up at the beginning of the month.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, it's all speculation.
It is speculation.
I agree.
But it's highly likely that in a 75-unit building that this is what's going to happen.
People have to move in and people have to move out.
Mr. Vernick, wouldn't that be the same case if it was lesser units?
You're going to have people moving in and moving out.
Lesser units or lesser moves in and lesser moves out.
And even more so that the only place for them to do this, because there is no loading dock with an elevator that I see on the plans,
the only place for them to put these trucks is Vine Street.
which effectively will reduce Vine Street to a one-way street.
And let me tell you, in the morning, when the cars are coming off the I-95 ramp
and cutting through the neighborhood, you're going to have gridlock.
And there's no place else for them to put their trucks.
There's no place for the repair people, the plumbers, the electricians,
the people that service this building to put their trucks.
And as I was telling you last time, we all know that contractors put their trucks
as close to the building as possible, very simply because their tools, their equipment,
and their supplies have to be unloaded. So the question is, what happens to our street?
You're going to turn a two-way street into a one-way street, and then you're going to have
gridlock because of it. I now want to speak to this mosaic, which I've lived with for the last
30 years. And as far as I've seen and I've heard, this mosaic is the only reason that has been
advanced for the three requested variances. We all understand, and it's part of the record,
that the Historical Commission has ruled that neither the mosaic nor the building is historic.
And we all understand. That's relevant to the case, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, Mr. Vernick, with all the respect, we went through this the last time.
you testified and I'm not dismissing that but rather than go over the same stuff any new
material we would appreciate any new comments so the painted bride the painted bride has put forth
testimony that's part of this record that a hundred percent of the northwest facade of the
mosaic is delaminated we're separating from the building Mr. Chairman the painted bride hasn't
testified in this case. Can I address this, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mattione put in 265 pages of
documents which are all hearsay. If what I'm about to say is hearsay, I ask that his 265 pages be
stricken as hearsay as well. Okay, let's move on. If you can get to the point of your testimony,
that would be helpful so my point is that this mosaic is not in good shape
has been testified to by chairman that there's a condition report i mean
it is what it is he's not test he's not qualified to testify as to the condition of the mosaic
yeah and i again so you know uh i i was actually out there a week and a half ago i have probably
have nothing better to do with my life so i go visit the bride every now and then uh and i'm not
trying to make light of this but i was out there again and i don't know i mean that with the black
shroud that's over it um it's for me at least and you may have better knowledge before the shroud
was put on i could not determine whether there was any significant damage to the to the to the
building itself so again mr chair what i could observe i i didn't see that not saying it isn't
there but i just couldn't mr chair i think what but the witness is trying to communicate is that
mr anastasio thank you i think about my uh the witness is trying to communicate is that the
black the existence of the black shroud in and of itself uh is proof positive that the that the
uh is proof positive that the that the mosaic is in bad shape well that could be and it could
that Mosaic is in bad shape
well that
also be to protect it from being damaged i mean i i again i you know i wasn't there when the shroud
was put on so i don't know what the existing condition was prior to the shroud but it's it's
likely it could have been put up to protect it uh i i have a question and you got to refresh my
memory maybe mr manioni can do this uh mr vernic keeps talking about the 75 units if the buy is a
buy right is 65 feet correct 65 feet correct how many units would it be in that if it was a buy
right project you could have 75 units in a buy right project i mean that's what i'm saying so
the number of units isn't going to change based on the height of the building correct all right
okay well then why aren't we discussing a by right project well because you're gonna this
this application is to exceed the 65 foot height limit which was put in by a councilman who happened
to happen to be me at the time as a way in which to allow the community to be part of a process
because we didn't want some tall buildings in some areas of old city as opposed to others
and that was really the only reason i did the 65 foot it wasn't a magical number it was a number
we thought we can all live with we'd like to live with that number too i know i'm sure you do but
again that was again that was only put in place to allow the community to be part of that process
which we're doing now and that did not mean that it would never be able to exceed 65 feet
basically it was a project by project decision that would be made by the community and or the
zoning board of adjustment if they wanted to exceed that thank you mr chairman mr vernick
anything else to add yeah so let's all briefly please for the sake of time so i asked this board
that if this mosaic is so valuable and worthy of three variances why hasn't it been preserved
repaired or cleaned since it was put up 30 years ago why is it in the condition that it's in
let's just take it for granted that it's not in good shape but this following this argument
this developer is pretty smart guy he submitted an agreement to you which speaks for itself
but if you read that agreement he absolves himself of responsibility for the care preservation repair
and maintenance of this mosaic even though he owns it even though he bought it even though it
is the sole excuse for asking for three variances. That's the part of this whole thing I don't
understand. But let me tell you why. Because he now has to build an 85-foot building within the
perimeter of this thing and somehow brace it and protect it so that it's not further damaged. And
he doesn't want to take that risk. So he has pushed it off onto Magic Gardens via the agreement
which has been submitted to you, and that simply is a flaw in this whole process.
As to this mosaic, if you believe that we're dealing with a Michelangelo and the Sistine
Chapel, that's a one-of-a-kind type of building. There are 220 of these mosaics around this city,
all under the protection of the Magic Gardens and Emily Smith. This is not one of a kind.
They're all different, but they're all similar. And so I say to you, to destroy a neighborhood
because of this mosaic is simply not called for. We have to live here with this thing.
So let me leave you with this thought. Five other construction projects have been approved within 150 feet of the painted bride. Zero have needed or requested a variance, let alone three variances.
So the simple question is this. You either have to choose the law and the zoning code, or you have to follow some other standard. I submit to you, this mosaic is not the standard to follow and create precedent. Thank you.