Green button on the bottom.
I don't have a button on the bottom.
What kind of computer do you have?
Thinkpad. But it should give me the option to share somewhere, shouldn't it?
Board Chair, I think if, based on Ms. Stefkovic's testimony, the photos are going to show that
posting was not on that rear door on this Monday, November 27th, and not this month, this Tuesday
in the AM on November 28th. I would stipulate to that and actually Mr. Rosenblum provided me
directly via email a copy of what I believe the photo is that Ms. Tufkovich will show.
Okay, fine. Thank you.
Okay, thanks.
So as to the merits of this case, then I'm going to ask my client, Martin Rosenblum, a few questions to address the board.
So first, can you confirm that you're the managing partner of 1809 Pine Street Association?
Yes, I am.
And that owns 1809 Pine Street?
And your property is immediately adjacent to?
It is.
Okay. And based on your knowledge, what was the actual use of the property, 1807, for the past few years?
Well, it was an absolutely luxurious three-family residence. She ran a business out of it. I suggest if anyone is interested in what it looked like, it's on Zillow, because it was just sold.
and it was in norma took very good care of the interior of the property it is absolutely stunning
and it three units to eight units is quite a jump uh i would like to add that although there
is full lot coverage on the ground floor there is not full lot coverage above the ground floor
It is well set back. And every other building on the block has some gap. Even the building directly behind Mr. Singer, which is built all the way across, is only at the ground floor, which he has.
everyone is set back for the remainder of their addition from the lot line okay other than himself
the rear of my property of the original l of the building which is how these buildings were built
in the 19th century identically matches the l of his building and i might add is perfectly
serviceable as rental units i have a hundred percent occupancy so uh i don't i i don't
understand why it will be the first block building on the block that goes property line to property
line on the rear and i will add that it was said at the meeting the other night that is identical
to 1805, which
by the way is a single family
house, but it is
But it is not identical to 1805 because 1805's rear addition does not go the full width of the property.
not identical to 1805
because 1805's real
It stops short of the full width of the property.
So this is on the south side of the alley will be the only building that goes full width.
Everyone else stops short.
and most of the buildings that have been built out on the block retain their l which means they
have a full light court and only close in at the very rear okay in fact they are proposing to
cut in to what is an existing light area cutting off air and light from units in my apartment
building so they are radically expanding they are taking down an l which suffices for every other
one of the 20 or 30 buildings and they have made no accommodation to me i had asked for continuance
with the hope we could discuss this um it didn't happen i'm local i was never shown a plan
i was never shown any respect for that matter and i might add sir let's sir let me ask you
question did you go to the meeting last did you go to the meeting last night i certainly did and
i will say that you raise all these issues at that meeting i yes i did and i will also
residents association still i drop the opposition away i'm sorry i told them the occupancy of every
building on the east end of the block okay okay and it is a three family a five family a single
unit a seven family and the building after me is a three family they totally go back to my question
you told all them this last night i did and they still took their opposition away they
they they he told them at the meeting last night who's he uh the lawyer sean okay said that the
fourth floor was removed to accommodate 1805 pine street a single family house because it was
on their deck. Sean has said now at this meeting that it was removed at my behest when I never
saw the drawings. Nothing was removed to accommodate me because I didn't even know
that anything was going on. Okay, so I would like to start to state for the record that I would
expect that what was said at eight at the meeting to ccra is consistent what is said today and it
is not no accommodation was made to me sean whalen said the accommodation was made to accommodate
1805 pine street which is a single family house okay thank you
counsel do you have anything more from your client um yes so in your opinion is there any
hardship here there's tremendous hardship and there's no i'm sorry for me no for the owner
for the owner there's no hardship it was a totally occupied and performing building with
three units in it there are other three unit buildings on the block there is no hardship
okay thank you and are you concerned about negative impacts this development would have
on your property or the other neighboring properties tremendous um i'm not going to
dispute what was said at the meeting last night because that hasn't been entered into the record
here but as i said no l on any building on this block has ever been taken down in its entirety
they have only been added to demolition and i know they explained the meeting but demolition
i am an architect and i am a restoration architect i've lived up the block for 40 years
you cannot they are taking this building down under through a six foot wide alleyway
that we are all all used for access to our parking and they have said this isn't going to be a
problem when we have plumbers working on the street it's a problem and everyone is honking
their horn and by the way i have two rented parking spaces behind my building i don't know
I have two rented parking spaces behind my building.
I don't know how they will exist or how they will get in and out.
I'll see you next time.
So it is going to inconvenience my tenants tremendously if they even stay.
There is a lot, as I said, in the same footprint that he has.
I have seven totally successful units.
There is no reason to demolish.
There is no reason to build up. And as far as the ADA, there are steps in front of the building
into a vestibule and then you go up. I have partial information. There's a narrow on the back
and the floor levels between the front and rear portion of the building differ by almost five
feet. So I'm trying to figure out how an elevator operates to a second floor where half the second
floor is five feet higher than the other. There are too many questions here. I have never seen
a section through their building, which I would like to see. They are putting a deck, which no
one's said much about, on their roof, which is going to overlook the neighbor next door who they
so graciously um uh accommodated with no accommodation to me but there's a roof deck
up there i own several properties in the neighborhood access to the roof particularly
open access by more than one tenant is hideous they go out they walk across the roofs you get
beer cans i have a building on the 1800 block of spruce i have a building on locust i can tell you
about communal decks so we're not going to try it with what we want to do is try to concentrate on
this building here and not multiple buildings around the city so okay on this building he's
putting the deck i'm sorry that's okay all right any more questions council might i add one other
fact sir um you can add a fact i mean tell your council okay um we just have uh one other comment
are you concerned about the trash that could result from eight units and that'd be kept
and we'll go out yeah we haven't seen plans with where the the dumpster is going to go for this
increased um density on this property all right all right thank you um and so based on my client's
testimony and it is clear there's no legal hardship here the applicant is asking for more than they
would need and this would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood mr whale cross-examine uh i
have a closing argument but no no questions for mr rosenberg okay why don't why don't you perceive
your closing argument thank you very much um and not to belabor any points i'll try to move quickly
because i know we are the last on the list um no we have another whole group of people but that's
Coming in, we're already past that next list, so I apologize. I'll be as fast as possible.
You heard that we are seeking eight units with a minimal rear addition. Those eight units will
have wholly internal trash. That was covered at the CCRA hearing and was a big issue for them
at the time. Wade Albert, who represents CCRA, told me yesterday he would be on this hearing
so I don't know if he is or not. I can't see the participants, but I'll let him discuss CCRA's
position. Again, CCRA voted to oppose this project in September. They did so for one reason,
because of the height of the fourth story in the rear. To be very clear, their request for us to
reduce that rear addition from four stories to three stories was solely for the benefit of 1809
Pine Street, Mr. Rosenblum's property. The reason why they did that and why they took that position
was because Mr. Rosenblum nor any of his partners were present at the September meeting and they're
the ones who have the windows facing our property on their own setback. So they took the position
that if we reduce that, that would benefit, even though we're not required to, and we could build
to 100% lot coverage, as could Mr. Rosenblum, if he so desired, that would benefit the property at
1809. We did so and represented to CCRA last night, and they voted not to oppose. As you heard
from Mr. Rosenblum. He was present last night. He found out about this meeting.
he was present last night. He found out about this meeting. I'm not sure he could have certainly
found out about the September meeting as well, but was president last night's meeting. I don't
believe Ms. Stefkovich was or not, but she can speak for herself. I didn't see all the attendees.
And Mr. Rosenblum raised all of the issues that you just heard today. CCRA still,
in hearing all of those issues, they determined, as this board has, that most of Mr. Rosenblum's
issues are not zoning issues. He has issues of he doesn't like the design. He personally has
seven units, but somehow our requesting more units is inappropriate. We should remain with
three units. I showed you, and the photos are in the package, the rear alley shows numerous
properties that are built out 100% lot line to lot line. You know, that's just a matter of fact.
The, you know, the demolition of the rear is by right. There's no question, you know,
because Mr. Rosenblum is frustrated with or doesn't like the demolition of the rear addition
is of no moment. One of the things last night at the meeting that the CCRA members appreciated and
why there was some questions about, you know, difficulty traversing Panama Street and so forth
was that, again, the owner of this property, Mr. Adam Singer, who testified already,
lives at 1802 Delancey. He's catty-cornered to this property, literally could throw a stone
against it. He drives Panama Street all the time. Therefore, not only is it being a good neighbor
to keep Panama Street open, it's selfish that he needs to and wants to keep Panama Street open.
So, you know, I understand that Mr. Rosenblum has frustrations with something happening in the rear and wants the status quo to remain.
As this board is well aware and has found numerous times, it is not a self-created hardship nor any basis to refuse the granting of a variance because a purchaser buys a property with the intention of doing something different with that property than is currently being done or even that would require a variance.
um also there is no legal requirement in fact uh the as the board voted in another case of my own
um there is no legal requirement for the continual checking of whether a posting remains posted
rather as miss emerson has quite eloquently set forth in numerous findings the legal requirement
under the code is for the applicant to show that they posted the property through substantive
substantive evidence, which we did. And then that burden shifts to the protestant to determine
whether or not and show that it was not posted. You heard no such evidence. It was arguably not
posted for at least all day, Monday, the 27th and a.m. on the 28th. But those are a day and a half
out of the entire posting period. That's not substantive evidence sufficient to carry their
burden and overcome the presumption that we established. So just to summarize,
there is clear hardship both in the change of the neighborhood, the contextual character of
the neighborhood, including the immediately adjacent property. This was held and determined
by CCRA upon a second review of the property
and this is the least minimum
variance as I already set forth and fully in context with everything
else going on on the block and finally this will actually benefit
the public with no detriment. So with that
board chair I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter.
Thank you. Council do you have anything you want to add
to summarize um nothing that i haven't already summarized we don't believe there's a hardship
or that this was the least minimum variance questions questions from the board no mr chairman
no chair
questions questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
Chairman, I do see Wade Albert has his hand raised if you let me get to the to the virtual audience, I will get to him.
I'm sorry, Ms. Ellison.
I apologize.
That's okay. Hillary, no questions.
No questions.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
Yes, Wade Albert.
i will allow mr albert could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
sure my name is uh wade albert w-a-d-e last name is a-l-b-e-r-t right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do mr sure please proceed sir thank you so i am
a counsel for the center city residents association i'm uh attorney for uh with the law firm stevens
and lee um i just wanted to raise a few points the the description of of the process is is largely
accurate we heard this case uh originally on september 26th and at that time we opposed uh
based on concerns that were raised by uh individuals in the community and by our by our
committee members that the the height of the proposed addition in the rear was out of context
with the character of the neighborhood uh and at that after that i i spoke with mr whalen and
communicated that um if they were to reduce the height then ccri would reconsider um that change
that we requested i and i know there is some conflicting testimony i want to be very clear
about that it was not for the benefit of any particular neighbor it was for the community
generally was not we did not make ask to reduce the height to to to help the 1809 or 1805 or any
other property. It was just, we wanted to bring what we believed, um, the, this property back
into the context of, of the character of the neighborhood. Um, and so, um, we, we got those
revised plans and, and, um, gave, uh, the applicant an opportunity to, um, to, to represent last
night, which they did. Um, and as a result, um, CCRA voted to not oppose. I also want to comment
that this the uh mr rosenblum who um is i you know i totally understand the issues that he has raised
with um his you know his property in particular that he owns with his llc and we have tried i i
myself have tried very hard to um to connect mr rosenblum and mr whalen um and i i've spoken to
them, both of them, several times over the past two days. Mr. Rosenblum first sent me an email
or sent an email to CCRA, I believe, on Monday, which was forwarded to me. I immediately shared
the concerns about the notice postings with Mr. Whalen, and I think that's what got things moving
forward. We always try to be a neutral touchpoint for the neighbors and to facilitate any sort of
communications that would hopefully get everybody to agree on development.
I know that it may appear that that is not the case here, but we were hoping that maybe
there's some sort of agreement could be reached, and it appears that it cannot.
But that being said, having heard the plans twice, CCRA does not oppose.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Thank you. Mr. Whelan, do you have any questions?
MR. No, I do not for Mr. Albert. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Counsel, do you have any questions?
no i do not thank you okay um is there anyone else in the virtual audience