Thank you.
we are ready to start as you wish thank you good morning my name is bill bergman
and i will be chairing this morning's dba hearing with me is carol tenere our vice chair
Present, Mr. Chairman
Ismail Shahid, our Board Secretary
Present, Mr. Chair
Thomas Holliman, our Board Member
Present, Mr. Chairman
And James Snell, our Board Member
Present, Mr. Chairman
Also here is our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett
And our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson
Our virtual format
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To win an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property
question. And finally, please note the question answer box is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments should be sent to our director, our executive director, Tanya Sunke.
today we're here for a hearing on MI 2022 003 368 4701 the 15 Kinsesson Avenue the case was
previously heard and granted by the board in 2021 the decision was appealed to the court of common
pleas which reversed the board and returned the case to the board for further proceedings
Per the court order, the scope of today's hearings will be limited to accepting supplemental evidence and testimony on the issues of unnecessary hardship and the minimum variance standard.
Testimony and evidence from the prior hearings before the board on April 7th, 2021, and June 2nd, 2021, are incorporated by reference into the record for today's hearings.
Witnesses who are called by counsel at prior hearings may testify at today's hearing.
However, their testimony is limited to the issues just stated and must be supplemental and not reiteration of their prior testimony.
At the conclusion of today's hearing, the Board will hold the case for four weeks until August 24th at 9.30 a.m.
so that supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law can be prepared and then
adopted as a proviso on the Board's decision. Today's hearings will proceed in the following
format. Opening statements by counsel for the applicant and objectives. Two, presentation of
supplemental evidence and testimony by counsel for the applicant with cross-examination of witnesses
by counsel for the objectors. Three, presentation of supplemental evidence and testimony by a
counsel for the objectors with cross-examination of witnesses by the counsel of the applicant.
Four, testimony by members of the public, please note that the public testimony will be limited to
responding to supplemental evidence and testimony offered at the hearing by counsel for the parties.
Five, flow lead statements by counts for the applicant and also the objectors.
For a point of record, I am going on the record.
I'm certifying that I have read all the transcripts from the prior hearings.
Ismail Shahid.
I acknowledge I read it.
Okay. Before we begin, I want to note that case number MI 2022-000403-3116 Clifford Street will be voted on next Wednesday, August 3rd.
3116 Clifford Street will be voted on next Wednesday, August 3rd, at 9.30 a.m. instead of this morning.
In addition, we'll be re-voting MI 2021-003-957-3440 North 18th Street at 2 p.m. on August 3rd to clarify one of the provisors.
Also, at 2 p.m. on August 3rd, we will be reading the RCO letter into the record, if received, and voting on MI2020-002-812-830 East Thayer Street.
Would Brett Feldman and Steve Masters please be promoted to panelists, and we can start the case, and I'll swear them in.
Mr. Masters is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Masters.
How are you?
Let's wait for Mr. Feldman to come on.
Mr. Feldman is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Feldman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Mr. Feldman, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Absolutely.
Brett Feldman, B-R-E-T-T, Feldman, F-E-L-D, M-A-N.
Right.
And Mr. Masters, could you do the same, please?
Good morning, everyone.
Steve Masters, M-A-S-T-E-R-S.
I am the attorney for the objectors. Thank you. For both of you, do you both swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. I do. Thank both of you. So let's start with the attorney for the applicant with an
opening statement. Sure. I'm going to share my screen.
can the board members uh see my screen yes okay uh again mr chairman members of the board
um planning commission other witnesses good morning my name is brad feldman
um i represent uh the owner applicant uh for this for this matter and i'd just like to thank
the board for all their time consideration they've already put into this uh and uh to get this case
ready. I think, Mr. Chairman, you already did this, but obviously we want to reincorporate
the exhibits that were submitted previously on 4-7 and 6-2, 2021. I'd also ask that the
board incorporate the supplemental exhibits that were submitted to the board and you see in front
of you last Wednesday as per the board's scheduling order. Thank you. We have it.
Great. Thank you. Thank you. These are almost entirely supplemental. And we have, I will tell the board, we have instructed our witnesses. And I talked to Mr. Masters yesterday. We both have instructed our witnesses, I think, as much as possible to keep this as focused as possible on the issues of hardship and the issues of least minimum variance.
And we will do our absolute best to stay focused on that. So let me, I mean, I think most of us know the story here, and Mr. Chairman, you provided some of that, but back, obviously, last year, the board approved a 76-unit, four-story, three-story building, multifamily building, after the applicant had spent almost a year with immediate neighbors, city planning,
the streets department, the RCOs. This is our neighborhood. This is West Philadelphia. This is
Cedar Park. We are on Chester Avenue. We're on 47th Street, King Sessing, and 48th. And specifically,
our property starts at the corner of 48th and Chester, runs along Chester. And if you can
follow my cursor here, comes around two-thirds of the way down the block, comes down in this
parking lot here, wraps around the Renaissance Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, then goes
back out to 47th Street, down to the corner of King Sessing and 47th, comes down King Sessing
about two-thirds of the way, wraps around the nursing home, and then back up behind these
structures here, comes here, and then back at the corner of 48th and Chester. The nursing home is
part of the Unity of Youth's five lots that comprise this project. There is no change to
that nursing home. It remains. It is a pillar in the neighborhood, and it's owned by the same
principal that owns the other properties that are subject to here. This is our context.
uh that owns uh the other properties that are subject to here this is our context uh we are
on chester avenue uh this is a uh traditional streetcar uh trolley suburb uh it's what they
called it back in the back in the day um and uh you'll see all the contextual buildings the four
and three-story uh multi-family buildings that are here um up and down here the other buildings um
that aren't those aren't those structures the you know the large multi-family buildings um most of
them, if not all of them, have been converted now into multifamily. These are just large
structures that over time converted into multifamily. I think there's one on Chester
across the street, and then there's one, I believe, down on 48th Street. So that is our
context here that you see. Here is what it looks like if you are at street level. Here are the
multi-three and four-story buildings up and down. Excuse me, Mr. Feldman. Mr. Feldman, this is
Hilary, can you just summarize the arguments you're going to make today, and then we'll give Mr. Masters a chance to do the same, and then we can get into the meat of your presentation?
Yeah, sure, sure.
All right, thank you.
So here is ultimately what this case is going to be about.
These are our lots.
There are five lots that are issued here.
These are four vacant lots on Chester Avenue and on 48th Street and on the nursing home lot.
These are massive, oversized lots that are completely out of character with the underlying RTA-1 zoning that's here at this property.
RTA-1 is a duplex dwelling, 2,250 square foot lot size.
These lots, these vacant lots here are 10,000, 11,000, 10,000, and 6,000.
And what the testimony will establish today, and supplement to the testimony on the previous hearings, was that these lots, the size, the frontage, the depth, the lot area, creates a hardship in that to expect that a developer, an owner, will develop these properties and put a duplex dwelling,
one duplex dwelling on each one of these four lots is a clear hardship. This would be no
different than when you have a school building, a vacant school building or a vacant church building
on a single-family lot, and you expect that you can use that building as a single-family home
when it's massive. These lots are way out of scale. And the reason why they're out of scale,
as you'll hear, is that they were previously used for large multifamily buildings. There was
130 units on these lots. So you have large lots that are a legacy of the large multifamily that
were here until the 1990s. And here is the pictures of what you'll see today. So our
The hardship is created by those by those large lots to expect that you're going to redevelop those and put an RTA one duplex dwelling on those large lots.
The architect will further testify. And here again, here is the approved plans.
And we'll be talking about those today as well. The architect will further establish.
and here are here are the refusals that here's and this is all in the record that we've now
we've now passed up for the refusal and the response and we'll go into all that today
the architect will further establish that when you this is what rta1 looks like this is the
duplex dwelling it requires one-for-one parking it requires an oversized curb cut
so that each of the two units above has has the parking which is different than
any of the other districts, the RM1 district multifamily, which the architect will further
establish is, and going back to the zoning plan right here, is that our belief is that
a multifamily building on these lots is then the least minimum variance because of the history of
these properties, that they were used for multifamily because of the context that almost
many of the corners up and down Chester Avenue have a multifamily building. There's also a split
zoning argument here. Our property is RTA1. A lot of it is. And you'll see even across the street
with a multifamily building, it's zoned single family. But it's also zoned RM1. RM1 is the
classic multifamily district. It's also zone CMX2. So when you conclude that a duplex dwelling
district doesn't make sense for the reasons that you'll hear,
for the reasons that you'll hear, we believe that it's appropriate based on the context,
we believe that it's appropriate based on the context, based on the history.
based on the history, that you look at the other, the other, the largest zoning district on the
property, which is RM1. And that's, that's what we've done in this case. And when you look at the
RM1, it has certain calculations as far as the number of units that a property can yield
consistent with RM1. And our, our proposal, the 76 units is actually less than what RM1
would deliver under the Philadelphia zoning code. It'd be 79 units. So we believe that we
are the least minimum variance. We have further testimony. We have a leading executive at a
leading Philadelphia construction and development company, which has looked at these properties,
run economic analysis, and this is going to the least minimum variance, and will further testify
that any of the duplex dwelling projects are not viable from an economic perspective on this
property due to the history, the land costs, the construction costs, and the other infrastructure
that has to be put in here, whether it's stormwater management and other construction costs.
Finally, our architect will establish, and this is absolutely critical, we put a significant amount of time and effort into looking at what would an RTA1 project look like on the site here.
we had mr roller jerry roll from jkrp who will be testifying shortly mock this out and sketch
this out you know and try to if you subdivide it if you change the lot lines what would this
look like an rta1 project and as the testimony will establish this type of rta1 with the required
curb cuts runs contrary to almost every city planning streets department guide as far as
the size of curb cuts, the number of curb cuts, the closeness of curb cuts to other curb cuts
on these types of streets, the size of driveways, and more importantly, and just as importantly,
SEPTA and the City Council of Philadelphia last year, right as this was being approved by the
zoning board, passed legislation to bar additional curb cuts on Chester Avenue
Because of the trolley modernization, as many of us know, SEPTA is embarking on a $2 billion project to finally upgrade the trolleys in Philadelphia so that they're ADA compliant.
And they will need raised platforms along corridors like Chester Avenue and other Baltimore Avenue, other areas where there are trolleys.
And SEPTA is so alarmed, is so alarmed by any move towards additional curb cuts or as of right development on this quarter that they submitted yesterday a letter to the zoning board, not only supporting our project, but expressing their deep concerns in terms of safety about an RTA1 approach.
and i think the board has this from last night it's it's it's it's mr feldman mr feldman we do
have it okay why don't we wrap up your your opening statement so we can move on because
all this you're going to wind up trying to cover again later i'm sure so we will we will we also
have uh testimony from um cedar park who will be testifying um why they why they support this
so with that um i would i would i will stop i will uh mr masters give his statement thank you
But we believe that the testimony is clear on the hardship of leasement and variance, and we appreciate the opportunity to present on both.
Thank you. Good morning again, Mr. Masters. Could you please do your opening?
Yes. And I am I'm only going to show I'd like to share my screen just to do one map as part of my opening, but I'm not going to scroll through a lot.
Looks like I don't have. I don't have permission to share my screen at this point.
Brett, can you unshare your screen maybe? Absolutely. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. I'm going to pause here. So good morning again. So this case is highly unusual in several
respects. First, over 600 neighbors strongly oppose the project. And this is by far the most
opposition that district council member jamie gaudier had ever experienced since she took office
in 2020. second the zoning board actively silenced the voices of community leaders representing the
The zoning board actively silenced the voices of community leaders representing this large number of neighbors, including the leader of the coordinating RCO, who they did not allow, you did not allow to swear in, let alone to testify.
Third, the zoning board failed to follow the law and stepped far outside of the contours of your legal authority under the Home Rule Charter when you granted these variances from the RTA1 duplex zoning for these five lots.
Fourth, the zoning board didn't make the factual findings that were required to support those
legal conclusions. And inexplicably, you ignored overwhelming evidence in the record that
demonstrated a profound lack of hardship that justified the variances. So what's our argument
today? First is that there's no barrier to an RTA-1 as of right development. None of Meyer
Galley's witnesses, Mr. Galley is the owner, none of Meyer Galley's witnesses deny that he can
profitably develop this property in conformance with the RTA-1 zoning. Now, to the extent that
Mr. Feldman wants to put on a new witness today that did not offer testimony at the original
hearings around viability, we will have a standing objection to that on the basis that the courts
have ruled that when you have a remand hearing from the common place back to the zoning board,
the applicant is not allowed to have a second bite at the apple. So yes, they can supplement
and explain why their testimony before you originally, why it should be credible, why you
should adopt it, but they can't add missing pieces that they didn't do last time that would make it
a second bite of the apple. Now, Gally's architect, Mr. Jerry Roller, he testified last time that each
of the RTA-1 lots are 10,000 square feet in area, and without a subdivision, you could get five
duplexes for a total of 10 dwelling units. But then he added, quote, if you turn the corner,
he did a different subdivision. Theoretically, you could build 15 buildings, you could get 30
units, and if each of those were three-bedroom units, which is possible, I suppose, you would
have 90 bedrooms, which is probably more than we have in the multifamily buildings. That's from the
April 7th transcript on pages 28 to 31. Gellie's land planner, Nancy Templeton, also testified
that it was possible to build as-of-right duplex houses throughout the property. She testified
that the as of right would produce less affordable housing and more curb cuts. She also testified
that if the property was rezoned to RM1, then the proposed plans that Mr. Galley wants for this
large multifamily apartment building could be built as of right. Nancy Templeton also testified
that the properties immediately surrounding the applicant's property are all either single family