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
homes or low density twins. And we'll look at those when we look at the maps with you
and the diagram, but literally there are no multifamily large structures on this big square
block. They are all small, small structures that are single family homes or very small
twins. So why not develop the parcels as of right? The testimony in the record before revealed that
Gelli never wanted to develop the property in compliance with the RTA -1 zoning classification.
So instead of planning a project that complied with the zoning, he chose to design a project
that would require his property to be rezoned RM -1. He chose to design and build it for his
own reasons, not for any hardship, not for any inability to do the right thing. He was
committed to changing the zoning to RM1, so he first proposed 83 apartments in one large structure.
That was probably his opening bid so that he could maybe have some room to maneuver. The community
pushed back hard on that design. He lowered the number of apartments down to 76, and then he
committed to designating 20 % of the units as affordable. The two zoning hearings that you
held back in 2021 were devoted to Galley making his case to the zoning board that the existing
RTA -1 zoning class for the whole neighborhood, not just for these parcels, but literally every RTA -1
zoning for the whole neighborhood, that's what his witnesses testified, was wrong. They called it
alien. They called it all kinds of names. If it didn't have such a thick skin, it would have
very offended by all the names that his experts were calling it. His architect, his land planner,
His architect, his land planner, his project historian, and his lawyer all presented a variety of arguments that justified rezoning RTA1 to RM1. The problem here is that even though he makes some interesting arguments, he took it to the wrong place.
his project historian, and his lawyer all presented
Instead of making this argument to district council member Gaudier, who was the only person who can rezone these properties through council legislation, instead of going to her to convince her to introduce that legislation, he took the case to you.
You can only issue variances when there's an unnecessary hardship that is unique to that property, and you are legally barred from awarding variances when it has to do with a zoning class that is for a wider area and not just for those parcels.
Now, Gellie's witness never established the legal basis for unnecessary hardship.
In this appeal, the lots to be developed are all vacant.
We're not talking about preserving any kind of history here.
These are blades of grass that did not exist back in the time where there were multifamily dwellings on this property.
The primary issue identified by Gellie's witnesses is that the RTA -1 zoning class itself is the problem.
And this by law, by all the case law that we have in Pennsylvania, cannot be the basis of a hardship claim, but not just the case law. In our zoning code itself, it says that the hardship has to be not related to the zoning class. It literally says that it has to be related to something physical about those buildings.
Now, in addition, we have a neighborhood here, the immediate neighborhood, it's uniformly
residential, and there's literally no barrier to developing duplex housing amongst the mix
of single and multifamily housing.
Our testimony and the cross -examination that we're going to do of Gelly's witnesses will
show that any hardship that exists at these properties is either not unique to the property
itself, or it was self -created by Mr. Gelley's decision to combine all the parcels into one
ginormous parcel instead of subdividing the parcels to an appropriate size for a large RTA1
development. The zoning board failed last time to discuss and evaluate Tom Ewing's buy -write plan
for RCA1 compliant home. So I'm going to share that so that we get a little preview of that here.
We're going to go to
there we go. We're going to
So, we, members of the board, we have presented back in 2021, but it was never looked at, never shared with the board because the objectors didn't have the ability to share their screen.
I see that. That was submitted to the board.
Mr. Feldman, Mr. Feldman, let Mr. Masters.
You have plenty of time for your testimony of your case, but let Mr. Masters finish.
Mr. Ewing, we're going to be presenting him as an expert witness today, and I believe that Mr. Feldman is going to be in agreement with that.
He is a trained architect with a master's degree in architecture, and he's the former senior director for planning at the University of Pennsylvania for nearly 40 years.
He oversaw all major capital real estate projects for the university, including the $600 million construction of Wharton School's Huntsman Hall.
Mr. Ewing's by right design does not require multiple curb cuts. We agree that multiple
curb cuts would not be the ideal situation for this development. Here we have one additional
curb cut on 48th Street, not on Chester. And with this one curb cut, we have alleys that can feed
the cars that belong to these. Mr. Masters, let me ask you, you're going to present this later,
right yes yeah so why don't why don't we you know sure i think we understand what you want to do i
just don't want to i have just a few more a few more words so um even if mr ewing's design requires
a variance his testimony will show that it is without question the least modification necessary
to overcome unnecessary hardship finally i want to address the applicant's affordability arguments
Galley claims that he can't create affordable housing by developing the duplexes under RTA1, but he never took any of the steps a developer would need to take to develop affordable housing here.
He never applied to the Housing Trust Fund in Philadelphia for funds. He never sought low -income housing tax credits from the PA Housing Finance Agency.
He never sought low -income housing tax credits from the PA Housing Finance Agency.
The federal, state, and local governments all provide subsidies to create affordable housing because without these subsidies, it's very hard to do an affordable housing project, especially in an RTA1 district where you don't get the bonuses that you can get from some other districts in the zoning code.
His argument is that he can't create 20 % affordable units at an RTA1 development, but it has no credibility.
It's not that he can't develop affordable housing using Mr. Ewing's plan.
It's that he never bothered to try.
Finally, we're going to be presenting testimony of the RCO leaders and near neighbors who were not allowed to present their testimony at the previous hearing.
And these witnesses have been instructed to direct their testimony to the issues of hardship and minimum variance.
Thank you, Minister Masters.
Mr. Feldman, could you start the presentation of your supplemental evidence, please?
Yes, I'm going to need to.
Yeah, I'm coming out here.
Here we go.
Let me come back in.
I'd ask.
By the way, Mr. Masters, you'll have a chance to cross -examine his witnesses.
Yes, thank you.
All right, proceed.
I'd ask that architect, Jerry Roller, managing principal, J .K .R. partners, be promoted to a panelist.
Mr. Feldman, this is Tanya. Does he need to be a panelist or audio only?
I think a panelist would be helpful if possible, but we could do audio too.
Okay. Staff, can you please unmute him? Thank you.
Mr. Roller, please raise your virtual hand.
Mr. Roller?
Mr. Roller, can you please raise your hand?
He's unmuted.
Jerry, are you there?
In the essence of fairness of time, Jerry, we can continue.
Let me just...
Jerry, are you out there?
mr feldman could you go to your next witness here we go here we go okay good mr mr merler
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter uh yes it's jerry roller r -o -l -l -e -r
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Proceed.
Good morning, Jerry.
How are you?
Good morning.
You had me worried there for a second.
Sorry.
So, Jerry, I even hesitate to ask you some of these questions, but can you give the board a little of your background?
How long have you been an architect in the city of Philadelphia?
I'm going to stipulate that he's an architect, and this is for supplemental testimony.
He's already testified before.
I don't think we need to.
I was going to ask that he actually be accepted as an expert in architecture in the city of Philadelphia due to his longstanding experience and testimony.
What specifically do you want him to be an expert to testify to?
To the hardship under his understanding of the properties, the code and architecture principles.
Hardship is a legal concept that isn't something that an architect is an expert at.
them. So why don't we do this, Mr. Feldman, let him testify, and then we'll weigh what we think
about his testimony. I mean, I think that's where we should be. Great. So, Jerry, when your firm
was hired by the owner... I'm sorry. This is Tanya again. I might have missed it, but did he get
sworn in? Yes, I was sworn in. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, Jerry. I'm trying to follow everyone.
That's all right. That's okay. Proceed.
Great. So, Mr. Roller, when your firm was hired by the owner, Mr. Gelley, to redevelop the properties, what did your office do as far as an initial review of the property?
Mr. Gelley approached us with the idea that he wanted to develop housing on the property.
We reviewed the underlying zoning, which is RTA1, which contemplates twin duplexes on
which contemplates twin duplexes on 2 ,250 -square -foot lots.
We looked at that as an option, and actually, there should be a slide showing what that looks like.
Yeah, and we'll get to that shortly.
So you looked at the zoning.
As I know your office does, did you look at the context?
Did you look at the context? We looked at what was around there. We looked at the existing nursing home building on the site and what might be a yield for the lots in question.
I have an objection at this point. It looks like Mr. Roller has testified to all of these questions before and his testimony today is supposed to be supplemental.
all so i'm wondering let me i hear what you're saying mr feldman i agree i think we're i think
what we want need to hear right now is because we have all the testimony before that's in the record
what is his supplemental information sure sure but i i think at the same time that we need to
have some latitude here um i agree you have to have some latitude but i think what he's testifying
so far is already in the record. Sure. So, Jerry, when you talked about the zoning,
here is the zoning for the property, correct? Correct. And the property is split zoned. Can
you explain? The property is partially zoned RTA1, partially zoned RM1, and there's a small
piece of the property that is zoned CMX2. And RM1 is what? RM1 is a multifamily zone.
uh cmx2 is a commercial ground floor uh residential above zone okay i'm i'm just
subjecting here that the use of the term the property implies that it's one property but
there's actually multiple parcels and none of them are none of them that are you're developing
are on one so i i feel that what you're doing is okay we're going to be from the that that's that's
not true this is mr feldman mr feldman listen mr masters i hear your point mr feldman we're
going to move on and try to get to the point of what the supplemental issues are again this is
this is why this is why some latitude is necessary there is there are five properties here that i
wanted to but mr mr mr feldman i understand there's latitude but i think in your opening
comments you covered all that for us so why don't why don't we have mr roller
So, Jared, you looked at the RTA -1 zoning that's on four of the five properties, correct?
And can you explain to the board what RTA -1 looks like in terms of first dimensionally, and then we'll talk about physically?
I'm objecting, again, that this is literally the same questions that you answered, and it's in the transcript.
Perhaps we can clarify what you, in fact, Mr. Masters, alluded to in terms of the previous testimony, in terms of what you could and could not do with the property.
Terry, does RTA 1 require two card cuts?
double rta rta1 it requires on -site parking for two cars for the two duplexes assuming that we're
we're developing it um under the standard art rm1 rta1 which is a 25 foot frontage 200 2250
50 -square -foot lots with twin buildings and two units. If we use the lots that are shown,
there are four vacant lots as part of the overall five -lot parcel that's being included.
Those lots are 6 ,000 to 12 ,000 square -foot lots. They are way larger than the standard RTA
one lot so that and just just to orient the board that's the slide that you see in front of you
the five the five vacant lots and the nursing home lot correct correct correct and those
these sizes of these lots are between 6 000 and 12 000 square feet they are and and we did we did
look at could we put duplexes on them and and yes in fact you could but it's a ridiculous use of
property. If RTA -1 contemplates a 2 ,000 -square -foot lot and these are 9 ,000 -square -foot
lots, it is not an appropriate or efficient use of land to put four buildings on this property.
four buildings on this property well beyond appropriate or reasonable is it viable have
Well, beyond appropriate or.
you do you know if I mean you've been doing this for 40 years do you know of any developer that
would put one duplex on a 12 000 square foot lot uh and call it a day and be able to be able to
finance that that would not occur excuse me council excuse me council I I believe your
question was does each property require a curb cut was that your question uh i was going to get to
that that was that was your question but he didn't answer it he he answered it in the negative well
i was going to address that in cross -examination but there's definitely nothing no requirement in
code for a front okay thank you well okay um let's why don't we get to the rta one plan that we did
produce and and the the reasons why it probably isn't viable and then the rta plan that was
proposed and why that's sure as you said at the beginning you looked at that you looked at this
for the owner, a bunch of different scenarios. This is the RTA -1 layout that your office put
together to try to come up with a viable number of units to make this project possible, correct?
Correct.
And can you describe to the board what you've shown here?
As was previously presented, this has multiple driveways, 36 -foot wide curb cuts,
multiple sidewalk crossings, parking cars in the front of the buildings, and losing street parking.
It also is on Chester with the parcels that face Chester in conflict with the ordinance prohibiting curb cuts completely on Chester in deference to the number 13 trial.
so one one of the things which we didn't testify to but i should and and want to add here is
um in in preparation for this hearing we looked a little a little bit more closely
as to whether this in fact could be done as as an upright plan and um
what we didn't look at at the time because we didn't think it was viable this
this plan would require stormwater management. Stormwater management would have to, given the
size of this development, be done in some sort of common facility. It could be done on the
unusable land that is behind there. In order to manage stormwater management under the regulations
in the city of Philadelphia. There must be an entity to do that. In this situation, this is
typically a homeowner's association, and this becomes what is commonly known as the PUD or
planned unit development. The wrinkle here is that when you do a planned unit development,
the city of Philadelphia now considers this multifamily, and we've done numerous developments
like this, where it's essentially single houses or duplexes or whatever the underlying zone calls
for. But because of the common facilities, the city permits this as multifamily. So essentially,
even if we were to present this plan to L &I, they would refuse it for multifamily. And we'd end up
with the same refusals that we are sitting with here now, i .e. multiple structures on the lot,
multifamily use, none of it permitted in RTA1. So while the plan looks like it complies with RTA1,
in fact, digging into it a little bit more closely, it will not comply with RTA1 in that
L &I will refuse it for the same reasons. And when you talk about this pod or plan unit
development. Can I show you a picture of something that you've done previously?
I just think, I know you understand what that means, but this is a project that you're offering.
I mean, here is an example of one such property. This is a series of townhouses.
I'm going to object that there's no relevance to comparing this property with any other project
or property i don't see how how whatever mr roller did in another parcel has anything to do with
whether there's hardship or minimum variance issues so so mr feldman i i i'm going to agree
with mr masters i understand what you're trying to present and i understand very well what he
what he talked about with the last one but i don't think we need to comparison to
talked about with the last one but i don't think we need to comparison to a townhouse development
a townhouse development well the no no but this is exactly mr mr roller i'm talking to mr phil
i'm sorry so mr feldman i i would appreciate if we could move on
so let's so let's let's try returning returning to what what a what a putt is
here here is the rta one layout correct that you you set up here
I'm going to object to the line of questions on PUD because it's speculative.
There's no, the witness hasn't been able to testify that he has any knowledge that L &I
would actually require this to be listed as a PUD.
He has talked to L &I.
That's exactly why I was presenting the plan.
Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller.
Let me talk to Mr. Masters.
Mr. Masters, I'm going to let that testimony.
But Mr. Feldman, I want you to move this a little bit and not a lecture on PUD, but just a quick overview, please.
Well, so Jerry, your position is looking at this RTA1 layout that you've mocked up, that this would not be code compliant, correct?
That's correct.
And that's because in your 40 -year experience, Ellen and I would treat this as a multifamily project, no different than the multifamily project that we submitted and we received our answers for, correct?
That's correct.
Now, looking at this plan, there's all of these different notes.
Can you tell us about these notes, where they came from, and the implications that they have for this type of development?
These are notes from the City of Philadelphia's development standards, the Streets Department's development standards, as they relate to curb cuts, impediments to pedestrian traffic, et cetera,
All of which disincentivize multiple curb cuts, all of which do not permit curb cuts within 40 feet of the corner, all of which do not permit continuous curb cuts, which would be required to develop this with the 25 -foot frontage as shown in accordance with RTA1.
And why do these policies exist? These prohibitions exist?
Objection. That calls for speculation. He's not a legislator.
I'm no line of hand today.
What was the goal of all these different city planning and streets department regulations and prohibitions against what you see in front of you, to your knowledge?
To my knowledge, it's in order to preserve streetscape, in order to preserve the pedestrian nature of city streets, particularly in West Philadelphia, where there are a dearth of curb cuts.
All the other buildings on the site, around the site, or most of them don't have curb cuts.
now mr roll i talked about in my opening new legislation um that was uh approved by city
council in the last year uh at the urging of septa are you familiar with that legislation
excuse me counselor i think you're going back to curb cuts
and i thought we dissolved curb cuts no this is i member holliman this is actually
it is related to curb cuts but it's a whole separate i know but mr mr feldman yes i think
in your opening you described that very well for us and and i think that to have mr roller go back
to the septa and things like that you've already described that very very well for us and i don't
i don't think we need any more we need to move on let me ask one question based off of the
legislation that now bars curb cuts on Chester, could you even, would this plan even now be as
of right, even if you could get past all the other issues that you described and all the
prohibitions? It would not because of the curb cuts on Chester, which would not be permitted.
Because city council has now barred. That was your one question. That was your one question
about that. Now we're going to move on from curb cut. Sure.
let me ask you another question here
this unusable land can you tell us about the unusable land and the waste that this plan
creates um it creates a large piece of property that uh has no use it
uh wastes a a taxable piece it wastes uh a usable piece uh it couldn't it really uh
doesn't have anything to do with it's a huge piece of property with which is not buildable
under the rta one so according to this plan it's what 12 000 square feet
So according to this plan, it's what, 12 ,000 square feet?
And these lots, these four lots together, about 36 ,000 square feet?
Right.
So you've got a third of the property that's just lost, that's not viable, correct?
That's correct.
And some could characterize that as a major hardship that is created on this property?
Objection, that's cause for a legal conclusion, and it's also very vague.
Why is there such a large area of unusable land on this lot, on these lots?
Because the scale of the existing property is inconsistent with the scale of development contemplated under RTA -1.
Which means what?
RTA -1 is designed to have small lots fronting on the street.
These are large lots, which are residual from larger buildings that existed on those lots.
And how does the frontage of our lots compare to RTA -1 lots?
I'm not expecting that for vagueness. I don't know what our lots and our frontage mean.
So, Mr. Feldman, I really think you have described everything about this.
I think we have to move on. You have to have, move on with Mr. Roller, please, for other supplemental information, but we can't keep staying on this parcel.
Jerry, this is the SEPTA bar?
Yes, I'm perked on Sanchester Avenue.
So, Jerry, one more scenario that Mr. Masters spent a lot of time on his opening.
And it was this supposed, as of right, RTA -1 alternative plan that only had one curb cut.
Are you familiar with this plan?
And have you reviewed it?
I have.
And can you, and my understanding is your office did a zoning analysis of this plan
and came to certain conclusions, correct?
We did.
And those conclusions were with regards to what items?
The existence of the alleys as shown are significantly smaller than what is permitted
under the zoning code.
We still have significant lack of understanding of how they would be administered.
There's still vacant property in the rear of this.
More importantly, this development, as I said before, will be considered by L &I as a planned unit development
and will require a, will be zoned for their, considered for their purposes as multifamily.
And the reason, this is why I was presenting something else where we got the same determination
from L &I. So it's not just me saying it. We've done lots of multiple building, generally townhouse
or duplex developments where they're essentially singles. They lay front on streets, but because
of the common facilities, stormwater and driveway, L &I calls this multifamily. And the permits that
are issued are multifamily permits. I mean, I don't know why. This is not my determination,
but we've been doing this for the last 20 years. And L &I says...
Excuse me, sir. Is that an L &I code or a policy?
i don't know when we submit these to the to l and i we get a review we either get an approval
or refusal based on multi -family determination they call this multi -family because of the
common facilities okay so this case may this case may be different right okay correct no
Hold on one minute. This is the second time we've discussed this. You've got to move on. I mean, you went through this before.
Mr. Chair, this is a separate plan. This was the plan that...
Yeah, but it's the same conclusion that you originally did a little while ago about L &I. So, I mean, I think we have to move on. We understand it. You've made your point. We understand it, but you have to move on.
okay i understand so mr roll let's let's turn to the project itself okay okay we previously showed
this this is our this is our lot this is our context the other item that is in front of this
board today is least minimum variance it's that and our conclusion is that um rta1 is not
rta1 is not appropriate and that there's a hardship on the properties so the question is
appropriate and that there's a hardship on the properties so the question is
if the variance is entitled what is the least minimum variance okay we concluded and with i'm
objecting that this is now leading the witness and that's not permitted in my direct examination so
mr feldman do do your question over like let's i understand what mr masters is saying so jerry
let's talk let's talk about um the building that ultimately was approved by the zoning board
can you describe the building in terms of um of height first building is a uh three -story and
four -story building i'm sorry i'm objecting because this is all in the record and there's
nothing supplemental about it this absolutely goes to least minimum value the dimensions of
the building are in the record you've asked him this we've been asked by mr feldman mr feldman
Look, I do agree that we know the size of the building.
I think what you need to do is to concentrate on what's the supplemental information he has relative to that today.
We've already had that other testimony.
Mr. Roller.
What is the code requirement in RM1 or RTA1 for height?
38 feet.
and we have a small portion of this building that exceeds that correct that is correct
and why do we need to slightly exceed the height here we we needed to slightly exceed the height
to give us a lower height on the street lines which brings the cornice line on the street
closer to the typical cornice of the adjacent buildings and still give us the unit count that we
wanted to achieve. The average height of this building, if you take the area times the height
and the area times the height, the average height of this building is 36 .7 feet, which is less than
the RM1 allowance. Or RTA1. So, Mr. Feldman, could you get to the point what supplemental
information that is? I mean, I think it's not supplemental. Let's get to the point what's
supplemental here. We were asked by the board. First, we're providing the average height,
which we had not provided, I don't believe, at the first hearing. We had provided the height,
this portion is 32 this is 42 so we wanted the board to realize and and to understand for the
record that the overall height of this building the average height of this building is actually
less than the code requirement in terms of most in terms of um least minimum variance that were
actually below there okay okay that was that's the whole that's the whole point of this exercise
so what else do we have for mr roller sure jerry let me ask you this the other item is
what what is the appropriate number what is the least minimum variance for the number of units
um for this for this building you've testified you've testified that uh rta1 is not viable
that the alternative rta ones that mr master's expert uh or alleged expert will testify to is
not viable how do we come up with the number of the 76 units and why do you why do you believe
that's the least minimum variance? What we did is look at the overall zoning on the site
and consider that if RTA1 was not viable, what was the next zone which exists on the site?
The property in question includes a portion of RM1, and based on that, that would seem to be
the least the next least developed site that we could use as a standard and we developed this
building with that in mind the unit count here at 76 is less than the 79 that would be permitted if
this these four properties were considered under rm1 in addition we can we maintain the setbacks
and the coverage of eight feet and 50%, which are contained in RTA1, so that we weren't
asking for variances on those dimensions. In terms of the height, we also provided
affordable housing at 20%, which if it were under the RM1, that would permit the height
to a variance of 45 to 45 feet under the zoning code.
uh to a variance of 45 to 45 feet under the zoning code so this is compliant with what would
be in our rm1 if that were the next zone used considering that it's the only it's the next
lowest zone in on the site excuse me sir excuse me sir yes rm1 it's the smallest partial
in this package correct it's part of it's it's the next the majority of the site is rta1 there's
no question correct but it also includes rm1 and includes cmx2 so how many square feet is rm1
um a small portion of it it's probably uh 10 percent
okay thank you yeah jerry let me let me wrap it up with this
There are also other refusals, multiple structures, multiple uses.
RTA1 does not allow multiple structures, multiple uses on a lot.
Because we are on the same zoning lot as the nursing home, we got the multiple structures, multiple uses, refusal.
Is there any way with the unity of use configuration that we used here to comply with either one?
Is there any conceivable way?
Thank you. And I would reserve any redirect. Mr. Masters, Cross. Yes. All right. Mr. Roller,
I'm going to look a little bit at your testimony from April 7th, 2021 on page 29. Do you remember
saying that if you did a different subdivision of those parcels that are the RTA one, that you
could build 15 buildings and get 30 units and could have up to 90 bedrooms in an RTA -1
development? Yes, that's essentially the plan that we just showed. We didn't. Well, I just
asked you, can you just answer the questions I asked you and not go on, please? She's allowed
to answer the question and provide an explanation. He doesn't. Mr. Roller, for this point, Mr.
Roller, please just answer the question. Mr. Roller, Mr. Feldman asked you if the
front -loaded driveways were required under RCA1 and that is in fact not the case, right? You are
allowed to have driveways in the rear of a house in RCA1 zoning, correct? You are allowed to, but
it is yes you're allowed to right in in in the plan that you that you designed you designed a
plan that only had front -loaded parking and apparently it looks to me like you designed a
plan that would check off um wait brett i'm gonna i'm gonna um ask for the screen now
Brett can you can you release the screen right could you miss let Mr masters on the screen yeah
I'm just trying to move this home okay okay so on the on the plan from from Tom Ewing
uh there's one curb cut on the plan that you created um for mr galley um there were numerous
curb cuts right correct and you had a chart that listed all the reasons why under complete streets
that's a really bad idea correct so you basically created a plan that was like a frankenstein plan
when you look at what the what the rules are for the city philadelphia it was like worst case
scenario, you never want to meet this plan in an alley, so to speak. If you were creating a plan
that you actually wanted to have developed, that you actually cared about, wouldn't it be closer
to what Mr. Ewing's plan is? The problem with Mr. Ewing's plan, aside from dimensions which can be
cured is that this would not be permitted by lni as under rta1 right but your plan that you created
mr roller isn't permitted by lni either doesn't it have refusals and that's why it got got zoning
variances so it's the same set of variances it's the same set of variances for multi for
for multi -family use. So you think that 76 multi -family uses is the same as 30?
Is that your testimony that you don't think that the numbers make a difference? Right.
What's your question here, Steve? Isn't 76 two times, more than two times the
the the the level of of variances under mr ewing's plan
76 is more than 30 but i i'm not sure that
76 is more than 30, but I'm not sure that equates to being a different variance.
Okay. You testified that...
Under that theory, this is...
Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller.
Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, he's as opposed to two, so that's...
Mr. Roller, it's going to work better if you let me ask the questions and you answer them.
That's how it's supposed to work.
um so you um you testified that it's essentially the same refusals um so do you understand that
um that the actual size and an rta1 an rta1 development is supposed to look like twins
is that correct that's one of the allowable developments yes and and when you say one
dwelling unit per property, when you subdivide it like we did in Mr. Ewing's plan,
each of those is compliant with one dwelling unit per property. Is that correct?
Yes. Okay. So now look at the bottom here. All these existing homes,
their backyard goes all the way back to this line. Do you see that?
Mm -hmm. Now, these properties could have gone all the way back to this line as well. Isn't that
correct there's no maximum yard in an rca1 is there no okay so when you say that all this area
is unusable it's not necessarily unusable we could have actually extended these properties back and
use those properties correct correct okay so in your plan you even have more unusable uh area
correct yeah yeah and that was your choice to make it look even less desirable to have an rca1
property um i'm not i haven't compared the plans it's it's immaterial because neither of these
plans would receive over -the -counter approval from all right mr roller you you created a plan
that has a unity of use, correct? So that you want to link up this RM1 and the CMX with all
this RTA on this one giant plot, right? If Mr. Ewing created a unity of use in the same way,
then wouldn't that change your testimony and it's no longer going to be required to be a PUD
because now we have this property is basically a unity of use with all of the rest of the lot.
Your assumption in your testimony, Mr. Roller, is that this is not a unity of use plan versus yours is. Is that correct?
No, I don't think that makes a difference. In other words, this development, whether it's a unity of use or a PUD, however it's governed, it would require, it would end up being multifamily.
If this was all one ownership and these were not sold as houses, but were simply rented, then it could be all one ownership.
But then again, you have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine buildings on plus the nursing home, which makes it 10 buildings on the lot, which is not permitted in RTA one.
Well, these are all subdivided lots, aren't they, Mr. Roller?
So how can they all be on the same lot?
Well, you said it under the unity of use. If you subdivide it, as you show, then L &I will require there to be an entity to manage the alley and the stormwater.
That entity is a Homeowners Association or a PUD, Planned Unit Development, and that existence is what L &I says makes this multifamily because there are multiple families that use it.
even if they do make a multifamily, Mr. Roller, it's going to be a less intense use and it's
going to be a less, a less of a modification from the by right RTA one. It has to be because
these are all RTA one. These are all RTA one compliant. Excuse me, Kelsey. Do you mean RTA
RTA1, yes. CA1 or TA? RT, like T like Tom.
Okay. Okay. Thank you. Let's see here. Your analysis on Mr. Ewing's, your critique
of Mr. Ewing's plan. Number one, you said that the alleys were too small, but you just
conceded that those could be altered dimensionally to make it work, correct?
It would change the plan, but yes.
Okay. How is it administered? You're saying that the city does have a way to administer it.
How it's administered, you're saying that the city does have a way to administer it. Now, you haven't submitted this plan to LNI and gotten any kind of response from them. Is that correct?
It's not my plan.
Right. You haven't found any code bulletin or any instructional advice from LNI that addresses this issue. Is that correct?
I have 20 years experience in designing developments like this with multiples, single houses or twins on a property where L &I has come back and said, this is multifamily.
And we've gotten variances in areas where the units would ultimately conform with the zone except for the multifamily.
And we've gotten approvals on that.
I want to move on to the minimum variance testimony you gave.
In RM1, is there a minimum number of units that you must have in a project?
Okay, so when you say that you designed a project for 76 units, would you have been able to design a project for less units?
We could.
Okay, could it be substantially less?
Not to be economically viable, no.
How do you know, Mr. Roller?
Because that's what the owner has informed us, and that's what the people who handle an analysis of, is this a viable project, that's what they told us.
Okay, so that's hearsay.
Did you do any examination of economic viability for this project?
I object.
I object.
Mr. Feldman, I think if he did, he did.
If he didn't, just answer no.
I mean, I don't. What I would put on the record here is that we had a economic analysis team.
Yeah, I know that. I know that. But what I'm saying, Mr. Feldman, just a question to him is, did he do it or did he?
Mr. Roller, I think it's a simple question. No, that's not within our purview.
OK. OK. So from a from a design perspective as an architect, you could have designed a building with 40 units or 25 units.
There's no minimum. Is that correct?
We could have designed a single family house on that.
That was not what we were asked to by the developer.
And that was not what our client charged us to do.
Right. But what you're saying is that there's nothing from your, as an architect,
there's nothing from a design perspective that you know of that would limit,
that would make the floor 76 units on this property.
but that that's your testimony right Mr. Barola testimony was that was that was the charge from
our client okay um sometimes I have trouble reading my notes when I take them very quickly
um I think uh I think I'm gonna rest all right thank you um Mr. Feldman could you
could you call your next witness please sure excuse me mr chair um mr feldman did you have
um any redirect of this witness or are you moving on to your next witness i'll move on to our next
witness okay thank you i'd ask uh that greg halquist um from equinox uh development be promoted
Mr. Halquist, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Mr. Halquist, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. My name is Greg Halkwist. H -A -L -L -Q -U -I -S -T.
Great. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Chair, I have an ongoing objection to Mr. Halkwist's testimony.
As I stated in my opening, Mr. Halkus was not a witness and did not submit any testimony or documents to the board at their hearing.
Therefore, he cannot supplement anything that he gave before because he never presented any testimony or evidence before.
To the extent that he wants to present testimony now, we contend that his testimony is completely excludable because it was.
we contend that his testimony is completely excludable because it would be giving the
applicant a second bite at the apple. There's no other way to really look at this, Mr. Chair and
members of the board, because the applicant had a full hearing plus half of the second hearing
to present their entire case. No one limited them in any way. And they were very comprehensive
and they had many, many witnesses and many experts. They chose intentionally not to call
this witness at that time. Let him finish. Let him finish one minute. Therefore, what they're
doing now is getting a second bite at the apple. And it is highly prejudicial to the objectors
because our main contention before the court was that there just wasn't enough evidence that
Mr. Gelley put forward to justify the hardships and the minimum variance. If they can clean up
by like by like they basically get like like to get a do over that's the courts have said that's
not what a remand is for um so so that's our contention all right i i understand mr fellman
you want to respond to that very quickly absolutely mr masters already made this objection
previously to counsel um for the board and and this objection was denied specifically
the the court's remand and i believe the board's interpretation of it was that this remand was for
supplemental testimony on hardship and on least minimum variance to the extent it included
those elements that were not fully developed at the at the hearing. We absolutely presented
testimony on least minimum variance but that's exactly why the board and the remand was to give
us an additional opportunity. Okay so Mr. Masters I would just say I would ask Mr. Feldman to say
to us. Excuse me, Mr. Masters, we may not talk over each other. We need the court reporter to
get a clear and concise record. Mr. Masters, I'm going to allow the testimony, but Mr. Feldman,
it needs to be supplemental information. Absolutely. All right, proceed.
Mr. Halquist, are you there? Yes, I am. Okay, thank you. Can you provide to the board your
your name and address? Sure, it's Gregory Holquist. I think I did that already, Brett.
And he's sworn in too. Great. Mr. Holquist, can you provide your title and your current title
and your employer? Sure. My title is Senior Vice President of Development and Construction
for Equinox Management and Construction. Okay. And what type of work do you do
in that capacity? Sure. So Equinox is a development company. We've been around for 25 years
and we develop in Philadelphia projects like this. We also provide development consulting
services for developers who need help or hand. And we do multi -residential apartment buildings,
condos. We also do townhomes, duplexes, a significant amount of experience doing that.
I've got 40 years of experience in the development and construction industry.
Last, say, 20, 25 years, heavy development background.
And when you say development, that's also not just construction, but that's also economic
feasibility studies, correct?
That's correct. Yeah. And that talks also to the development consulting, but effectively we help clients look and evaluate projects.
They might come to us with a site and we help them determine, you know, financial viability of different scenarios and different options.
So we also help them optimize projects that they have already.
Great. Now, did you have a chance to review?
Can I just have a little cross on whether he's an expert or not, please?
Could you repeat that, Mr. Masters?
Oh, can I just have a little cross -examination opportunity to whether he's going to be recognized as an expert?
I think we're going to allow him to go on and testify.
I didn't hear a request for an expert.
I think what we want to do is just take his testimony and you'll have a chance to cross -examine him, okay?
Well, Mr. Chair, if he's not an expert, then he's not allowed to give opinion testimony before the board.
Only an expert can give his opinion.
I think I'm going to allow.
Let's allow. Yeah. And Mr. Alcus, your company has had actually experience in this specific
neighborhood, correct? In development projects? Correct. We developed a 120 -unit apartment
building at 40th and Pine a few years ago, which we now operate. And that's within a couple blocks
And that's within a couple of blocks of this area.
of this area? Yeah. Cool. Great.
Great. And as part of that, I'm sure you did the same type of economic analysis that you prepared for this project.
Correct. Yes.
With that, I would ask that he be entered as an expert for the purposes of providing economic analysis and feasibility studies for this project.
I'm going to object and ask for cross -examination.
um I'm going to allow it to continue and I'm not I'm not saying he's I'm not going to recognize
him as an expert with this I'm just going to allow him to testify okay Mr. Hawquist you heard
Mr. Roller you heard Mr. Roller testify um as to the infeasibility uh of of the various um RTA1
projects. The option that he laid out, the option that another individual laid out.
Did you have a chance to study those scenarios? Sure. Yes. We were asked to look at
the approved plan, the 76 -unit apartment building. And we were also asked to look at the duplex plan
that was presented previously of 11 duplex buildings, 22 units.
And we also looked at a scenario in which the top floor was removed, reducing the number
of units to 63.
So turning to this general layout, and it's not necessarily how it's exactly laid out,
but it's the number of units put on the plan.
Do you have an opinion as to, can you tell the board what you concluded as to the economic
viability of this project?
I'm just going to keep an objection that.
Mr. Masters, I understand.
So what we look at when we do a financial viability analysis is effectively a cash on
cost metric, which basically is the measure of real estate investment performance and the ability
to, in our experience, the ability to get financing and have the project deliver a return
on investment. And that is the cash on cost figure in the middle of the page that you're
showing there. Our experience is a cash on cost viability threshold of 6 .5 is the minimum that
would enable a project to be viable within a few percent or maybe 10%, but that's the threshold we
look for. That's this line right here, this cash on cost? Right. And basically that your net
operating income divided by the cost of the project. And what that determines is, you know,
the ability to get financing at an interest rate that, you know, might range from five to, you know,
currently it's higher, say six, six and a half, and still deliver return. So if your cash on cost
is not above that threshold or at that threshold, it's difficult to achieve a financial return for
the investment. So we look at cost and then we look at income. So you ran this scenario with,
I guess the first scenario you did was a duplex arrangement, correct?
Correct. So we looked at the duplex arrangement, both rental and for sale. And one of the
considerations when we look at this is what is the infrastructure requirement for the project?
In this case, there's a very high cost for infrastructure.
Mr. Roller mentioned it earlier, the stormwater management system that would be required is rather expensive.
There's a significant amount of site work, utility work, and so on on development like this.
So that cost is spread over, you know, you look for that cost to be spread over enough units to make it viable.
If you have a very high infrastructure cost with a small number of units, it can be very difficult to make the project work.
So that's a consideration as well as the construction costs.
We're currently developing, we just finished construction on duplexes.
We're currently developing ourselves 22 townhomes, which are very, very similar to duplexes.
So we have a very good sense of the cost, the construction cost.
So we look at that for the building itself.
And we also look at soft costs, financing costs, and a development contingency that most banks would require in any development that you do.
And what did you determine as to the viability of a rental duplex project?
um a rental duplex project uh well basically that it's it comes in at about a 5 .18 percent
uh well
cash on cost which you know was not a surprise to us given this this site and the amount of
infrastructure the acquisition cost of the property and the sunk cost that the developer
already has into the project with all of the the work that's been done to date
And as a result, based off your experience.
Based on our experience, that's correct.
And what would be your, based on your experience and your capacity, would this be a project that you would consider viable or not viable?
Not viable.
Because of that number, correct?
Yeah, the cash on cost return delivers a negative overall return to the project, just not viable.
Okay. You also looked at this, the same, another scenario, and that would be an apartment building
with 63 units? Correct. And again, some of the costs, the acquisition and the site costs are
constant for the most part. And so with 63 units, you're just not delivering enough revenue to
offset you know those those costs as well as the construction cost and why did you look at 63 units
because we we heard what why did tell why did you pick 63 units well we took the top floor off of
the building basically the fourth floor yeah okay and why did you why did you take the fourth floor
off well because we wanted to look at is there a way to have a yield with uh lesser units and uh
get a lower, you know, a lower, you know, a lower, what's the word I'm looking for?
Just like, you know, least minimum variance, you know, what, how can we, how can we approach
least minimum variance? And so we started there. And, you know, given that the 76 unit is a 649,
any units that you take off are going to lower that. Yeah. And just when you mentioned least
minimum variance that was in terms of the height correct that if you took off the fourth floor
which is 42 correct you now be under the you'd be now the whole project would be 32 feet
right below so that's why that's right okay and i assume you also looked at it just to see
if there was some way to objection he's leading we we looked at it because we were asked to look
at mr fellman do your question please and let's see if we can't move this witness along no it was
You were looking at least minimum variance, correct?
Correct.
We asked you to look at that, correct?
You asked us to look at least minimum variance.
So we came up with that scenario as a way to test that.
So when Mr. Masters asked Mr. Roller, was it possible to build a building that was 40?
And Mr. Roller, he said, yes, it is possible to build a building with 40 units from a design
perspective.
Is it possible from an economic perspective to build a building that has 40 units on these
four properties?
uh not and deliver a return you would basically lose money
so i assume most developers wouldn't build a building that they would lose money correct
correct okay excuse me excuse me what what would the rents be in your analysis so we so this the
rents that we ran were uh rents that we received from uh the the consultant that the client had
hired last year. And we, we bumped them up slightly based on what's happening in the marketplace.
But 275 a square foot, it was the market rent that we used. And that's based on the unit size
and what we're also experiencing in the project that we were, you know, currently operating close
by. And also included affordable housing component, 20 % was affordable.
so is it possible to increase the rents over the period of time
you know it's possible but as developers you know when you're running a viability analysis you've
got to be cautious with how aggressive you get with rents because you don't know if you'll
achieve them so we we have to go by what what's happening in the marketplace so did you project
it out over 10 years we did we did and thank you yeah we projected it out over
10 years increasing the rent 3 % per year increasing expenses as well but that
yes we did run that thank you more questions mr. office you also looked at
our building the seven units as approved and what did you conclude it's barely
uh it barely works what do you mean from a well in other words it comes in at a six four nine and
you know part of the reason for that is you know across the board construction costs are high
You know, part of the reason for that is, you know, across the board, construction costs are high.
We use the same rent as we did in the 63.
But you're spreading that those sunk costs, the 1 .4 million in acquisition, as well as the site costs over more units.
So it enables the project to to get a better yield, a better cash on cost.
So your conclusion, if we went below the 76, we basically would be done a non -viable project.
Correct.
Yeah, I mean, it's relative. If you drop two units, for example, it might be a 6 .4 and it starts to become unviable.
We're already below the 6 .5 that you recommend, correct?
That's right. And so when you approach banks with a project with a cash on cost of 6 .49, it's going to take a lot of work to get an institution, a bank to lend you the money.
great i would uh i'll stop there um hi um mr uh helpless so um i have a bunch of questions for
you let's start with the acquisition cost um why is there an acquisition cost on this property
uh well we were we were given information from the client that
when they purchased the property, they were given a cost for just the building that is there that
they bought, as well as the rest of the site, and that the variance of the two was approximately
$1 .4 million after the final purchase and closing costs, et cetera, and carry costs.
so when mr galley bought the property back i think as 2008 um you were given the information
that he paid 1 .4 million for that for those parcels of land correct um i'm going to show you
the actual payment that he made which is two hundred thousand dollars yes i object that's
that's that is not that is what's put on a tax certificate mr feldman mr feldman i gave you a
of leeway mr masters proceed can i um get the screen access please
mr feldman letting me take the screen please sure
Um, Mr. Hawkins, I'm showing you a real estate transfer tax certification from the sale from
Park Pleasant to Chester Realty.
um this is um the chester realty is the entity that owns the parcels that are um at issue here
where the where the rta1 um should be the development but instead it's said to some
multifamily um you see that the actual cash consideration was two hundred thousand dollars
Um, and, uh, that, uh, was here in December, 2012. Um, I also have, um, hang on.
This is, um, from the opinion, um, in litigation called Gelly versus Park Pleasant. It's a U .S.
District Court of Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision from 2011. This was a case where Mr.
Galley and the owners of Park Pleasant were fighting about the terms of his purchase of
their nursing home and the surrounding land. And in the case, in the highlighted area, it shows
on July 14, 2008, Galley and Park Pleasant executed a purchase and sale agreement in which
Park Pleasant agreed to sell Galley the facility, certain parcels of land adjacent to the facility,
and substantially all of the assets of Park Pleasant related to the facility for $7 .8 million.
The purchase price contemplated was $6 .8 million for the facility and $1 million for the land.
But eventually, as we saw, Mr. Halkwis, Mr. Galley only paid $200 ,000 for that land.
So let's go back to...
Steve, Mr. Masters, was there an address on that land, that address?
What was the address?
Hang on.
now the what prior the document before oh the the text thing all right yeah sure is there an
oh the the tax thing all right yeah sure is there an address for that yeah
address for that yeah
property location c attached i do not have the attachment
so we can definitely supply that um you know to the board for sure because we're going to
be submitting our findings and conclusions. So, all right, let's go back to your...
Okay, we're going to go back to the parameters. So, acquisition costs.
If we, why would you be adding an acquisition cost that was paid in 2012, no matter what amount it was, into your analysis?
Because you have to factor in that cost that's part of the cost of a development project.
You have to buy the land.
Even though it's a stranded cost from over 10 years ago.
Absolutely.
Okay. So now if we change the cost from $1 .4 million to $200 ,000, does that change any of your cash on cost viability calculations?
Yeah. So, okay. It does, to answer your question.
Let's look at the one for the rental for the duplexes. You have a residential efficiency
rating here for the apartments at 72%, for the duplexes at 90%, and these apartments for 71%.
Can you define what the residential efficiency is and why you have different figures for the
duplexes for the large unit? Sure. The residential efficiency is basically the
leasable square feet divided by the gross square feet. And that's a factor that we always look at
as we analyze development projects. And the 90 percent or the 72 percent is based on the actual
drawing. The 71 percent is based on the actual drawings in which we did take off of the floor
plans we were provided to determine the net square feet. 90 percent on the duplexes is a number that
We don't have plans for the duplexes, but it's based on our experience.
And that's the common stair that goes up that takes away square footage from the project.
So a higher number is better for efficiency in this case, right?
Correct.
Yep, absolutely.
So now we have a lower number for acquisition costs.
That's also better also, right?
Correct.
I object.
That has not been established.
To have a lower acquisition cost is always better.
That's correct, but if you're situating it, if you have to pay less for property,
isn't that better than paying more? Yeah. I mean, can we just confirm that, Mr. Hawquist,
if you pay less for property, that's considered better than paying more for it?
Correct. Okay. So the total cost for the rental will be different because of the lower acquisition
cost, but on the sale, the total cost of the project loss will also be different, right?
Correct. Yeah. Okay. So if we have, if 1 .4 million minus 200 ,000 gives us a variation of 1 .2 million,
is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay. So then if we take 1 .2 million and we, sorry,
let's try to make this cooperate here and we um look at the bottom um profit cost and profit
loss statement wouldn't that allow the the sale of these duplexes to be in the black and to be
profitable uh it would be profitable but not to a percent if you're going if you're making three
percent on a development project that's not considered viable no bank would finance that
okay did you take into account any financing or subsidies for affordable housing on the duplexes
we did not okay and when you do take into account such subsidies does that change the calculation
for uh the viability of a project we did it would it conceivably would we did not run that so i can't
really comment okay um but you can't say that if there was affordable housing subsidies that that
but it may render the project more viable than it would be without those subsidies.
It's possible.
So in other words, we can't really determine from your table at this point
whether the duplexes are viable or not viable because you didn't...
whether the duplexes are viable or not viable because you didn't factor in all the possible
factors that needed to be put into it. So we did run the project. When we run
viability analyses, we look at two ways of running for acquisition. One is the actual cost you paid
for the property. And one is the fair market value or the appraised value of what that property would
be if you have that information. If you don't have that information, it's what our experience says
that, for example, in a duplex world, what you would typically pay for a duplex per unit.
So we ran it two ways. We ran it fair market value, and then we also ran it at what we were
told the purchase price was. I don't have knowledge of what you were presenting earlier.
We also, in terms of the actual, you know, what's listed as the, for tax purposes or whatever the reasons were, the purchase price, we also run it with zero acquisition.
And when we do that, the reason we do that is we want to understand the impact that the acquisition is having on the overall deal.
So when we ran it at zero acquisition cost, it still didn't work.
Okay, let's talk about the store water.
The duplexes still didn't work.
Let's talk about the store water costs.
Yeah. So did you factor in using any green stormwater infrastructure like green roofs?
Yes. Where is that in your analysis? In the construction cost.
Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. The percentage for the stormwater,
what was it in your total cost? Well, you mean the incentive as far as the
reduction no the total project cost you in your construction cost you something the storm water
cost you something what percentage of that the storm water was um i have to check my estimate
but i think it was 300 000 350 000 something like that so that's about five percent six percent
something like that thank you all right mr thanks mr hulkwuss that's the 300 to 350 000
that's for the duplex project or for the multi -family uh the multi -family was slightly
higher because it was a larger system but we're still displacing 20 000 square feet of area there
was no design done by a civil engineer on the duplexes to determine the exact size based on
our experience uh of these types of projects including the project that we're doing uh
currently the 22 townhomes uh that's the that's the the number that we uh assigned to that but
the 22 townhomes that you're doing you're doing gray infrastructure not green infrastructure is
that correct we were uh the 22 townhomes we at one time had a stormwater management system
gray yeah a cistern which is quite expensive and we're now doing uh green which involves
uh pervious paving um and um you know a different way to manage your utility so um
okay but in this case in this case mr hotquist we're talking about we're talking about um like
twin homes, where all of the yard is permeable grass. And the only impervious part of the
development is the roof. Is that correct? Correct. And the pavement. And the driveway,
I suppose. And the driveway. Yeah, I did a takeoff of the square footage of the
buildings themselves and all the paving that was shown on the plan, which was 20 ,000 square feet,
which exceeds the threshold for stormwater. And basically what I was told by Mr. Roller was that
we would need a stormwater basin. So we assigned a cost for that stormwater basin.
That's a gray basin. Right. But if in fact there was a, let's say, I'm not even conceding that
there is necessary to have a stormwater management system with these small structures. But if there
was, and we put a green roof on there, then we wouldn't even have to redo the paving to permeable
because we wouldn't need a stormwater management system at that point.
Would that be your understanding?
Well, I mean, I'm not a civil engineer.
I have a rough idea of what we experience,
but I can't really comment on whether or not we would,
that there's adequate square footage on the roof or green roof
to displace a stormwater management system.
I mean, I don't know, do you build single family homes?
Okay. Have you ever seen a stormwater management plan for a single -family home?
Right. These are basically the footprint of a single -family home. Is that correct?
That's correct. Right. So why would there be a stormwater management plan?
That's correct.
Right. So why would there be a stormwater management plan?
Uh, because your development exceeds the square footage, uh, uh, if these are subdivided in each
of these homes as a separate. Steve, he explained it because the collective earth disturbance that
happens on this, on a site, you can't just, okay. Okay. You can't, you can't just, you can't just,
this is not one rta one lot this is 36 000 square feet of property that is being okay all right i'll
thank you i understand that but mr howquez you basically are choosing further add and i can
wait wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute let mr masters continue mr felden i'm going to
give you a chance for a recross okay um so mr howquez so you you've said that you basically
are baking in the higher numbers for stormwater management for these projects because you're
putting in gray cisterns and not using green infrastructure. That's what I heard you say?
Well, you're, you're coining the term baking in. I think what we did was we, in our analysis,
our experience with PWDA, they don't care. It's one project is what the way they look at it. So
we have 20 ,000 square feet of displaced area. You're going to need, in our experience, you're
going to need green roofs to lessen the size of the stormwater basin, but you're going to need a
stormwater basin in our experience well okay in my experience i guess i have a different experience
working with the um with the sustainable business network and the water department on these projects
but but let's just say that your assumption here is that you put in um a requirement for a gray
cistern and that dramatically increased the the cost for stormwater management by about 300 000
yeah and and and if you did a green system it would be some cost it may not be 300 000 but
it's still going to be a, you know, a cost. Right. But it would be substantially lower.
And we're talking about, we're talking about rain. I forget all the terms, but there, but there are,
but there are ways of, of, of taking the runoff off the driveways into, into green
substructures around the driveways, whatever. Right. But I guess I would add in the grand
scheme of things it's in the noise uh the the development just doesn't work so if if that cost
is slightly lower i mean mr huggles may i just just continue briefly well i wanted to just ask
you another question so so that's the cost we've lowered by by 1 .2 million um we we can lower the
the stormwater management costs by something low 300 ,000? We don't know that we can do that,
number one. Number two, it wouldn't erase it. It would reduce that cost, perhaps.
For example, at our development project 22 townhomes, we went to a green system
and it actually increased costs. So the utility costs were higher. The pervious paving was higher.
we have green area on that project as well so it's really a project by project uh but in our
experience these types of development projects require you know a stormwater management system
of some kind uh and there's a cost for that so we added a cost in um on the on the rent um mr
holliman asked you what the rent um figures you were using and you said it was 275 for the for
the for the apartment for the for the large multifamily correct did you have a rent estimate
for the duplexes we did and it was you know as you get in as you get uh larger in your
leasable square feet in other words you're renting more square feet uh two bedroom apartments rent
for less than one bedroom apartments for example uh in the analysis that we did the uh large
apartments in the area rent at $2 a square foot, maybe slightly higher. We were, I think we were
at $2 .25, $2 .21, something like that, based on our market data that we analyzed. Okay. So
when we look at the rental viability scenario, and we're reducing the acquisition cost by $1 .2
million. Let's say we were, we're reducing the stormwater costs by like, let's, let's say we're
reducing it by a hundred thousand. That's absolute conjecture, Steve. Well, he's got absolute
conjecture also. So we're all doing absolute conjecture here. We have 1 .3 million. Does,
how does that, how does that change the, the value, the cash viability for the rental scenario?
Well, we wouldn't make that change. We're experienced developers. We analyze this as
Well, we wouldn't make that change.
You know, we're experienced developers.
experienced developers. Your rent for a duplex unit is not going to be 2750. It's just not going
to happen. So in fact, 2250 or whatever we ended up at is a stretch. That's what we think. That's
our opinion on what the rents would be. Apartments would rent at a higher rate per square foot
because there's smaller units, there's less to take care of, et cetera. And that's also based
on our experience. So we can only go by our experience, not conjecture. We can force this,
you know, if we lower the acquisition, if we, you can make any deal work, if you have false
numbers, that's not what we do. We analyze it based on our experience. Well, we know that
We know that the acquisition costs are wildly wrong in your table.
That's not correct.
So we've established that it's $200 ,000 as opposed to $1 .4 million.
I can't comment on that, only to say that we ran it with a zero acquisition and it didn't work.
What's the number on the zero acquisition?
In fact, I have it right here.
uh that version uh was at zero acquisition the 6 .25 was the um 6 .25 and that doesn't include
any subsidies for affordable housing correct right okay um with zero with zero acquisition
I understand. Which means he's giving away the property.
No, he basically got it for a song at $200 ,000.
Mr. Masters, how much? I think I can
rest with this witness. You're done?
Yes. Thank you. Mr. Feldman, do you have a follow -up?
Yes, absolutely. Mr. Holquist,
real quick, when you do a full development of 36 ,000 feet,
PWD requires full stormwater management, correct? Correct. And are you aware that when you have a
green roof, it doesn't, it doesn't eliminate stormwater management, correct? That's what I
stated. Correct. Okay. And it's my understanding that there are no subsidies for new duplexes.
Objection. That's, that's a fact, not an evidence. Are you aware of any subs? Mr. Masters talked a
lot about subsidies for duplexes. Are you aware of any low -income subsidies? I'm objecting that
there's no foundation. I think he's going to ask that question and he can answer and we're going
to move this forward. Proceed, Mr. Feldman. Mr. Holquist, let me ask you this. You were very clear
about this and I want to make it one more time. Even at a zero acquisition cost, can you provide
your economic analysis of what would be, whether this would be viable or not for the duplexers
or for a smaller multifamily building?
At a zero acquisition, it would not be viable.
It's 6 .25 % cash on cost is just not going to be financeable.
And Mr. Masters made a lot about a $200 ,000 purchase price,
which was based off of a tax certification, not any closing sheet.
That was from 2012, correct?
Correct.
Correct. And you've done a lot of work in this neighborhood.
Well, at least from what was presented. I'm not familiar with that other than that.
And as you testified, you've done a lot of work in this neighborhood, correct?
Correct.
And you're very familiar with, as a developer, leading developer, the change in property values over time, correct?
Correct.
With the $200 ,000, even if that was true as a purchase price, would that still be the value that it is today?
objection that's that's not relevant to to his cost oh i'm going to let that
proceed that's fine mr feldman do you have anything else yeah the only other thing i would
add is no mr feldman do you have anything else sorry great is there anything further you'd like
to add right now yeah the the what what was paid is when we do a development analysis like i said
You look at it a couple of different ways, and we always run it at a zero acquisition as just a sanity check on the deal itself.
That $200 ,000 in 2012 would certainly not be $200 ,000 today, number one.
Number two is there's other costs outside of that that are related to acquisition that you would have to add to that.
Number three is what's the assessed value we would look at on OPA's website.
I think it was $823 ,000.
And then we would look at what would someone pay today for that property if it were being developed for duplexes.
So we look at all of that, and all of those far exceed the $200 ,000.
So we look at all of that and all of those are far exceeds.
So even at zero, it doesn't work.
We just don't believe that that kind of number makes any sense whatsoever in terms of assigning that as far as an acquisition cost.
Great. Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Feldman, your next witness.
Mr. Feldman, how many more witnesses do you have?
We have two more witnesses.
Okay, let's go to your next witness.
I'd ask now that Leslie Gerstein, my co -counsel, be elevated as a panelist.
She is going to present the testimony of our land planner.
Ms. Gerstein?
Ms. Gerstein, can you please raise your virtual hand?
She's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Leslie, you'll have to unmute yourself and turn on your camera.
i'd also ask that um benjamin crumley our land planner be elevated as well
do they need to be panelists
i don't believe so because um staff can you just do audio please
and chair this is tanya that i respectfully remind the board that
um we're at the 11 30 mark and we have a hard stop at noon i know i'm aware
Is Mr. Cromey available?
Has he been elevated?
First, could you state your name and spell for the floor?
I'm sorry.
My name is Leslie Gerstein.
G as in girl, E -R -S -T -E -I -N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And we're waiting for a land planner?
Can you hear me?
Can you please unmute yourself and raise your virtual hand?
Can you hear me?
We can.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Benjamin Cromey, C -R -O -M as in Michael, I -E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
May I begin?
Mr. Feldman, proceed with your supplemental evidence.
Mr. Bergman, I'm going to be examining this witness.
Mr. Cromey, you've already stated your name. What is your work address?
My work address is 1520 Locust Street, Philadelphia.
And how long have you worked there?
At CH Planning is the firm, and I worked there 10 years.
What is your job title?
I'm a senior planner.
And what does that require you to do?
I analyze land use, housing, transportation, and many other variables in terms of looking
at public infrastructure investment and private development.
Could you describe your educational background for the panel?
I'm going to stipulate that he's a certified planner.
I ask that he be accepted and designated as an expert in planning and development.
I'm provisionally okay with that, depending on what you're asking him to do.
Okay, proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Masters.
Turning to the report that's dated July 20th, 2022, who's Nancy Templeton?
Nancy Templeton is my colleague at CH Planning. She is a land use expert and zoning expert.
Did you work with her in preparing this report?
I did.
And what were your tasks related to the report?
To provide supplementary information on the hardship and the least minimum variance.
Are you familiar with the area that is the subject of the report?
And how familiar, how are you familiar with this area?
And how are you familiar with this area?
Well, I reviewed the documents.
Well, I reviewed the documents, the preceding documents, the 2021 reports and supplementary information.
I made a site visit. I looked at the site itself and also the surrounding neighborhood.
I analyzed it online, online resources, including the zoning map.
I looked at the zoning code. I looked at also the city plan, the district plan for University Southwest.
Okay. Could you describe this area and specific block to the board?
Yes, it was developed, as has been stipulated, as a streetcar suburb, especially along Chester Avenue.
Ms. Gerstein, I think we really understand it. It's been explained to us twice today. So could we move on, please?
Certainly. Now, you said that you looked at a number of documents, Plan 2035, Rendering Street Department Guidelines. Why did you look at these documents?
I looked at these documents to analyze the site, the intended development in question, and also alternative developments, and how they fit within the context of the community, especially.
And the stated plans for development by the regulatory authorities.
I'm going to object to this line of questioning because we're just here to focus on hardship and minimum variance and not on broader planning policies or design.
So I think, Ms. Gerstein, where we want to be with this is we want to know what is the supplemental information that he has.
And I was just about to get to that.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Yes. Other than going to the property and reviewing the documents that you just mentioned,
did you do anything else in preparation for drafting this report? Of course, I conferred
with my colleague, Nancy Templeton. But yes, that's the sum of the analysis I conducted.
Do you know what is proposed to be built on the property? I do. And could you describe it?
Okay, in short, 76 units of multifamily housing, 32 feet at the Cornice Line on Chester Street, and 42 feet in a setback section.
As well as, I want to underscore the shared parking with the Renaissance facility next door as part of a unity of use, all is one plot that they have the ability to share parking, which is a substantial advantage for the community.
In your opinion, can the applicant in this case construct the proposed building at this location?
No. RTA -1, the zoning there, will not support this development. It's because of the size and shape of the lots and the fact that they were set out that way to be multifamily units back in the 1920s.
To your knowledge, what is the purpose of RTA -1 zoning?
To preserve duplexes or twins.
And is that relevant in this case?
No, there aren't any twins to preserve. They're vacant lots, and they haven't been there for over 90 years.
Now, did you hear the testimony of Mr. Roller and Mr. Masters' cross -examination of him?
I did.
Okay. Now, you stated that RTA -1 cannot be built on the premises. Why not?
Well, because of the size and shape of the lots, primarily. That's the number one reason. The lots just weren't built for that kind of development. They were built for RM -1, or they were laid out that way.
So if they built the RTA -1s or tried to build RTA -1s, what would happen in terms of the street frontage?
Well, it would stay a vacant lot because it can't be developed. So you'd be missing out on housing units, affordable housing units, and the benefits that this project brings to the community.
Now, have you seen the letter that was submitted by SEPTA?
I did. And what is your understanding of the letter?
SEPTA supports this project because with RTA1 development, there's no stopping a developer from putting curb cuts on the streets, especially on 48th Street.
uh on the streets uh uh especially on 48th street uh more curb cuts add to uh potential for danger
conflict with pedestrians and other vehicles so um so i was pleased to see septa support okay
other than these issues are there any other reason in your opinion as an expert planner
that makes rta one inappropriate let alone impossible for this location
Well, in addition to the danger and the size and shape of the lots, I would say that we're at the risk of increasing the parking burden on the streets.
As I mentioned, the shared lot where you have use during the day and night is much more efficient.
that keeps cars off the streets, and also the elimination of the potential for additional curb
cuts also keeps the area safer, helps keep the area safer, and also helps remove, keep us from
removing parking spaces, which happens every time you put in. Okay, now contextually, would RTA1 fit
in this area? RTA -1 is appropriate for, I would say, Springfield and King -Sessing. In this area,
RM -1 is appropriate because it is only slightly denser usage, but denser nonetheless,
closer to the transportation corridor and within a block of a regional rail station.
So that fits in not only with the history of the streetcar suburb, but also standard practices in urban design of promoting transportation -oriented development with greater residential and commercial density towards transit.
So would you conclude that the fact that the land is zoned RTA -1 creates a hardship for the developer in this instance?
It certainly does. That calls for a legal conclusion that he's not qualified. He's allowed to have an opinion as to, I'll rephrase it, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the fact that this property is zoned to RTA1 a hardship?
It is. I'm still going to object to that, that it calls for a legal conclusion that he's not, that he's not.
So Mr. Masters, I'm going to let him talk about his experience and he can answer that question.
So my experience as a planner, when you're trying to influence development patterns, you create zoning categories, and you also have processes for correcting zoning issues.
So I would say if your desire is to keep a vacant lot, then RTA -1 is preferred. If you want to promote residential development, that's in keeping with keeping affordable units in the neighborhood and keeping up with the demand for housing.
housing, then I would say RM1 is compatible with development in this neighborhood, especially as it
is on the transportation corridor. Now, the original report that was authored in, I believe
it was April of 2021, seemed to imply that RTA1, constructing RTA1 was a possibility.
Why have you changed your position on that?
Well, I looked at it as a hypothetical, but with the benefit of time and also the benefit of the design set forward by Mr. Masters team and the design set forward by Jerry Roller and our own consideration, it is not feasible.
Nothing's going to happen on an RTA one lot.
So did you review the SEPTA trolley report?
I did.
And did you review the SEPTA, I mean, the streets department guidelines?
I did. And they both essentially admonish additional curb cuts, as we've stated.
I think we're also all widely in agreement that additional curb cuts on Chester is a bad idea.
On 48th Street, it's a bad idea. It creates unsafe conditions.
But there's nothing stopping an RTA -1 developer from putting that in if you think it's possible to build there, but I do not.
Okay. Now, other than the variance for treating the RTA -1 as an RM -1, are there any other variances that are required?
Yeah, the three other issues are the number of units, the different uses of units on a lot, and the height difference. And I would say that none of those are a substantial issue for any neighboring.
None of those are a substantial issue for any neighboring.
Do they meet the hardship requirement?
They certainly do.
I'm going to allow that answer.
They do. They provide no substantial issue.
In a nutshell, I'm not going to read through all the variance points unless you'd like me to.
but in a nutshell they don't provide any problem for anyone else and they are necessary because of
the the issues I've already mentioned. Now are you familiar with the criteria for the grant of a
variance in Philadelphia? I am. And could you outline for the board what those criteria are?
The original and the supplemental report. Yeah I mean Ms. Gerstein is this supplemental information?
um it depends on how you look at it Mr. Bergman it helps me lead into supplemental information
but why don't you just lead into supplemental information okay yeah we have we have time
issues so I know okay um going variance by variance is it your opinion with a reasonable
degree of certainty as a professional planner that it would be an unnecessary hardship if
the building could not be constructed as a multifamily dwelling.
I do. I agree.
Okay. He already answered.
Okay. Are all the variances needed to use variances?
There are dimensional, there's a dimensional issue as well.
And do you know the requirements for a dimensional variance?
Is that supplemental information?
I think we should concentrate on supplemental information, really.
Okay. If the variances are granted, how will the building fit into the neighborhood?
The building will fit in perfectly, as there are other multi -unit structures. In fact,
most of the twins in the neighborhood have already been converted to multi -use buildings.
And, you know, so this will alleviate some of that demand. You may even see over time
uh development of those um of those uh twins back into uh you know two two family residences
will the building have any negative impact on the community no it'll in fact action
there's no foundation yeah i i think i think i think i think we we have to concentrate on what's
supplemental. Okay. Your report concludes that the proposed multifamily building is appropriate
for this location. How did you reach this conclusion? It is appropriate as it is one of
several multifamily units on the site. It is in scale with the other structures on the block.
It is a slight increase, not a significant, but slight increase of intensive use, which is
appropriate for the transportation corridor. It helps to keep cars off the streets. So it is a
strong contributor, in fact, to the neighborhood and fits right in. Okay, I have nothing further
of this witness. Mr. Masters, could you cross? Yes. Okay. Mr. Cromie, I'm going to start with
some cross -examination on the original report that I assume you are familiar with, even though
your name doesn't appear on it? I'm familiar with the report. Okay.
On page three of the original report, your testimony or the report states that the use
is permitted by right within RCA1 includes single -family dwellings, two -family dwellings,
adult care, on this large conglomerate of parcel that's the unity of right,
isn't it true that there are several or more than several single -family dwellings?
Objection. There's been no testimony that there are single -family dwellings on this lot.
I think he's asking that question, are there?
I'm asking, yes. I can show the map and everything with all the single -family dwellings,
But if but if you want to just agree to that, that would be fine.
I'm not sure. I'm not asking you, Ms. Gerstein. I'm asking the witness.
Mr. Masters, you can ask that question. OK, so, Mr. Crummy, isn't it true that there are single family dwellings on the on the the large area, not not within the unity of use of the of this project, but all surrounding it on 48th and 47th and Chester and King Sessing?
They are, strictly speaking, multifamily because they are two -family dwellings.
So if you're talking about on the block, there are some twins.
Yes, absolutely.
And the adult care, the nursing home, is also consistent with RTA -1?
And the adult care, the nursing home is also consistent with our table.
So on this actual block that we're focusing on, virtually every property there is consistent with RTA -1 that's in the RTA -1 zoning?
They are.
Okay. The proposal that you're supporting, the multifamily development, is designed to be consistent with RM1 zoning.
Correct.
And there is no RM1 zoning permitted in those parcels. Is that correct?
In those parcels, correct.
Right. So you're basically designing a project that's not allowed, but it's allowed in a different zoning district.
it is a project that uh it's a it's a it's a good project that requires uh it does require
adjustment from this okay um on page five your report states um that
that you believe there's an unnecessary hardship because rca1 zoning does not reflect the historic
use of the property yes and to elaborate so can you show me can you cite to me any part of the
zoning code that that states that the historic use of a property has any bearing on what the
zoning should be on the property where it reflects uh the size and shape of parcels that are not
appropriate for our team i'm not talking about the size we'll talk about that size in a moment
Mr. Cromey, but unlike the historical commission, the zoning board is looking at the zoning code,
not the code dealing with historic properties. Is there anything that you can cite to that says
the history of a property has anything to do with how it's zoned today? I don't think my
supplementary testimony refers as much to the history as this section does. So no, it's not
in the code, but it's definitely in the hardship. Okay. But I just wanted to, I have to go through
the original plan expert report before we go to the supplemental. The original report also states
that the denial of a variance results in a hardship because there aren't enough units to
allow provision of affordable housing. Would you agree that affordable housing is not a requirement
for an RTA -1 project? It's not a requirement for RTA -1, no. Right. Okay. So then
the buy -right plan shows that the site can accommodate 14 structures with 28 duplex units.
right uh i suppose they could fit in there yeah mr bergman i would stipulate to the fact that the
report from 19 i mean 2021 states what it states okay um i'm just okay emphasizing it for the for
the board because they because it contains um a significant amount of of information that is
contradictory to their to their claims of of hardship all right we'll go to the supplemental
report. Once again, you're stating that you've designed this for an RM1 project even though
it's in an RTA1 district, correct? Correct. Okay. And your basic issue is the RTA1 zoning
classification itself. You're saying that the RTA1 classification on these parcels does not allow
it to be developed correctly, right? Correct. And that's the same RCA1 zoning that's also
in the surrounding area? Yes, where the buildings have already been built generations ago.
So you state that for 100 years, the properties were large multifamily buildings, right?
And that the lot size is therefore very different. And then you state that the hardship is that
because it's four very large lots that would be used for RTA -1 that you couldn't be economically
viable. But didn't, in your early report, doesn't it state that you could have 28 actual units
because you could subdivide these lots into much smaller lots? Objection, he did not testify
28 units were economically viable. So I'm going to let him answer that question, please.
So again, they would fit in there, but they couldn't be built there.
What does that mean?
They would fit in there, but couldn't be built there.
They could be built under RTA -1 is what we're saying, right?
Well, they won't be because it's because of the shape of...
Well, they won't be because it's because of the shape of the lot.
So you're not going to see that development there.
The size and depth in particular.
Okay, we'll go through the design by Mr. Ewing in a second then.
So your testimony is that the shape of the lot doesn't allow you to subdivide it?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Okay, so when you subdivide it, and the shape of those subdivided lots, what's the hardship there?
Well, the hardship is, well, again, I don't think it's, I know it's not economically viable.
Well, that's not a, I don't think anyone's doing a hardship with the land.
Mr. Masters, would you let the client finish his answer, please?
Okay, let him finish. Go ahead, please finish.
I don't see that kind of, I don't see that development happening there.
So I don't see it physically. Let him finish, please.
I mean, there's room there, but you're just you're not going to see that kind of development there.
So physically, you can put the duplex houses there.
Yes. It's awkward and you'll have leftover space.
And it'll be wildly inefficient. And so no one's going to build it.
Okay. Then you say that the least minimum variance is because the property is split zoned with one small portion being RM1, about 10%. How does that meet the standards of least minimum variance?
Well, because the zoning is, so you already have RM1 right there adjacent to the property.
It's not adjacent to the property. It's all the way on the other side.
It is the property.
right well i mean it's all it's all of a piece and it's it's very close and so it is very much
fitting and it also it is a minimum uh degree of intensity uh in minimum increase of intensity
so that's the other reason why but it's also because it's appropriate what does it mean a
minimum degree of intensity what i mean there is that uh so rta1 you know if you want to say let's
let's have the most uh get the most uh money out of this you could push for a much much more
intense building that's wildly out of character with with with the area but that's not what we're
doing here what this is uh this project is the next most intense uh use of the land as a residential
development so you're taking you're comparing a duplex that's a twin with a 76 unit apartment
building is saying that those are that basically the the next step above from a duplex that's a
twin is a 76 unit apartment building that that's your testimony yeah in terms of in terms of the
the size from the street the the the how it looks and feels from the street it's it's not
significantly different i mean it's not what about the number of people who live there
that's a benefit to this project is that different is it different to have the number of people who
live in a duplex versus the number of people who live in a 76 apartment building it's different
it's better is it more intense yes okay that's part of why it's better because it's more appropriate
for well i didn't ask you whether it was better i'm just trying to understand what what your
understanding is of minimum variance you also state in this report that the one -for -one parking
requirement has a hardship because of curb cuts but you realize that we are proposing a design
that has only one additional curb cut right you are imagining a design that has that has that
it exists you don't believe that the design exists you think it's in my imagination
i well i don't i don't see anybody building it that i can't imagine we are not actually
property owners so that could be why um in terms of the principal use um on the lot
um isn't isn't the reason that you have that refusal that you have the unity of use
say again isn't the isn't the reason that you have the the principle the one principle use
on the lot is the the unity of use uh the unity of use allows for the reconfiguration for the
parking, which is a significant public good, the shared parking.
Right, but it also then creates a bunch of the variances because of the multiple uses
and the multiple buildings.
Well, with the least minimum variance, that would be building RM1.
And so those four go together when you are building in compliance with RM1.
When you have a subdivision of those properties so that you can actually put duplexes.
when you have a subdivision of those properties
so that you can actually put duplexes
on each of the parcels,
then you eliminate all of those variances, right?
You don't have, I mean, again, as I said,
I don't see it being built.
I'm asking you not whether it's being built.
Mr. Feldman, wait a minute, please.
The reason why -
Mr. Masters, he's been over this a few times.
you and him disagree with that why we spend so much time in going okay mr fellman i have it i
have it yeah those aren't as of right so it's the same variances we're okay we're okay mr masters
would you finish up please um all right i have no further uh cross -examination okay
miss gerstein i you have three minutes do you have i have no redirect okay so so uh we're gonna
have to continue today it's just about 12 o 'clock the continuing state is going to be 10 18 22 at
9 30 a .m mr thank you everyone and i dedicated will this also be a dedicated uh we're going to
we're going to work through that mr and you you you we will be in touch with you because this was
very much appreciated to give us this i i i i totally understand but we'll be in touch with
you as to what we're going to do relative to that. I thank everybody, and we'll get back to you, okay?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Can you just repeat that date one more time for the benefit of the
audience? Thank you. October 18th of 22 at 9 30 a .m.
Thank you. And thank you.
All right. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Steve.
thank you mr chair does that conclude our proceeding
when do we get on the training uh right now carol thank you do i stay here no it's in your email
oh god okay