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.