for the past 13 years.
I oppose the proposed zoning use variance request.
Please refer to my written testimony
and my nine exhibits to fully understand
what I am going to briefly highlight
in my three minute time period.
Do you have a copy of my written testimony?
I don't see it. I'm sure it's somewhere. Unfortunately, since we're doing this virtually,
we don't have the physical documents in our hands or files.
Okay, I request that that be included in the record.
318 Eastern Street has been continuously used as a single-family house since 1901,
a period of 119 years. Gallman purchased the apartment complex in 1986. The house had already
been standing for 85 years. In 2010, Gallman purchased the 318 property and has had it for
the past 10 years. So I take strong exception to the peninsula. Now I have four particular reasons
to object to it. The first is that the application simply does not meet the unnecessary hardship
criteria. In order for the board to deem this, to approve of this variance request, this use
variance request, you need to find four items for a use variance. That there are unique physical
circumstances that create an unnecessary hardship. They have not met that burden. It has been a
single-family house, I will show you in the attachments that I included in my
testimony, they could easily build a new single-family house or they could build
two semi-detached houses. The applicant has not demonstrated that there's a
physical condition that prevents them from complying with strict
conformity to the SA3 provisions. The proposed variance would alter the
essential character of the neighborhood. The applicants claim that the project is a minor
expansion to a long-standing existing use is simply not valid. The proposed building would
cover the equivalent of 90 percent of the 4,400 square foot lot. It would dramatically increase
the density of the entire complex. It would tower over nearby houses and would reduce open space
on their entire apartment complex.
It would be equivalent to building
five semi-detached houses
in this 4,400 square foot parcel.
The applicant could build, by right,
single-family house
or request a dimensional variance
for two semi-detached houses.
They have not met the cure
by dimensional variance criteria.
In summary, on this point,
the applicant has failed to meet
the four-use variance criteria
They have not established unnecessary hardship that justifies the issuance of multi-family
use variants for a RSA 3 single-family parcel.
The second item, no business or professional office. That is a mute point. At this point, since the applicant has indicated they are withdrawing that, I would ask that that proviso be included if the board sued move in that direction.
The second item, no business or professional office, that is
Traffic congestion. The applicant's variance appeal will increase East Durham Street traffic congestion on the narrow two-way traffic, two-sided parking, 30-foot-wide street.
I think that the board needs to recognize that Sprague Street is a one-way street.
East Durham Street is a narrow two-way, two-sided parking street.
So we definitely have a traffic congestion when commuters are leaving in the afternoon from their Sedgwick Station apartments.
As a side, I would note that even though the Sedgwick apartments and the station are on Mount Pleasant,
They are called Sedgwick Station because of the historic nature of our neighborhood.
The last point I will raise is the flash flood risk.
The applicant has minimized the risk.
However, I would point out that they currently have 57,000 square feet of impervious cover in a flood-prone watershed.
This is the largest impervious cover upstream of the flood-prone Sedgwick train station.
It has a designated flood-prone intersection designation by the water department and there
are road made flood signs on all sides of the intersection. I would ask the board to
carefully review my exhibits and I ask the board to reject this RSA 3 use
variance request. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I'm going to hold off on my comments
until all the other witnesses speak. Tanya, do you have anyone else? Mr. Chairman, is it is it
appropriate for for me to respond or would you rather hold on my comments? Please respond.
Okay, I just wanted to follow up on two points that Mr. O'Day made. The first one
as Mr. O'Day said that in his opinion, we were dramatically increasing the density on the site.
I just point out that there's already 93 units there. So an increase in eight units is less
than 10%. On the issue of the hardship, I just wanted to point out that the unique condition
relevant to this property is the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by our active use RM1
zoning and i would just remind the board that the uh valley view case which i'm sure you're
familiar with says that the context of the surrounding area is unquestionably relevant
to a hardship determination and i think that context of this particular lot located as it is
surrounded by the apartment complex uh is an indication of a hardship unique to this line
thank you no i can't think you raised the point i said i was going to wait to the end but
sometimes I can't help myself. Mr. Chair, could I respond? No, just a second, sir.
Excuse me. Pardon me. I keep in the letter and the last witnesses testimony keep talking about
it was these were it was a single family house since 1901. I suspect that maybe on that site or
where the apartments are, they may have all been single family at one time. That that that's not
the case. So I don't know when were the apartments, the original apartments built. I would assume
sometime after 1901. Excuse me. Yes. Could I provide that information? No, just let us finish
please. So anyway, I'm looking at that as an issue for me. Single family in 1901. Okay.
It seems like that has changed significantly since 1901.
All right.
Tanya, do you have anyone else?
Yes, Chair, we have about seven.
We do have someone with the number ending in 486 over the phone if you wish to speak.
someone over the phone with the number ending at 486 do you wish to give
testimony no it was Brian Paul trying to chime in before but Jerry's of a call
my business partner anyone else please raise your hand we have IB Reyes if you
wish to speak, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Please identify yourself with the record.
Spell your name for the stenographer.
E.B. Reyes.
E.B. Reyes.
E.B. Reyes.
You got a lot of feedback.
You got a lot of feedback.
E.B. Reyes.
E.B. Reyes, I'm here for the 2275 East Cambria Street.
Please spell your name for the stenographer, please.
Oh, I-B-I Reyes, R-E-Y-E-S.
Cambria Street, I think she's on the wrong...
I don't believe she's here to testify about 318 East Doran,
Mr. Chair. Ma'am are you here for the Durham Street property? I'll take that as
a no. Anyone else? No, I'm sorry. No, I was muted. No. Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
We have a Jeffrey Selling and you can unmute yourself and speak.
hello and thank you for taking my testimony
identify yourself name and address my name is jeffrey selling g-e-o-f-f-r-e-y
selling s-e-l-l-i-n-g and i live at 514 east durham street about a block and a half from the
proposed apartment site. I strongly oppose... Do you fire a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I strongly oppose this project for many
reasons, but I'm going to mention three. One, the proposed new three-story large apartment,
3,900, 60 square feet, building, shoehorned into a 4,400 foot square foot site, will change the
quiet and residential look and feel of our neighborhood the rsa3 zoning district calls
for a single family house of 2200 square feet with 50 open area the sheer size of the proposed
building will overwhelm the neighborhood two i'm also concerned about the increase in traffic and
problems with parking in a quiet residential neighborhood. I regularly walk and ride my bike
in this neighborhood and have noticed that the homeowners usually drive slowly, carefully, and
are mindful of pedestrians, children, bike riders, etc. Many others cut through Durham as a shortcut
and they drive too fast, ignore stop signs, and are dangerous to pedestrians. The last thing we need
is more congestion, more cars, and more challenges with parking, which is already an issue down there,
especially during the day when so many people park near the SEPTA station. The neighborhood
is zoned for single-family homes, and not only is that its character, but that is what keeps it safe.
Adding more apartments would add congestion, make parking more difficult for the SEPTA commuters.
Three, my third concern has to do with the increase in impervious surfaces, which would
increase stormwater runoff, which is a problem all over the city. The Water Department is working
to mitigate this with many programs, including a rain garden at the intersection of Durham and
Sprague Streets, right near this. That has been a problem area in terms of flooding, destructive
erosion and sending more water into our overtaxed sewers. This proposal would increase impervious
surfaces, not by only 1,800 square feet, but by 1,800 square feet quite a bit, which in turn
would cause additional runoff problems, issues with flooding, and add to the volume of our
already strained combined sewer system. Let me finish by repeating that I unequivocally oppose
this project thank you here we have thank you for your testimony can't hear
you I don't have anything further at this time any questions from the board
for that way okay please Tanya bring it up thank you I'm sorry we have a Natalia
I believe you're allowed to speak you can unmute yourself afternoon my name is
Natalia Sereko. It's N-A-T-A-L-I-A. Last name is S-E-R-E-J-K-O, and I'm the Executive Director
of East Mount Airy Neighbors, and I am here to express the opinion of the neighbors. First,
I wanted to clarify the vote for this particular variance. There was one person in attendance
that supported this variance request 46 opposed with 25 being near neighbors as
mentioned in the letter that we sent out the neighbors did not think that this
think that this variance demonstrate unnecessary hardship. It was not the least
variance demonstrate unnecessary
possible modification possible for that lot. It would increase congestion for
both the local residents and SEPTA, Chestnut Hill East Regional Rail
commuters exiting the Sedgwick Station onto a one-way street. The applicant
site is within the Winnihawken sewer shed and could contribute towards the flooding that is
present there and that the applicant proposes to build a business office on the first floor which
would not be an accessory office but would be the regional leasing center for the apartment
So as a result of the votes of the neighbors and the concerns of the neighbors,
East Mount Airy neighbors opposes the variance.
Thank you.
Jared?
I would just respond to the neighborhood's comments just by pointing out to the board
again that while I understand the community's perspective, if this was a brand new apartment
building and if we were proposing to take this site and turn it into something new but really
we're adding in a very small way less than 10 percent of the total units adding to an existing
rm2 zoned parcel in this neighborhood so we're not taking single family homes away
we're supplementing in essence what's already there at this lot
thank you
okay mr chairman yes thomas holloman i like to make a comment according to the plan
they're going to demolish a building a single family building therefore the designer can build
back anything he wants he can conform to the RSA 3 code requirements so my
suggestion would be that he goes back to the existing code here RSA 3 the the
challenge that we have with a by right development mr. Holliman is that if the
parcel is as kept as an RSA 3 the setback side yard and rear yards
requirements that we'd have to meet would create, I guess, what I can only describe as an odd
building. It would be a new structure that would be surrounded by the parking lot in the apartment
buildings and would have to be smaller than the existing lot because we'd have to meet the 10
foot rear yard and the side yards that are required in RSA3. And that was one of the challenges we
looked at. And that's why we went for the unity of use to try and make this blend into what's
there rather than creating a new, much less user-friendly lot.
Well, couldn't you not appeal for those changes to make it conform to the RSA3?
Because the owners already owned the apartment complex that surrounded it, and because of
where this lot sits at the front of the remainder of the of the complex um we thought that the the
highest and best use here was to have it be part of the apartment complex that already surrounds it
um i have a general i'm sorry tom are you finished i have a question yes okay
can i can i go frank or yeah yeah um yeah i think 46 is a lot of people to be opposed to this
with 25 of them being near neighbors that means 25 are in the area and councilwoman bass
is also opposed to this so i just wanted to put that on the record i i didn't receive
correspondence from her from her office but if if you have it i believe it's there
If I could, Chair, we have Charles Richardson available to speak, if you wish.
Okay, yeah, Mr. Richardson.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Bass.
Last name is Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S.
Councilwoman has not made a decision on it at this point.
She actually would like you guys, the board, to make the decision on whether or not you would like to see this go forward.
this variance. She notes that the number of people that are opposed are very high and
she also notes that the developer has done something to try to mitigate some of the concerns.
some of the concerns so she's leaving it in your hands and we tell her thank you for on behalf of
So she's leaving it in your hands.
all of us we do appreciate that uh i have a question and uh i'll pose a question to you
jared but obviously it's for the other folks that are here uh during your meeting with the rco was
there ever any discussion or did anyone raise the possibility of reducing the number of units
or is it or or is the community just stuck on single family does the issue that it's becoming
a single family becomes multi have more to do with the number of units i guess is what i'm asking
than it does with the actual use um so i i was my phone i was not in attendance at the original
RCO meeting, so I can't speak to that directly. My impression is that the community concern has
more to do with the loss of a single family at this site than it does to opposition to the
existence of the apartments generally, but I'm not going to speak for those folks.
It could be, but that could be the driving force. That's why I'm trying to find out.