in front of you, as Mr. Bove said, was for 15 units with commercial space on the first
floor. This is, as he noted, mixed commercial residential use, and so the commercial space
on the first floor is required by the CMX2 zoning. Back in 2020 and 2021, the developer
sought to build to locate a community style cafe with a retail area for selling baseball
memorabilia on that first floor as required by the code and he then was proposing 15 units
above that which would exceed the height and it would have been six stories total and then it was
reduced to five. He also offered to repave a driveway and put a couple units below market
rate, although with no commitment and no actual application for that. At the time that you
considered this project last time, the Planning Commission was clear in their testimony. They
testified twice at the May 5th and the June 23rd, 2021 hearings. They testified that the degree of
proposed variances exceed the minimum variance to afford relief.
afford relief. The Planning Commission did acknowledge that there would be some hardship
The Planning Commission did acknowledge that there would be some hardship
from the dimensional aspects of the refusals because of the shape of the lot being a triangle,
and that was in terms of the open space and the rear yard, but they said in particular looking
at the number of dwelling units and the height, there was no hardship for that and there was no
minimum variance. In addition, Council Member Gaudier personally testified before you in
June of 2021 and she strongly was against this project because of the density and because
it was out of scale with the neighborhood. So we are here today now on a slightly modified
project, but as opposed to last time where the developer offered and proposed the correct
required commercial use on the first floor, now the developer is not putting any commercial
on the property and therefore he's drawing an additional refusal, which there's absolutely
no hardship for because he proposed and he was intending to put commercial on the first
floor last year. In addition, the developer is only entitled to four units of dwelling
units above the commercial, and instead he's proposing 12. And there's absolutely no hardship
for that, and it's clearly not the minimum variance necessary. That's our position. And
we will be presenting witnesses from the two RCOs and also near neighbors. The last thing
in terms of our opening is that this is a developer that is well known to the community
because he has developed a number of properties in that vicinity. And unfortunately, one of the
reasons he is well known is because he has distinguished himself by prolonging blight
and nuisance uses at his properties by refusing to properly maintain them, by drawing a very large
number of LNI violations and we have photos that we're going to present you that show that even
today one of his historically designated properties is in terrible condition and there are
rodent infestations that he refuses to address in another one of his properties.
I have to object, right? Because what does this have to do with this application?
and and this is a zoning hearing this is not this is not property maintenance
mr mr masters yes let's let's concentrate on this property well sure but mr bove
i understand what you're saying but i i want to move on and concentrate wait but i just wanted
to point out that in mr bove's exhibits he he presents a number of different projects that
have been permitted from his client in a number of different locations i agree that we are here
for a unique situation mr bobe starts his testimony we'll hold him to the same
okay okay and and and and mr masters are you done yes okay thank you thank you and
if the board can indulge me um one of my witnesses i was just informed he he has to
he he has another appointment so he did want to highlight his support for the project uh if i
can just put them on now and then i'll continue my presentation so if we can promote salim lucas
salim if you're hearing this please raise your hand virtually
are we sharing the audience salim lucas in the audience can you unmute yourself and wait for the
chair. Good morning. Could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter?
Salim Lucas, L-U-C-A-S. All right. Could you spell your first name too for the court reporter?
Salim, S-A-L-E-E-M. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you uh uh i know you have to go so i appreciate
you squeezing the time to help us along here um i understand you support this project
can you tell us why um i like like so i own the building right across the street from
German, the 1238 Belmont Avenue project, I felt like it is that it's doing a lot
good for the community. It's bringing different type of individuals into the
neighborhood. I just feel like as a developer he's getting beat up on but um
I just feel like as a developer, he's getting beat up on.
But I actually like the way he's invested into the neighborhood.
He's giving back to the community.
He talked to numerous people trying to cater to the wants and needs of the neighborhood.
I just feel like it's a good thing for the neighborhood.
I think a lot of people.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to object to this point.
He's testifying the hearsay.
Steve.
Let him concentrate on this property here and what he thinks about this property and this development.
All right. So, Selene, what do you do?
I own a body shop in Collision Repair Facility.
And do you live in the community?
I actually own properties in the community as well. I actually live in New Jersey, though.
Okay. And just along what you've seen as a fellow investor, have you seen German treated differently than other investors and developers?
I'm objecting that this has nothing to do with what your case is for a unique hardship on this piece of property.
well if you can show if you can show photos for properties right so wait a minute he has he's not
showed what what darwin concentrate on this property here what does he think of this property
and what does he think of this particular development all right when it comes to this
him pushing forward on this property right and his interaction with the community
what's your opinion on how he's been treated i'm objecting that there's there's no relevance here
Mr. Masters, I'm going to let that testimony, as long as it's about this particular project, and you can counter it later, but let's move on and let him do it.
I just feel like they're not being fair with him. I feel like, you know, based off of previous properties, like, they're reaching far, like, reaching into other CDCs, asking for help, when in reality, he's trying to compromise with the neighborhood.
But this is this is like the third time that he changed the plans catering to the neighborhood, trying to do right by the neighborhood.
Like I feel like people need to stop fighting growth and just like work with each other so that the project can get done.
I think it's a great location. It's a strategic spot on the corner of Belmont Avenue.
I feel like there's a lot of developing going on all over the city.
I feel like we should be able to develop West Philly
and give back to our neighborhood
so that the people that's in the neighborhood
can reap the benefits from it.
Darwin, are you done with Mr. Lucas?
Yeah, for now.
I'll reserve the rebuttal.
Mr. Masters, you have a follow-up?
Mr. Lucas, you testify you don't live in Pennsylvania.
You live in New Jersey.
Is that correct?
but you do have a business that's close to this area yes and you own some investment properties
yes um were you ever at any of the rco meetings that involved um this project
yes which ones were you at i was at the last two three of them
okay the ones that were on zoom yes and you heard um the the um the number of people who
who were opposed to this project yeah i definitely um uh i seen the different people
from viola street giving their feedback on how they felt about the project um definitely was
aware of everything i mean are you aware that or would you would you agree that virtually
everyone who went to these rco meetings was against this project
I've talked to a few people in the neighborhood, a lot of the people not in the Zoom meetings
and trying to figure out what was their perspective on it. And a lot of people, they got mixed
emotions about the project. More so one of the biggest concerns like trash and things
of that in the memorial covering the painting and stuff like that right but at the at these
meetings virtually no one voted yes in fact that one meeting there was a hundred people who voted
no and no one voted yes were you at that meeting yes okay um i have no further questions thank you
so celine were you allowed to vote uh i didn't vote at the time though
Do you believe you were allowed to vote?
No, I just felt like I didn't want to say anything because there was so much hostility and so much kind of like negativity coming into the room.
kind of like negativity coming into the room i just didn't say anything i was there
I just didn't say anything. I was there. I just didn't say anything.
i just didn't say anything yeah so so you heard mr masters make mention of of other properties
and and the like do do you recall protests being held against this project yes okay do
Do you recall any descriptions of what the project would have been?
I'm objecting you're going beyond the scope of your direct, and that's not permitted to be direct.
You were asking him whether or not he attended RCO meetings, right?
Attending these meetings would be any time that the RCO would meet.
No, you're talking about street protests.
It's also whether or not they're looking to...
so no darwin darwin mr masters listen talk about what happened at the meetings i think we're fine
with that and and let's just move on i think you're making your point mr bowie all right i
have no further questions okay thank you so much you want to call your next witness
i don't have to get i i can start with start with my presentation thank you very much at the right
time for maximum impact so like i was saying before um mr masters wanted to rehash what took
place in may of 2021 um in june of 2021 um uh master also made mention of other properties that
we possibly have listed. Nonetheless, let's just focus on this property here. We currently have
an application that has generated three refusals. We've had other iterations that, and a couple of
the other iterations, generated more, but this application today has generated three refusals.
and and we do submit that we have a hardship for these refusals because of the lot shape
the physical limitations in the context of the neighborhood so starting with the rear yard
our hardship stems directly from the property's unusual triangle shape as you can see from the
site plans. Let me just share the screen again. This is Exhibit 5 in your packet. If you can
see my cursor, this is the lot. It is a triangle. That is an unusually shaped triangle lot and
it's roughly 2,200 square feet and it sits at the convergence of Belmont and Parkside
avenue given the triangle shape designing any form of development
what implies with the dimensional requirements of cmx2 is impossible without significantly
jeopardizing the usable living space in a triangle building the applicant
We submit that this is the Minimus because the rear yard.
Darwin, you're breaking up a little bit,
if you could stay close to the mic.
The rear yard, which totals a little bit over five feet,
if you can see our red balloon here.
and it goes from belmont to parkside it's in the rear the this this is the adjacent property
that actually has that's currently holding on to the mural and we tried to comply with the code
and the most that we could spare was five feet now typically nine feet would be required but but
But this was the most we could do with in splitting the baby, so to speak, the rare, the adjacent property owner wanted us to not touch her property.
And we were also looking to comply.
But given the constraints of taking away from our units or the square footage of our units, five feet was all we could do.
And we're submitting that this is de minimis.
Now, with respect to density, this is a predominantly multifamily area and additional units are needed.
This is a predominantly multifamily area and additional units are needed in order to ensure
that the units are congruent to the context of the area, especially in light of challenges faced
as a result of the unusual law. Now, the ZBA has approved multiple other similar developments in
recent years reflecting that the proposed density is consistent with the area. Now, I've listed
exhibit I'm going to be objecting to all of these exhibits because there's nothing there's nothing
in the code that speaks to what happened at some other property and on some other street on some
other parcel we're here only for a unique hardship and and the minimum variance for this property
alone it really doesn't matter so what happened Mr Masters I'm going to allow him to show
other properties for for density issues and and and okay so we just want our objection to be noted
thank you i'm sorry i'm sorry this is tanya um could i please make a special request of you
gentlemen um please keep this very professional and please do not over speak the court reporter
is going to have a hard time trying to keep this as a clean record so please when one starts to
talk the other please stop i do thank you all very kindly thank you tanya so and but to respond to
mr masters um you you have to understand the nature of the neighborhood and look at other
properties in order to determine the impact this is multi-family and i'm showing that
there's multi-family in the area and hold on let me just go to exhibit nine
Here is a map.
If you can see my cursor, this gray point is where we are located in this area.
And the red is the multifamilies that were recently approved.
And our Exhibit 10 actually consists of the actual permits of these, of the multifamily.
But this is illustrative here. But you do notice there's 1238 Belmont Avenue, which has 84 units. 4146 Parkside Avenue has 28 family units. 1203 North 41st Street has 8 family units.
So, it's clear that the proposed density is consistent with or significantly less than other developments in the area, which is the point that I was trying to make.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it boils down to this.
Erecting a co-compliant four-unit proposal will not be feasible in this location.
It would generate unit size that are significantly out of character and unaffordable for the surrounding community.
We're proposing units that ranges an average of about 500 square feet for each unit, which is the norm for the area, and our scheme does include both one- and two-bedroom units.
The triangular shape of this lot further contributes to a significant hardship as it relates to density.
Designing units for this unusually shaped lot is extremely challenging, and these units are designed to ensure minimum interior pinch point and maximum comfort.
Now, you have to also note that although a financial hardship cannot be the sole basis for finding a hardship, the ZBA can consider unusual or extreme costs associated with a project when finding a hardship.
particularly when it relates to density. In this case, the cost of relocating the mural, as well as the costs imposed by the GA tech findings for this property support such a finding.
Now, the geo check tech is exhibit six, which is here, page 39. And here, it basically says, we can't, there's, we have a groundwater issue.
Mr. Chair, I have an objection.
So I'll let him do this.
No, no, I need to put the objection on the record.
Well, I could say what it is, Steve.
Sure. Mr. Bovee is not an expert witness. He's quoting right now from an expert report. That expert is not here. He didn't produce him, and he didn't indicate that he would be here for a witness.
Mr. Bovee is not an expert witness.
He's...
I can't cross-examine this report because it's a document, and I don't believe I can cross-examine Mr. Beauvais since he's the attorney and he doesn't have any expert ability to give his opinion in a professional way.
He's also been testifying concerning cost issues, but he doesn't have any witness who actually has cost data. So none of his statements are actually probative or constitute evidence that would go into your findings and could constitute a substantial evidence for hardship.
So either this line of comments by Mr. Bovee are stricken, or he has to produce an actual expert who can testify to this so that I could cross-examine them.
Mr. Ministers, we take note of your comments, but we're going to proceed. Mr. Bovee, proceed with your comments.
Yes, and we will have the applicant who can shed light to all the exhibits that we're producing here.
Nonetheless, when it comes to financial hardship, the costs that are involved can be considered by this ZBA.