and verna anastasia will be promoted as well thank you okay calendar number 2923
1722 master street and calendar number 2921 1720 master street
good afternoon
um mary jones from council president daryl clark's office good afternoon mary is still
under oath from this morning okay so it feels like so long ago um
Today, our office requested this reconsideration because this was an oversight where the council
president's opposition to the case should have been on, should have been presented to
the board and it was not.
Um, it, the community, um, voted unanimously to oppose this project, um, due to concerns
about, um, increased density and lack of parking and just an overall, um, detriment to the
neighborhood, um, with adding more and more multifamily, uh, units.
and um so they reached out to our office to emphasize their opposition so we want to just
make that clear on the record that uh the community does not um does not support these
projects as as proposed and thank you uh mr anastasio thank you mr chairman uh should i put
my name on the record name and address please yep it's verne anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a s-i-o 1315
walnut street philadelphia pennsylvania 19107 that's suite uh 106 1006 and do you swear
our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do okay i don't think we've
wave and step on this, did we, Sharon?
I'm not sure we have to.
okay uh i'm i'm going to share my documents again you know the board uh acted correct correctly on
I'm going to share my documents again.
this uh at least that's my opinion and i will uh share with you why i think that
if i can hold on please for one minute excuse me this is sharon saletta if we could also put
on the record that all testimony and exhibits from the original hearing are incorporated
Thank you Sharon. Thank you Ms. Solita. I'm going to share this again if I can. Hold on please.
Okay. I'm guessing everyone sees what I'm about to share.
yes yes we do thank you and i'll be very brief uh 1720 and 1722 master street
uh the application was for the construction of two five family dwellings uh which we've gone
through with uh with our plans and again because they've been uh they've been uh uh you know
folded into the last hearing and they that still survives i don't think there's necessarily a reason
to go into that but i do want to say again that i think the board uh and the planning commission
ruled correctly in that these are lots on a block that is mostly vacant
And as you can see, there are large chunks of empty land that is just completely empty.
And that what we've had in the last, and here it is, we're talking about these two spots
right here if you could see where my cursor is and then you could see that we still have large
chunks of vacant fallow land not only adjacent to the subject property but all around the subject
property just fallow land where in fact there is no development and no construction. I also want to
make a point of saying that we do have, in fact, someone here who will testify as an expert
witness. Before I get into the rest of the case, I would like, in fact, for Ilya to raise his hand
and be acknowledged as a panelist so that we can have an expert witness who will testify
that a single family home on this particular block
just is not sustainable.
So Ilya, if you could please do that.
So Ms. Sunkit or whomever is handling recognition today
can do that.
He needs to be a panelist or just audio?
Audio's fine, Ms. Sunkit.
Audio's fine.
But Ilya should be in the...
Mr. Zamorin?
Ilya Zamorin, that's correct.
Correct.
Mr. Zamorin, are you available?
Yes, I am.
Please place your name and address on for the record.
Ilya Zamorin, 1801, Creekview Lane, Jamison, Pennsylvania, 18929.
Mr. Zamorin, what's your profession?
I am real estate agent in the city of Pennsylvania.
And how many years have you been doing that?
Over 14.
And over the 14 years, are you familiar with the subject property and this particular census tract and neighborhood?
Yes, I am.
Okay. In your expert opinion, would a new construction single-family home development be marketable, economically viable option for sale at these particular two sites?
No, it is not going to be viable at all.
Okay. And I've already submitted as evidence your analysis as new evidence to the Zoning Board.
Did you produce that analysis that's been submitted?
And here it is right here.
Excuse me. I just want to identify it so you see it.
This comparative market analysis, did you create this, sir?
This comparative mark.
And you've done this relatively recently for the client?
That's correct.
And in your analysis, did you conclude that a new construction single-family residence would not be a viable option for sale in this community, on this block?
That is correct.
that's not going to be viable okay um excuse me counselor yeah would less than five units be viable
yes okay thank you but more than one for certain um
do you believe ilia that multi-family dwellings would be the highest and best use and most
marketable for these particular sites yes mr anastasio i believe that's the best possible
use for that particular location thank you very much i have no more questions for you thank you
thank you i uh mr mr chairman and members of the board i i would like to un share this
for a moment and if i can i'm going to try and share something else
and i hope you can see this let's take a look at what the 1700 block of master street looks like
if you don't mind. Same side as our street on 1720 and 1722. We have 1724, a legal five-family
dwelling. 1726, a legal four-family dwelling that was just approved by this board a year ago.
We have a legal 1728 three-family dwelling, 1730 three-family dwelling, 1714 another three-family
dwelling that was just approved by this very board less than two weeks ago. Now let's go
across the street because the rest of our street is nothing but a prairie. Across the street we
have 1731, a three-family dwelling since 1942. 1729 is a three-family dwelling for the last two
decades. 1727, a four-family dwelling since 2014. 1725 is a six-family dwelling since 1955.
five. 1723, directly across the street, a five-family dwelling since 2011. 1721, again,
directly across the street, four-family dwelling since 1973, and it was a five-family dwelling
prior to 1973. 1719 and 1717, both a six-family dwelling since 83 and a five-family dwelling
since 1977. There isn't a single, single family dwelling built not only recently, but in the last
100 years on this block that still stands. So with that, I do believe that our proposal
is completely consistent with the, you know, the, you know, with the conditions on the block,
with the market realities. It's consistent with offering quality new construction
at affordable prices for local buyers. And might I say, and this is just an aside,
We all follow legislation that comes in and out with respect to construction.
Just recently, as a city, we proposed a new construction tax to create new affordable housing.
Here is affordable housing.
Here are smaller units that are approachable price points for folks who live in the community.
And there were no necessarily taxes that needed to be levied to do it.
So I respectfully request that this board stand by its original decision, which was, this makes sense for this block.
And thank you.
Hey, thank you.
Any questions, Mr. Anastasio?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Are you selling these units or renting them?
These will be for sale.
These will be for sale.
Yeah, we've said that.
We've said that from the get-go.
These are going to be for sale.
You know, they're nice, ample-sized units that can be for sale.
Talk about affordable housing.
This is it.
Because if we built two single-family homes, they'd be anything but affordable.
I submit to you that the evidence that I've already submitted that we didn't really go over too much
was that for the cost that it took for them to acquire these lots
and then to build on these lots,
we'd be talking about homes that would be in the high fours.
And that's not just something that they can observe.
How's the purchase price of these lots?
Over $200,000 per lot.
And by the way, I would like to call, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind,
just for the record, Mr. Shapiro, if he wouldn't mind raising his hand so he could be acknowledged
to accept and affirm my presentation. Mr. Shapiro, you've been unmuted. You can speak now.
Please identify yourself, Mr. Shapiro, and I'll swear you in.
yes this is richard shapiro can you hear me thank you richard richard can you put your name and
address on for the record please sure richard shapiro address 15059 sunflower drive philadelphia
pa 19116 richard is it fair and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth
I do. Thank you. Richard, did you hear my presentation to the board today? I did.
Okay. And I know it's not that different from the last time we've met at the end of October,
but is it accurate and true to the best of your knowledge? Yes, absolutely. Okay. And do you
accept it as your own testimony if need be? I do. Thank you very much. And did you purchase
these properties for in excess of $200,000? Yes, I did. Approximately $215,000. Okay. And to build
out single-family homes, would it not be in excess of another $200,000? It would easily be closer
to $250,000 just to build out each home. And the $450,000 is just a break-even, probably.
And based on all professional advice and inclination, including Mr. Zemmerin, would that not be a net loss for you on this?
It would absolutely be a net loss.
And not only that, but I would not even attempt it.
And knowing this, I would not have ever bought the loss, to be honest with you.
And when you purchased them, did you believe they were multifamily dwelling?
okay can you speak a little just briefly on that uh yes we had originally purchased the lots
from the previous owners uh who i believe had a uh a permit to do three units and considering the
size of the lots uh we expected and what the board previously approved um considering the size of the
lots five units would even be not only advisable uh allowable considering the size of the lots that
fit it within the proper dimensions but also uh a home run basically for the community
um so at the very least uh we were looking at multi-units and again uh and even though this
is an aside mr shapiro did you not offer to fund a a street sweeping and litter removal program for
the community on that block since there's so many multi-family dwellings yes we did that was in the
RCO, they had brought up the fact that trash was a problem on the block. And that was one of the
reasons that they also brought up that they preferred to have ownership on the block to
help with that. And right away, we told them these are for sale. The intention is not to have rentals
and that we would also include trash removal, private trash removal, if need be, if that's
we'll get this project going.
And of the 18 multifamily dwellings on the block currently,
you would only be two, is that correct?
That's right.
Thank you.
I have nothing else, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again.
Any questions from the board?
Why are five units the best use?
Well, the lots are large, and just adjacent right next door, this board, this particular
board approved a five-family dwelling right next door, and basically we're just mirroring
what was presented several months ago
what was presented uh several months ago uh with that particular uh uh development it's it's it's
with that particular
a large lot and we can get um five six seven hundred square foot units at an approachable
price point and i'm gonna and i i know i beat this drum a lot uh and i i don't mean to be a broken
record, but we talk so much about wanting to have affordable housing in neighborhoods,
but we are so reticent on approving multifamily dwellings.
And here are one and two bedroom condos that can be gotten by folks in the neighborhood
at approachable price points.
But in order to do that, we need to embrace the multifamily unit.
Mr. Anastasio, I know you're a client.
What is the projected price point for each of these units?
Thank you.
Mr. Shapiro?
Approximately.
That's a good question.
That's above my pay grade, but I'll ask.