Zoning Board Trancripts for 3 Rector October 4, 2006

1	

2	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
	ZONING BOARD of ADJUSTMENT
3	PUBLIC HEARING	
	WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4,	2006
4		
	MINUTES of FORMAL HEARING
5	

6
	LOCATION: 1515 Arch Street, 18th Floor
7	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
	REPORTED BY: SUSAN L. SINGLAR,
8	COURT REPORTER

9			---
10	PROPERTY: 3 Rector Street		
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
11
	HELD BEFORE:
12	
	DAVID L. AUSPITZ, CHAIRPERSON
13	
	ELEANOR M. DEZZI, BOARD MEMBER
14	
	SAMUEL STATEN, JR., BOARD MEMBER
15		
	JUDITH EDEN, BOARD MEMBER	
16		
	REVEREND WILLIAM E. HALL,	BOARD MEMBER
17
18	ALSO PRESENT:
19	CHARMAINE BUTLER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASST.
20	PAULA BRUMBELOW, PLANNING COMMISSION
21	--
	CLASS ACT REPORTING AGENCY
22	Registered Professional Reporters
23	1420 Walnut Street	133-H Gaither Drive
	Suite 1212		Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
24	Philadelphia, PA 19103	(856) 235-5108

1	MS. DEZZI: 3 Rector Street,
2	calendar number 06-0812.
3	MR. FELDMAN: Mr. Chairman and
4	members of the Board, good afternoon. My name is
5	Brett Feldman, 260 South Broad Street,
6	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102. I represent the
7	applicant, the Rector Street Associates. Their
8	principals are here today, Mr. David Waxman, to my
10	right, and Mr. Ron Barzilay, back here, also to my
	right. We're joined by Mr. Jonathan Broh, project
11	architect from JK Roller Architects, Bob Swarbrick,
12	who is one of the representatives of the Manayunk
13	Development Corporation that is in support of this
14	application.
15	I also have Mr. John Gallery,
16	executive director of the Preservation Alliance,
17	who is in support of this application and has been
18	very instrumental here. I know Ms. Chapman from
19	former Councilman Nutter's office is here. I
20	believe she has a letter of support and will also
21	be providing some testimony today.
22	I passed up to the Zoning Board
23	Exhibits 1 through 17, which I would ask be
24	incorporated into the record here with particular
	

	Page 3
1	attention to the support letter from then
2	Councilman Nutter's office, letters of support from
3	Manayunk Development Corporation, Preservation
4	Alliance, as well as the Historic Commission
5	approval.
7	This property, 3 Rector Street,
	which is before you right here in these pictures
8	here and then here is a rendering of our proposal
9	is in the Manayunk -- it's a quasi-historical
10	district in Manayunk. The preservation
11	restrictions aren't in the traditional Historical
12	Preservation Code. They're actually in the
13	Property Maintenance Code. It's kind of a quirk,
14	which has caused us a lot of concertation, but we
15	had to go to the Historical Commission.
16	We ultimately received from the
17	Historical Commission what you see in front of you
18	today, unanimous approval, every single Historical
19	Commission member voted to support this
20	application. This is a project that's been going
21	on for 18 months with the Historical Commission and
22	the preservation community.
23	The project is -- to orient the
24	Board -- it's a little bit off the beaten trail, I

			Page 4
1	guess, in Manayunk.	This is Rector Street.	Main
2	Street runs along here. This is Rector Street,
3	sloping down to the tow path and the Manayunk
4	canal. On the right side here is the Canal House
5	Apartments, which is a very attractive, I believe,
6	adaptive reuse for residential. That's right
7	there. And then there's a mix of commercial -
	
8	there's a mix of commercial -- a mix of commercial
9	and retail along Main Street here.
10,	The building, itself, has,
11	obviously, four different sides.	This is what is
12	there right now on Rector Street,	that's the front
13	of the building, and then a series of pictures here
14	to show what is there right now.	This is on a
15	private drive that runs --	if you come down Rector
16	Street, you make a left, and	private drive that
17	runs to here.	
18	The property	has a unique history
19	in Manayunk. It was used for	many years as a mill,
20	harnessing the water that ran along the canal and
21	tow path. From about 1940 to about late 1990s the
22	property was used by Mr. Ray Labov and his family
23	for the sale of plumbing supplies, heating
24	supplies, and the family ran it up into the 1990s

Page 5
1	when the reality, kind of the Home Depot/Lowe's
2	phenomena, where it's tough to compete against
3	folks that have massive buildings made it
4	impossible for them to continue.
5	They actually sold the business
6	to someone else, who tried to continue selling
7	plumbing and heating supplies there. That person
8	couldn't make a go of it, and it has sat now empty
9	since about 2000, 2001, despite listing agreements,
10	despite -- actually, if you take a look at even our
11	rendering, this is a sign that says: Building
12	available that still remains there to this date.
13	They have tried listing. They tried to sell this.
14	They have been unable to sell it throughout this
15	time.
16	The property, as I can tell you,
17	here's a side that runs along this private drive
18	here. You can see the wholesale and plumbing
19	pictures and drawings with toilets and things like
20	that. This is the rear.
21	The situation that we're in is
22	we're about -- 90 percent of the lot area is
23	covered by the building, so there's really no room
24	for us to expand out to the side, to the rear.

Page 6
1	This is not our property.	The property line is
2	right here on the building line here,	so we don't
3	have any space to expand backwards. Again,	this is
4	the view looking from Main Street.	
6	parking?	MR.	AUSPITZ:	Do you have any
7		MR.	FELDMAN:	There's no parking
8	there. There's no parking.	There's no loading
9	zone. There's no nothing. Currently,	for our use,
10	we are proposing parking.	
11		MR.	SCHIRMER:	How many spaces?
12		MR.	FELDMAN:	Twenty-one parking
13	spaces.			
14		MR.	SCHIRMER:	How many units?
15		MR.	FELDMAN:	Twenty units. We
16	have more than one-for-one parking here.
17		What we're looking to do is -
		
18	the idea here is really to save this piece of
19	Manayunk history. We've heard from the community.
20	We're heard from the preservation community.
21	There's got to be a way to save this building but
22	still come up with a reuse that makes this viable,
23	and that's what we've done here.
24		What we have come up with is we

Page 7
1	are saving the front facade on Rector Street.
2	We're saving, which I think is probably the most
3	special side, this tow path side here along the
4	canal. We're saving the rear. And what we're
6	doing, and parts of the side, and what we're doing
	is having a five-story addition on top that
8	provides the 20 living units.
	We're also providing 21 parking
9	spaces that will be accessed along this private
10	drive here on the side. One of-the things that
11	we're able to do is come up with a way, instead of
12	cutting into the front for parking, we're able to
13	come in on the side. There's some areas that they
14	had used for entrances before that were not exactly
15	lined up specifically with those spots. We're
16	mimicking those areas to have the parking come up
17	on the side here.
18	Each one of these units, and you
19	can see on this rendering here, has its own view of
20	the canal, has windows onto the canal, has its own
21	balconies, the 20 units here. So what we're trying
22	to do is -- the goal of the Manayunk Development
23	Corporation and then Councilman Nutter is to really
24	provide eyes on this canal area, to really bring

Page 8
1	the vibrancy to this canal area, and that's what
2	we're doing by having these balconies; by having
3	the windows.
4	What we have also done here is we
5	have added a direct bicycle pedestrian access point
6	from the bottom of our building here at the
8	basement level straight onto the canal so folks can
	walk -- our residents can walk straight into the
9	building and straight out of the building to use
10	this canal, to ride. their bicycles. And that's
11	really one of the main attractions of this building
12	is that interaction between the tow path, the canal
13	and our residents. We think this is a sensitive
14	way to save this building.
15	As you can see by the pictures,
16	it's continued to, unfortunately, deteriorate as no
17	users have been found. It doesn't make sense for
18	warehousing because it doesn't have a loading area.
19	It's very small. For retail it doesn't work
20	because it's really kind of off the beaten trail.
21	It doesn't work, as far as there's no frontage on
22	Main Street, which is the prime manayunk retail
23	corridor.
24	And I think the old preservation

Page 9
1	community has come to the conclusion,	and this
2	time, this took over 18 months, that this reuse
3	that we're showing today is the best way to save
4	this building so this building can continue to tell
5	the story of Manayunk's past, its connection to the
6	water, its mill history,	20 years from now, 50
7	years from now, 75 years	from now, instead of it
8	continuing to be at danger, at risk for something
9	to happen to	it.
10		That is our presentation, as far
11	as what we're	showing here. We have got materials,
12	exemplars that we can show you. We have numerous
13	other plans that we had shown the Historical
14	Commission and Historical Commission staff and the
15	community. But what you see today is really our
16	best shot at a reuse of this building, and we're
17	very pleased with all the support that we have	
18	received, support from immediate neighbors,	support
19	from the Manayunk Development Corporation,	the	
20	Councilman, and the preservation community.		
21		MR.	AUSPITZ:	Is anybody here in
22	opposition to this?			
23		MR.	SCHIRMER:	Yes. My name	is
24	Hal, H-A-L,	last name Schirmer,	S-C-H-I-R-M-E-R,

Page 10
1	1805 Ridge Road, Sellersville,	18960 here for
2	Manayunk Neighborhood Council.	Manayunk
3	Neighborhood Council is the recognized civic
4	association in the area. The civic association has
5	never really met or reviewed the plans.	These
6	properties are existing commercial.	
7		MR.	AUSPITZ:	Were from you
8	Schwenksville?			
9		MR.	SCHIRMER:	I've been up here
10	with SCRUB.			
		
11		The concern that the neighbors
12	have, and that I'm here to represent, is under the
13	Zoning Code, this building could be reused for any
14	of a whole bunch of different permitted uses. This
15	building is currently in a situation where it can
16	be resurrected, can be refurbished.
17		The testimony to the Historical
18	Commission was from Mr. Labov that the building was
19	in grave shape. Actually, we have a Deed from Mr.
20	Labov, since there is no Agreement of Sale in the
21	record to explain who actually owned the property.
22	Finally, the indication is that the property had
23	been for sale at, I believe, a million dollars and
24	other records I have --

Page 11
1		MR.	AUSPITZ:	The Board never
2	asks numbers.			
3		MR.	SCHIRMER:	The concern is
4	that, and actually, I should formally point out and
5	ask the Board to incorporate by reference the
6	records of the Historical Commission and the
7	records in the L & I files since the Historical
8	Commission was presented with financial hardship
9	information about well, how much did you want for
10	the property, were you offered -- how much-were you
11	offered for the property, and was that enough.
12		And we think that the sales show
13	that the property isn't valueless.	The property
14	was valued somewhere 750,000,	800,000, a million
15	dollars.	
			
16		MR.	AUSPITZ:	Let me put this on
17	the record because you're travelling on ice.
18	You're saying, in essence, that somebody offered it
19	at a low-enough price somebody else could buy it
20	and reuse it. We don't put numbers on because
21	we're the land use. Whether somebody makes a
22	billion dollars or losses a billion dollars is not
23	for this Board.
24		Counsel, you said you still have
					

Page 12
1	a sign hanging on this?	
2	MR. FELDMAN: There is a sign	
3	that is still hanging here today as we speak.	This
4	property has now sat for over five years, at least
5	five years. My clients actually had this under
6	agreement now for about 18 months.	It's been
7	extended in the agreement.		
8		MR. STATEN:	How many community
9	meetings have there been?	
		
10	MR. FELDMAN:	We have had -- with
11	Manayunk Neighborhood Council,	we have had four
12	meetings. We have had four meetings.
13	MR.	STATEN: Were you at any of
14	the meetings, counsel,	actually you, counselor?
15	MR.	SCHIRMER: No. I have not
16	represented the Manayunk Neighborhood Council at
17	the meetings. There was a continuance to meet
18	
	with -
	
19	MR. STATEN: When did you get to
20	represent Manayunk Council?	
21		MR.	SCHIRMER:	Approximately one
22	month ago.			
			
23		MS.	DEZZI: How long have these
24	meetings been taking place?

Page 13
1	MR. SCHIRMER: There have been no
2	official meetings. Actually, there was a
3	continuance to meet with the neighbors. However,
4	it appears the developer didn't want to meet to
5	discuss zoning issues. They only wanted to discuss
6	what kind of brick should be on the exterior. So
7	the actual meeting schedule -
	
8	MR. AUSPITZ: What kind of zoning
9	issues were they supposed to discuss, as compared
10	to getting the input from the residents about the
11	brick?
12	MR. STATEN: And Historical
13	Commission.
14	MR. FELDMAN: Mr. Chairman, if I
15	may, I just want to -- this has been going on for
16	18 months. I have got a time line, and I don't
17	know if the Board wants to hear the whole time line
18	here. But because we had to go to the Historical
19	Commission get that approval before we came to the
20	Zoning Board, we front loaded this whole process
21	where we met repeatedly, three different occasions,
22	with Manayunk Neighborhood Council.
23	We were told -- initially we had
24	a plan to demolish this building, just to give you

Page 14
1	the full	flavor of this.	Initially, we had a plan
2	to demolish this building.	We sat down with the
3	neighbors, and Mr. Smith,	who is over here, at one
4	of the hearings -- there was various appeals -- at
5	one of the hearings proposed to us: Why don't you
6	look at an overbuild. Why don't you look at saving
7	the facade, saving all this great historical fabric
8	here and do something like that.
9	And I don't know if he thought we
10	would take that seriously or not, but. we did.	We
11	went out and we got a new architecture team.	We
12	got a new architecture firm. This is the second
13	architecture firm. And we came up with this plan
14	that you see in front of us today. We then met
15	with them twice more to review an overbuild		
16	concept. We got the response from them,		
17	essentially, that we have tacit support and we're
18	going to need some detail.		
19	We then went to the Historic	
20	Commission, first the Architectural Committee.	We
21	found out the day before that committee hearing,	in
22	a one-line E-mail, we have decided to oppose the
23	application. It came to the Architectural		
24	Committee and opposed the application.		

Page 15
1	We then went to the Historical
2	Commission, and the Historical Commission -- Mr.
3	Smith got up at the Historical Commission,
4	testified that this is probably the best we can
5	do. There's some details, work with us. We got
6	unanimous approval from the Historical Commission.
7	We then scheduled a meeting to
8	sit down with Mr. Smith and his group, I guess that
9	would be the fourth or fifth time at that point.
10	The day before we got the appeal filed when they
11	then appealed the Historical Commission.
12	We have reached out to them over
13	and over. And the reality here is, I think at the
14	end of the day, they think that this can be turned
15	into a farmer's market, this can be turned into
16	something here, despite the fact that a farmer's
17	market failed on Main Street already; that this can
18	just -- something can happen with this existing
19	building, and there's no changes should be made to
20	this building. That's what we have essentially
21	been told.
22	We had said we would enjoy the
23	opportunity to sit down, talk about materials,
24	items like that that we could then work with the

Page 15
1	Historical Commission and the back and forth, no.
2	I don't know what to say. I know the developers
3	have told me I'm crazy to continue to reach out,
4	but we did.		
5		MR. AUSPITZ: We know Mr.	Smith.
6	Quite frankly,	he's well recognized by this Board.
7		Why don't you tell us what is
8	happening?	
					
9		MR.	SMITH:	Sure.	My name is
10	Kevin Smith,	293 Hermitage Street,	Philadelphia,
11	19127, President of Manayunk Neighborhood Council.
12	Contrary to their claims,	the
13	developers have not met in good faith with the
14	community. They did appear at our April, 2005
15	general meeting with a plan to demolish the
16	building. At that meeting, there was uniform
17	opposition to the plan,	and a vote was taken to
18	oppose the development.	The developers then went
19	on to the Historical Commission to seek the
20	demolition, were denied.	
21		In December of 2005 they met
22	again with us,	a portion -- or they met with our
23	Board, and at that meeting they showed us this
24	sketch. This was the only thing they showed us.
		
Page 17
1	They wouldn't let us keep a copy. They wouldn't
2	let us take picture of it.	They wouldn't let us
3	photocopy it, and said: Will you support our
4	project. We said:	That's insufficient
5	information.	
			
6		MR. AUSPITZ:	Counsel, were you
7	there for this?		
			
8		MR. FELDMAN:	I was not at that
9	meeting_		
			
10		MR. AUSPITZ:	So you, did this by
11	yourselves?		
			
12		MR. BARZILAY:	Yes.
13		MR. STATEN:	Was there any
14	conversation between you and counsel about changing
15	the front of the building, as opposed to demolition
16	on the building?
17	MR. SMITH: When they -- at their
18	appeal hearing, they appealed to the Historical -
	
19	the Historical Commission denied the demolition.
20	They appealed that denial to the Board of Building
21	Standards. At the Board of Building Standards I
22	did suggest that they could consider, rather than
23	demolishing the building, modifying it. We
24	suggested some form of expansion or overbuild might

Page 18
1	be preferable to demolition.  But I have to say, in
2	no way is that preapproval or an obligation to
4	approve whatever -MR. STATEN:	They're talking to
5	the president of the association.	
6	MR.	SMITH:	What's that?
7	MR.	STATEN:	They're	talking to
8	the president of the association. If you make a
9	suggestion that you're putting out -	
		
10	MR.	SMITH:	And in fact, we have
11	never rejected overbuild or modification of the
12	building on some sort of principle that the
13	building cannot be touched.
14	MR.	AUSPITZ:	So why are you here
15	today?
16	In other words, what would you
17	like to see, or what don't you like? Tell us.
18	MR.	SMITH:	We're here today
19	because, one, we think reuse of this historic mill
20	building, it was the offices for the Campbell
21	Manufacturing Company built in the mid 1870s, is
22	the only remaining part of that mill.	We think it
23	has an extremely viable reuse just the way it is.
24	We have identified 61 other
	
1	Page 19
	businesses in the neighborhood that would work in
2	that building, from businesses right off of Main
3	Street to within a few blocks of Main Street
4	rehabbing old buildings.
5	MR. AUSPITZ: They're saying this
6	has been available for five years.
7	Where are the other people?
8	MR. SMITH: We understand there
9	have been some offers -- they have claimed that
10	they received no credible offers on the property
11	but have never offered up what offers they got.
12	MR. FELDMAN: Because we didn't
13	get any.
14	MR. SMITH: I know from a
15	conversation with David Richards of Richards Apex
16	that he made an offer on the property. And Raymond
17	Labov -
	
18	MR. AUSPITZ: What business is he
19	in?
20	MR. SMITH: Richards Apex, it's
21	an industrial company immediately behind this, this
22	building.
23	MR. FELDMAN: Is Mr. Richards
24	here?

Page 20
1		MR.	SMITH: I don't see him here.
2		MR. AUSPITZ:	It's hearsay.
3		MR.	FELDMAN:	Absolutely.
4		MR.	STATEN:	I'm a little
5	confused,	because when you found out they were
6	going to demo the building, you made a statement
7	that we would rather see the building stay, and if
9	you have to do some overbuild,	then that would be
	considered. But now you come back and say: Now
10	you're not going to demo, you turn around and say:
11	Now I want you to use the building as is.
12	MR. SMITH: Absolutely not. What
13	we're saying is the best reuse for this building is
14	as is. And that's -- that's our position -
	
15	MR. STATEN: You made the
16	statement about the overbuild, and if you had the
17	overbuild.	You made that statement.	
18			MR. SMITH: Yes.	
19				MR. FELDMAN:	at the
				Mr. Smith,	
20	Historical Commission,	did you not get up and say,
21	and it's in the notes,	that looking at this plan,
22	that this is about the best you can do, and that
23	with some changes, you believe this is something
24	you can support?

Page 21
1	MR.	SMITH:	No. That's not what
2	I said. What I said -		
3	MR.	FELDMAN:	I would direct the
4	Board to Exhibit-15, which is the notes of the
5	Historical Commission.			
6	MR. AUSPITZ:	How high is the
7	building behind this,	the red brick building behind
8	this?	
9	MR.	SMITH:	That's Venturi	Scott.
10	MR. AUSPITZ:	That's the	
11	gentleman you said made the offer?	
12	MR. SMITH:	No. That building	is
13	not visible in that picture.	We do have pictures
14	that would show it.	
15	MR. FELDMAN:	Mr. Chairman,	it's
16	absolutely in scale with what is in front of it
17	here on Rector Street,	and we have actually tried
18	to mimic the materials as much as possible here.
19	MR.	SMITH: We can hand up an
20	aerial photo that shows the surrounding buildings.
21	MS. EDEN: Mr. Feldman,	I'm	
22	looking at 15, and I'm not -- this is what I'm
23	finding. Kevin Smith of the Manayunk Neighborhood
24	Council stated that it would be premature to accept
					

Page 22
1	this design,	a better design should be demanded.
2	The Council contends that reuse is the best use of
3	the building.	He rejected the proposal, which
4	would require major changes to a historical
5	building and asked for a more stringent application
6	of the rules.
7	MR.	FELDMAN:	That was	submitted
8	at a prior hearing when they conceptually approved
9	it.	If you look,	Ms.	Eden -	
					
10	MS.	EDEN:	You said go to.
11	Exhibit-15. This is what I	found.
12	MR.	FELDMAN: There's two sets of
13	minutes right here.	
14	MS.	EDEN: Right here where?	
15	MR.	FELDMAN: Fourth page, 19,	it
16	says at the bottom:	The Historical Commission	
17	first conceptually approved this application.	And
18	then we came back with additional details, what you
19	see today, and then they approved it. So we made
20	modifications from the conceptual to what you see
21	today. And then that's when Mr. Smith made the	
22	comments that he made that are reflected in the	
23	minutes.	
24	And Mr. Gallery is here,	who	


Page 23
1	needs to leave very shortly for a meeting.	He's
2	been integral to this whole process and I would ask
3	Mr. Gallery -				
4	MS.	DEZZI:	Mr.	Gallery,	were you
5	at the Historic Commission?	
6	MR. GALLERY:	I attended every
7	meeting of the Architectural Committee of the
8	Historical Commission that was held on this project
9	over the entire 18 months.	John Gallery,	Executive
10	Director of the Preservation Alliance.	
11	Mr.	Feldman has already indicated
12	that this has gone on for 18 months, and it started
13	off with the demolition of the building.	I think
14	you all know that from the point of view of the
15	Preservation Alliance,	we try very hard to make
16	sure the buildings are preserved.	And this is an
17	interesting building.	Though it looks like a very
18	modest building, it's indicative of the industrial
19	heritage of Manayunk.	And we were very strongly
20	opposed, as was the community,	as Mr. Smith has
21	testified to its demolition.		
22	I always like to see buildings
23	reused. And some of you know my own professional
24	background, in addition to being a preservationist,
					

Page 24
1	an economic developer, I look very carefully
2	anytime a developer says: It's not economically
3	feasible to preserve a historic building. I'm very
4	suspicious of those statements.
5	In this case, I really feel that
6	the information that was presented early on to the
7	Historical Commission was quite clear that it
8	actually met the standards that are in the
9	Ordinance; that is, you have to demonstrate that
10	you've tried to sell it. You have to demonstrate
11	that you tried to lease it. You just can't say:
12	It's impossible.
13	And I was strongly convinced that
14	this building did not have the opportunity to be
15	preserved in its current form, and that's why we
16	were very interested when the developer decided to
17	take this approach. The developers will tell you I
18	have looked at this project with them many times.
19	I have told them what I have disliked about
20	previous designs, so has the Historical Commission.
21	These people have bent over backwards to try to
22	design the best project they could design that
23	keeps as much of this historic integrity as
24	possible.
	

Page 25
1	I would also like to point out	
2	this is on the canal. It's on the tow path. It	
3	will bring residential development into the area.	
4	It will really make contribution to making this	
5	part of Manayunk a really important public	
6	recreation area. I think a residential use here is
7	vastly superior to any industrial expansion of the
8	adjacent manufacturer or something of that use.	It
9	just has an opportunity to really make a strong	
10	contribution to the neighborhood, and I would	
11	really strongly endorse the applications that have
12	been made for the variances.	I think is an
13	important project to go ahead.	
14	I	I have a meeting apologize.	
15	with the Mayor or,	otherwise, I would stay for the
16	whole discussion.	
17	MR. AUSPITZ: We appreciate your
18	coming up,	as always.	
19	MR. FELDMAN:	Thank you,	Mr.
20	Gallery.				
21	MR. STATEN:	Counselor,	do we
22	have a copy of this?	We need him to look at the
23	statement on page	19.
24	MR. FELDMAN:	Yes.	

Page 26
1	MR.	STATEN:	Mr.	Smith,	can you
2	read that statement?				
3	Did you make that statement?
4	MR.	SMITH:	Yes.	What I would
5	like to say, and as part of my testimony,	is that
6	rendering that they have here and that you see
7	there was introduced at the Historical Commission
8	and was the first view of any type of the building
9	that I had ever seen.	We had never been given that
10	in advance.	
11	MR.	STATEN:	Did you pass up
12	something saying he gave you something saying this
13	is what it was going to be?
14	MR.	FELDMAN:	No.	Member Staten,
15	that was actually the demolition plan that was back
16	in 2000 -
	
17		MR.	STATEN: All	I'm trying to
18	clarify is that it's two different views you got?
19		MR.	SMITH:	That	is not	the
20	demolition plan.					
				
21		MR.	STATEN:	You said somebody
22	gave you this and said: This is what the building
23	is going to look like?	
			
24		MR.	SMITH:	David Waxman and Ron
		
Page 27
1	Barzilay showed us that picture at a meeting and
2	would not let us keep it.	That picture I got from
4	the Historical Commission records.
		MR.	SCHIRMER:	Have you seen this
5	one?			
			
6		MR.	SMITH: I saw that picture at
7	the Historical Commission hearing that we're
8	debating now.
9	MR. FELDMAN: And you saw it at
10	the Board of Building Standards when they filed the
11	appeal, which then unanimously denied the appeal by
12	the Board of Building Standards and it was thrown
13	out that day. And that's why the discussion -- why
14	we reached out. We said at the Historical
15	Commission: You said this looked good. He said:
16	Maybe a little changes here and there.
17	That's the discussion, why we
18	opened it up again, for discussion about some of
19	the materials, some things here and there. But if
20	they're talking about wholesale changes, what
21	really happens is we have got to go all the way
22	back to step one. We have got to go back to the
23	Historical Commission and start again,	and that's
24	what I suspect is really driving this,	is that --

Page 28
1	MR. AUSPITZ: What kind of
2	changes are you talking about?
3	MR. STATEN: What I'm hearing in
4	his statement, it says that he's accepting it in
5	concept only. It means not necessarily anymore
6	changes, but whatever the final plan is, for them
7	to look at it again, not -
8	MR. SMITH: What our position is
9	and what my position is, we had almost no
10	information to work on.
11	MR. AUSPITZ: Can I just say
12	something? You should have contacted them, or
13	something else, too. And you are also totally
14	remiss by saying you can't keep something. This
15	isn't a little baseball game, sandlot baseball.
16	You should respect the community group if you want
17	community groups to respect you back.
18	I know exactly where Mr. Smith is
19	coming from. But on the other hand, I think we're
20	at a point where we're all realizing that this kind
21	of thing is a use for this. You're not going to
22	get them to leave it just as it is, or somebody
23	would have bought this thing a long time ago.
24	During the height of the economic real estate boom,
		Page 29
1	nobody touched this piece, you follow me, except
2	for this group.		
3	MR. FELDMAN:		Retail, commercial,
4	nothing.		
5	MR. SMITH:	I	understand the
6	Board doesn't want to hear numbers, but if you list
7	a property at twice its value and no one buys it,
8	it's not a hardship. And I don't -,
9	MR. AUSPITZ:		But on the other
10,	hand, everybody has a right to value their own
11	property. If they can't sell it and they have to
12	sell it, then they will reevaluate until they can
13	sell it. So that's why it's a marketplace. If
14	somebody has the luxury of saying: I get this
15	price. And there's a sign hanging on Front Street,
16	right off of South, two point one million, no
17	contingencies and no offers.	The sign is getting a
18	little rusty. I bet if you walked in there and
19	said something, the guy would say: Well, let's sit
20	down and talk about that now because he's had that
21	sign up there when everybody was just throwing
22	buckets of money into real estate. That's not
23	going on now, especially with the banks, and so,
24	it's different.

Page 30
1		What we're trying to do is to
2	find a way -- the most important part of this whole
3	thing is the canal.	Whether they sell 21 units or
4	not,	that's the least of our worries.	Our worry is
5	to try to keep that feel when you're on the canal.
6	I'm looking at this.	If you're walking down here,
7	you're looking at the original mill building here.
8	I mean, granted, you can look up and see there's
9	going to be stuff up here.	But we're still keeping
10	the flavor of jogging and everything else on the
11	canal. It's an attempt.	If there's a way to
12	modify it or something	else, I'm happy to listen to
13	it.	So this isn't in	stone, but it's pretty much
14	so because it's gone through every board in the
15	City.
16		MR. SMITH:	I want to address a
17	couple of other points. The developer has also
18	mentioned that they offered to meet with us to
19	discuss cosmetic things to the building. I will
20	only point out they made the offer yesterday
21	afternoon and offered to meet with us for 45
22	minutes last night.	
23		REVEREND HALL: What cosmetic
24	changes are you referring to?	

Page 31
1	MR.	STATEN:	What cosmetic
2	changes would there be?		
3	What would you want?
4	MR.	SMITH:	Well, I think at this
5	point we're not sure that this building can be
6	cosmetically fixed by just changing the color of
7	the facade. But that was the offer they made to us
8	regarding community input into this building.
9		The first Historical Commission
10	where they received in-concept approval was for a
11	four story red brick mill-style building, and they
12	came back with a five-story design of a whole
13	different sort. And I notice they have also said
14	that this was 20 units.	I know on the application
15	it was 22 units.	I don't know if they changed
16	their design.	
17		MR.	FELDMAN:	We did.
18		MR.	STATEN:	The question I would
19	have: When you made that statement,	what concept
20	did they have, the five story or the four story?
21		MR.	SMITH:	The first statement
22	that -			
23		MR.	STATEN:	No. You. I'm
24	talking about you.			

Page 32
1	MR.	SMITH: This one was	this
3	building. MR. STATEN:	The one that you
4	said approved in concept only,	that was the five
5	story?
6	MS. EDEN: Mr. Feldman, I am
7	curious.
8	I mean, why did your client get
9	conceptual approval for a four story sort of
10	traditional red brick building then decide to
11	pursue a five story modern building?
12	MR. FELDMAN: The conceptual
13	approval from the Historical Commission' was not for
14	a specific design. It was an envelope. It was an
15	envelope, four stories. One of the commissioners,
16	Commissioner wilds -	
17	MS.	EDEN: Excuse me. I read the
18	minutes. It says: The current proposal differs
19	significantly from the proposal that the Commission
20	approved in concept.	The addition is now five, not
21	four stories tall. It is no longer styled like an
22	industrial building.	The exterior materials have
23	changed significantly from those shown in the photo
24	simulations submitted with the in-concept
				
Page 33
1	proposal.	The parking design has been		
2	significantly altered with a lot of details about
3	how parking is now in the historic building,	rather
4	than in the basement.	
5		Why did your client, after
6	getting the preliminary approval for the four story
7	traditional design with sub-level parking,	switch
8	to five stories, modern design, different materials
9	and different parking arrangements?
10		MR. WAXMAN: If I may, David
11	Waxman.	
12		In terms of the in-concept
13	approval,	the plan is right here that you see that
14	we went with, and it purely showed a volume. It
15	did not show material and the in-concept approval
16	was not -
17		MS. EDEN: Well, I just read you
18	the notes of the Historical Commission, so I don't
19	know why you want to argue with me. You want to,
20	like, hold Mr. Smith to them verbatim, we'll hold
21	you to them verbatim.
22		Okay?
23		MR. WAXMAN: Sure., And I can
24	give a good, valid reason.

Page 34
1		MS. EDEN: I'm asking why you
2	made the change; why you added the floor; why you
3	changed the parking arrangements;	and why you
4	changed the style and the materials of the
5	building?		
6		MR. WAXMAN: Issue number one on
7	the parking,	when we were there,	Commissioner
8	Rivera asked us why, in this plan here -- as you
9	can see, there's a garage entrance on Rector
10	Street. We studied, looking at a way to move the
11	parking penetration off of the old facade, studied
12	using a car lift or some other means so it's taken
13	off of there.
14		At the same time, Commissioner
15	Wilds, recognizing that that would be a burden on
16	us from a marketing standpoint due to car
17	elevators, as opposed to a ramp,	proposed the
18	building could be four or fiveish (sic), and he did
19	use the word fiveish, stories if we needed it to be
20	that way. We studied it and came up with a
21	proposal where there's two means of ingress and
22	egress for the parking.	
23		This entrance,	as you see here,
24	is a car lift by ThyssenKrupp, a major elevator
						
Page 35
1	company. It's a 60 second cycle to drive in and
3	take 15 cars down to the basement.	We then have an
	existing cut and entrance further down the private
4	street where we park the six additional cars.
5		The car elevator and the
6	marketing associated with it from the fact that
7	it's not proven in the City, we needed it to be
8	revenue neutral to make that change.	Commissioner
9	wilds recognized that and gave us the flexibility
10	for the fifth story.
11	MS. EDEN: And then the style and
12	materials changed?
13	MR. WAXMAN: We were challenged
14	there that -- you know, in the preservation
15	community, I'm sure you have heard this before,
16	there's Mickey Mouse architecture where you	
17	replicate what was there, and then there is --	the
18	layman needs to look at the old building and easily
19	recognize what is different.		
20		We were challenged, at the	
21	in-concept approval, to really go for something,
22	and we were told it should be modern and we don't
23	want it to just look like a brick box put on top.
24	And that's what brought us to this sort of more
		
Page 36
1	modern design. And the materials we tried to blend
2	the colors in with the brick that surrounds it.
3	MR. FELDMAN: What I would tell
4	you is that the Historical Commission did review
5	exactly what you see in front of you here today and
6	unanimously voted to support this application here
7	today, unanimously. And as you see, Mr. Gallery -
8	MS. EDEN: This is the one that's
9	already been the subject of a Building Standards
10	appeal, which is finished?
11	MR.	FELDMAN: No.	
12	MS.	EDEN: It's pending?	
13	MR.	FELDMAN:	No. We went to the
14	Board of Building Standards.	They voted 3-0.	They
15	denied Mr. Smith's appeal at the hearing, itself.
16	Mr. Smith has already now filed an appeal to the
17	Court of Common Pleas of that decision.
18	MS.	EDEN: So	it's done in front
19	of Building Standards	-	
20	MR.	FELDMAN:	Yes.
21	MS.	EDEN: --	but it's still
22	pending in court?		
23	MR.	FELDMAN:	Yes. So, I mean,
24	that's some of the flavor of what is going on here,

Page 37
1	the back and forth that's happened. But what you
2	see here was approved unanimously by the Historical
3	Commission.
4	MR. AUSPITZ: Mr. Smith, do you
5	want to put something else?
6	MR. SMITH: I have a couple more
7	points.
8	Just regarding any kind of
9	hardship, in June of 2005, the developer's
10	architect had testified that the building was
11	sound, secure and maintained at the Historical
12	Commission hearing. In February of 2006, Mr.
13	Feldman laments the deteriorating conditions of the
14	building.
15	So we have to ask: Are they
16	maintaining the building, and is it deteriorating
17	or not?
18	MS. EDEN: Mr. Smith, you have to
19	understand, though, that the criteria by which we
20	make decisions in front of the Zoning Board is very
21	different than the criteria that the Historical
22	Commission uses. So a lot of this history about
23	the marketing of the building or the maintenance of
24	the building is not really germane directly to the

Page 38
1	issues that we have in front of us today, which are
2	about the use of the building for residential and
3	some issues that relate to the layout of it on the
5	lot.  MR. SMITH: As I mentioned
6	before, we identified, and there's photographs of
7	the buildings and addresses and types of
8	businesses, of 61 business that could go into this
9	building without -
10	MR. FELDMAN: Did you ask them if
11	they could go in there?
12	What is that based on?
13	MR. SMITH: It's an obvious
14	demonstration that a building of that size and
15	style can be used within the neighborhood, and the
16	neighborhood has 61 or more uses compatible with
17	that building. It's a simple argument.
18	MR. FELDMAN: Across the street
19	there was a national retail credit tenant, Smith
20	and Hawkin, that pulled out of that location
21	because of lack of visibility on Main Street and
22	went to another location.
23	MR. SMITH: I have a comment
24	related to that and it was a part of our testimony

Page 39
1	to the Historical Commission.	Smith and Hawkin
2	opened up three other stores within ten miles of
3	this store and -
4	MS.	EDEN: You have to remember
5	that the building is zoned G-2.	I'm not even sure
6	that Smith and Hawkin could have opened up at this
7	location without a zoning variance.	These kind of
8	uses are only relevant if they would have been as
9	of right within the present zoning G-2 category.
10	MR.	SMITH: Many of the uses in
11	our 61 listed would go in there as of right; not
12	all of them would. It goes from glass blowing,
13	furniture manufacturing_	
14	MR.	AUSPITZ:	We just approved a
15	glass blower yesterday with an apartment above for
16	the artist, himself.	But that doesn't mean that we
17	have hundreds of people practicing that particular
18	art looking for a building. I can probably give
19	you a hundred uses.	The problem is,	for example,
20	there's no parking,	for all intents and purposes,
21	if you keep the building without breaking into it.
22	So a lot of businesses would be affected by that.
23	If you told somebody:	We want you to open a
24	business in Manayunk,	and you can't even park your

Page 40
1	own car, it's difficult, at best. This isn't a
2	debate. I want you to know the flavor of what
4	we're thinking about.	Counsel, is there anybody else?
5		MR. FELDMAN: If I may ask Mr
6	Smith a couple of questions.	
8	Mr. Smith,	did you provide the
	Zoning Board your address?		
9	MR. SMITH:	Yes.	293 Hermitage
10	Street, Philadelphia, 19127.		
11	MR. FELDMAN: I did driving
12	directions from Rector Street to get to your
13	property.	What I	found is it's 1.1 miles.
14			Do you believe that that's
15	correct?		
16			MR.	SMITH:	I will take your word
17	for it.				
18			MS.	EDEN:	He is the president of
19	the civic,	so -			
20			MR.	FELDMAN:		I understand.
21			MR.	SMITH:	I mean,	it's as
22	relevant as asking Mr.	Feldman where he lives.
23			MR.	FELDMAN:	Do you own any
24	property on that block, on the block of Rector

Page 41
1	Street?			
2		MR.	SMITH:	No.
3		MR.	FELDMAN:	Thank you.
4		MR.	SMITH:	I have one last
5	comment.	I know Councilman Nutter has supported
6	this project, and I only want to point out that his
7	support has been, from our perspective, unrelated
8	to the scope of the project and unconditional. He
9	supported the demolition. He supported four
10	stories. He supported five stories. At one point
11	they identified the developer as Switzenbaum and
12	Associates. And to the best of our knowledge, he's
13	not the developer.			
14		They have	represented the	
15	building as deteriorating,	when it's not. And they	
16	have gone so far -		
17	MR. STATEN:	When you say it's	
18	not, how do you come to that conclusion?	
19	MR_ SMITH: The testimony of the
20	developer's architect at the June Historical	
21	Commission meeting.		
22	MR. FELDMAN:	It's interesting	
23	that there are pictures on the Manayunk	
24	Neighborhood Council of the interior of this	

Page 42
1	building that we don't know how they got.
2	MR. SMITH: I can explain it.
3	There's a hole in the door and I stuck a camera in.
4	MR. FELDMAN: They're pretty deep
5	into the building. They took a hundred pictures of
6	the interior of this building that somehow, Mr.
7	Smith must have went -
8	MR. AUSPITZ: We're not going to
9	go there because Mr. Smith should have been invited
10.	in to see the building and we wouldn't be here
11	today. I'm coming from the other side. Putting up
12	these barriers is nice cocktail talk, but it
13	doesn't accomplish anything. It's important for
14	people to sit and knock these things down and
15	figure out what to do with them, rather than
16	dismiss anything.
17	The only reason I'm rushing you a
18	little bit because -
19	MR. SMITH: My final comment is
20	Councilman Nutter has gone so far as to say that
21	retail and reuse of this building would be
22	undesirable, and we find that absurd.
23	MR. AUSPITZ: It is what it is
24	right now.

Page 43
1	MR.	FELDMAN:	Can Councilman
2	Nutter's -		
3	MR.	AUSPITZ:	We want to hear
4	from the opposition.		
5	MR.	SCHIRMER:	I think Mr.
6	Feldman goes first, normally.	
7	MR.	STATEN:	We asked you.
8	MR.	AUSPITZ:	This is like Judge
9	Judy. We'll tell you exactly.	Don't worry about
10	what you learn. We want to hear why people are so
11	upset so we can deal with that and see what we're
12	talking about.		
13	MR.	SCHIRMER:	We have to bring
14	Kevin back up. These are the copies -- what you
15	have in front of you are the exhibits for Manayunk
16	Neighborhood Council,	including copies of the
17	paperwork -- we actually have a file copy for the
18	Zoning Board, which has the pictures in large
19	format. And I believe Kevin has already given much
20	of the testimony that was focused on the binders;
21	however, we do have the specific photographs
22	showing, one, aerials.		
23	MR.	AUSPITZ:	We have the aerial
24	on the screen.		
			
Page 44
1	MR.	SCHIRMER:	There was some
2	questions about Richards Apex.	The property is
3	currently zoned G-2 industrial.	The property is
5	currently owned by Raymond Labov. We have a copy
6	of the Deed from Mr. Labov. Unfortunately, Mr. Labov isn't
7	here -- he is? Now, the property is currently
8	G-2 industrial.  zoned
9	MR.	STATEN: You said that.
10	MR.	SCHIRMER:	The property which
11	is adjacent to it, which we discussed, is Richards
12	Apex factory is the large property, not the red
13	brick building, but behind Richards Apex -- behind
14	the property is Richards Apex, which is a currently
15	running industrial manufacturer.	This is a
16	Philadelphia Inquirer article.	
17	MR.	AUSPITZ:	As a manufacturer,
18	I just put this on the table in case the Judge
19	reads this, there's functional obsolescence, and we
20	don't even have to go through this. If you're
21	trying to tell me this is a good building for a
22	current manufacturing operation, which I do,
23	there's no loading zone, there's no parking,
24	there's no nothing, other than a great view. And

Page 45
1	the last thing you want to do is have people
2	looking at the view when you're supposed to be
3	making whatever you're making.	
4	Don't go there.	And if you're
5	going to claim this can still be used for
6	industrial, it really can't. We're talking about
7	retail or office, that's a possibility, but there's
8	just no way.
9	MR. SCHIRMER: I believe the
10	Historical Commission minutes do reflect there was
11	an offer, and Mr. Smith has had conversations -
12	MR.	STATEN: Who said that?
13	MS.	EDEN: Mr. Schirmer, the
14	problem is that's not really relevant to a zoning
15	hardship case.
16	MR. SCHIRMER:	The property owner
17	next door is looking to expand.	The property next
18	door is industrial and is currently used for
19	industrial.		
20	MR.	AUSPITZ:	Is the gentleman
21	from next door here?		
22	MR.	FELDMAN:	No.
23	MR.	AUSPITZ:	You sat and talked
24	to him personally, yourself, counsel?
	
				
Page 46
1	MR. SCHIRMER: I did not.	
2	MR. AUSPITZ: Do me a favor. I'm
3	telling from you a deli, we're talking hearsay.	So
4	I don't know what they do in Schwenksville, or	
5	Sellersville, or whatever we're talking about, but
6	cut it out already.			
7	We're asking, and for the last	
8	time, because you've got people here that are
9	credible witnesses that we have known for years, we
10	want to know what they think	is a problem, and then
11	we have to see if that's	curable or not. And then
12	we may be able to come up with something that we	
13	say: You know what, there is a problem.	That's	
14	why we wait to hear from the residents up there.	
15	MR. SCHIRMER: Then we have -	
16	MR. STATEN:	I have a Mr. Smith,	
17	question.
18	Were you the only one that went
19	to the historical meeting out of the association?
20	MR. SMITH: I'm the only one who
21	testified at the meeting. I believe Jane Glenn was
22	at the meeting.
23	MR.	STATEN: Did you get any	
24	renderings or pictures of the rendering that go	

Page 47
1	back to the group to show them what you said that
2	you approved in concept? That's the statement you
3	made.
4	MR. FELDMAN:	Our plans are on
5	their web site.	
6	MR. SMITH:	We never had any
7	pictures, or we never had any pictures of
8	renderings until the final Historical Commission
9	meeting wherein we got that.
10	MR. STATEN:	Did you have a
11	meeting after you saw the pictures among the
12	association to talk about the rendering?
13	MR. SMITH:	Yes. Yes. We have
14	had meetings.	
15	MR. FELDMAN:	I think the
16	Historical Commission approval was June or July o
17	this year. It's been a number of months.
18	MR. AUSPITZ:	Counsel, anybody
19	else?	
20	MR. SCHIRMER: I just wanted to
21	flip through, and have Kevin identify -- we
22	believe Kevin has already identified the pictures,
23	61 businesses. We don't need to flip through the
24	businesses.

Page 45
1		MR. AUSPITZ:	One more time with
2	61 businesses.	You're wasting our time, quite
3	frankly. I know you're enjoying this, but now
4	you're starting,	really, to get to a point where
5	you shouldn't	be. This is wrong. We want to hear
6	from credible people that we know from that
7	community in front of us to tell us what they're
8	thinking so we know what is going on.
9		MR.	SCHIRMER:	We call John
10	Hunter.			
11		MR.	HUNTER:	John Hunter,
12	H-U-N-T-E-R,	4308 Terrace Street, Philadelphia,	PA,
13	19128. Without trying your patience too much, I	
14	just want to address some of the points that have
15	already been raised.		
16		MR. AUSPITZ:	Can I ask you not
17	to be redundant?	In other words, if you're going
18	to say 61 businesses -	
19		MR.	HUNTER:	I promise I won't	
20	mention 61.				
21		MR.	AUSPITZ:	Thank you. I have
22	to stress that time is of the essence, only because
23	we have a lot of people here and we're trying, for
24	the eighth time,	to get to the kernel of the truth

Page 49
1	of what is happening so we can figure out what to
2	do.
3	Go ahead.
4	MR. HUNTER: I am on the Manayunk
5	neighborhood support. I'm a registered architect.
6	I work in the building adjacent to the Labov
7	property. I have worked there for 17 years. I
8	have lived in the area for 50 years, so I think I
9	have a relatively good knowledge of the area_
10	Some of the things I just want to
11	point out is, first of all, one of Mr. Feldman's
12	points where he characterized the site as not very
13	close to Main Street, it's within less than 100
14	feet of Main Street. It's highly visible. This is
15	taken as if you were standing on Main Street. So I
16	think we'd like to rectify that.
17	The next thing is -- if I could
18	just address the 18 month period as an architect,
19	advising a client on a property in the historic
20	district, and it's on the National Historic
21	Register of buildings, to pursue demolition and
22	then to pursue appeal of the denial for that
23	demolition will automatically extend the design
24	period. To then change architects will also do

Page 50
1	that. That was not at the suggestion of the
2	neighborhood council. So that -
3	MR. FELDMAN: Change architects
4	or the overbuild concept?
5		MR. HUNTER: I'm sorry. I never
6	mentioned the overbuild concept.
7		MR. FELDMAN: No. You said that
8	it wasn't the idea of the Manayunk Neighborhood
9	Council for overbuild.
10		KS. EDEN: Mr. Feldman, why do
11	you want to pursue this?	
12		Once the clients failed to
13	achieve the granting of a demolition permit,
14	they're either going to walk away from the project
15	or they're going to for an overbuild concept. This
16	is not rocket science. I mean,	that's just the way
17	of the world.	It isn't for the	neighborhood. It's
18	for developer.	That's the only choice they have at
19	that point.	
20		MR. FELDMAN: They also had a	
21	choice to move on to other projects, but it really
22	intrigued them,	the idea. And the reason why they
23	went with another architectural firm is because
24	they -- someone else said: We can actually do some
					
Page 51
1	different things here to make this possible.
3		MR.	STATEN:	Anything else?
		MR.	HUNTER:	One more point about
4	the 18 month.			
5		Could I also point out, as was
6	mentioned before,	there have been three versions of
7	the scheme that was being shown. One was three
8	stories above the existing two stories. The next
9	one was three stories above the existing building.
10		MR.	AUSPITZ:	We're looking at .
11	your organization's web site.	We're seeing what
12	they saw, and you have this.	What you're seeing
13	here you have on the web site,	too.
14		MR.	HUNTER:	Right. Also, the
15	last scheme, the later scheme,	therefore, goes up
16	yet another story.			
17		MR.	FELDMAN:	With all the
18	interior pictures.			
19		MR.	AUSPITZ:	That doesn't make
20	it bad.			
21		MR.	STATEN:	We're listening.
22		MR.	HUNTER:	The final scheme
23	also increases the footprint of the building.	It
24	extends out to the north to the greatest extent of
	Page 52
1	the side of the sidewalk. So the final scheme
2	which you're looking at is almost 30 feet higher
3	than the adjacent building, which is the highest
4	building in the area. So it goes up from three
5	stories to four stories to five stories. The
6	footprint increases. At each time the design
7	changed. As Ms. Eden has already pointed out, the
8	design changed from no reason from the neighborhood
9	council. So I just wanted to address those.
10	Could I also address the
11	parking? One of these -- just to show you some
12	more photographs, which are all included in the
13	books, across from Venus Island there is existing
14	parking. Across from this building is Bourbon Blue
15	Restaurant. When Bourbon Blue came before you to
16	have the zoning changed to a restaurant, it was
17	approved that the parking on Venus Island would be
18	an acceptable option for customers. So there is
19	parking very close by to this site. It's not on
20	the site. It's immediately adjacent.
21	MR. AUSPITZ: Is that that big
22	parcel that was behind what was Harry's?
23	MS. BRUMBELOW: This is Venus
24	Island over here. So they would have to cross the
	
Page 53
1	bridge here or the bridge here
2	MR. AUSPITZ: The project over
3	there with the two bridges?
4	The island hasn't been built on
5	yet?
6	MR. FELDMAN: No. To get to that
7	parking -- we actually are interested in possibly
8	utilizing that parking, too, just in case, you've
9	got to come down to Cotton Street and you've got to
10	go over a bridge here. That's to walk. And I
11	think to drive, you've got to come over here.
12	MR. HUNTER: Could you now look
13	at the last pieces in your information that's been
14	given to you, which shows the proposals for the
15	Water Department for a retention storage tank on
16	that site and the improved parking and potential of
17	the bridge across the canal at Rector Street?
18	MR. FELDMAN: We have Bob
19	Swarbrick here from Manayunk Development
20	Corporation.
21	MR. STATEN: We're on this side
22	right now.
23	MR. HUNTER: So there are plans,
24	and in addition to those plans, there is also your

Page 54
1	recreation center is proposing to put a performing
2	center on that Venus Island, which would be
3	accessed from the bridge. As has already been
4	brought up before, there are long-term plans to
5	increase the value of the canal and the tow path.
6	One of the objections that was
7	immediate when the developers first addressed the
8	neighborhood council was not only demolition, but
9	how much the building on the tow path would be
10	affected, because what inevitably was going to be
11	proposed to the existing building is-parking, dead
12	parking, no activity, nothing that would improve
13	the potential for using that canal in the future.
14	I just wanted to produce those.
15	Could I just address Mr.
16	Gallery's points?	As I just mentioned, three of
17	the buildings adjacent to each other are on the
18	National Historic Register, the building that I
19	work in, Labov's building and Bourbon Blue. If you
20	look at this photograph, which is taken from Main
21	Street, you can see the two buildings. They were
22	original buildings, late 19th century. They're
23	almost a mirror image of each other. They were
24	both gate buildings to the bridge that went across

Page 55
1	the mill.	
2		If you now look at these two
3	buildings,	this building is Labov's. This building
4	is Bourbon Blue. This building is owned by Youron
5	Properties, who is not known as a stupid developer
6	who doesn't do good development. This is a
7	restaurant.	It's active. It's used. It's not
8	been changed.	It's been pretty well preserved, and
9	it's been restored.	It was restored pretty much in
10	the. same period that this building was put for
11	sale.			
12		MR.	FELDMAN:	The parking was
13	there.			
14		MR.	HUNTER:	Before, not for many
15	years.	Before that,	it was a rug store. The
16	photograph that Mr. Feldman was talking about is
17	this one. The photograph on the right is the one
18	he's referring to was taken through the window, and
19	you can see the roof structure of the building.
20	The building is very robust.	It's got thick walls,
21	huge beams, probably huge supports. Before it was
22	supporting plumbing supplies,	cast iron furnaces,
23	boilers.	
24		The building on the left is
			
Page 56
1	Bourbon Blue. And you can see that potentially
2	it's a very attractive space.	It could be	
3	restored. It could be retained. Because it's
4	strong, it could be for a multiple of uses that
5	would add life to the canal.	Housing, particularly
6	condominiums, don't add life at ground level.	
7	There's parking at ground level. They're	
8	isolated. They have balconies,	but because they're
9	near the Schuylkill River, they won't provide any
10	animation to the canal. So I can really imagine_
11	different reuse of this building would.	
12	And the reason that we're not
13	citing the restaurant,	there could be a number of
14	different uses. It's right next to Main Street.
15	In the future there will be this development across
16	from Venus Island. In the future, the canal will
17	be dredged and there will be an improvement,	and
18	therefore, this building has got great potential as
19	it stands. I think that's enough.
20	MR.	AUSPITZ:	Thank you.
21	MR.	SCHIRMER:	Our next brief
22	witness is John Cluver, the historical architect.
23	MR. CLUVER:	John Cluver, Voith
24	and Mactavish Architects, 1616 walnut Street. Just
	Page 57
1	a couple issues. One, this building is on the
2	national register, as such is eligible for federal
3	rehabilitation tax credits, but would not be
4	eligible, as such, with this kind of development,
5	in my opinion. If anything like that had been
6	pursued as part of this consideration for the
7	project, other uses, such as the restaurant, might
8	be more amenable to that kind of use and more
9	consistent with the historic character of the
10	building.
11	Second, the development is five
12	stories above this building. It's quite a large
13	growth on top of a relatively small warehouse, plus
14	it requires parking to be at its lowest level.
15	This creates a couple of issues. One is the
16	looming mass above the existing building, which
17	really does detract from the historic character.
18	It also requires ventilation
19	louvers to go to the windows along the canal tow
20	path. So we're talking about how this will improve
21	the tow path, but in reality, the area you will
22	have along there is enclosed parking with louvers.
23	And I don't know if any sound issues have been
24	considered or noise issues or exhaust issues.

Page 58
1	Likewise, with this mechanical
2	lift system, if there had been any traffic studies
3	or other things considered about the total load and
4	reload time to allow cars to park in this space and
5	to get in and out of that alley so they don't block
6	the adjacent properties.
7	MR. AUSPITZ: Thank you.
8	MR. SCHIRMER: And Jane Glenn,
9	Manayunk Neighborhood Council.
10	MS. GLENN: Jane Glenn, 293
11	Hermitage Street, Philadelphia. I just want to say
12	I was on the Advisory Committee for the tow path
13	improvements, for the Venus Island Rec Center
14	improvements, and now also for East Falls Manayunk
15	riverfront access improvement.
16	And that Rector Street, with the
17	pedestrian bridge going to the new rec center will
18	be a gateway to the river, to the tow path, to the
19	rec center, and this will pretty much block that
20	view, which we're trying to open it, bring people
21	down to the river and have it be a vibrant
22	extension of Main Street, and this really sets as a
23	blockade to that area.
24	MR. AUSPITZ: Thank you.

Page 59
1		Talk to me for one second about
2	the vents.	
3		Somebody going on the tow path,
4	what will they see?	
5		MR.	FELDMAN: Jonathan Broh,
6	project architect.		
7		MR.	BROH: Jonthan Broh, JK
8	Roller Architects,	1128 Walnut Street, Suite 200.
9		Along the ground floor, along the
10	canal path, the windows would be maintained-instead
11	of glass. There would be a mesh or some-type of
12	screen, as stated before, for ventilation. There
13	will be a pedestrian door roughly in the center of
14	the facade, which will allow bicycle access for
15	people who live within the units.
16		The floor above it,	as part of
17	the historical building, these are actually
18	apartment units, themselves, so there would be
19	light and activity in this upper floor here,	and
20	there would be balconies accessing one balcony per
21	unit.
22		MS.	EDEN: So the level that's
23	level with the path is passively-ventilated	
24	garage?	

Page 60
1	MR.	BROH: Correct.
2	MR.	FELDMAN: With the landscape
3	screening that we have shown here.
4	MS.	EDEN: Which is shown where?
5	MR.	FELDMAN: Which is shown
6	here, right along. It's on the rendering.
7	MS. EDEN: That's not a
8	rendering. I mean, that's not anything with any
9	kind of specifications.	
10	MR.	FELDMAN:	We can provide
11	that.		
12	MS.	EDEN: We don't know how wide
13	it is, how tall it is.	
14	MR.	FELDMAN:	We can provide the
15	Board that.		
16	MR.	AUSPITZ:	Also, the windows
17	that are original on the warehouse,	are you going
18	to change them and put balconies	in?
19	What are you doing?	
20	Are you putting sliding doors,	or
21	what. is going to be there?			
22	MR. BROH: Existing		there are	
23	double doors. We maintain the door type, as is	
24	currently used, and we just probably put slight	

Page 61
1	small Juliet balcony. Right now they're showing
2	projected, but we could bring them in, if that was
3	objectionable.
4	MR. FELDMAN: But there are the
5	double that's there already.
6	MR. AUSPITZ: They're wooden?
7	MR. BROH: I believe so.
8	MR. AUSPITZ: Well, don't
9	believe.
10	You follow me?
11	MR. BROH: Yes.
12	MR. AUSPITZ: A lot of this
13	hinges on that feel on that tow path, and it's
14	critical.
15	MR. FELDMAN: Mr. Chairman, if
16	you go through the minutes, there's a lot of time
17	spent on this issue. We were trying to play with
18	-- we need to provide some parking here, but at
19	the same time, we're trying to make this as
20	attractive as possible. That's why we have kept
21	this entire building here. We have the
22	landscaping. We have the connection there.
23	These are going to be the
24	residents that are going to support this retail up

Page 62
1	and down Main Street and really make sure this
2	building survives.
3	MR. AUSPITZ:	Let me tell you
4	something. Survive in front of us is your first
5	goal. And I'm getting a vibe.	This is why I
6	always say, counsel, that the people here,	I know
7	the people and we like to hear something. We're
8	messing a little bit too far with the tow path, are
9	you going to hurt the feel,	and we have to see that
10	get straightened out a little bit.	I'm not saying
11	not have a building surround it, but you're going
12	too far.
13	It has to	-- you don't want to
14	kill the warehouse feel of the tow path.	That's
15	what it was. So I think that's something that has
16	to be visited. You're not going to do mesh windows
17	because the warehouse never had mesh windows. You
18	have to figure out some kind of ventilation
19	somehow.
20	MR. BROH: We can do an active
21	ventilation system.	
22	MR.	AUSPITZ: But it would have
23	to go up to the roof or something else.
24	MR. BROH: I understand, of

Page 63
1	course.
2	MS. EDEN: I have another
3	question about the rendering.
4	In comparing it to the
5	architectural drawing, A-31, and I see some sort of
6	handicap ramp, or emergency exit system, or
7	something that I don't see is shown here on the
8	canal path elevation, but I don't see it in that
9	rendering.
10	MR. BROH: It's obscured by the
11	plantings in the rendering.
12	MR. AUSPITZ: Can you tilt that
13	forward just a little bit?
14	MS. EDEN: It's a third of the
15	building.
16	MR. AUSPITZ: Why doesn't he send
17	us some real renderings of what that tow path is
18	going to look like? You're going to have an
19	elevator anyway. Do that through your lobby or
20	something else on the other side.
21	MR. FELDMAN: That was for the
22	pedestrian and bicycle access in and out of the
23	building. That was part of the interaction.
24	MR. AUSPITZ: Just picture the
		
Page 64
1	little log cabin out in Valley Forge.	You're not
2	going to put jalist	(phonetic) windows on it.	This
3	is what I'm afraid you're doing. We're willing to
4	talk to preserve the building to do something above
5	the building.	We're not saying that's a bad idea
6	at all.	
7		Also,	I want to talk to keep it
8	more modern,	only to have it recede into the sky
9	more than putting solid brick on the front over
10	there, unless -- but definitely, you cannot touch
11	that bottom warehouse at all in any way, shape or
12	form. You can put the parking on the other side,
13	but nothing on the tow path.
14	MR. FELDMAN: I have got one of
15	the best architectural firms in the City.	You're
16	hearing -	
17	MR. BROH: All the comments with
18	regards to the tow path and the building, I think
19	we can accommodate. The only one issue, probably
20	one, is some kind of pedestrian access directly to
21	the tow path.	But if that could not be	
22	accommodated		
23		MR. AUSPITZ: Well, there must
24	have been a door somewhere on that side, right?
	
Page 65
1	MR. BROH: There is. I mean,
2	we'd still have to have some kind of stairs. We
3	could get rid of the ramp but there would be some
4	stair requirement.
5	MR. AUSPITZ: Where was the
6	original door?
7	MR. BROH: This door right here
8	where we're showing the landing, where the stair
9	lands, is the existing door that we would try to
10	maintain for the pedestrian access. To the extent
11	we can access the tow path without a large ramp or
12	stairs or whatever, that's what we'd like to
13	accommodate. And we can work with whomever to
14	discuss the materials of the ramp.
15	MR. AUSPITZ: We also want to see
16	the window treatments of what you're going to do
17	exactly.
18	MR. BROH: Understood.
19	MS. EDEN: What are you showing
20	on the rendering below the balcony?
21	MR. BROH: That's just a shadow
22	or something.
23	MR. FELDMAN: There's no change;
24	correct?

Page 66
1	MR.	BROH: Right. This drawing
2	here, 83.2, is the architectural intent. So	
3	there's slight differences from the rendering to
4	the elevation.			
5	MS.	EDEN:	How far do those	
6	balconies project out?
7	MR. BROH: Currently, they	
8	project three feet. But again, we can remove them
9	completely.
10	MR. AUSPITZ:	You're talking	
11	about the ones on the -		
12	MS. EDEN:	On the original.	The
13	balconies on the proposed new construction do not
14	project out from over that cornice, do they?
15	MR.	BROH:	Slightly.	They do
16	project out slightly.			
17	MS.	EDEN:	How far?	
18	MR.	BROH:	About 18 inches.
19	MS.	EDEN:	Why?
20	MR.	AUSPITZ: Let me tell you
21	something, that's not slightly. Pull it back.
22	We need a little sensitivity
23	training. And the rest of the guys over there that
24	are all over there roaming around, you're close

Page 67
1	here. Nobody's throwing you out of the room, and
2	we're going to build here. There's no question
3	we're going to build something here.	But this has
4	to be really refined.	
5	If you want to get input from
6	them, that's fine.  And yes, we recognize the firm
7	obviously. So do it on your own. But this is
8	lacking sensitivity and that's what's causing the
9	situation. And we don't do overhangs. If you want
10	to go to 11th, and Washington and look what Grasso
11	did there to us, that will never happen again.
12		MS. EDEN: That's my question.
13		Is there any other part of this
14	overbuild that projects?			
15		MR.	BROH:	There	is not	and there
16	won't be.					
17		MR.	AUSPITZ: It has to pull
18	back. It really has to. So send us the renderings
19	and let us look at that. I suggest, and we can do
20	this quickly, because we're ready.	We're not going
21	to waste time with this.	Just look at it that you
22	cannot touch the original building at all on the
23	river side. You can't come over in any way, shape
24	or form. The idea is to make that whole top piece
				
Page 68
1	disappear, not stand out.		
2		MR. STATEN:	On the double doors,
3	is there right now any gate or something?
4	MR. BROH: Right now there's
6	not. I didn't look at it close enough to tell
	historically whether or not there was.	We can
7	research that and find out.	
8		MR. STATEN:	I want gates right
9	in front.		
10.		MR. AUSPITZ:	Send us that and
11	when we'll go from there.	
12		Planning Commission?
13		MS. BRUMBELOW:	Mr. Chairman and
14	members of the Board -	
15		MR. AUSPITZ:	Hold it just one
16	second.		
17		Does anybody else want to say
18	something?	
19		MS.	GRIFFIN:	My name is Joy L.
20	Griffin.	My address is 105 Roxborough Avenue,
21	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19127, and I am a
22	neighbor within 500 feet of 3 Rector Street.
23		The reason for the
24	dissatisfaction,	and this -- I'm considered the low

Page 69
1	man on the totem pole, because everything is
2	towards development, but there's no real focus on
3	what is happening in the neighborhood to the
4	residents of the neighborhood.
5	I live a very short walk away
6	from 3 Rector Street. To have more apartments put
7	on Rector Street in the configuration that it is is
8	going to be a hardship on the neighborhood.
9	MR. AUSPITZ:	Can I tell you
10	something?	
11	MS. GRIFFIN:	Yes.
12	MR. AUSPITZ:	I'm incredibly
13	older than you are. We had the same conversation
14	about you guys coming in, and the generation before
15	you in Manayunk. The yunkers (sic) -- do you
16	follow me? Without development -- do you follow
17	me?
18	So you're there, enjoy it, but
19	you have to always have development.
20	MS. GRIFFIN: That's the problem,
21	sir, because we are not able to enjoy it because
22	our concerns are not taken into consideration.
23	They were developed right over top	of. The same
24	difference with this situation.	They're talking

Page 70
1	about exhaust. They're talking about fans.	These
2	things run day and night.
3	How are you going to sleep?
4	We're in old houses.	We don't have central air.
5	They have central air.	So our windows are open.
6	We have to listen to this. I mean, there is -- I
7	mean, there should be just a tad more sensitivity
8	to the residents is all I'm trying to say.
9		MR.	AUSPITZ:	Okay. Thank you.
10		MS.	GRIFFIN:	The other point is
11	it wasn't --	I didn't have a clear understanding
12	that the Labov building was open and available for
13	what it is.	I, myself, have started a nonprofit
14	organization.	And	I, myself, put in a proposal for
15	the Labov building.	It is something that would be
16	for the community,	a type of a community center.
17	And it would be able to keep the building intact.
18	Now, I know that this discussion has gone on a long
19	way. And it seems like we're with the horse and
20	the buggy, but that's the problem.	We're not kept
21	in the loop.	Everything is done -	
22		MR. AUSPITZ:	Did you put an
23	offer to buy this building?	
24	MS. GRIFFIN:	Yes,	I did.

Page 71
1	MR.	FELDMAN:	When was	that?
2	MS.	GRIFFIN:	You got the	
3	proposal.				
4	MR.	FELDMAN:	No,	I didn't.	-- he has
5	MS.	GRIFFIN:	Mr.	Labov	
6	the proposal.	I put in a proposal,	not a dime less
7	of his asking price.	So I'm just -- I'm stunned
8	because the neighborhood people never get a chance
9	to do anything and to preserve some of our
10	quaintness.
11	Everything is being developed,
12	overdeveloped, and it's just squeezing Manayunk
13	out. That's what you come to Manayunk for. That's
14	why they want to build there. It's a safe, cozy,
15	little neighborhood. But we're progressing at a
16	point where we're squeezing that part of Manayunk
17	out.
18	Now, it's also been stated that
19	there's going to be significant development on
20	Venus Island. There will be a bridge across from
21	Rector Street.
22	How come we cannot use that
23	building as a part of the historical part of
24	Manayunk, which is what people are coming there

Page 72
1	for? It does haven't to be.			
2		MR. AUSPITZ:	I have to be very
3	careful. You offered them the full asking
5	price for this property?	
6		MS.	GRIFFIN:	Yes,	I did.	Yes,
7	did.					
8		MR.	AUSPITZ:	You might want to
9	address that on the record.	
10		MR.	FELDMAN:	Mr. Chairman,	we
11	have the attorney for the property owner here.
12		MR. CANUSO:	Vito Canuso, 200
13	South Broad Street,	attorney for the Labov family
14	for in excess of 25 years.			
15		The proposal she's referring to
16	consisted of -- the source of	funding would be a
17	list of various foundations and contributions from
18	various sources, which was not a realistic source
19	of money that we could address in a relative period
20	of time. We saw no applications to any of the
21	foundations for which they sought funding.	
22		We saw no realistic time span as
23	to how long that would take to get that type of
24	funding --

Page 73
1	MS.	GRIFFIN:	That's not true.
2	It's in my proposal letter. I said that the
3	funding -- the proposal for the securing of the
4	funding would be within 12 months, one year.
5	MR.	STATEN: Did you ask somebody
6	to hold the building for a year before they could
7	sell?
8	MS.	GRIFFIN:	No. What I stated
9	is if it was acceptable, I would initiate the
10	process of beginning to secure the funding, and the
11	funding plan was to secure all of the funding
12	within one year.
13	MR.	AUSPITZ:	Thank you.
14	MS.	GRIFFIN:	Thank you.
15	MR. AUSPITZ:	Do you have anybody
16	else you want to put on quickly,	because it's now
17	quarter to four?	
18	MR.	FELDMAN:	Bob Swarbrick from
19	Manayunk Development Corporation, who is here to
20	talk about how this is consistent with what
21	Manayunk Development Corporation envisioned for the
22	tow path for Manayunk.
23	Bob, do you want to just
24	briefly --
	
Page 74
1	MR. SWARBRICK: Good afternoon,
2	Chairman. Manayunk Development Corporation, as you
3	were told, voted unanimously, through their Board
4	of Directors Executive Committee. It's something
5	we want to see happen in Manayunk. We'd like to
6	see it happen more. We'd like to have a
7	residential base in addition to the residential
8	base we have now.
9	I have one more comment, and that
10	is the issue of the bridge. I'd like to address
11	one more issue; that is the issue of the bridge.
12	There is no bridge planned for Rector Street.
13	There was a proposal made by Manayunk Development
14	Corporation to the City of Philadelphia through the
15	water company to put a bridge there to make this
16	building a valuable resource to the community and
17	we were denied. CRS, the railroad, will not permit
18	a bridge there in the near future or the long-term
19	future, so that will not happen, not in my
20	lifetime.
21	If there's any questions you have
22	of our organization; we thank you very much for
23	your time.
24	MR. AUSPITZ: Thank you, sir.
	
Page 75
1	MS. CHAPMAN: Just very briefly,
2	I will enter an appearance on the record in support
3	of this application and the zoning variance. My
4	name is Julia Chapman. I'm the Chief of Staff for
5	the Fourth Council District. The property is
6	within the boundaries of the Fourth Council
7	District.
8	This has been a very complicated
9	project to try to balance a bunch of competing
10	interests between the residential community, the
11	needs and desires of the Historic Commission, and
12	to try to reuse a long-term vacant building that,
13	from my knowledge, has been vacant since about late
14	1999.
15	It's zoned industrial. As the
16	Board knows, industry is not going to come back to
17	that part of Manayunk. We are seeing a lot of
18	residential conversion. And what I wanted to
19	clarify is the reason that our office and the
20	Councilman, at the time, had supported residential
21	over other uses is it's known residential creates
22	the least amount of trip generation. This is right
23	off of Main Street. It is a challenge to get down
24	Rector Street. It dead ends right there at the

Page 76
1	canal and tow path. -So I think that this kind of
2	use is going to have the least amount of impact on
3	Main Street, other than a restaurant or a
4	retail-type establishment.
5	I also would note I drive down
6	Main Street almost every night on my way home. The
7	retail is not thriving right now. It is
8	challenged, and we're seeing a lot of retail
9	closing, and we're seeing restaurants with liquor
10	licenses come in. And that's been a renewed battle
11	that we have been-having with the neighborhood
12	council and voting those kind of changes and
13	conversions.
14	So I think this is the best reuse
15	for this building at this location.
16	MR. FELDMAN: Mr. Chairman, if I
17	may, in conclusion, we believe we satisfy the
18	requirements of 14-1802. We have shown that
19	there's a hardship. We've shown that this has
20	minimal impact on the community. In fact, it's a
21	benefit that we're saving this building, keeping
22	the historic legacy of this building alive, and
23	it's the minimum variance that continues to keep
24	this building there, telling the story of
		
Page 77
1	Manayunk.	
2	And with that,	I would ask that
3	all the exhibits that we passed up, 1 through 17,
4	and the letter of the Fourth District be
5	incorporated into the record.
6	MR. AUSPITZ:	We're expecting
7	from you to see -- sir?	
8	MR. SCHIRMER:	In closing, we
9	feel the building doesn't have a real hardship. It
10	could be reused as is. It could be made back to
11	what it was, and just to remember to submit the
12	full binder with the pictures in for the record.
13	MR.	AUSPITZ: Planning
14	Commission?	
15	MS.	BRUMBELOW:	Mr.	Chairman and
16	members of the Board,	this property is indicated
17	for industrial use on the comprehensive plan. The
18	applicant has worked diligently with the Planning
19	Commission in order to develop the plan.
20	Accordingly, we support the granting of the
21	variance.	
22	MR.	AUSPITZ: Thank you.
23	MR.	FELDMAN: Thank you.
24	MR.	SCHIRMER: Thank you.

Page 78
2		
3		
4		
5		
6		
7		
8		
9		(Whereupon, the hearing was
10	concluded.)	
11		
12		
13		
14		
15		--
16		
17		
18		
19		
20		
21		
22		
23		
24		

Page 79
1	C E R T I F I C A T E
2	
3	STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
4	COUNTY OF BUCKS
5	
6	I, SUSAN L. SINGLAR, a Court
7	Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
8	Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing
9	transcript of the Zoning Board of Adjustment
10	hearing for 3 Rector Street, Philadelphia,
11	Pennsylvania, taken on Wednesday, October 4, 2006
12	is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge,
13	skill and ability.
14	
15	
16	
17	SUSAN L. SINGLAR
18	
19	(The foregoing certification of
20	this transcript does not apply to any reproduction
21	of the same by any means, unless under the direct
22	control and/or supervision of the certifying
23	reporter.)
24