would definitely be less than 1,400 square feet. Again, he seemed so nice. But that very afternoon,
that same afternoon, he clear-cut the entire lot. This lot, I believe, exceeds 2,000 square feet.
His earth disturbance in clearing that lot exceeded 1,800 square feet, and there were
heritage trees on this lot. It seemed painfully clear to me that day that I had been played.
It seemed painfully clear to me that day that I had been played.
Not long after this took place, as you all know, a portion of our neighbor's lot, or their yard, slid into the construction site.
During this time period, a multitude of 311 complaints were called in out of concern for the reckless earth disturbance and removal.
I'm with you.
I'm with you.
I think so, Ms. Washburn, here's what I want you to do. Concentrate on what you did and not what you heard about 311. So just what you did and what you saw. Okay.
There was jackhammering. I live at the top of a 60-foot, very old retaining wall that is to the east of this particular construction site. And there was jackhammering at the base of this 60-foot retaining wall.
At the same time, I wonder, is the stamp that this structural engineer put on this property, was he the same structural engineer that was in charge of this at the time that our neighbor's lot or yard slid into the construction site?
Right. So that's one concern. I do not feel reassured by the stamp of approval from the structural engineer. And in addition to the above concerns, with a note to the height limit and the excess of the height limit.
um i'm gonna object mr chair so so so so why don't we do this we have had testimony
about the height limit you can tell me you object to it but i don't and that's it is that okay
i i object to the height limit i'd also like to make one quick comment with respect
to um whether or not the property is detached or attached it's my understanding that to be a
detached structure there must be five feet
so we've had testimony about that
you can tell me you disagree with it but I don't want you to get into feet
if you disagree with it tell me you disagree with it and I think that's enough is that okay
I disagree and it is okay
I would just yes I'll surrender my time
thank you no no no we appreciate your call and we appreciate your input
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
John Hunter has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Hunter, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. Good afternoon. John Hunter, H-U-N-T-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Hunter, I know you're from the Maniang neighborhood group.
I would appreciate your testimony to be limited to things that we haven't heard.
We've heard from a couple of different people, but we'd prefer you to concentrate on what we haven't heard.
Sure. I come at this and to give testimony from a different perspective from Mr. Natchez and Mr. Reuter,
because I've been involved in the discussions about this project, particularly with the Planning Commission,
since December of 2022, when we were first aware that there was a zoning permit that had been
issued by right during the summer of 2022. And the basis of that permit by right, which means
nobody knew about it, and as Ms. Washburn just said, there was no notice posted on the site when
the zoning permit was issued, and there should have been, was the first knowledge was when the
site was clear cut um in december of 2022 and i would point out for mr notcherson i'm sure it's
familiar with it and also the rest of the board that the steep slope requirement on 14704 to b
says that the site clearing cannot take place um under the steep slopes and by doing so for the
whole site they exceeded the 1400s well i'm going to object we there's no testimony that we exceeded
the whole site so there's the photograph in our package can we which i took mr hunter you you i
guess what i want you to concentrate on it you know you if you're against this project please
tell us that and i we do have your letter but i don't want you going back and we're going to start
argument over number i mean we've done enough that so please go on and tell me what else you
want to know can i just point out that it's the argument has been presented by
Can I just point out that it's the argument has been presented by two people who are not, you know, around at the time of the of the work taking place.
And I would say this, I would say this. They're both attorneys. They represent clients.
And, you know, I think Mr. Reuter testified to about the L&I issue and Alan's representing his client.
So I don't we don't need to get into they don't know and things like that.
I mean, they're lawyers, and they did everything they could to know what they do and to come up with their own conclusions.
So why don't you consider, go on.
Well, could I just refer you, if you're going to look at it, to the diagrams that we submitted for the disturbance, which shows the site plan from the architect,
which doesn't take into account in their calculations the 300 square feet of disturbance
that has to be done from the back of the carway to the front of the lot.
So, Mr. Chair, what I'm hearing from Mr. Hunter is argument for the community having an appeal against L&I,
which they have not filed anything.
These are interpretations of the code, which the planning, which Ellen and I.
Alan, let's concentrate.
Mr. Hunter, we hear you.
What else do you have to present?
You hear me about what?
Sorry, you're talking to me a little more.
You hear me about what I've just said so far.
You just talked about both of them and what 300 and some feed, and I said I heard you about that, but could you please continue on?
All right.
So if further piece of evidence that's already been provided, which I question, which is the letter from the structural engineer about the amount of disturbance, if you look at the ZBA package submitted by the attorney, you'll see four diagrams of the disturbance, and they're all different.
There are two from the architects in the architect's drawings. There's one in a letter, which I've just referred to, stated by the structural engineer. And there's the last one, which is the earth moving plan by Aqua Economics.
And the one by the structural engineer, which people seem to take as being the correct one, only refers to the disturbance on the west side of the proposed house, which is where the collapse was.
But the diagrams provided by the architect also show the disturbance on the east side of the house, which has not been taken into account for the calculation.
and it's on their diagrams hatched in red if you would like to make sure we're going to take this
case under consideration we will make sure that we go over every piece of evidence before we make
a conclusion okay uh are you through mr hunter uh i'm just gathering my thoughts because you're
sort of in a way diverting what i'm not i'm really not diverting i'm well you're you're editing them
you're you're editing well maybe i'm editing but what i'm trying to do is you know get you to tell
me something we get you to say things that we haven't heard and you just said it and i think
i understand it and i'm asking do you have anything else well if i could this this is
hillary can i just ask a question um mr hunter can can you um just explain whether you are in
opposition to assuming the you know assuming the appeal the appeal against lni you know was not
granted if a variance is determined to be needed can you please give your position on the variant
um well as consistent with mnc's vote we uh we um uh support the variance um for
sorry let me get this right the variance for the reason to be granted would be that it was
to be accepted. No, I don't support it. I'm consistent
with the MNC letter that was
submitted.
So, Mr. Hunter, you're not in favor of the variance.
Can you just tell me what the variance is?
The variance is a refusal
against the property of the steep slope.
So, I mean, I'm full against the variance.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, and I will end this.
I just want to make one point.
We're selecting the least modification possible on the Philadelphia zoning code.
We're not asking for any use variances or dimensional variances.
We're on a steep slope.
We can't change that.
I just want to point that out for the record, just in case someone ever has to review that.
Whoever has to review that.
Yep, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Mr. Hunter, do you.
Mr. Hunter, do you have anything else?
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have two hands, Kevin Downey and Kevin Smith.
Kevin Downey has been allowed to speak.
All right, Mr. Downey, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
Of course.
Thank you for hearing me.
My name is Kevin, K-E-V-I-N, and Downey, D-O-W-N-E-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Downey, besides saying whether you're in favor of this or against it, could you just
concentrate on trying to talk about things that we haven't heard?
Yes, sir.
I am a direct neighbor.
My neighbor adjoins this property from above Ontario Street.
I wanted to second the testimony and back up the testimony of John Hunter and Peggy Washburn.
A couple of things that I wanted to add to their testimony.
As I witnessed from my window this project unfold, the earth disturbance was completed when the retainer wall collapsed.
There was no real earth disturbance or further excavation after that fact when they laid their concrete walls that were for the structure that then shored up the property of the collapse.
So in my testimony under oath, I would like to say that the excess happened before the remediation of the neighbor's property.
secondly i'd also like to say that they were issued two stop work orders at different times
and the construction crew removed the stop work orders from the building on multiple occasions
when they were reposted and continued their work on their building quite aggressively and quickly
there were multiple police calls made to the site to this effect we did not witness much
happening in that regard sometimes they left the site only to come back within an hour
and then continue work again uh i i mr downey i appreciate that testimony but we want to try
to concentrate on the refusals that we have and it's sleeps all right and the earth moving plan
and the steep slope variance.
So I do appreciate your comments,
but we have to concentrate on what we're looking at today.
Is there anything else you'd like to talk about?
Yeah, there is one last topic I'd like to talk about.
There was submitted to me from the neighbor
who wrote the letter of recommendation of the collapse,
a survey that was handed to you regarding the property,
Thank you so much. There was a survey of the property suggesting the grade and what the grade of the property was and the shape of the retooling wall at the back of the property, and it was all grossly inaccurate.
When you look at the initial site drawings of the proposed construction, it shows from one angle at a step that is an inaccurate grade.
So these seem to be several survey drawings that were piecemealed from different surveys that were a gross approximation.
So I figure I request that that's worth looking carefully at while you're reviewing this case.
We will review everything. Thank you very much.
I thank you very much for allowing me to speak and the time.
All right. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Kevin Smith has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Smith, could you state your name, please, for the court stenographer?
Yes, Kevin Smith testified earlier.
I remember.
So just very quickly, it was questioned about the provenance of the photos,
And they were taken by John Hunter, who is who is unavailable at the moment, but is in and has just testified.
And he can assert to. Yeah, I think I think you earlier testified to that.
So just dotting some I's and crossing. OK. And we provide evidence in our letter about the attached, not attached argument.
And for that. And I just point that out. OK, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Is there anyone else in the first audience?
No hands.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Give me a second.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change for the existing RSA 5 single-family residential at this location.
While we do feel the hardship is self-created,
While we do feel the hardship is self-created, we feel the proposal is the minimum necessary variance.
we feel the proposal is the minimum necessary variance.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the variance.
Thank you very much.
For everyone involved, we're going to take all this that we've heard today under consideration.
Hillary, we're looking for January 10th for this too, right?
Same time?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
January 10th at 2 p.m.
January 10th at 2 p.m.
And I'm going to – Leonard, do you have something?
Sure, and I apologize for this, but just because some of the statements that had been made, which I anticipated might have been made, which is why I asked to stay on for this case, I just want to say for the record, as an attorney for the city of Philadelphia, I don't have a witness here anymore to adopt this, but I will say that I've done my own search of the records for the property.
And while I do understand that there had been complaints that were phoned into the city, and there were a couple violations that had been issued, which I discussed in the previous case, there was no violation issued for violating a stop work order.
I also wanted to address, and again, I'm not saying that we're taking a position on whether any of that happened or not. I'm just saying that we don't have a violation for that. An NOV was not issued for that.
With respect to the additional land earth disturbance that takes place beyond the building line, it is, and again, I'm just stating this as an attorney, a member of the law department, having reviewed this specific question with planning,
saying earth disturbance that typically, not always, but typically earth disturbance that
takes place beyond the building line and into the right-of-way is not included in the overall
earth disturbance that's reviewed by planning. It sort of depends on the situation. Here,
it's a little bit tricky because there seems to be a little bit of a discrepancy about whether
Boone Street is actually open on the city plan at this location, but we do know where the building
line is so whether boone street is open or not um we did the the earth disturbance that would take
place forward of the building line isn't is typically not included in the overall earth
disturbance calculation so i just wanted to address that because i know that there
some people may not understand that and i you should have that information thank you thank you
Thank you very much. We appreciate that. So we'll vote on this one, January 10th at 2 p.m.
And Mr. Nockamson, please stay on the line. Stay on that.
And the record is closed, Mr. Chair.