You're against
this. All right. Thank you very much
for your testimony. Is there anyone else here?
Yes, sir.
Good morning.
Could you
please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Daniel Spicer,
S-P-I-C-E-R. Right. Do you swear
or affirm, tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but
truth i do are you a neighbor i am a neighbor and i am an a officer of the uh blue bell hills sure
why don't you tell us where you stand on this project um so i'm opposed um the uh
steep slope in question is an old rock formation hundreds of millions
The steep slope in question is an old rock formation, hundreds of millions of years old.
The geology of the Wissahickon is noted for its ancient rock history, which is what this
steep slope is part of.
We had meetings, as was stated, with the engineering teams, both Colliers and the Leak Engineering.
AT THE FIRST MEETING WITH THE COLLIERS ENGINEERING, THEY STATED, AND I SUBMITTED THE EXHIBITS AS WELL FOR THEIR LETTER, AND THIS IS FROM THE COLLIERS LETTER, THE INTENT OF STEEP SLOPES REQUIREMENTS ARE GENERALLY INTENDED TO PRESERVE NATURAL SLOPES, HOWEVER, THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACES INCLUDING STRUCTURES AND ROADWAYS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE STEEP SLOPES ARE MANMADE AND THEREFORE CAN BE DISTURBED.
Now, this was quickly debunked by engineers of our civic association as being not sufficient, and that a core sample would need to be taken to determine the composition of the site, which was done by leak engineering, who submitted that ship.
Yes. So, and this is from the leak engineering report. The subsurface investigation identified the following stratigraphic layers at the project site.
stratum one brown medium fine sand extended to a depth of two feet below grade stratum
two comprised of decomposed mica schist encounter two to eight feet below gray which is as deep as
they went so two to eight feet below grade they confirmed in their engineering report that it is
indeed mica schist very old hundred millions of years old um at rock formation okay um one quick
question for you. Didn't I see Friends of the Wissahickon are in favor? Well, I'm asking him.
I don't know. I thought I saw a letter from the Friends of the Wissahickon.
I don't know. Okay. All right. Thank you. One of you, go ahead.
Two minutes now. Yes. Hi. Sydney Ozer here again. The Friends of the Wissahickon
did not oppose the development, but they did question the responsibility of the developer.
All right. Thank you. Also, one other thing. I'm going to let you know.
We're done. We're done. We're done. Thank you. Is there anyone else here?
All right. Is there anyone else after that? All right. We're going to have to start moving this.
Hi, could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
certainly isabel pilling i s a b e l p i l l i n g you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth is nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am are you in favor or against this
i am opposed thank you very much we appreciate it so it as briefly as i can i am a retired science
teacher environmental educator an environmental researcher who is also on the board of bluebell
HILL CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND I JUST WANT TO SHARE THE I SUBMITTED A LETTER I HAVE THE LETTER WE HAVE YOUR
LETTER I JUST WANT TO SHARE UH THE LAST STATEMENT THAT CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S ZONING CODE PROVIDES
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENFORCE SUSTAINABLE DECISIONS IN THE WISSAHICKEN WATERSHED WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE CODE BE FOLLOWED FOR THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE OF PHILADELPHIA AND THE
watershed uh this uh the runoff from this property goes to the monoshone which goes to the wissahickon
which goes to the schuylkill river which is immediately upstream of the queen lane reservoir
intake so it goes directly to our drinking water um to a casual observer the the property is steep
the steep slope zoning overlay was knowable in advance if someone purchased a known wetland
at sheriff's sale surely the city would prevent them from building on it if the zoning dictated
it how is this site different and then the only other comment i have is that the approval from
the water department is a preliminary approval and uh it's unfortunate that they're not required
to weigh in about the storm water runoff solutions um they have invested significant money in the
restoration of the monochony watershed um including a um artificial wetland on the other
side of lincoln drive that is significant thank you very much for coming in we appreciate one more
thank you for hearing no yes ma'am mr chair can i just respond to one one point most certainly can
um just in terms of her point that the developer would have had knowledge of the steep slopes
there is a case in my memo of law the sulbury township case where the court specifically held
that the property owners and knowledge that the property was burdened by steep slopes
does not preclude the board from granting a variance due to hardship of those conditions.
does not preclude the board from granting a variance due to hardship of those conditions.
Thank you. Ma'am. Hi, good morning. Hi, could you please state and spell your name for this
stenographer? Carolyn Dixon, C-A-R-O-L-Y-N-D-I-X-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Are you a neighbor? I'm a neighbor. All right. Are you
in favor of this or against? Against. And if there's anything, wait a minute before you do it.
now listen to me we heard a lot is there anything different than what you've said
um i believe it's it's brief and it's important that um since 1956 i grew up there yeah i understand
seven i was there was a small trail why don't you stay close to the mic small trail off of
walnut lane that reached wizzahick and the kids in the neighborhood always took that short short
that hill has not changed in 70 since 1956 okay so I don't know so you're you're against this
thank you for taking the time to come down here we appreciate it um is there anyone in the virtual
audience yes I have a calling user with the last four numbers and they can four four seven five
and another hand just went up but that first one will be allowed to speak
good morning
oh good afternoon uh board my name is dalvatore sandone s-a-l-v-a-t-o-r-e s-a-n-d-o-n-e
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do are you a neighbor yes we are
listen to me listen to me are you for or against this project against the project okay is there
anything completely different than what we've heard from six or seven people here i'm not
exactly sure, but I'll be brief. We're the adjacent property. We occupy 6110 Wissahicken
Avenue. We own the building here. We've been here since 2012, and we run the only martial
arts child care program in the United States out of this building. We have children in
the building from the ages of three and up every day and since we began
conversations with the developer in the community meetings we have continually
requested an audience with the developer to discuss our safety concerns about
what would it be like during construction for these children because
there's a large yard in the back of our building that is adjacent to the site and
for those reasons we oppose the development for the safety concerns about what would happen in
the process all right thank you very much for taking the time to call us next hand please
next hand is tony flanagan hi could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer
he's being promoted now
sorry tony t-o-n-i flanagan f-l-a-n-i-g-a-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
truth nothing but the truth yes are you a neighbor yes are you for or against this project
against okay is there anything different that you can offer yes it's just one paragraph
Go ahead.
The construction of this brick modernist apartment is a scar to our entrance.
It is a building best suited for retail commercial corridor.
So what's the message?
What are we entering here?
It is not appropriate for a historic, charming neighborhood embedded in the Fairmount Park.
We already have previously built apartment buildings that are not architecturally relevant to the spirit of the neighborhood,
but they are much smaller in scale and set back from the street with generous lawns, parking, and landscape.
None of these buildings are as abrupt as this building, which is placed right on the sidewalk on the corner of Bluebell Hill.
I want construction of this entrance of Bluebell Hill to lift the integrity of the neighborhood,
not bring it down just because the developer wants to fit 16 apartments in a very tiny area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
no more hands planning commission
amy boy with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
Amy Boyd with the planning commission, the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location to the existing CMX 1 commercial mixed use as presented. The proposed deep slope disturbance is not the least minimum.
The planning commission recommends that the board did neither requested variance for steep slopes.
Okay, so, obviously, we've had a great deal of testimony.
a great deal of written issues both ways.
We will vote on this next Wednesday at 9.30 on the 26th,
and we will take this in our executive session
and discuss it among the board.
But this case is closed.
Understood.
I'll submit notes of testimony after the hearing as well.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Number six.
thank you thank you thank you thank you number six mi2026 000809 4112 peach and street uh
alan knockamson is the attorney i see mr goldberg is here and we also have with us
uh daniel uh mackal hatton mackal hatton as the attorney for the protestants
who else is here
we're going to switch seats that's all right with the chair that's fine with me
i speak faster on this side well that's well that's that um you could sit up here if you go
that fast i'll do the old
must have been a problem
okay all right um so let me start with mr goldberg um
Um, where we are with this is, uh, you, I think you initially had five witnesses. You're going to have five witnesses. Am I correct? And you were on the second. Does that sound right?
That is correct. All right. And so you're going to finish up with your presentation, right? And then what, pardon me? Well, I hope so. Yeah, I hope so. How many people do you have to do?
So, can you hear me okay? I have three expert witnesses, plus my client, just to adopt my testimony. Would you like opposing counsel to cross in between them, or at the conclusion?
Let's see, what's your thoughts about that?
Let's see how the witness goes. I may not have any questions for a particular witness.
okay so take one at a time so that they wouldn't have to come back do me a favor why don't you um
i already swore you in right yes right um just state your name for the record alex goldberg right
and if you would um talk to us about how we got here right and then start your presentation i
I will do that.
Join as a panelist.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board. Before calling my witness to be sworn, I'd like to give a brief summary of the case and the testimony provided at the last hearing on June 6th.
The application seeks the approval of a planned unit development consisting of 10 single-family homes on a parcel slightly over 15,500 square feet in the Roxborough neighborhood of Philadelphia.
What the board reviewed on June 6th, and we'll review again today, is the third substantially different iteration of this development proposal, which started at 36 apartment units and 25 parking spaces, 30 apartment units and 25 parking spaces, then 30 condo units and 25 parking spaces, then 26 condo units and 26 parking spaces, and now finally 10 single-family homes with two-car parking each for a total of 20 parking spaces.
with two car parking each for a total of 20 parking spaces this is the least modification
This is the least modification.
possible under the zoning code and we intend to show that by way of additional testimony provided
by project architect scott woodruff and new expert testimony from real estate professional
john featherman general contractor mark mike gargiulo and owners representative tim townhill
sitting behind me after removing a variance request for building height by way of revised plans
we are seeking just three variances in one special exception the first is the
steep slope refusal it was June 6 testimony architect Scott Woodruff
confirmed that we can never have a buy right option simply because the steep
slope issues on the site the portions of slope 25% of or grit of grade or more on
the site are along the property lines which has to be modified otherwise we
would be prohibited from trenching any utility lines or doing any earth moving
activities at the front and back of the site additionally scott pointed out that there is
a spine of sloped land beyond 25 grade running down the center of the site right where the
building structure is proposed the project was designed to minimize impacts and site
developments along the street frontages second on the notice of refusal is a special exception
for the removal of two heritage trees the board was presented with an urban forest review and
investigation performed by rockwell associates the report stated that there are 28 trees on the
site 21 of which are in poor condition two of those trees are designated as heritage trees
the board was shown a topographic survey showing the location of the two heritage trees
one in the right corner of the site near pechin street and one in the center of the site one of
the heritage trees is listed as being in poor condition and both trees are located in positions
on the site that would make development impossible without removing them 16 new trees will be planted
to on the site as part of the development plan the third refusal which we didn't get to last
time is the requirement for a van accessible parking space you'll hear scott woodruff testify
about why providing single van accessible parking space is both infeasible and impractical the fourth
refusal for multi-family living is a technical is technical in nature because if approved a
declaration of planned community will be executed and recorded turning the multi-family living into
10 single-family homes each per reference the site could fit eight rsa five lot size and lot
with compliant parcels obviously not including several of the dimensional parking and site
development related refusals which again are unavoidable with that i would like to call scott
woodruff to be sworn sure scott
god has been promoted good morning sir could you please state and spell your name for the
stenographer yes scott woodruff s-c-o-t-t w-o-o-d-r-u-f-f do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel hi scott um i'm sharing on my screen
a plan that is included in our presentation materials are you able to see it
yes okay and can you describe um what i've zoomed in on on the left side of this plan
Yes, this is a buy-write scheme showing eight single-family homes and subdivided lots that comply with RSA standards for subdivision.
Okay, and when you say buy-write, does that include potential refusals for removal of heritage trees or parking?
That does not.
okay so um is it your expert opinion that even this version of the plan which does not require
which does not propose parking just four homes on peachen and four homes in loriston
that that would not be permissible as of right under the zoning code that is correct
um if we wanted to add parking to this plan how would that work so if we were to add parking
We would need to create curb cuts along Peachen and Larson for front loaded garages, which
are prohibited by the zoning code, and also disturbing more of the steep slope even past
what is being shown.
And can you describe the site work required for this version of the plan and how it differs
from the site work, excuse me, required of the plan unit development design with the
loan curve on Peachen Street?
Absolutely. So this development has four homes that are directly against both of the abutting property lines, which is permitted.
This would obviously cause a little more slight disturbance.
This would obviously cause a little more site disturbance, as well as shoring excavation required along adjoining properties, which is vastly different from the proposed, which limits development to the center of the site to limit some of the disturbance along both of the flat lines.
This would also, if we were to invoke parking into this, also cause additional curb cuts within the street and disturbance along more of the steep slope areas at both sides of the property.
Are there additional costs in this version of the plan as well?
Yes, there would be additional costs for excavation, shoring, and site management.
okay in this version of the plan are the heritage trees the two heritage trees in locations