talked to the neighbor if you want to bring him on um and what would it mean to you to be granted
the variance uh you say what what it means yeah what would it mean to you to be granted the
variance? I think that it would change my life because right now I don't have anywhere to go.
I'm willing to get on to move into the building. I don't have any money to pay down the building.
I mean, I think it would just be life-changing for me. Thank you, Tim.
Do you need to, which architect are you bringing on? A new architect or the one who designed the
building? I have a new architect who reviewed the original plans that were set out by the
original architect you're bringing him on now yes all right name of the architect uh jesse smith
excuse me they'll be coming back in as a panama shortly thank you
good morning mr chair and the board hi could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer yes my name is jesse smith j-e-s-s-e-s-m-i-t-h wait do you swear or firm that
the whole truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed counsel thank you
hi jesse um can you give me a little bit of background about your education sure um so i'm
the principal of jls architects i have a degree in architecture i'm a registered architect who
focuses the majority of my work in the greater philadelphia area and my team and i work on about
100 plus projects a year in philadelphia and um where do you currently work
i'm currently located in glenside pennsylvania and what's your title at the firm that you work
at i'm the principal of jls architects can you um explain the nature of your investigation
into the height discrepancy at 1406 east moyamensing avenue absolutely and if i may
i will also share my screen of the discrepancy document
so we prepared a document showing the discrepancy in the height between what was documented by
mr gu's architect and the actual field conditions and i want to go through those items and explain
how we got to where we are today so one of the main issues is that the average grade plane wasn't
being accurately reflected in the original documents. Mr. Gu has a property where from
the sidewalk at the front of his house to the rear door exiting into his backyard, there's a
two-foot change in grade. And what that means for us is the average ground level is not actually at
the sidewalk, it's actually a foot taller. And that's going to become more relevant as we start
talking about how we dimension the height of the building. And as neighbors and the Civic Association
and Mr. Gu dropped a tape measure from the top of the building and measured that height, that's
not accurately reflective of where the average grade plane is on the project. So we analyzed that
and said, where do we come up with such a large bust? Pennsport Pacific Association acknowledged
that there was a assumed bust of about four feet, eight inches. And we're here today to explain that
that bust is actually much less and it's much closer to about two feet, 11 inches. Still a
zoning bust, but less severity than has been documented. The documented dimension between the
first floor and the second floor, according to Mr. Gu's architectural drawings, was eight feet
nine inches. In reality, that dimension is actually nine foot two inches. That bust of five inches is
something that Mr. Gu was not aware of until this issue came to light. As we move up each floor of
until this issue came to light. As we move up each floor of the building, that documented bust
the building.
becomes greater and greater. So on the second floor and the third floor, there was also a
architectural drawing that showed that height as 8 foot 9. It was actually 10 foot 2. So we take
the 5 inch bust from before, and now we're adding another bust of 17 inches. Similarly, when we get
up to the third floor and the fourth floor, third floor was documented as 8 foot 9. It's again 10
foot two, another bust of one feet, five inches. The fourth floor and the underside of the roof
was documented at eight feet, which meant that Mr. Gu would have an eight foot ceiling in his
finished building. It's actually on site today at the lowest point, seven feet, 11 inches. So that
was an inch that worked in our favor. So this decreases the building height by one inch.
Something else that we uncovered during our investigation was that the roof structure
documented as part of the sign and sealed architectural drawings from Mr. Gu's architect
documented the roof to be about one foot thick. However, structural details and further architectural
details that Mr. Gu followed ended up requiring that assembly to be about one feet two inches
thick, which added an additional dimensional bust of two inches. And lastly, we had a roof structure
that was documented without a drainage pitch. So when Mr. Gu built the roof according to code
standards and best practices, he added a quarter inch per foot slope to the roof, which means that
the roof is a little bit higher at the front of the building and a little bit lower at the rear
of the building. That distance between the front and the back as measured in this angle over here
is about one feet four inches. So what happens is we add all these dimensional busts up and we come
up with what is a perceived bust of four feet eight inches. And we believe this is what Pennsport
Civic Association had documented. However, the issue at hand, which I'll zoom in a little bit
further on this document, is that we're not actually measuring from the average grade plane
as I originally noted. So the average grade plane is plus one foot above the sidewalk.
When we measure from that plus one foot up to the top of the roof, we're coming up with a height
that goes from our average grade level of one foot up to the top of roof at 41 feet 11 inches.
We subtract those two numbers and we get a building height that is permitted to be 38 feet, but in this case is actually 40 feet 11 inches. So we have a bust of 2 feet 11 inches. Are there any questions on that so far?
No, Jesse, if you would just also explain what documents you reviewed in order to come to this conclusion related to the miscalculation in the floor levels.
Absolutely. So we reviewed the documents prepared by Plato Studios, the sign-sealed architectural drawings, we reviewed the sign-sealed structural drawings, and we reviewed on-site measurements that were provided to us by Mr. Gu and his contracting team.
um so part of the problem here to break it down in pretty simple terms is that the original
architect that mismeasured the floor it's had the wrong measurements of the floor so when they said
you could add a fourth floor being eight you know eight feet tall um it would have made it above the
um the height for you know the the height maximum um but and because their calculations were off
though they expressed in their original drawings that it would not be is that correct that is
correct. And would these miscalculations be apparent to the builder at the time of construction?
No, they likely wouldn't be apparent to the builder at the time of construction because
the intent of this project was to match the existing floor levels. So in the field,
the contractors are intending to match the existing first, second, and third floor of
the existing house. And those minor discrepancies often go unnoticed until we're at a moment like
this. Would it be possible to add a fourth floor to this property in compliance with zoning height
requirements without first lowering the height of the pre-existing building floors? No, it would
not. So as I mentioned, the existing height at that fourth floor today on site is seven feet,
11 inches. So we're just above the code minimum for habitable space. In order to come into
compliance and drop the fourth floor by the two foot, 11 inches that's needed, that would create
a fourth floor ceiling that would be five feet. In your professional opinion, is this something
that an architect would normally catch and advise the client of when they're doing the initial mock
up? It should have been something in my opinion, it should have been something that would have
been caught during a professional field survey. And that part was unfortunately missed. And
now we're suffering those repercussions. Would it be possible to bring the building
into compliance by reframing the fourth floor? No, it would require removing the third floor
and the fourth floor framing and lowering those by that difference of about a foot and a half each.
In your opinion, how does this situation differ from maybe a situation where someone deliberately builds beyond the zoning limits?
In your opinion, how does this situation differ from maybe a situation where
I don't think there was intent for any harm.
This is something where the architecture team and Mr. Gu were assuming that the height of the building, as per the sign seal drawings, was accurate.
And they unfortunately didn't know that the height was not reflective of their documented height.
And in your opinion, is this something that normally would have been caught at the framing inspection by the city?
It could have been caught during the framing inspection.
That's up in the air as to whether or not it would have definitely been caught.
But those things sometimes are caught during the framing inspection.
They're sometimes caught like they are now by more of a community involvement.
Thank you.
And I'd just like to, you know, to the extent that it needs to be, I'd like to offer this document that's on his screen into the record as an exhibit in this case.
All right. Thank you.
Exhibit one. Thank you.
Is your presentation done, Counsel?
I would just like to actually call Annette Deutsch, that's Tim's wife, and just take her testimony real quickly.
And then I'll conclude my presentation.
But Tim's wife will be the same testimony, am I right?
No, she's going to talk about, she's the one who canvassed the neighborhood, and there's a petition that she got signed.
Okay, go ahead. Please, let's try to move this one.
Yes, I'll move it along. Thank you.
Her name's Annette Deutsch. She should be in the waiting room.
You should be patting this down.
Ms. Deutsch, are you present?
Hello.
Hello.
you're allowed to speak i could you please state your name and spell for this stenographer
hey we're having some internet problems annette are you there
there. That's fine, Tim, you can have her on. I believe that's
I don't know. Could you please state your name is spelled for
the stenographer. So my name is Annette Deutsch. Can you speak up a little bit, please? Can you
hear me? A little bit closer to the mic, if you would. I don't know where the mic is.
Okay. So my name for the record is Annette Deutsch, spelled last name D-E-U-T-S-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
yes please proceed counsel I'm just going to share my screen
hi Annette can you tell me your relationship to the homeowner and to the property at 1406
East Moy-Mensing Avenue I can't hear you Annette can you can you repeat that
I'm his wife.
I think she's going to have to find a way to get closer to the mic.
We're having a hard time hearing her.
I'm his wife.
And it is your plans to move into the property with Tim?
And, you know, what efforts have you made to speak with the neighbors about this variance request?
So I went around the entire neighborhood and collected signatures from for support and explained to them the situation with why we are running into this discrepancy.
And how did the neighbors respond when you spoke with them generally?
So generally, most of the neighbors were in support. I collected, I believe, four pages of signed support from the neighbors. There was no discrepancy when it came to the reasoning for the building.
So generally, most of the neighbors were in support.
Um, did you show them a picture of the building when you were explaining the request for the
variance? Yes. I had a printed out paper. I had all the documentation to show them,
um, for any evidence as I was explaining. And, um, does this document on the screen
look familiar to you? Yes. Can you explain what this document is?
So this is the petition that I was handing out to the neighbors to be able to write their name, address, how to reach them, and if they were in support or against.
And this document, again, is four pages of signed signatures. Is that correct?
And then you also have a couple letters in support as well. Is that correct?
uh yes and uh those are up on the screen is one from gregory jones
yeah and he lives on east moyamensing avenue yes um one from suzanne ward
on third street and one from looks like uh crystal fair
at Dickinson. Yes. That's all. That's all I have for you. And I'd just like to introduce
this document into the record exhibit two. All right. Thank you. Questions from the board.
Yes. I have two questions. One, when the roof pitch was added, was that documented
in the building plan record um in the original architectural plan it was not documented there
i know ellen i listed that on the on the permit um but i i believe in the ultimate permit request
and tim can you clarify that question whether or not in the the the ellen i permit that did have
the um the pitched roof so on lmi permit it doesn't have but it's required by building code
like i mean we have to pitch the water on the roof somewhere but on the lmi document the roof
says it's flat if you know that part i understood but i'm asking did you get documentation or did
your contractor just add it in the field i i guess they just added in the field got it and
then my second question is did you have a construction administration contract when
you were under construction uh i don't have a construction administrative contract you mean
like somebody managing it. It's supposed to be the architect. So was Plato studio hired to do
construction administration during construction and sign off on the contractor's invoices?
That's not, I don't think that's typical, but. It is. That's actually pretty standard
construction process, but thank you for that answer my questions. Other questions from the
couple questions um was there a site survey done initially a topo survey yeah i believe
i think plato was a person who came out to do the survey they did they did a survey or had
their sub consultant do a survey so they would have been they came out to measure the building
so no one did a topos all right to determine the grades
no i i didn't know that they they can and measure everything i don't know like that
can you go back to the um the original plan that the cover sheet
i just want yeah let me i'll be happy to do that for you just and
And as you were going through the testimony, it sounded as if the floor to floor to or the ceiling heights on floors had changed from eight feet to nine feet to nine feet or eight feet to 10 feet.
And I can't imagine that during construction, a contractor didn't notify you of the difference between an eight foot height ceiling and to go to a nine foot height ceiling.
the cost of lumber is going to be different so that's that's a little worrisome to me that a
contractor would would spend more money on materials to build higher ceilings wait it that's
not that's not true though because particularly particularly since they have a set of plans that
have certain heights and and and you're you're building higher floor to floor to ceiling heights
and and and you're you're building higher floor to floor to ceiling heights that's that's that's
That's that's that's.
a little odd to me um did you pull up can you pull up that sheet the coverage not not second
if i could clarify uh this was not a build from the ground up so they didn't build the first
three floors they only built the eight foot floor at the top which the actual measurements of the
final floor was seven foot 11. So they weren't, they didn't build each floor and get the, you
know, for that, they just built the fourth floor above the pre-existing structure.
Post-single-family dwelling and a three-story building, right?
Modifications of existing three-story building.
So what part was, so three floors were existing and you were building a fourth floor?
If I can clarify, this is Jesse Smith, the expert witness. I'll pull up this comparative section. So the hatched area on either side, this is as it was drawn from Plato Studios on the left, and this is the actual, what we'll refer to as, as built on the right.
So the explanation of why the existing.
The shaded area is existing.
That is correct.
So why is the existing different from the existing on your point?
So that's a discrepancy from Mr. Gu's architect. So his architect documented it on the left. They built it. And upon building it, they realized that there was a discrepancy between what was documented and what the actual conditions are. And that is a height difference from actual documented of three foot three.
Okay, so the floor-to-floor heights and the floor-to-ceiling heights in actuality of the existing building are different than what was drawn initially.
That is correct.
So that height difference of 3 foot 3 inches is what we're trying to analyze.
And through that 3 foot 3 inches, we have a height bust of 2 foot 11 inches.
other questions from the board is the original facade intact it's wrapped in the images that
we've seen 10
yeah the original facade it's uh it's not intact we actually took the original facade of the front