This is an RSD3 zoning district. It provides for detached homes, and the required side yard is two 10-foot side yards with a minimum total of 25 feet.
If you're looking at the plan itself, at page 60,
the width of the side yards at the front building is not code compliant. I had previously raised
this issue with Mr. Whalen prior to this hearing, and he has elected to proceed despite the
knowledge of our claims on this additional refusal. I'd like to note that here you can
see on the plan, there is what appears to be a non-code compliant side yard. So I just
wanted to note that for the record. In addition, there are a number of other minor technical
issues, the plan does not provide for an electrical vehicle space, which would be required under
the code. And also, while this revised plan includes an ADA parking space noted on the
plan, those ADA parking spaces are not located near an accessible entrance, so they may not
actually be code-compliant ADA spaces. So that covers the high points of my presentation.
At this time, I'd like to ask Marlene Schleifer from the Ridge Park Civic Association to adopt my statements.
Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your full name, and provide us with your address.
Sure. My name is Marlene Schleifer. It's M-A-R-L-E-N-E. The last name is spelled S-C-H-L-E-I-F as in Frank. E-R. I live at 4876 Smith Street in Philadelphia, 19127. And I am the president and the RCO representative for Ridge Park Civic.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Sarah, please.
Have you heard my statements? Yes, I have. Are they true and correct? Yes, absolutely.
And do you adopt them as your own? Yes, I do. In addition, regarding this plan,
what additional concerns were voiced by the community at the RCO meeting?
there were quite a number of them um the traffic was a clear concern because of all the new homes
there's some parking on the street and some places where you can't and um there it's a lot
busier street than um than mr whalen would have people think um there were serious issues regarding
runoff because there are brand new homes at the bottom of this very steep slope and there are
five that are finished and occupied. There's another 10 that are coming and there's serious
concern about whether they will have to deal with runoff issues regardless of what kind of storm
water management plan is placed in this development. We question whether there really is a hardship
We question whether there really is a hardship here, combining two lots and
here combining two lots
making them into one lot doesn't necessarily mean that there's a
hardship. We also had major concerns about the other construction that's
going on in the area and what that is doing to the traffic, making it even
worse. There's no traffic study. And as we understand it from the neighbors, you can't
get a fire truck around the corner here. So how can you add more homes? And the other
major concern, as several of the neighbors will elaborate, the houses, there's two houses next
door to this development. And they are told that the owners of those homes are totally in agreement
with this because the developers have promised them that their houses can be purchased. So this
is not the end. Mr. Chairman, I'm obviously going through it. That's hearsay, not inadmissible. Thank
you. Thank you. They will tell you that. Well, yeah, we need to hear from them, but no disrespect
to you. No, that's fine. No, fine. I understand. But it's just too much for this area. We can't
handle anymore um l and i doesn't monitor what goes on and nobody's paying attention to what
gets approved and it just has to stop there's no more room for this thank you sarah the lady
just mentioned something about there's currently construction for 10 new homes
um in this in the where are they in relationship to this application
do you know um marlene which which project were you referring to
down hill on fountain street if you look at the map of the area there are five new homes
that are already completed and there are another 10 that are under construction
so if you look here um here's the property um on delmar street this is fountain street
So this is actually an old aerial view. There are actually homes going in downhill on Fountain Street.
I can try to. Those are, excuse the interruption, those are the 10 homes Miss Marlene is speaking to?
Okay. All right. Thank you. Sarah, could you go to that photograph you had where your car was parked illegal?
Sure, it's not there. So hopefully it means I won't get a ticket.
I'm just quoting you.
At the end of that block, to the right and to the left, are they all single detached homes?
So to the left of us are single detached homes.
To the right, there is a mix.
So I'll show you another view.
I went a little picture happy it looks out there um if
they're twins actually so you this is the beginning of the other side so here you can see this is a
single family and then this is the side of a twin and then this is our side of the street and then
so you can see this is a twin here that delmar is that manson that's this is delmar street
so this is delmar street across the street from the subject property so this is a twin here
and then this is an attached home and then there's another set of twins here but this is
I believe that the break comes right where my cursor is and that these are
these that that this is the new construction but this is this going this way is rsd3 as well
Thank you. I think I heard you say, correct me if I'm wrong, that there has been no other discussion that the RCO could entertain about something different than what we're looking at today.
Although this is a rehearing, I understand,
and there have been adjustments that were made from the original presentation.
it's sound to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there might be still an opportunity to have
It's sound to me, and correct me if I'm wrong,
that there might be still an...
further conversation. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. Well, I mean, not to speak for, you know,
Mr. Whelan, of course, can chime in. I'm speaking to you as the representative for the RCO.
As the representative of the RCO, at the end of this meeting, prior to taking a vote, we invited
Mr. Whalen to come back again for another presentation he declined to do so and so we
proceeded to vote in opposition to this project if Mr. Whalen wanted to come in and present
a second revised plan we'd be willing to do that but we would need to see substantiation
as to the minimum number of units and as to a hardship in order to proceed
one other question then i'll ask the board mr chairman if i could just respond to that
right um i have a number of factual issues to respond to and obviously i'll i'll make my legal
summation at some point um but you know we did decline to postpone this hearing yet again to come
in and and hear this board's determination on 15 um we were told uh almost verbatim and i'm sure
there's a transcript of it that 15 was unacceptable and double digits were unacceptable and they saw
no reason why anything more than the buy right three would be acceptable but if we wanted to
come in and try to do something around the three or five or somewhere in that neighborhood they'd
be willing to have a conversation with us so I just don't want it misunderstood that there was
any kind of conversation about a true negotiation between the parties yeah I didn't take it that way
just one you know I don't want to keep belaboring this point but when I hear that you know we were
not given an opportunity to talk about something different than the 15 that says to me I could be
wrong that there's still an opportunity to have a conversation but all right having said that any
questions from the board no no okay all right where are we now who's uh who's up next um i
believe that there's a number of neighbors here um yeah uh with all due respect i i just we just
don't need to have anything uh anything new and different would be acceptable no disrespect to
folks have been waiting uh but we just don't hear the same repetition chairman i will also
obviously stipulate we we lost very very powerfully uh both times we went before the uh the rco
understood if i could just request that um we hear from gabriel romano he had specific concerns
regarding the um environmental issues on the project and he is a registered architect and
had thoughts that he i know that he wanted to share with the board is he from the community
yes okay thank you mr romano please identify yourself with a record name and address
yeah my name is gabriel romano g-a-b-r-i-e-l-r-o-m-a-n-o uh 224 lamont street
sorry about that you swear or from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do, yes.
Thank you.
Sharon?
Yeah, so I'm a resident along with my wife and two children at 224 Lamont.
It's just around the bend, Mansion Street, right there at the bottom of Lamont Street.
I walk and drive by the property just about every day.
I'm connected to Germany Hill, the green space that this property shares as well.
And my biggest concern as an architect, I also work in development as well, so I have
oftentimes come across grading and stormwater management. I took a pretty close look at the
plans that they presented, and by my count, they're looking to clear and grade and increase
impervious surface to 70% or more of the area before the large drop-off. That drop-off, just
to be clear, I know that it was mentioned that it's 25% and greater, but from what I
can tell, there's spots that are exceeding 40%, close to 50%.
So it's not a hill.
It's a really big drop-off area that water does not really necessarily soak into, but
runs down.
So this increase to 70% impervious surface, that's an increase from about what's
currently there of about 12 percent. So this is really like 60 percent less
foliage, 60 percent less roots, 60 percent less area that water can soak in
60% less area that water can soak in and dissipate before it leaves the site.
and dissipate before it leaves the site.
Instead, it's landing on hard surfaces and very steep slopes that remain on the back.
They're claiming that this will be handled by stormwater management systems on site,
specifically about a 4,500 square foot area of green space located between the front and
back rows.
I haven't seen the specific engineering, but from a practical standpoint, I guess that
could work for those homes on Delmar Street, but all the homes in the rear would literally
be fighting an uphill battle on stormwater management. Even if they engineered some sort
of solution for those back homes to use that central space, it would be a solution that works
against the natural site. And as a general rule, forced engineering is not good engineering,
and I worry that their stormwater management will not stand the test of time,
and eventually the site will win and that's going to be long after the developer has already made
their profit. So where does the water go? It's a massive hill that starts about 10 feet behind
all of this impervious surface and that water is going to go straight down the hill. If I was
if I lived on Fountain Street I'd be really concerned. So when I put on my resident hat
and my engineer had I keep coming back to the idea of trust and in this
neighborhood we've seen a lot of construction we've seen a lot of bad
construction and very little good construction and in my experience these
sites are not necessarily built in a clean professional manner I've had three
different nails in my tires over the last two years I pulled a shard of glass
out of my dog's toe and there's dirt and dust poor patch ins for utilities but
we're supposed to trust that this developer is going to be different, trust that they're
going to build within 10 feet of major slopes without issue, that they're going to provide
a super high level of diligence in engineering, construction, and maintenance, which I think
this project requires, and we're supposed to trust that the engineering is, we're supposed
to trust in the engineering, but they're seeking approval and haven't updated their earth movement
plan to reflect their current design. That's not earning trust right off the bat. In general,
I don't think the double D lot is one that fits for the site. It doesn't fit with the context of
the neighborhood and the street. I think it's a dangerous precedent. It certainly doesn't fit
with the zoning. From an engineering standpoint, I think it's just a poor idea. I fully approve
the project. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Who's up? Who's next? We're going to
have to wrap this up as quickly as we can. No disrespect to the attorneys on both sides and
the people who have been waiting. We've been hearing quite a lot of testimony. So
closing remarks. Mr. Chairman, I just have one person. I got notice of one person that would
really like to speak. Name is Russell Roche, R-O-C-H-E. That's the near neighbor adjacent
to us at the end of Delmar Street.
Mr. Roche, please identify yourself for the record and I'll swear you in.
I'm not showing him Mr. Roche. I see Ryan and Andrew.
I'm sorry, his, he's on by phone. His phone number is 267-243-4757. I was just texted that.
All right, his hand isn't coming up. I have a caller with the last four,
one eight nine seven no this is i have the last four is four seven five seven
could you please instruct him to raise his hand please sure i'll call my client
i understand how you know technical difficulties we would usually move on um
Well, I mean, while there are a number of unit, number of participants here, I see, you know, 57 participants on the Zoom.
There's no 57.
I understand the board is pressed for time.
I just want to note that there are in fact 57 participants
on the Zoom and that given what Mr. Whelan has indicated
so far that I would imagine that the vast majority
of them are likely in opposition to this proposal.
I would stipulate that the majority of folks who are waiting or you represent and that they would acknowledge your testimony.
Stipulate that the majority of folks who are waiting
or you represent
And they would probably be the same folks who have been opposed to it at the first hearing.
So, again, no disrespect to those folks.
We appreciate their opportunity, taking the time to be with us, but it's just not possible for us to go through a list of 57 people.
Okay, David DiRienzo is going to raise his hand and he will conference in Mr. Roach.
To be clear, I do not represent Mr. Roach and I have not spoken with him prior to this
hearing.
He's been unmuted, please allow XM to unmute himself.
Good evening, Mr. Roach.
Please identify yourself for the record, name and address.
Hi, my name is Russell Roach.
Mr. Roach, you need to speak more clearly and closer to the microphone or phone,
whatever it is you're using.
Mr. Roach, we cannot hear you.
My name is Russell Roach.
I have a 205-DELF-3-4-0.
Mr. Roach, Mr. Roach.
there you go we can barely hear you do you have a second device on
all right we're going to move on and maybe before we close we'll get mr roach on who's
closing arguments i believe
mr whalen go ahead sorry i think you already i mean i believe sure um i just i mean
And to summarize, there's significant opposition.
That opposition is based on the lack of hardship presented by the applicant.
An issue to be thought of is that a vibrant proposal here in RSD 3 would be three homes, not eight by our estimation.
And that is based on the fact that under the dimensional tables of the zoning code,
the all of the dimensions apply and there is a minimum lot width of 50 feet in rsd3 this lot