thank you good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's
meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. With me is our Vice Chair, Tenetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Secretary, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Taya Nguyen. She should be here any minute. And our other Board Member,
Ryan McAdams.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our ZBA Director, Ian Haggerty.
This hearing is being recorded. It will be posted on the ZBA website. By participating, you consent to be recorded. This is an in-person meeting with remote participation.
whether in person or on zoom if you are called to speak please state and spell your name wait
to be sworn in and then state your name each time before testifying in the future
to enter an appearance enter the address on the zoom webinar speak with a staff member
call the zba office by the end of business tomorrow 215-686-2429 and provide them with
your name email and the address of the property remote participation raise your virtual hand
when directed so that we can call you to speak.
When we call on you, you must press the join as a panelist button.
Use the Q&A for procedural issues only and do not mention the case.
If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute in person.
get close to the mic so that all in attendance including the court reporter can hear you
no talking eating or drinking during the hearing aggressive behavior will not be tolerated
in case of an emergency follow the staff directions the exit is the two doors in the rear
the closest stairs is to the left in the event of an evacuation please go to love park which
is across art street and remain there until we can call on you we won't do what so we're
going to count on you let's look at our schedule for today number three
MI 2025 001-047-2006 Bellevue Street that case is continued until the I'm sorry that case is a
attorney moving party number number five
number five mi 2025 004 101 59 44 cala hill street that case is continued until
9 15 26 at 9 30 a.m and then number eight
and mr chair for um number eight i believe um we may have we've made a change that's a
continuous am i correct well i think it was a continuous rest i see mr kelly here mr kelly
are you here for beachwood street okay i can let him give an update on that
So, yeah, you can come on up. Yeah, you can call back one in and share.
So, MI 2028 001452 1114 North Beachwood Street. We're going to intend to continue that case. Am I correct, Hillary?
so we received a um let's bring on um it's either alan knockups or alex goldberg and
they're representing the appellant now um they had submitted a request for continuance but i
understand that the um the violation may be withdrawn by the city that's where i want to give
The violation may be withdrawn by the city. So I want to give Mr. Kelly a chance to speak with the record. And here comes Mr. Goldberg as well. Kelly, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer? Jim Kelly on behalf of the city, K. E. L. L. Y.
Okay, there you go. Kelly, K. E. L. L. Y.
Do you swear a friend to tell the truth, told the truth, nothing but the truth?
um council sure so so this violation has been closed uh by the city um i i understand um mr
goldberg's request was to continue the case until that shows in atlas it was closed on eclipse
yesterday um and shows that way i just it usually takes a day or two to hit the public facing side
um i i don't have an objection to the continuance but but it's closed well you just want to give it
date and then we'll pull we can let mr goldberg respond he's right there
alex goldberg alex goldberg alex g-o-l-d-b-e-r-g you swear or firm that tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do mr goldberg how do you want to proceed with this
uh just as mr kelly stated um i think my client would feel more comfortable until it shows as
closed on the public facing records um so we're prepared to withdraw the appeal at a future date
but until then you know until then we'd like so this case is continued to 9 15 26 at 9 30 a.m
thank you thank you great
should we go to number one am i correct yep no not the one word number two right number two right
Yep. Number two. MI 2024-005-972-4532-Blankton Street. There's a Spanish interpreter for this case.
interpreter please no no no no no we're waiting for the interpreter
and that's why we have an interpreter
good morning your honor good morning members of the board good morning could you please state
your name and spell for the stenographer yes my name is leonel gillen l um spelled as an l-e-o
n-e-l gillen spelled g-u-i-l-l-e-n do you swear or affirm that you will interpret accurately
completely, and impartially from English to Spanish, and from Spanish to English.
I swear.
Okay. Could you please call the Elvina Ipena? Could you please? Elvin. No, Elvin Ipena.
Are you the owner? Elvin Ipena. Could you please call in Spanish for us?
Yes. El señor Elvin Ipena, ¿está presente?
All right. Please ask him, do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Muy bien, señor, levante su mano derecha. ¿Usted cura y afirma decir la verdad, toda la verdad y nada más que la verdad?
Your vice chair has a few questions.
Muy bien. Nuestro vice, nuestro vice encargado tiene unas cuantas preguntas.
Okay, perfect.
Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
Muy buenos días. ¿Ya ingresó sus documentos y sus exhibiciones cinco días previo a esta audiencia?
Eh, sí.
And, um, do you waive your reading of your refusal simply to its accuracy?
¿Y usted cede el rechazo de, de, cede a su rechazo simplemente para tener mayor precisión?
Perdón, nosotros vamos a leerlo, disculpe.
This application is for the erection of a covered terrace.
Esta aplicación es para la erección de una terraza cubierta.
Una adición de una planta, nada más.
Y para la legalización de una, de un, de un fence solamente de la parte de enfrente.
A una estructura ya erigida y separada de una sola unidad familiar.
Ok. Y, muy bien, y tiene ya un rechazo de la cerca y de la pared de que sea más de cuatro pies, ¿correcto?
and more than 50% opaque.
Y que sea más de 50% más opaco.
Also, the required buildings needs to set back.
Y también el edificio actual
necesita hacer un paso, ¿correcto?
That is no more than four feet in height.
Y que no tiene que ser más de cuatro pies de altura.
and no more than 50 percent open and no
tiene que ser más de 50 por ciento de
do you agree to those refusos
usted está de acuerdo perdón de 50
por ciento opec significa que usted
está de acuerdo con esos rechazos
o sea lo que
Sir, sir, sir, sit in the back, you've got to step back, we have an interpreter for that reason, we'll bring up...
Perdón, lo que no entiendo, verdad, este, todas las preguntas que me están haciendo, perdón, no entiendo todas las preguntas porque simplemente lo que yo estoy haciendo es un open porch en la parte de atrás, es un open porch, protegiendo la...
Okay, no, because what I do not understand are the questions that are being asked to me
because what I need to do is just an open porch in the back part.
All right.
So the open porch in the back is not a problem.
It's included in your refusal because it's part of the project, but the fence that you
already put up it needed zoning approval before it was put up so you have to get that now okay
entonces el el open porch que ya está en la parte de atrás que necesita en la parte de atrás ese no
es un problema eso ya está incluyó eso está incluido en el rechazo porque es parte del
proyecto pero eso no es problema pero la cerca que ya está puesta esa necesitaba una aprobación de
sonificación antes de que fuera elegido y por eso es que eso está por eso está acá en este momento
para para ver si lo puedo obtener ok perfecto sintiendo el problema de verdad mío tal vez yo
no pensé que necesitaba
algún permiso porque todos los vecinos
tienen lo mismo y yo
con algunos platiqué
y pregunté si necesitaba y me dijeron
que ninguno había sacado
recuerde
frases
por favor solo manténgalo
corto para que yo lo pueda interpretar
y usted continúa hablando después
no hay problema
okay so my my problem is that i did not think that i needed a permit because all the neighbors
have the same thing and i talked to them and they said they didn't get one but tell him tell him we
understand that and what we would want is for him to start his presentation and you work in the
computer why don't we start your presentation and tell us everything you have done and we'll go
through the photos and you can talk off of that okay muy bien entiendo todo lo que usted me está
diciendo perfecto y lo que queremos ahora es que comience con su presentación el que sea que va
a trabajar en la computadora va a ir pasando las fotos está bien y usted me irá hablando acerca de
esas fotos ok ok comience
Well, you have photos here too, am I correct?
Usted tiene fotografías up top, why don't we go, you have all the photos, Ian?
Usted tiene toda la fotografía, ¿verdad?
The photos, the photos that are, oh, okay, I see.
So I see the photos that are on the screen are the ones that you use.
Estas son algunas de las fotos que tiene de todos los vecinos alrededor.
Okay, so these are some of the photos that they have from all the neighbors surrounding.
they have from all the neighbors around you okay okay so there are all the other neighbors
that have things like that already is that okay entonces ya lo que me está diciendo que ya hay
vecinos que tienen todo esto también ellos verdad si la mayoría de vecinos tienen todas estas
bardas alrededor entonces yo por esa razón pues lo hice porque como es para la parte de atrás no
that's the interpreter okay
okay so yeah then most of the neighbors have these type of fences and that's why i did it
uh and and and the thing is that it's in the back it's not in the front and my kids go out
and play over there and they have a little bit of privacy okay all right um and does he have
any other photos ok tiene más fotografías y solamente es otra vez no hay un
practice ones
so in other words you saw everybody else had a fence like that you put a fence
up ok entonces usted dijo de todo el mundo tiene tiene unos cercos igual a
estos de yo voy a poner unos también en sí eso es lo que dijo ahora
that's the front of your house where you posted the appropriate
and it's right and that's the part in front of his house where he put the photograph
where they have the document correct yes yes okay
that's the entrance to the fence right is the entrance to the people could see in the rear
and it's the entrance to the circle right and the puso there also so that the people could see in the rear
uh yes that's the back part yeah
that's the rco y ese es el rc o correcto you want to the rcio meeting and everybody's in
favor of what you want to do ok y usted quería una reunión de rc y aquí sale que todo el mundo
está de acuerdo con todo lo que usted quería hacer correcto si ya sé que questions son de
board. Preguntas de la junta.
Questions are common.
Preguntas o comentario.
Did I see where is this fence?
It's in the river, you say?
¿En qué parte está esta cerca
en la parte de atrás?
Sí, esa está en la parte
de atrás, prácticamente de la
cocina, de la mitad de la cocina para atrás.
Yeah, so that's in the back part.
It's basically in half the kitchen
and then
it keeps going on, but it's in the back part.
And is that, like, is that opening, like,
for a driveway?
Is there a...
Y esa apertura que se ve, y como que ese portón que se ve,
ok, esa es para una, para que pase un carro,
o para qué es?
No, eso es, es que yo siempre,
esa, la cocina está en la parte de atrás,
y siempre entro por ahí, por la cocina,
casi no uso la puerta de enfrente,
yo siempre entro por la parte de atrás,
por la cocina, siempre...
Oh, no, ok.
okay that's that's because it's that's um that's where the kitchen is and i almost always enter
through the kitchen i almost never use the front door it's that that's why i used that that's why
i made that door okay so that other picture that i saw there wasn't a curve cut there okay
Entonces, ¿esa otra fotografía que vi no es que estaba cortada la cera ni nada?
Muy bien.
Gracias.
Preguntas de nuestro abogado.
Preguntas o comentarios de la audiencia virtual.
Good morning.
This is Dana Dabney and I will be your co-host this morning chair and I see no hands.
Thank you very much.
Muy buenos días.
¿La Comisión de Aplanación?
Good morning.
Liz Fuseli, L-I-Z, last name Fuseli, F-U-S-E-L-I-E-R, with Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Muy bien.
The conference of Clinton recommends no change to the RSA3 residential single family attached zoning at this location.
Muy bien, entonces, yo soy Liz Fusley y esto es lo que yo considero, la Junta Comprensiva recomienda que no se haga ningún cambio según la zona, según la ley de zonificación de RZ3 de uso de una sola unidad familiar.
recommendations in their comprehensive plan la ciudad rezonificar rezonificó este vecindario
La ciudad rezonificó este vecindario en 1971 de acuerdo a las recomendaciones en su plan comprensivo.
No hay ninguna circunstancia física única o condiciones de la propiedad que la propiedad
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed variances for fence height and opacity.
Thank you.
rechace las varianzas propuestas para la altura y opacidad del cerco mi2024-005-972-4530
Blankiston Street, I vote yes.
M-I-2-0-2-4-0-0-5-9-7-2-4-5-3-0,
Calle Blankiston, yo voto sí.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, mi voto es sí.
Tenetta Graham, mi voto es sí.
Tenetta Graham, mi voto es sí.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
thank you sir for coming in you have your your votes thank you thank you interpreter thank you
very much for your help we appreciate it it's always a pleasure see you next time your honor
okay we're going to move on to number four mi 2025 001 462 2245 north 17th street this is a
resumptive hearing vernon anastasio is the attorney
morning mr chair members of the board morning good morning council could you please
state your name and spell for the stenographer. Yes, it's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O,
on behalf of Mr. Rudy Tafani. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Council, this is a
resumptive hearing. We'll go to you first for supplemental information. Then we'll have
questions from the board. We'll go back to the public with limited testimony relative to what
you say today and then we'll see where planning is okay so why don't you thank you yep initially
this was for an application for a three-family dwelling and we did present our plans there were
a list of items that the board had asked us to address and we have done so as the plans show
we have eliminated all basement bedrooms and we shrunk the bath in the basement
to a half bath instead of a full bath.
We have dedicated trash areas for each of the units.
Interior, as you can see here, where my cursors are.
Over here, over here, and of course in the rear.
And we've reduced the first floor unit to a one-bedroom unit.
We'll have a little home office and some flex space in the basement.
That was the totality of the of the requests and the, the issues that the board brought up. Sure. And questions from the board at any time that the RCO ever get back know about notice notice of these new plants or or not.
We sent the revised plans to the RCO and there's no word back from them. No, ma'am. Okay.
other questions but questions from our attorney
um just to confirm the roof deck that was originally proposed um in these plans that
has been eliminated correct that's correct and that was per the rco itself okay all right thank
you questions or comments from the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
planning commission good morning liz fuzely on behalf of the planning commission the
good morning liz usually on behalf of the planning committee
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at this
location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2014 in accordance with recommendations
in the comprehensive plan at that time this block face was zoned rm1 residential multi-family
we are aware of several two to three bed three unit buildings but the majority of
Homes on this block face are single family, the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variance for 3 dwelling units.
So, chair, just as a brief reminder, my client, my client purchased this this was RM1. He had invested the time and the energy to get to get going and then found out later that the zoning had changed.
It's also lots of uninvestment on this block, so the density is actually needed.
Thank you.
MI 2025, 001-462-2245 North 17th Street, I vote yes with proviso.
No household living in the basement, no roof deck or roof deck access to the structure.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Paya Nguyen, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
We're going to go to number six and seven.
mi2025007194209 wadley street
and number seven here is
and number seven is mi 2025 007 534 211 east wally street council could you state your name
and spell for the stenographer good morning mr chairman and members of the board adam laver of
blank rome on behalf of wilde street partners llc and its principal henry siebert s-i-e-b-e-r-t
mr siebert uh was with us for the first hearing in person he's participating virtually uh this
morning do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes chairman bergman i do council yes uh
Chairman and members of the board, I am Travis Niffin, attorney with the streets department.
Excuse me, this is the reporter. I am not hearing counsel.
Counsel, just get it a little closer to you. That's our floor.
All right. I'm Travis Niffin. Niffin is K-N-I-F-F-I-N. I'm here on behalf of the streets department.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Okay. So I guess for the both of you, we were debating this morning exactly where we stand
and we believe you're up to the point where questions from the board. Is there anything else?
Mr. Chairman, that's where the board left it at the last hearing.
We'll start. Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
you know not at this time Mr. chair questions or comments from the virtual audience I see no hands
chair planning commission good morning Liz Fusely on behalf of the planning commission
community sorry take your time correct
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning
at 209 or 211 east wilde street the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2015 in a community requested
sorry in a community requested map change and in accordance with recommendations in the
comprehensive plan accessory off street parking is a common condition on this block face
however as we've stated in other applications the city cannot guarantee that a compact vehicle
will always park in this space a full-size vehicle would overhang the sidewalk and impede pedestrian
access the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed variances
for this application.
for this application. Okay, so we sat and debated this morning where we were to be now.
Okay, so
we sat in
How about if each one of you take two minutes to summarize? Is that two minutes enough?
I think that that's achievable, Mr. Chairman. So why don't we go first here and then we'll come to you.
Very good. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this case is in my 25 years or so
before this board highly unusual to uh to have the streets department sitting in the other chair
there is a process uh under the city code and the rules of municipal government
for the streets department's independent review of applications and we have
cooperated with that and shall continue to cooperate with that through the process appeals
for example of the streets department determinations are not before do not come before the zoning board of adjustment.
We have heard the planning commission speak about the nature of the neighborhood, and the board will recall, although it's several months ago that the entire side of this block is single family residential.
We have shared with the board that we have a young family that cannot wait to move in to this home with their children and be a part of a thriving community, and we have the coordinating RCO of record in support and noting extensively in its support the need for off-street parking and the constrictions on this particular block that we are not taking away public parking.
additionally this board uh let's let's hone in on the issues that are before the board the legal
issues this board determined hardship at this site uh in 1987 when the board granting variance
relief for residential development along the entire span of this side of uh of willdy street
from shaka max and through to day street this is really simply coming before the board due to a
subdivision and construction of new homes in place of a prior residential dwelling the board also
noted uh or the record i should say indicates that the 1987 plans included the requisite streets
department approvals for the entire block nothing has changed here mr chairman and members of the
board nothing at all the proposed zoning site plan that we've presented is consistent with
the conditions along the street the plan conforms to what had previously been approved by the zoning
board of adjustment by the streets department and in fact uh with the recommendation uh according
to the records that i've reviewed of the philadelphia city planning commission
surface parking is prohibited that's that's a refusal uh we see the conditions that show that
this is within the scope of what's along the block it is not different that's factually quite
important in addition to this board having found hardship before similarly the proposed parking
not being accessed from the front street every home along shaka maxon street today's street
along willie has documented front uh loaded parking on this side and we saw that there are
some instances on the other side as well the street is narrow there are existing curb cuts
there is a prohibition uh effectively on viable on-street parking we also saw in the immediate
vicinity uh wrapping around the street other examples but most importantly let's step back
for a moment and i'll and i'll end with this let's step back and and look at this site we are not
talking about a high intensity use we uh we are talking about single family low impact and that
mr chairman and members of the board i would submit is why we have the support of the community
and extensive support of near neighbors thank you thank you council yes members of the board thank
you do me a favor just make sure the mic is close to you sure members of the board thank you perfect
uh going on two and a half months ago i think we gave our opening statements and i'm going to say
something similar to what i said then you know streets department while it may be somewhat
procedurally unusual the streets department has a home rule charter and city code empowered right
to perform its own review and in this case mr siebert and mr laver point out that there's a
1980 they bring up a 1987 document that yes it's real yes it's signed off on by the zba by
yes it's real yes it's signed off on by the zba by lni by streets but it's also true that that
that document created certain rights for property owners but those rights were not exercised and
under 14 303 of the city code if you don't exercise a right you lose it and mr mr labor
also repeated just now and and about two months ago that nothing has changed nothing has changed
Well, in fact, a lot has changed, right? Not only do those rights no longer exist, but more importantly, the site has changed.
You know, it wasn't until 1990 that the ADA was passed and then sometime after that, we built this, somebody built this ADA ramp.
There are utility poles on the site that were not there previously.
And the state of the art of traffic engineering has changed streets now has a policy of not recommending of not permitting curb cuts that are less than 75 feet from an intersection.
This one is a matter of like it's about 5 feet.
Mr. labor also points out that there is an aesthetic theme going on in the neighborhood with I guess one curb cut per home, and maybe 2 spaces per home.
um that's a question of visual harmony but what streets reviewed here was the safety
of putting in a new curb cut one that did not pre-exist one that was never built
pursuant to the rights of the 1987 um approval and one that presents new site-specific safety
challenges. And so for that reason, my client, the department believes it is unsafe for an
additional curb cut to be built so close to that intersection. Thank you. Okay. I want to thank
the both of you for your presentations. And let me say that I certify that I've watched the video
from the prior hearing and also read numerous pages that Hillary sent me of notes from the
meeting. So what we're going to do is we're going to vote on this next week.
Next Wednesday morning, we'll vote at 9.30 a.m.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Thank you both of you. All right. Should the board require any additional
information, we're happy to provide it. Right. Thank you. Thank you.
Number one.
Thank you. Number one, MI 2021 004-541-251 Ripka Street. David Orfanides is the attorney and Joshua Griner is also representing the Protestants.
Good morning. We'll start with David. David, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
There we go. David, last name is spelled O. R. P. H. A. N. I. D. E. S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Council, could you do the same? Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Joshua Grimes, G. R. I. M. E. S. Right.
And I am representing the Heritage Place Owners Association.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
So obviously there's been a lot of testimony that we've had in the past.
Our records indicate, David, that you will have your client adopt your testimony at this point.
Does that sound right?
I listened to the recording and it was a little hard at the end.
So one was to adopt, and the second one was, there was another point where I said he was going to speak to his involvement in the appraisal.
I think there were two things that I said. It was a little hard to hear.
We'll start there, okay?
And then I understand where you'll then put on your presentation, am I correct?
Or you did some of it, I mean, but...
No, Mr. Chair, the first hearing that we did, I did...
got your presentation but you had your clients that were sitting here you wanted to get them
done all right yes that's correct unless the board you know i'm certainly welcome to answer
questions nope nope nope quit but you're pointing your finger well i'm not pointing at anybody in
particular so i'm kind of doing doing more like this bill clinton but um the uh i think we were
but um the uh i think we were finishing with my my uh my witnesses but i still wanted to run through
finishing with my, my, my
i'll try to run through real quickly some of the documents that i submitted um because we that we
were just finishing the testimony at that point but i hadn't closed because there was still some
information that i wanted to convey to the board well what do you want to do first do you want to
bring your client yeah yeah let's bring your client on then we'll figure out where we stand
that. Okay. What's your client's name? Ahmed Bakran. He's with BKN Realty LLC. Okay.
I just talked to him in the hallway, so he should be on. I'm going to share my screen.
Is he, is he on?
Thank you very much.
And also while we're waiting from the joint, I believe I brought Alex dollar on to adopt my statements.
And there were some questions back and forth, and he never actually, I never got a chance to ask him to adopt my statements.
So, yeah, we actually brought him on towards the end. And then there were some questions. I think we all had.
Are you, are the questions answered?
Well, yeah, I think we've both had.
You just want to adopt your testimony.
So, let's do that first, then we'll bring them.
Or we can wait till I'm done with all the documents and then do them both at the end, too.
Well, I think we have all your documents. I mean, if you just want to give us an old overview of what it is, that's fine.
That's fine. However you'd like to proceed.
But we're starting with the property owner first.
Yeah. That's where we had left.
Right.
But when I went.
And then you'll have a chance to, you know, cross too.
We listened. I was like, oh, wow. He never asked questions and he never got to adopt.
Is he coming on, Ian?
Is he coming on?
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
uh ahmed a-h-m-e-d uh b-a-k macron b-a-k-r-a-n all right do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth sir yes counsel sure um ahmed um there were two reasons
at the end of the last hearing back in april i think it was april 9th um where we were about to
bring you on to speak to one was to adopt my statements the other one was regarding your
involvement concerning the appraisal report that was prepared by Brittenhouse appraisals and that
Mr. Carlo Batt testified to at the last hearing. And again, you are, what's your position with
BKN Realty LLC? I am a managing partner. Okay. And you were, you were involved with Mr. Batt's
in preparing not preparing the appraisal but providing the data uh along with alex dollar
that served as the basis for the appraisal report and the conclusions that mr batts uh
came to and provided in that report correct yes that's correct and just real quickly um how did
you come to the the financial figures in the data that served that were provided to mr bats
that you provided to Mr. Batts and served as the basis for his appraisal report?
I initially engaged with a professional estimator. The company is called Pinch Estimating,
and the individual was named Patrick Connard. Can you spell the name? I'm sorry to interrupt.
Can you spell the name of that entity? I didn't quite make it out. Pinch, P-I-N-C-H,
okay estimating the word estimating is that company name and the individual like the the
ceo of that company um whom i worked with was named patrick conard p-a-t-r-i-c-k-c-o-n-a-r-d
okay okay and can you please proceed yep so i engaged with this uh uh with this company the
individual had has 17 years of uh experience working in the trades uh for both uh new
construction and residential and commercial projects um and then he um also is a professional
estimator where he's able to read our blueprints and uh provide uh estimate estimated uh construction
estimation costs both soft and hard costs and from there um that was earlier on in the project
and from there um that was earlier on in the project correct yes and then from then from then
Correct.
um you did your own work correct yes so in conjunction with some of your other uh professionals
correct so i once i got the initial estimate uh professional estimate uh then um as we uh
went through our due diligence process uh working with our uh architect and uh civil engineers
We uncovered additional information, which we incorporated into the construction costs estimate, and that was done several years ago.
And since then, we've also added additional construction, let's call it inflationary costs over the last several years to basically cover the additional construction costs that have been significantly increased over the last few years.
And then once we had all of that information, I took that data and validated that with different AI tools that I have access to, which confirmed our estimate to be reasonable and accurate.
okay so basically you took information from other experts you uh to to come up with the financial
information on your own which you then provided which you then checked with ai and ai said that
you were correct and then you provided that to yeah i don't even know where i don't know where
we are yeah i know i don't even know where we are in that world right now so i haven't taken enough
cle's on any of that so but uh but it's nice to know that you know the computer said he was right
you know that so for better for worse so um but but in the end you you you came up with the numbers
on your own you um use some information provided by other people but you came up with the numbers
on your own and you came up with the conclusions and the data that you then provided to mr bats
correct yes correct i have no further questions on that point yes please um just to clarify when
we're discussing these financials and how this came together you're referring to the feasibility study
or is it a different the financial the financial feasibility that mr bats prepared that were given
right before the prior hearing yeah it was dated march 30th i believe i believe that's correct yeah
that Mr. Batts said the one who prepared to testify to. Yeah. Yeah. So, Mr. Brockman, just
was one, I think, one question. It's true is not that there's nothing in that feasibility study
that indicates the property could not be developed at the property line with no setback. Is that
correct? Objection. It's just a higher cost. Objection as to the form of the question. I know
was asked a number of times at the last hearing you're just saying can it physically be built
is that what you're saying i'm asking a question okay that his feasibility study indicates the
property could be built with no with no setback as opposed to the 35 foot setback they're proposing
it's just a higher cost to do that is that not a reasonable question i think now i don't want to
call with that yeah yeah no i'm fine with the rephrase question uh i believe so yes
okay thank you no further question i just have one follow-up to that mr bachron
given the given that question that mr grimes just asked and the conclusions that were reached by
mr bats based upon the information you provided there would you build this project with the
property with the buildings pulled up to the front knowing that you were going to lose hundreds of
thousands of dollars no i would not proceed with the project uh in that in that uh in that option
say something here so my recollection of the feasibility study is it says that there is
possible to have a profit just a very small one compared if if with no setback as opposed to
building with 35 feet isn't that what the feasibility study said so when you say at a loss
irrespective of you know he hasn't sold it yet i believe the feasibility study said that there
was a profit in either way potentially just a very small one isn't that what it said i don't
believe that to be the case well he can well yeah i don't believe so that i don't believe that to be
either. Okay, that's fine. I don't want to take the time to look at our study.
Mr. Bachran, do you know anybody who would build a project that...
Mr. Baccaron, do you know anybody who would build a project that, I mean, this is speculation, but do you know anybody who would build a project knowing that they were going to lose money or they might lose money?
All right. I have no further question.
Do you have another witness? Do you want to bring the architect on?
No, I just want to have him adopt the statements that I've made.
Sure. Go ahead. I thought you did that.
No, no, no. I did this one. We did the hard part first.
I don't know if it was hard, but it wasn't.
well harder than adopting my statements hopefully uh mr bakron um did you hear the statements that
i've made i've made to have you been on for all the hearings we've had in this matter yes okay
and you've participated remotely correct yes and you've heard them from beginning to end correct
yes and were the statements that i made true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes and would you adopt them as your own yes okay um and then i think alex dollars on and maybe are
you want to have the architect and that's the end of your witnesses what's that that's the end of your
witnesses yeah I was just going to have Alex with my statements yeah yeah Alex Duller Alex has been
promoted to panelists thank you hello good morning could you please state your name is spelled for
stenographer my name is alex duller alex d as in david ull er do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do counsel uh alex um mr dollar you've been
you're the architect for the project correct yes we're the design front okay and you and you um
and you've been on for all the hearings we've had in this matter correct you've
either been present or been on remotely, correct?
And did you hear the statements that I made to the board
during today's proceeding and prior proceedings?
Yes, I have.
And were they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they are.
Would you adopt them as your own?
Yes, I would.
Thank you.
All right.
Counsel, do you have anybody else you want to call?
I have no questions for the court.
Thank you.
All right.
Questions from the board?
I was just going to kind of still go through some of my exhibits or well if you want to tell me you
just want to list what you gave well I know I'm going to actually point out a couple things on
the screen that I'd like I'd bring to your attention how long do you think that takes
five five minutes ten minutes yeah it's not going to take me long that's great so um so first of all
I'd like to show uh historical aerials so and this is a in my exhibit book at tab b so through
atlas atlas now has the ability to provide historical aerials aerials and maps and i've
shown here and i've clouded to show in blue 263 hermitage which mr grimes represents the property
owners there the for the eight homes in green is 259 and 261 hermitage yep which is behind us
and basically subdivided into two lots similar to what we want to do here in red as our property
What's interesting is that at one point in time, and this is from 1910, this is off of Atlas, 251 and 259, 251 Ripka, our property, and 259 and 261 were all one property, and that's 259 and 261 Hermitage.
And you can see in blue, you can see that there was a single house that was located, or a single structure that was located across two properties, what's now 263 Hermitage, because those lots were consolidated as part of that proposal.
And I have the zoning archives for that property as well as the zoning board's archives when that development came before the zoning board.
So in 1910, it was all one property. And then sometime between 1910 and 1942, you can see here that it was allowed to be developed or subdivided with 259 and 261 hermitage split off of what became 251. And you can see here.
And I think that's important because as we've stated from the beginning, we're just looking to do what the properties behind us did. Unfortunately, we have topographical issues that those properties didn't necessarily don't necessarily have. And you can see that in the aerials and you can also see that in the photographs that we've provided.
And I think that that's important to take note of in this case, that we're just looking to do the same thing that was done there.
I think the other thing that's something else that I'd like to point out is that, again, let me just change the view here.
I'm going to go back.
So we have some street view images of 263 when it was that single structure.
and you can see here and this was a structure that was demolished in order to build.
And this was a structure that was demolished in order to build, and you can see this is more current before 263 was built, but you can see what was there and what was eventually developed.
I think that's important because 263 hermitage went through a process with this zoning board that I think not much unlike what we're going through.
I was able to pull the Zoning Board's file from that case, and you can see it was calendar number 32911.
There were some steep slope studies that were done.
There was a talk about the differences in grade at the back of the properties.
I think what's important is that you look at the—give me one second.
Here you can see the notice of refusal that was issued,
and you have a you have a use refusal because they have multiple structures on on the lot
but they also have a parking refusal they have a side yard refusal and a curb cut refusal so they
they had parking refusals they had a use refusal we do not have a use refusal because we're
developing ours as a matter of right and at that time both ridge park you can see here with their
letter dated April 24, 2018, and the council person and MNC, the community group that we
met with, were all against that development project and were very firm in their objection
to that. I find that to be interesting here because they had side yard refusals. So to
any extent that the the neighbors at 263 object to our uh our development and our front setback
refusal based upon the air pack impact upon air and light it's important to note that that criteria
in the zoning board is based upon the impact upon air and light to conforming properties
and obviously the 263 was granted a variance in that situation um and is technically not a
conforming property in that respect and that requirement of zoning code the other thing and
you can look at all that there's only archives when you get to chance I'm not going to go through
them or the zoning boards archives and file in detail the one thing I do want to show also a tab
B5 it's current photos of the of the development at 263 and I think it's important to note that
some of the things that were brought up by Mr. Grimes clients about blocking of views which I
think we all can agree understand and agree is not the basis for denying a variance and we no
longer have a height variance the height variance has been removed to the extent that there's a
dimensional variance it's and any blocking of views it's because of where the building is located and
it's always going to block somebody's view but I look at show pictures here that were that I took
of 263 and showing that it itself blocks the views of the properties further up the hill
and looks into the windows of the properties below it.
And you can see that right here in this photograph that I've shown.
You can see the property to the left, which is, I think, 265.
And then you can see the property to the right, which is 261 Hermitage.
So some of the same conditions that we're objected to regarding the location of our property,
of our proposed two single-family dwellings on our lot, exist and were created with the development of 263.
Now, obviously, the current owners of the property, you can see how the hill drops off at Hermitage, were not the developers of that property.
They just bought it.
But it's a little bit of the, you know, somebody living in glass houses and throwing stones or the pot calling the kettle black,
something along those lines where they're complaining about conditions which I believe are not the basis for the denial of the requested variances,
But they're they're basing them on conditions that they themselves have create or were created with the development of their project.
So I just wanted to point that out to the zoning board.
Let me see if there's anything else. I just real quickly administratively, we updated our tax clearance for today's hearing.
We did post the property, and I did include the 14303 notice from when we met with the community group, MNC, the first time.
So I think with those things, and I'm going to real quickly pull up the criteria from the zoning code for the granting of the variance.
We believe that we've complied with the criteria for the granting of the variance.
I think we've shown that there are unique physical characteristics of this property, extremely unique physical characteristics, not only of the property, but then at the location of the property in terms of being at the end of Ripka Street and what happens at the end of Ripka Street and how that impacts the ability, the difficulty in developing this project.
We believe we've satisfied the criteria showing financial hardship in this case.
we believe we've satisfied the criteria showing financial hardship um in this case um we we
believe that the we've made every effort to minimize the dimensional variance in terms of
the setback and also in terms of the steep slopes we've we've moved the houses out of the steepest
of slopes which is the whole reason for that criteria into the least steepest of slopes and
we've to the extent we could move in those less steep slopes we could move the property forward
closer to the front property line we have keep in mind that even though the zoning code speaks
about front setback I believe that it's normally intended to keep the fronts of the properties in
line with each other we have to the one side of us if you look at the property to the left
that is a side of the building that is has that setback and I had some back and forth with L&I
about that and um they believe that that criteria still uh meets or is required for us to meet that
setback of the building located at the corner of wildly and um and our property um because of it's
technically a front um under 14701 and then obviously up the hill you have no you have nobody
directly next to us technically up the hill the building that's further up the hill is set back
further back, but LNI has defined or has looked at that and not considered that in their opinion
to establish that setback. But for those reasons, we feel that it's the minimum variance, both in
terms of the setback, in terms of the steep slopes, and in terms of the parking. Because again,
all the cars, all the properties across the street from us all have off-street parking.
263 all has off-street parking it's a steep hill to walk up from the next cross street
we know parking is difficult to find on-street parking we are not taking away any on-street
parking with the parking that we've requested we do we believe that it's uh again we believe
that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code
we it clearly won't substantially increase congestion because cars aren't going to be
driving around looking for on-street parking and we don't again we don't believe it's going to
impact the light and air to the properties abutting us or to the conforming properties which 263 is
not and we also believe that it satisfies the remaining criteria regarding transportation
what are sewer school park or other public facilities and in that for those reasons we
believe that the variances that we work very hard to minimize one of which we've eliminated
with the relocation of the of the structure um warrants the granting of the required variances
in this case after a very long time thank you council would you want to summarize where you
where you stand i mean i basically what yeah if i may i just want to respond to some of the comments
that also made sure um so what um i respect what council's doing but this application is about
251 Ripka Street. It's not about 263 Hermitage. And with respect, the board was just showing a very selective view. I'm trying to share my screen very quickly.
I'll stop sharing.
Okay, thank you. It says someone else is sharing. Let me see if I can do this. Let me see if I can get here is a this is from
hopefully everyone can see this it'll be up here yeah this is from Mr. Orfiniti's packet this is
showing 263 Hermitage on the right those uh seven or eight buildings yeah he said that uh 263
Hermitage blocks the view of neighbors from the street the show view he showed you might look that
way but as you can see from this maybe one house the first one that is closest to Hermitage Street
actually a block may be up against the neighbor but the other seven or eight units are not
so i just wanted to respond to that because i think that the board was given a a different
impression of of that situation so um just to sort of to summarize very quickly this is one
of those cases where it's like putting a square peg in in a round hole um what we've heard in the
three hearings now that the board has is heard from on this matter uh the steep slope is not the
minimum relief requested uh admittedly from the feasibility study it is the cheapest way to do
this work um to do this project but the project could be built and the feasibility study says that
right up against the setback which is exactly what is done in the houses that are right now forget
about across the street the houses right next to this property are up against the setback
as are dozens if not hundreds of other properties in Maniunk in the in the immediate
as are dozens, if not hundreds, of other properties in Maniunk in the immediate vicinity.
So the variance requested for the setback is not the minimum relief required to do this project.
It's a matter of saving money or being a cheaper cost.
In terms of the parking, as I've said before, there are hundreds, if not thousands,
of properties in maniunk that have no parking including the properties immediately next to this
site again not across the street but the properties immediately going to the corner there are two or
three of them to the corner and around the block going all the way have no parking as many others
parking is not a requirement in maniunk and in this zoning district so there is no grounds for
a variance for parking when it's not that way for you know there's no code requirement and
certainly there's no uh there's no parking for many other properties um in maniung so um you
know that really summarizes i the points i would would leave for the board um this project would
impinge as we just heard on light and air for 263 hermitage um it is not the minimum relief
necessary on at least two of the variance requests so um on behalf of the two uh hermitage place
owners association i would ask that the board consider um denying the variance requests for
this project i'm just before i finish just to want to remind i don't know there could be some
Opponents who from the public who may be on that I don't represent, but I just wanted to remind the board that they hadn't had an opportunity to speak.
Okay. Yeah, we'll get to that. Okay. Yeah. The only thing I was gonna say is I have a photograph that refutes Mr. Grimes statement about blocking the buildings. You can look at that. I understand you have that. Okay. So question questions from the board.
I have a question. So the primary reason for the setback is to provide parking for the two single family homes. No, it's just even even without. So there's so it works in both. It works in two directions. And I went back and listened to Mr. Bats's testimony. So on the one side, so to move it. So, first of all, I don't, not sure how to say, bring it, bring it in the front of the property is the steepest of slopes. There is almost 90%. So.
So clearly by moving it out of that we're minimizing that variance. The problem is, is that to put the building even and Mr Dollar testified to this is that to stick the building at the front, even if that's not parking just to come in off the ground floor and walk into the building unless you're going to
going to come up a ladder or come up crazy steps up to get to the upper second floor.
You're going to have to dig into that building. What we're doing is we're pushing it back and
we're floating it in a way. And we've moved it forward. You know, we've moved it through
the beginning of the project. We've been, I think, 15 feet considerably forward. But so whether
that's just to get into the building or whether it's for parking, you're going to have to excavate
that. The other problem is, is what that does is, and Mr. Dollar testified to this, you have the
ground floor let's say that's even you're walking in at the cellar level that's below grade but that
even puts the next living level the the main living level let's say the common area partially
below grade as well so you're digging out just to get your even your living space you're digging
all that out to get there that's on the one side so you have all that additional cost that you
don't have and it was in the appraisals in the evaluation to to between building the building
itself the other issue you have is that without the parking mr bats testified this so you have
the price going up and then you have the sales price coming down because now you don't have the
parking you don't have at least the parking for the upper hill project or building because of the
the grade and where and where the not only just the grade but where the lot the street ends
and mr dollar said we don't even we've been trying to find out i mean you'd have to build
this crazy supporting like to hold the hill back to dig the hill out to extend to extend the street
past our you know past the full length of our property but then we even if we're left with the
one so we lose one completely or two spaces because we're mr dollar said stacked and we're
not stacking on top it's what we call shotgun um back tail to tail to toe or tail to front but um
But you lose the one, and then you lose one, possibly two, because it depends how deep you want to go.
Like, again, to go deeper, you now need to dig out more bedrock if you're going to still have the one stack, whereas if you're just going to do the one, you're going to have less sale.
So more cost, less resale, less marketability also because it's a house without parking versus a house that has parking that isn't taking away any on-street parking.
without parking versus a house that has parking that isn't taking away any on-street parking.
So between those two, and that's where we land up seeing like the loss for the project
and the financial and physical difficulty. It's also going to disturb the neighbors a heck of a
lot more. You got to blast and you got to dig out all that bedrock. So during that process too,
it's going to be a lot more difficult for everybody to create a project or create the
houses at the front versus the houses at the back. If I may, just to remind the board, the houses
immediately next to this property going down to the cross street are right up at the setback.
They don't have the topography. The topography may be different, but again, what we're hearing,
And look, I'm looking at page 17 of the feasibility study. This is a financial analysis you're hearing. It is not a hardship analysis. We are taking the developer's word for what he thinks he could sell the property for.
I don't have an expert to counter it, but he could sell it. It would be either at less profit or even at a loss. But respectfully, I don't know that his ability to make a profit should be the main determiner for whether you grant a variance, particularly given the other factors we've discussed with this property, and also because the immediate houses next door comply with the zoning code, and they're built right up against the setback.
with no setback other questions questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions
or comments from the audience and i think what i'll do is before i go to the virtual audience
i'll go here first john are you going to testify yeah come on why don't we um do you want me to
move yeah why don't you give john a seat i mean that way
good morning sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer uh yeah it's john
hunter h-u-n-t-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do mr hunter just make sure the the mic's pretty close to you that's all right i always yeah yeah
yeah yeah right right please proceed sir thank you um uh just to introduce myself i am the zoning
chair for many neighborhood council um and uh have been involved in the discussions on this project
over the last five plus years now um normally i don't bring notes i have a lot of uh comments to
make on mr uh often these testimony we you have our mnc's letter from going back yeah we do with
the points which have been reviewed but in addition in the two and a half hours of testimony from mr
orphanages there's a lot of things that we want to address and so i go ahead i'm sorry i'm testing
your patience and going no you're not you're done we're a little we're i don't want to say this too
loud but we're a little ahead of schedule a little little ahead of schedule we we we probably want
to stay at that point but go ahead i may i may never hear that again on a case that i'm involved
in you were done testifying that's what i said go ahead right ahead because i came in on this
the case had already started right um let's go back a little bit um
when this case was presented uh to mnc as the coordinating rco there was a different attorney
as mr orphaned as i said leon malvahill and it was a slightly different scheme uh it's gone
through some modifications we were familiar with the site because of the previous case which has
just been unearthed again and referred to which was 263 hermitage which we
opposed and we opposed it not as mr. Orphanidis said in his January
testimony about it being similar it was for very different reasons that property
had a twin house existing house a fine house at the property which could have
been retained you have to be demolished it was and then there was a row houses
proposed behind it because it took up so much of the site it also required um stormwater management
which required required a rain garden at the front of the site so it was a very alien proposal to the
surroundings and those were the primary reasons that we opposed it at the hearing your predecessor
chair bongan um hinted at i'll put it as weakly as that that there could be a compromise uh
reducing the number of houses that would be extended into the site and the developer jumped
at that suggestion and reduced the number of houses to eight from nine so there was a
space at the back of the site plus the rear setback that was left and you can see that from
space at the back of the site plus the rear yard setback that was left and you can see that
the aerial photographs at the hearing the developer also made assertions which i understand he
subsequently made to the purchases of the houses that he owned the site below 263 which is 251
and that it wouldn't be developed and um
We lost that appeal, as obviously the houses were built. And then we were surprised when we were informed that there was a new developer for the site, it would be developed.
And knowing just how difficult that site is, we were very surprised.
The site, as has been explained, hasn't been developed as far as we can see, ever.
But it's surrounded by different vintages of developments, particularly down on Wild Street and the ones on Perpichette Street, say, 1900 in rough numbers.
The ones on Ripka Street in the 1960s, and that's probably when the extension of Ripka Street came up, Ripka Street up the hill.
And it stopped immediately as soon as it could where the houses were being developed.
And then there was 263 that was developed.
And during that period, clearly, and it's not unusual, there was a lot of potential for dumping, erosion, and whatever else on that site.
So it didn't really surprise us that there was so much vegetation and fill at the entrance to the site, which is characterized, understandably, as steep slopes.
But what we found in the past with other such developments, it is filled, and it is a concern for erosion.
But it isn't all necessarily rock. So when we were discussing the scheme with Mr. Mulvihill and looking at alternatives, our immediate response was, why don't you put the building, whatever you're building, where the zoning code tells you to with zero setback for an RSA5.
Put it at the front of the site where you minimize the disturbance for the whole site. And also it's likely that a lot of the thing that you're, you know, looking at is fill which can be easily excavated and not necessarily all rock.
In addition to that, at that time, there was a high refusal. So there was this building which was set, two buildings, two houses, set 50 feet back from the road and spanning from side to side of the property lines, which meant that one of the houses, the side of the houses, which inevitably is blank, extended up, according to the refusal and the way it was calculated, 45 feet above grade, plus a 10 foot
on top of that. And that side of that building was 10 feet away from these new houses costing three quarters of a million dollars, which were looking directly at that property.
And we consider that to be the least favorable solution and asked them to look at other solutions, including the opportunities of not only looking at the front of the site, but also recognizing that at the front of the site,
Because that one house had been omitted during the ZBA hearing, plus the rear yard setback, there was an opportunity not to block any of the houses.
So we weren't against building something, but we were certainly appalled at what was proposed.
I think it's also interesting to look at, and again, I don't know what you make of it, but the developer who developed 263 was a smart developer. He did quite a lot of local developments. He knew the circumstances of Manianka and steep slopes and rock formations, and he chose to sell the property that he owned for 251 Roca.
He not only sold it, he sold it for $30,000. And we'll talk about later Mr. Batts' testimony as a real estate appraiser. Mr. Batts, in his report, values the property at $200,000, two $100,000 lots.
So our immediate response was whatever you do, first of all, you've got a lot of latitude of money that you have to spend.
And secondly, caveat emptor. If you're going to build this, go into it with eyes wide open and don't bleed hardship for financial stress immediately.
FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE DON'T KNOW WHY, OUR PUBLIC MEETING, AS MR OFANITES HAS SHOWN, OPPOSED THE SCHEME, AS DID BRIDGE PARK.
as shown, opposed the scheme, as did Bridge Park. And it went quiet. I think it was just
generally continued, and the scheme was continued. It's been allowed to for all this time. Eventually,
we were contacted by Mr. Orphanides. Mr. Orphanides we've dealt with before on various other projects.
He said he introduced himself. He's been taking over the project and would like to talk to
about the scheme, and we were happy to do that. So we gave him our viewpoint, which
I'm sure was totally different from Alex Duller's viewpoint, who's the architect.
And we suggested that, you know, that there was an alternative scheme. And what Mr. Ofanidis
did, and I think he will confirm, is he said that he wanted to gain more information about
of the site to understand what the constraints were. The building, the original scheme went
forward to the site. It drove a drive valve down the center of the site and had two staircases
at the side. This really monumental sort of development of the site. It completely excavated
out the steep slopes at the front of the site, which Mr. Orphanides is so concerned about
in this testimony. And so what Mr. Orfinides did was to take recommendations to the client
to have a geotechnical survey, which is normal but you don't necessarily do it at zoning level,
you do it at building permit. And also to really investigate where the front of the site was,
what the width of the site was, one of the constraints which we thought was wise.
That then came – produced yet another delay that we heard nothing for a long time, and
then eventually it came back with a solid proposal for a review by our zoning committee
and then the public committee, which is the scheme that's before you now.
And what that scheme did was, as you've seen, move – develop only once half of the site,
the 22 feet to the south, downhill, which seemed reasonable.
But what I think really that needs to be brought to bear an understanding about this site is whatever happens on this site, the steep slopes at the front of the site will have to be excavated, certainly for the whole of that 22 feet.
not only down to sidewalk level, but below that by at least three feet for foundation level and for utilities.
Everybody knows that the utilities serving these two buildings are three feet down in the middle,
at least three feet down in the middle of Ripka Street.
And they, to make a connection, they will come across, they will enter the site across the front boundary at a lower level.
So you have two sewer lines, you have two water lines, you have two sprinkler lines, you have two gas lines. You might have the electricity underground for aesthetic reasons. All of those utilities are excavated in a trench.
And that trench, if the building were built at the front of the site, it would be inside the building as soon as it crossed that boundary.
If you do what is proposed, which is to provide utilities 35 feet down the site, you have to cut into the site for that 35 feet to a depth of three feet below wherever the proposed driveway is.
and that has never been really understood and and uh clarified i've made in this proposal
you are taking out the steep slopes whatever you're doing now um
rachel uh if i get her name right because i was bad with it to d-domenicus d-domenicus yes
rachel d-domenicus did you know a very thorough uh presentation and what she did was she really
She reiterated what's in the zoning code, which is great, and she also really stated what was required by the Planning Commission to review the erosion and stormwater control systems for the site.
But also, under Ms. Dorofedini's sort of questioning, she implied that the other half of the site, the site to the north, at the front of the boundary, would not be disturbed.
It would be just contained conveniently and neatly by a retaining wall. And that also is not the correct situation, because again, for a retaining wall, the retaining wall has to extend down to foundation level. It has to be below frost line. And in order to build a retaining structure, that form a rectangle, you pretty much have to excavate down, form the foundations, build a wall.
you pretty much have to excavate down, form the foundations, build a wall, and then backfill behind it so it's an active retaining wall in the long term.
So considering the whole of the site development, pretty much most of that site at the front of the site will need significant excavation below the sidewalk level.
And there isn't even a sidewalk there at the moment, but there will need to be.
So, I think that puts a different understanding on why we were so committed to whatever the proposal was, it should be at the front of the site and not to the rear of the site.
I also think that what we should talk about, if I just look at my notes for a second because there's quite a lot to go through.
I want to talk about Mr. Batts' testimony, which confused me very much as Mr. Grimes has said, we hadn't seen that report the last time it was produced.
We hadn't seen Rachel's report either. After five years, they were produced at the very last minute.
And Mr. Batts, who is his company's Rittenhouse, David, can you remind me?
Yeah, Rittenhouse appraisals, I believe.
They appraise, and it's a discipline, it's a profession, but it's not an estimator.
And some of his testimony, a lot of his testimony, as Mr. Grimes has pointed out,
talks about financial feasibility and values and excavation costs.
He refers to blasting. You can't blast in the city of Philadelphia. It's not allowed. And you can't blast when you've got houses below you, you've got houses above you, and you've got houses across the street.
So that immediately, to me, is a red flag. Also, I have to take issue specifically, as Mr. Grimes did at the last hearing, when he asked about the cost of how could pushing a building back 35 feet on the side be less expensive than having it at the front of the side.
And his answer, I'm afraid, I believe is nonsense. Because as I've already said, the utilities have to enter the site at the same level, whether it's at the front of the site or the back of the site. If the building's at the front of the site, that's it. That's the cost. If the building is 35 feet, you've got the excavation and utility costs for that 35 feet. It inevitably costs more money.
So I haven't analyzed and looked at all of this, but an appraiser is not an estimator in construction. He is dealing with figures that he might have got some of the numbers from Mr. Dollar in terms of removal, but Mr. Dollar doesn't know about rock removal, but fill removal, he doesn't know how much it is.
And so I wanted to come on to the next thing, which is the geotechnical report.
Again, Mr. Olfenides, in his sort of examination of our letter, seemed to misunderstand what we were saying.
The geotechnical report is really a guess estimate.
What you do is you drill down in a certain number of locations on the side, and you go vertically as if you were drilling for oil.
And you take samples of the soil as you go through it, and then you get to a point which is called, or you look for, a point which is called refusal. Refusal is when you hit rock, and the drilling machine is calibrated to then start with that rock.
That information is then, and I think from Mr. Duller's testimony, it was either three or four drilling points that were taken.
And I don't know where they were exactly, but this is a little more challenging in this proposal because you take the drilling points at the front of the site or some at the front of the site and some 35 feet back because you really want to know what the conditions are where the houses are being built because that's the foundations that you'll be designing.
So all we were trying to point out is that those, the investigation produced information on four points. And from that, guesses were made by the geotechnical and by the architect, but they don't know where the rock is.
And then again coming back to something that has appeared for a long time on Mr. Orphanides' proposal was the section through the site.
He put the show one section through the site. And that one section, I don't know where it was, but I think it was in the middle of the site.
And if you remember from Mr. Orphanides' long description of the site, the front of the site is doing this, or your way around it's doing this.
The rest of the site is doing this.
So when you try and take a section through a site,
through a site, anywhere you take the section, it's changing every foot. And you can't represent
anywhere you take the section, it's changing every foot.
what's going on on the site by one section. To me, it's like those horrific medical documentaries
where you see doctors analyzing the brain and they take millimeters slightest through
the brain because every millimeter is changing. This site is changing. And it was interesting
that the section that was shown on the screen for a long time at the last hearing showed
a one-line profile, which is where the existing topography is, and then a dark shaded area
which supposedly showed where rock was. And that line was conflicting with the testimony
being given by Rachel, who said it was at 80%. The line that was shown in the section
And the question was like this, and she was talking about the profile being at a certain point 80%.
So all I'm trying to point out is all of these things which are presented as being hardline figures,
Mr. Batts actually came up with a figure of $65,000 loss. I don't know where he got that from,
but it's meaningless because you can't take those figures into account.
And also, I'm only being sucked into the argument of looking at the financial hardship,
And we shouldn't be looking at financial hardship. We should be looking at the least variance granted for this proposal.
And I think what we came – I'll try and wrap up as quickly as I can.
What we came up with was, as we put in our letter, the least variance would be accepting that there is a steep slope and there is a hardship.
And also, we're also aware in other cases that it's almost accepted law that if you have a property, you should be allowed to develop it. So of all the variances that we can consider, we understand the steep slope proposal.
But I would just point out that in the zoning code, it does point out that if you disturb the site for less than 1,500 square feet, you don't have to comply with the zoning code requirements.
And that 1,500 square feet is enough to build a house. So for those reasons, as we clearly stated in our recommendations, we believe the minimum variance is to build one house on that side. You can do it.
if you did it you could also provide a parking space for that one house on the
side and having done that there's no reason to pursue any setback refusal
or the front-loaded garage refusal which came in in 2014 so for those reasons
There is clear indications, and I thought it was reassuring that Mr. Grimes' line of questioning, which we haven't talked, he's been hired by HWA, but we haven't talked to him until listening to his testimony at the last hearing.
He came up with the basic same questions. He's not an architect, he's an attorney, and he came up with exactly the same common sense questions.
why don't you do this and why why don't why can't you do this and have a
property which fits in with the neighborhood if you look at the
renderings and I ask you to look at the renderings that are in this package the
rendering for this proposal not the other proposal but the proposal that
before you has enormous number of areas square footages of retaining walls which
are expensive and they're ugly there is even a retaining wall required along the adjacent property
along the boundary of the adjacent property because of the relative heights of where that
yard is and where this it's a really aggressive insertion into the neighborhood i know it's
aesthetics and you're not really here to consider it aesthetics but all of these things are all
We're all pointing in the same direction of a common sense minimum variance requirement and there is a solution.
We're not saying don't build anything, we're saying this is the solution.
There's one other thing I just want to point out, and it came up so many times I lost count.
This often refers to the design as MNC's design, which is bringing the building forward.
So we did not propose a design. What we did was we pointed out the zoning code requirements. The zoning code precludes certain things and advocates things. And we just said do those things that the zoning code tells you to do and tells you not to do and nothing more.
do those things that the zoning code tells you to do and tells you not to do nothing more whereas
mr dollar and mr orphanetes then created a complete fake make-believe design
which moved forward to the front of the side which he referred to as mnc's design repeatedly
which it isn't and it's the dumbest design you could imagine it's got garages which would never
out of advocate and it just slams into the side when you move the building you don't just move
the same design down the side that's not what you should be doing you take into account
what is there and what the stranger and so that whole comparison by mr batts i would suggest is
just i don't know what it is but it certainly was nothing that we recommended it certainly
is something that we would not advocate for and was a total waste of time or total waste of your
time in our opinion. So I think that's good. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Oh, yeah.
Well, let's figure out where we are with this. Yeah, sure. So there was a lot in there. Yeah,
I know there's a lot in there, but I mean, you can't, everybody's going to, there's 10 other
people i understand i mean so how much do you think you need 10 15 minutes okay yeah i mean
i'll give it out and see where we stand at that 10 15 well i think 10 15 minutes is wonderful
all right so all right so mr hunter you suggest that in your i'm going to work my way backwards
so you you talk about um you believe that one house can be built here um do you have
Do you have any studies, any reports, any analyses to support that?
To hand now? No. No. I'm sure we could do some research and provide that.
Okay. All right. John, make sure you're a little closer to the mic.
Sorry, I could be back.
So right now, that's just your opinion, not based upon any hard facts or data, correct?
It's in the zoning code. It has attached and detached requirements.
it has required side yards it had required front setbacks exactly if you go by that you can you
produce it oh well I don't think there's any I don't think there's any doubt about that the
question becomes can that can that can that be developed and and and to that point so you don't
have any data that says that financially that that could be that could be achievable with
single family with or without parking. If you can just answer my question, yes or no. It's a simple
yes or no question. Let me hear what he says first. If you would like me to present you with
a fee proposal, I'd be happy to do that. No, I think that's unnecessary. So my question was a
yes or no question, and I think it should answer yes or no, and then he can elaborate. So right
now, you don't have, that's your opinion, and it's not based upon any financial data. It's not based
upon any studies it's not based upon anything correct it's just your own opinion it's based
upon you taking the zoning code and say if this was a flat piece of ground i could build a single
family house that has the required setbacks does it is up at the front and is of the required height
is that correct sounded like that's what you said under the zoning code under the zoning code yes
Okay. In terms of financial hardship, you're aware of section 143038E.3. Are you?
Okay. And that says, and I'm going to read it here because I don't think I'm sharing my screen anymore.
But it says, to find the necessary hardship in the case of a dimensional variance,
the zoning board may consider the economic detriment to the applicant and the variance is denied.
The financial burden created by any work necessary to bring the building into strict compliance with the zoning requirements
and the character characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood the front setback requirement is a
dimensional requirement correct yes and so we are asking for a dimensional variance from that correct
yes all right and we've provided you may disagree and we'll talk about mr mr battson
here to defend his report and i'd be happy to have him speak to that but we we did provide
financial data and our that our opinion that proves a financial hardship so it is it is relevant and
is admissible and the code specifically calls for it no no i'm just asking so he says he's familiar
with it but you did state that financial you can't look at financial hardship and the zoning code
says that you can so do you change your testimony now
or do you still assert that you can't look the zoning board can't look at financial hardship in
this case statement i made was in in relation to mr batts's calculations and information
okay that sounded to me like you were saying so you're saying you don't believe that his report
that sounded to me like you were saying so you're saying you don't believe that his report
supports
supports the financial hardship is that what you're stating from my limited understanding
of reading it yeah and you're not you're not an appraiser are you are you a professional estimator
i'm not okay and you you heard my client's testimony that he did consult with a professional
estimator correct no i didn't hear that okay he did maybe that was after before he got in here
But yes, he did speak to that, and that's on the record. I can have Mr. Duller come in. You mentioned about the sections, and I understand that it's very difficult, just like taking sections of a brain, like you mentioned, with a property like this that has so many different angles going on.
um and that in itself is very not unusual let's say for manny young generally but to have a
property that's so steep in one way and so steep in another it's different than the property located
next to it down at the corner correct it doesn't have as much steep slopes going in two directions
correct correct okay um so it's it's different than even the property next to it but it looks
to me and and and i can bring mr dollar on but it looked to me from the plans and i went on
and i remember i have asking this question i think way back when but it's been so long now
that that it was taken it looks like to me that it was taking and i can again bring him on to speak
to that that the section was taken instead of what concentrate on him you said you're going to bring
him on well okay so so would it be surprising to you whether the section was taken in the middle
of the property at the edges of the property i mean if it was taken in the middle of the property
that kind of be like an average wouldn't it not it may be i don't know because of the the way that
the site is twisting in different directions okay i mean i can bring mr dollar on but there's a cut
line on the plan that shows that it's not at one extreme or another but it's taken towards the
middle of the property which i would assert is kind of an average and gives a good sense with
property that's as difficult to convey the um the conditions as this one is as mr as mr hunter has
stated himself and confirmed himself um let's see all right so you mentioned that the you mentioned
that the um the geotechs um you it's correct that those aren't typically done for zoning projects
correct it varies but it depends on the severity and the question of the side okay real concerns
about it it might determine viability you could and you think it was a valid thing to do in this
case given the topography and given the issues yes okay now you said that they were guesses um
i think that your assumption is they could guess that it's worse than it is
could it also the guess be that the what they're stating is better than it is i use the word
guesses to simplify it in the in the letter we use the word interpolation and that is a better
more accurate thing is where you take for and you try and interpolate from the different
investigation reports that you get and you do it with the geotech consultant who is much more
familiar architects are always as mr dollar will tell you referring to other consultants and taking
advice so i'm not in any way questioning any conversations that might have occurred with
the geotech consultant i don't know who that was okay but they did retain a professional who
provided those those results of their geotech correct i don't know okay you told us so sorry
but all right well we all right well we provided it with our with our with our documents so um
We'll just leave that be where it is.
You're aware that Rittenhouse Appraisals has presented testimony regarding financial hardship and reports to this zoning board with this particular board and prior boards as well?
No, I am not. I would be interested in, you mentioned that they had made submissions or acted as expert witnesses previously, but I don't know in what capacity.
Because if you look at their website, they really call themselves commercial real estate appraisers.
So you would have, based upon what I'm telling you today, you would have no reason to believe that they have not provided testimony reports and been accepted as an expert to provide testimony and evidence regarding financial hardship by this particular board and other zoning boards before them.
Do you have any reason to believe that that's incorrect?
do you have no reason to believe either way i have no information okay and you understand i don't
know if you were here for this but you heard my client we probably didn't hear my client testify
but my client testified that he took the information from a professional estimator plus information
But my client testified that he took the information from a professional estimator, plus information from his architect, his engineers, and provided that to Mr. Batts, who then compared it to comparable projects in the report.
Do you have any information to, do you have any reason to believe that that's not accurate?
Okay, you mentioned that sidewalks would have to be extended across the full width of the property.
Council.
Sorry, and I just want to point out that these questions are really, Mr. Irfanides respectfully using this as an opportunity to say more things to the board, not ask this witness questions.
Well, I can ask him whether it's regarding his statement.
So this is what we're going to do.
David, try to be focused on what is his testimony?
I literally was writing questions.
So just focus on that testimony.
Certainly.
You stated you believe sidewalks would have to be extended across the full width of the front of the properties, correct?
We were told in Mr. Dulles' testimony that the scheme had been reviewed by Streets Department, which would require sidewalks, and there is an indication of a curb cut, so I assume, from the information given, there is a sidewalk to be provided. There isn't one at the moment.
Right, but do you understand that the street does not extend across, Ripka Street presently does not extend across the full width of the lot?
So you, that was not the information given to us initially by Mr. Mulvihill, but you, from your investigations, you've confirmed that that's the case and we have no reason to question.
Okay. So you couldn't extend the sidewalk further because the street doesn't extend any further than partially across the uphill lot, correct?
The sidewalk is where the sidewalk can be and it includes the curb cut for the driveway as proposed.
right but do you understand that that's one of the reasons why the curb cut was moved from
the middle of the property to the downhill side of the property i don't know i've been i was never
explained to me why it was moved it seemed a straightforward thing to do given the information
okay i know i stated that during our community group meeting but um let's just say for the
record that that was the reason why the driveway was moved from the middle to the southern side
was because of the investigation that was done during the delay that just where we discovered
where the street ended and we actually don't have street frontage to come in from the middle
um you touched on the fact regarding um the
you admit that part of the you believe that with the retaining walls that are to be built in front
the uphills building that all of the area not just the driveway in front of the lower downhill
building would be disturbed is that correct to a certain degree yes would it be disturbed more than
if you actually built a building in that location they moved the building where that open area is
to be located on the plan you're building a building the you will increase the amount of
disturbance okay all right so there'd be more disturbance of the steepest of slopes in front
of the uphill building with it pulled all the way front versus having it being set back as we're
proposing correct it depends on the extent of the whatever the construction is as i've said before
you rely on side yards on both sides of the property if it were a detached property
and so you may not disturb certain areas okay but if you were to take the two buildings and
pull them forward there would be more disturbance correct more disturbance than what than leaving
the then having the area in front of the uphill building being open area no not in the totality
because you're cutting a suede 35 feet 35 feet long 22 feet wide down the side down the side
Can you please explain that?
greater degree but you're not disturbing this site to the same degree in front of the uphill building
in front of the what the building that's uphill because that area doesn't have any development
in it with what with the setback that we have whereas with the design pulled all the way to
the front they're building the building in that area of the in the steepest of slopes
in the steepest of slopes which we've already established occurred in this site
in the steepest of slopes which we've already established occurred in this site at the very
front of the site yeah okay so that would be worse in terms of the steep slope variance
correct i don't know about degree of of whether it is worse it just triggers it's over 20 i'm sorry
over 25 and that's the trigger well that's where it starts to trigger but it's a question of
degree then i mean isn't the idea that is it is it anything over 25 is the same regardless of the
this this the steepness of the slope is that a question yes that was a question is that your
opinion that anything over 25 there's no difference between disturbing 26 versus disturbing 80 as we
would be in some of the locations at the front of the property is that your position no okay
um you and i may have heard this wrong did you say that my client purchased 251 from the developer
of 263 no oh okay i'm sorry i thought you said that because that's not what the deed reflects um
and you stated you made a statement to the board um kind of insinuate well you made a statement
insinuate he made a statement that my client knew that he would need variances when he purchased
the property and that should be held against him in determining whether variances should be granted
in this case is that correct i did not say that no okay all right because the case law doesn't
say that's how i took your statements and i mean i'm not going to be reading back but
the case law is clear you can buy a property but that's not the case okay that's fine that's fine
Um, you mentioned, um, no, that's, I'll go and keep going.
Um, you mentioned, you talked about the location of our building that are built side line to
sideline being so close to the buildings um at 263 um the only reason well first of all we don't
have a refusal for building sideline to sideline correct okay and the buildings at 263 did have a
refusal and did need a variance for being located too close to the side property line correct
you're asking me to remember something from a number of years ago if you tell me it was in a
refusal but let me just say this in terms of that issue that issue is only created because they got
a variance to turn their buildings but but that's what's that's talk about you okay right well I am
because he's raised he's opened it wait hold on a second he's not his attorney I understand that
i understand okay we concentrate on your building and let's move well i think mr hunter was trying
to insinuate because of the location of her to do what you're building well it does because he's
stating because of the way our building is located we're blocking please david understood
we're saying the only reason that is is that's well anyway
you understand that well i'm not going to skip that side
Were you on for the prior hearings?
I was.
All right.
And did you hear Mr. Dollar's test?
You stated that there's erosion from the site.
And do you believe that the erosion issue would be worse with the development of the project or better with the development of the project?
the review by the planning commission uh was uh confirmed and therefore i assume that the
proposals would would satisfy the requirement for okay erosion and soil water management thanks
okay i'm just looking back to my questions
how do we stay how are we saying i don't think i'm i think i'm i'm done with my questions okay
um mr ryan do you have any questions i do not okay thank you how many hands are up in the
virtual audience i see no hands cheer okay there's one one hand just mr matthew gokas
i will promote to panty
and did he he's a resident of the association did he testify already or no he did not write a letter
association did he testify already or no he did not write a letter i'm not aware all right bring
I'm not a
him on oh he's a neighbor across the street i'm sorry okay i knew the name but i'm not sure
hi yes i'm a neighbor i live hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer hi my name is matthew kolkis uh g-u-l-k-i-s do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir um are you in favor of this project or
against? Against. Okay. And we've heard a great deal of testimony. Could you give me a short
reason why you're against? Yes. First, I'm just addressing three points Mr. Offendus made
during the first meeting regarding the exception for the driveway and garage.
The first point was he suggested that the three parking spots on 242 through 250 Ripka Street
Street were used exclusively by our residents. That's not true. These are public parking
spots and are used by all the neighbors on Wild Greenout.
So I understand that, but let's concentrate on the building itself. Tell me why you don't
want this building.
So it's been five years of continuances and they don't really seem to have it together.
uh i just know with that steep slope it's going to be a very long construction project we are
going to lose access to the street um i i just don't i don't and at the end result is going to
be two very ugly houses well um thank you for your testimony you have any questions no okay
no one else in the virtual audience not at this time chair planning commission
good morning liz fuselay for the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at
this location the appellant has shown that the site cannot reasonably be used without triggering
a variance for steep slope disturbance the appellant proposes accessory off-street parking
not accessed from a real rear street shared driveway or alley the city does not allow
parking on ripka street which is also a dead end the appellant has shown that there are unique
physical conditions or circumstances of this property that will prevent conformance with
the zoning code the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed
variances for accessory off-street parking steep slope disturbance and front setback
Thank you. This is the fourth hearing, right? Am I right? This is the fourth? I've lost count. The fourth. We've had a great deal of testimony. I'd like a chance to sit with the board and figure out exactly where we stand. I want to thank everybody for their intense interest in this, and we will vote on this next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m. Okay?
Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your patience.
a break by the way and then we have the one more case right we'll be i promise five minutes right
so in my 2026 001455 6930 ardley street um david orfinetes is the attorney also involved in this
will be leonard reuter and alan ockmson um david you've already been sworn but just for the record
state your name uh david rafaniti's last name is spelled o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s mr knockamson
alan knockamson a-l-a-n knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth mr reuter thank you may it please the board Leonard F Reuter
r-e-u-t-e-r senior attorney city of Philadelphia do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. So we debated for a while this morning where we stood on this. Why don't I have Hillary make some comments on what we think would be some legal implications. Right. So as the chair mentioned last time today, we're going to finish the arguments as it relates to the constructive notice. If the board themes that it's been shown that the
appeal was filed based timely based on constructive notice then um they will and and they will
announce that at the end of the hearing and we will continue the case for enough to be
scheduled for hearing on the merits otherwise other otherwise the the board's other option
will be to if it doesn't find it timely it will you know vote to dismiss based on timeliness so
that's just that's where we stand today okay so uh david how do we do we remember where we stand
who's yeah i think we've finished with christina so and i think we were done with her i believe
So, and I think we were done with her. I believe that is the case. That's right. I mean, although I will say that Mr. Notcomson had requested subpoena for text messages, and I did give the text messages. I emailed them to you last week with our exhibits. And if you had some questions for her based upon that, I'd be fine with that.
that is the case that's right
I did not notice the text messages. It's just the ones between Richard. They testified to it, but I think you had asked for them and that's all we have. But I mean, other than that, I was going to call Richard Kramer as my next witness.
I think I only have, I think I have three. I think I have Richard Kramer, Shirley Threadgill, who's the neighbor across the street at 6935 and Kevin O'Casey at 735. And we'll see.
Sorry, can I just ask? So obviously, Christina is the appellant. She testified to when she found out about it. And some of that was through her husband, Richard. So I understand why he's testifying. Why are the other two testifying?
I think it just shows that they weren't the only ones, including a property owner directly across the street who had no idea that there was a zoning permit that was issued.
They just thought it was continuing activity dealing with violations that have been going on for the prior two years, just to show that my clients didn't act unreasonably compared to other neighbors.
I would object to the introduction of those two additional witnesses. Are we going to get every single person in a 250-square-foot radius to testify here?
I think it's just cherry-picking. I think the two relevant witnesses to know whether the
applicant or the appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the zoning permit issuance
would be her and her husband, who she claims she detrimentally relied on.
And the only reason I'd say Shirley lives directly across the street from the property,
and Kevin O'Casey was referenced in the testimony by Christina as far as being
involved in communication i'm just i think i'm going to side with mr knockamson here and the
point is we're trying to figure out whether or not the timely issue is done and that's it and
these are people that they communicate with so if they didn't know they might but i understand
i'm just then i think we're just left with richard the same question for mr knockam's
thing so i wasn't sure if you were calling any witnesses as well i'm just trying to determine
what we have left today i am only calling the property owner's representative jordan abrams
who's behind me in the audience okay all right thank you all right go ahead all right now don't
look at your clock yeah well i know the blur comes on at 12 30 right so we want to get done by then
all right do all right so um i think richard creamer um should be on sure mr creamer
get text on the mic if he's identifying mr creamer has been promoted to panelists thank you
present hi sir could you please state your name and spelled for the stenographer
it's richard last name is creamer crea amazon michael er do you swear or firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel uh richard um where you you were you
here for the first hearing that we had in this matter correct i was okay you were actually sitting
next to your next to christina when she was testifying correct that's correct you heard
everything that she said correct i did okay all right so um let's just let's just get right to it
um when was the first time that you saw this property posted with the zoning permit
um i believe the posting the first time we saw the posting for the zoning permit was sometime
this year in february or march when it was they were doing construction and put a sign down by
the sidewalk um what if i told you you provided me a picture dated april 2nd 2026 does that sound
more realistic as far as the timing yes it was this year all right and then
i'm gonna actually i'm gonna share my screen hold on one second
okay all right is this the photograph you provided to me in april yes okay all right
you see other neighbors kind of standing around the posting there yes it was new new at that point
okay and then you sent me a picture you took yesterday and that's the posting as well correct
right yes all right and that's the only posting at the property that is located anywhere near
is located anywhere near the sidewalk that's correct okay all right um the
near the sidewalk?
That's correct.
so you've heard when did you let's just cut to it when did you first learn let me back up
does this property have a history does this property have a history of permits and activity
or activity at this site extensive related activity can you explain that for the board
to our understanding there was some structural damage at the rear of the property that
is shown in in pictures as well and it's visible from the street at this point in time where they
took that down and rebuilt it but for years that property was in and out of side bracing and i
don't know if that's the correct terminology but there was braces that were going along the
sedgwick street side of the property that were you know being braced and helping hold the building up
as they dug out the foundation or replaced the lower portions of the wall i don't know the extent
of the damage or what it was termed at we didn't get into all of that but we just there was constant
work on that property um because the first time they did it it must not have taken then they
got a little deeper and then rebuilt a larger section of that wall um so that's you know
that's been going on since i think 2021 and and has and how long did that continue
for years like for years until when probably 2024 25 yeah okay okay and
when did you first learn of what we're here for this the proposed change of use
an addition or alteration to the existing structure for use as a multifamily?
First ever notice of it was with the, there was a text regarding, or a petition rather,
that was circulated about a proposed change to the building at 6930. And that was sometime in
November of 2025. Okay. And I'm going to, you know, these have been mentioned, I think these
been requested um by council um for the property owner does does that look like the text that you
sent to to your wife christina yes yes yes and that's dated november 9th at 707 pm yes okay and
then here's a picture of a text from christina from christina's phone that shows that same image
signed the petition with the same time correct yes and then how did how did you learn how did
so you learned you received the petition and then you texted it to christina is that correct i i
to my my recollection one of our neighbors on the you know up this side of the of ardley um robin
had had mentioned it to me in terms of like hey you know there's they're looking to change the
the the property down on the corner uh and could you sign a petition and she gave me the address
and i found the petition it's the first thing that comes up when you was there any mention of a zoning
permit at that time no it was a proposed change it was everything was and we thought it was an
invitation to you know to be you know participate as stakeholders in in in the potential changes
okay and i have a i've uploaded or i've shown up on my screen a copy of what looks to be the
petition um and as you mentioned i've highlighted in green my office has highlighted the reference
to uh proposals um there was there was no indication in that petition well does this
look like the petition that you reviewed and that you forwarded to christina it does okay
and you reviewed all this prior to today's hearing correct i i don't think i've looked at
that since i sent it to you okay but you sent you sent it to me correct yes i did yeah so and it
references only reference proposals doesn't reference anything about an actual permit being
issued correct that's exactly correct okay and then did you then text after that um or did you
also text a little later in november i'm put up on the screen a text thread that i've clouded
um with some of your neighbors about the petition uh yes i thought that that's what essentially was
going to be discussed at the at that meeting all right and then so and i've clouded and that's and
these are your text messages in green and it says meeting on proposed 13 units that's correct
that is correct not only my text my belief okay i understand so then so
not only my text my belief okay i understand so then so you get in november you get the petition
from some one of your neighbors talking about this proposed this proposal for the property
you then forwarded it to you to christina you engage with other neighbors thinking that it's
a proposal that it's something that's going to need to come before the community as a variance
correct there wasn't much more thought than that at the at the time we thought it was going through
when's when's the next communication or um communication or information that you gained
regarding the the project at um at 69 30 ardly after this november petition i think it was
about the the the weekend before the eman meeting that was that we thought was going to discuss it
um i think we've received notice of of that meeting okay and then and you you registered
for that meeting i'm flashing up uh an email you forwarded um that shows that on december 15th you
registered for that meeting that iman meeting correct correct okay and tell us what happened
how did you participate in that iman meeting um but was it in person or virtual it was virtual
Okay. And why don't you just tell the board what happened and how you came to learn that it wasn't proposed, that it was actually a permit that was issued?
I mean, I don't remember exactly how that all took place, but at that meeting, I forget who said it, I think it might have been Linda, it could have been Kathy, that informed us that this was not necessarily a proposal, that this was something that had resulted from a mistaken zoning change, or at least what has been acknowledged as a mistake by city council changing the zoning to give this a different setup and the community was never involved as a result.
So that this just kind of, you know, it happened without any of, you know, any like of the normal community channel, awareness channels being included in the zoning.
And it was a shock to everybody on the meeting, everybody who didn't know anyway.
And you did not know prior to that meeting?
I did not.
Did you try to secure any information regarding the project other than at, aside from at the
meeting in December, did you have a communication with the architect for the project?
Yes. I went on their, their website to just to request a copy of the plans. I forget. I can't
read what that says on my screen, even with my glasses, but it's pretty small, but I think I
was just requesting a copy of, of, of the project plans. And that was the day after that was on
december 16th that was the date of this email does that sound correct that sounds yeah so all right
around that time is when it kicked off for us and you didn't have any communication with the
architect for the project before december 16th correct absolutely not and did you have any
communication with anybody else involved with the project before december 15th no okay
uh then then what happened after you learned about the project as far as in terms of submitting an
app and an appeal to the zoning board i mean it's it's there was you know
we we just tried to gather information at that point i mean
you know toner was a part of of that request for information we tried to figure out what happened
How did a block that was zoned consistently the entire time we've been here in this house, which is coming on two decades, provide for a use change that allowed them to bypass any neighborhood involvement?
It just seemed really kind of strange. So we just figured out, we had a lot of work to do in terms of trying to figure out what had happened.
you know so in addition to like not being signs at the property there was you know the zoning
changes that had you know taken place to allow this to to to here were non-transparent council
driven changes so it really did just completely bypass all those community channels the normal
community awareness channels in addition to not having signage so when we found this out what we
did was we went and started like digging up we started googling we started looking online we
started you know figuring out what what contacted our our local representatives in the city to try
and figure out like how did this even take place like what was you know in order to figure out like
what we might be able to do or not do about it we had to figure out how it happened and so that
that was where we we re after getting over a little bit of the shock that this was like
you know already kind of built in with none of us you know being able
you know, already kind of built in with none of us, you know, being able to have any meaningful
input into the project or its scope or impact. You know, it was, again, just trying to figure
out how it happened and then figure out what we, you know, the next step after that was going to
be figuring out what we could do about it. Okay. And so you didn't know about the zoning changes
for the remapping of this property until the meeting, the IMA meeting on 1215, correct?
Yeah, they were alluded to there. And then we've got paperwork to kind of back up and figure out the entire process. And that's when we started writing to Councilperson Bass's office, as well as this board. We wrote to L&I, we wrote to the city solicitor's office asking for information and asking for kind of a pause in proceedings to say, hey, let's let the neighborhood get up to speed here. This doesn't feel right.
okay and at some point how did you come to determine to file an appeal to the zoning board
well you didn't well to for you and christina or to you to assist christina in filing the appeal to
the zoning board we knew that like you know from our from our awareness that like the the the zone
you know from our efforts that the zoning permit was issued in i think it was september of 2025
25, that 30-day period to appeal had expired. We learned that in December, and we knew that
we had the only possibility for us to get any potential crack at revisiting some of these
decisions or having some input into the decisions impacting our neighborhood would be to get in
front of them within 30 days of our own learning of it. And that's what we did. Like I said,
there were no clear signals about this project and how it got to where it got to. But when we
first figured out that, you know, when those signals became clear to us, we acted. And I think
that that's clear from every single one of our correspondences, including with you and a number
of your peers, as we were trying to find representation to help us out with this
project. And did you, did you, did Christina prepare the appeal and the paperwork? Did you
prepare the paperwork did you work together to submit it to prepare it i think in fairness uh
it was a little bit lopsided we worked together but it was a little lopsided in this in the sense
that i i did the the preparations okay and you used did you you were you the one who came up
with the phrase nunc protunk like to utilize that legal term i just got chat gpt helped out with that
twice now oh gosh we won't even have to be here in a in another month or two just the day i take
over anyway so um all right and did you well do you did you fully understand what that term really
means when you utilized it with the appeal unfortunately i had eight years of latin and
grammar school and um yeah so i knew it now for them all right but you the reason you thought it
it was late was only because it was 30 days after the date of the zoning permit correct I mean that
would be the reference date I would I is what I thought okay you didn't you didn't realize that
it's 30 days from the date that it gets posted but you use the term constructive notice at this point
and that makes a little bit more sense in retrospect all right so and then you fight again
you filed the zoning board appeal within 30 days of your learning of the you and Christina filed
the appeal within 30 days of you learning of the issuance of the zoning permit at the Iman meeting
on 1215, correct? It's probably closer to two weeks, but within 30 days, yes. Okay. I have no
further questions. Alan, do you have any questions? Yes, I do. Mr. Is your mic on? Yeah, it is on.
Mr. Kramer, you earned a law degree from Temple University, correct? That is correct.
You practice law in Philadelphia as a real estate attorney.
Is that correct?
Pretty, for my own projects, yes.
And in 2011, you lost your law license after a felony conviction and served five years.
Objection.
Objection.
It goes to impeachment purposes as a felony.
So that from a rules of evidence perspective, the fact that he was in, he, it is actually
relevant uh goes to his bureaucracy so i i i think i i don't think i will allow it the reason i say
that is we're only here to see if there was a timely issue and and and i think i'm gonna walk
away from that no but from the rules i understand we could disagree all right you now operate lulu
limited a philadelphia-based design and construction company correct yep is that correct that is
correct yep on your company's website you describe you describe lulu as providing
quote-unquote concept design and build services from start to finish is that correct
design and build services from start to finish is that correct uh it it is in practice it's
a little different than that now you also hold your company out as delivering high level full
service construction and development work correct correct and that type of work necessarily involves
obtaining permits and working through the city's approval process is that correct i don't do any
of that uh in fact your company has performed extensive construction work in philadelphia
since approximately 2021 is that correct uh 2018 is probably more accurate all right so even longer
than i found uh and for those projects you have been you've you've repeatedly worked with the
city's permitting system right i again i use eclipse to schedule inspections i do not pull
permits it's been very clear it's an architectural process so navigating the philadelphia's permitting
and approval process is something your company does regularly as part of its core business correct
only when we work projects in philadelphia and you probably have a list of those two
i do let's go semi-regularly i i found just quick review i found seven projects in philadelphia
extensively which includes by the way the house that you currently live in correct that's correct
All right. Let's start with the first project. You worked on a project, actually, in my neighborhood, 1710-12 Fairmont Avenue. Is that correct?
That is correct.
And that involved commercial alterations, right?
Correct.
And then you also worked at 116 Westmead Street, correct?
Correct.
And that was a residential renovation project, right?
Correct.
And then you had a project at 209 East Evergreen Avenue. Is that correct?
That is also correct.
and that was also a residential renovation project correct all right let's go to 7 70 15
hardly uh street that's where you and your wife live correct that is correct and your wife you
and your wife purchased the property in march of 2021 correct that's incorrect oh i'm sorry so when
was that 2010 oh sorry i i saw a deed in 2021 maybe it was a corrective deed of some sort
and that property was acquired for development well eventually you did a renovation of that
property in 2021 right an addition an addition uh which required a zoning permit to be obtained
correct correct and then also a building permit correct that's correct and then other permits
related to the construction correct correct and that project moved forward through the city
permitting process without a variance correct it did okay and you did not need approval from the
zba for that project correct i did not and you did not need community approval to obtain permits
for that project correct did not and that's because the project complied with the zoning
and building uh codes as which which would allow this project as a matter of right correct
that is also correct and you understand in philadelphia that not every project requires
approval from the zba correct correct some projects are permitted by right under the
philadelphia zoning code correct correct and those projects do not require variants correct
correct and they do not require a hearing before the zba correct correct do you see the zoning
permit that you have there well i i would i'm sorry i didn't realize i'm staring sorry that you
You know, Mr. Orphanides cannot share his screen.
I didn't, I didn't, I was just looking at him.
I was just looking at him.
Walgrey, why don't you just.
No, I didn't mean to do that.
I was looking it up for myself.
Why don't you show me?
Please.
I forgot I was sharing.
Sorry, it wasn't intentional.
All right.
I'm checking.
And they do not require community approval, correct?
Correct.
And you've accounted this own distinction in your own work, including at 7015 Ardley Street, correct?
Correct.
And you're familiar with the city's public property tools, correct?
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Atlas. You're familiar with atlas.phila.gov, correct?
Atlas is not something I use on a regular basis.
I did use it for this project to find out what was going on at 6930 for this.
I use Eclipse as a contractor to request inspections of properties.
And if you look at any of the filings, you'll find that others were the applicants.
But you're familiar with the Atlas site, correct?
I am at this point.
And that allows anyone to view zoning classifications and permit activity, right?
I now know that, yes.
Right.
So if you wanted, well, I mean, you advertised.
That's where I found this.
David, Mr. Toner is actually who responded to my email with the Atlas information.
atlas information but i don't use it outside of that you but you do sell your services currently
But I don't use it outside of that.
as a construction and development firm do you want to do like if you're asking me if i sell
my services that that website hasn't been updated since 2018 um i can tell you if you'd like the
exact way that i practice my craft but if you want to make assumptions you can i'm going to refute
them that's not how i operate this this website hasn't been um updated since 2018 but that's my
testimony but but the projects that we talked about are well after 2018 right and and i didn't
pull permits on any of them studio c and all the various architects did them probably like they
like toner did for this particular project all right and you just testified and so did your wife
that both of you knew about the project of 3930 Ardley in early November, correct?
I don't know where 3930 Ardley is.
I'm sorry, 6930 Ardley.
6930 is when we learned of that, yeah.
In early November, correct?
I think it was the 9th, which was the text.
And she signed a petition opposing that project at the time, correct?
I think that was her testimony, yes.
Okay. And you discussed the project with neighbors, correct, after that date?
After that date, we did not – you can see that our respective text threads move on.
We did not discuss this until we knew that the meeting was going to be coming up within the month.
So that's what we thought that that was reserved for.
And then you attended that community meeting, correct?
and then your wife testified that she relied on you regarding uh the permitting process regarding
6930 ardly street correct i don't know what you mean relied on me well i think if you go back to
the testimony uh or her testimony from last time she stated you know giving your experiences of
real well she didn't say this part but i'm saying it giving your experience as a real estate attorney
practicing real estate attorney and it sounds like a developer and sounds like a kind of
contractor not a developer not a real estate question before you can object
yes is it yes um she she relied on your expertise about you know permitting of this project correct
i don't recall her ever using those words she may have relied on me to help with the filing
but i don't recall her using my ex the words my expertise
and despite knowing about the project in early november no appeal was filed until december 29th
correct like i said when we had clear signals of what went down we acted and that's and that's more
than uh 30 days uh uh later correct from the first time actually it was within two weeks of us
learning of of of the actual um fact that a zoning permit existed
and and you're testifying today you had no knowledge that council member bass on september
25th introduced legislation attempting to change the zoning back from from rm1 back to rta1 you
knowledge of that no knowledge of that at all prior to after the 16th you have no knowledge
that my client met with the next door neighbor uh i believe starting in september through october
and november uh about this permit that he obtained you have no knowledge of that not until after the
16th you have no knowledge that my client met with the democratic ward leader about this multifamily
uh proposed multi-family developments i i only know that he didn't meet with the neighbors
sir sir let me finish your question i thought that was the question sorry
so you have no knowledge that he met with the uh democratic ward leader uh in i believe october or
early november um about the zoning permit he obtained i've i've still currently no knowledge
of any of your clients doings. And you have no knowledge that my client met with Council Member
Bass, I believe sometime in October or November of 2025 regarding this project. I learned after
the 16th that there was some sort of negotiation going down between those two, but it never came
to fruition. And you have no knowledge that after complaints by nearby neighbors regarding
uh work that was done on on the property that a violation notice was issued in early november
of 2025 no and you have no knowledge of any legislation that cindy council member bass
legislation that Cindy Councilmember Bass introduced on November 20th of 2025 giving her standing to
introduced on november
alleged standing to dispute the zoning permit that was issued which is the subject of this appeal
I learned that after the 16th and it didn't say alleged it did actually have counsel granting her
those powers i have no further questions mr reuter uh i have no no question and you have
no more questions i just have a rebut yeah just a quick follow-up um quick right yeah yeah yeah
yeah yes yes yes yes um richard um council uh has referenced the um that christina signed a
petition opposing the project and it this happened at the last meeting too where it was constantly
using the term project let's i'd like to be very specific until december 15th
you understood it to be a proposal a proposed plan to change the use of the property correct
that is completely accurate and then december 15th you found out that a zoning permit had been
issued correct that is correct so it went from proposal from november when you first learned
about the proposal until december 15th when you learned about a permit correct all right i want i
think that's an important distinction that i want to clarify in terms of the other projects that and
i again that was not intentional i didn't realize i was sharing my screen so still but i looked up
a couple of those those projects for your own project 715 ardly um the zoning permit it looks
like um that zoning permit was pulled by dominic aspate who's an expediter here in philadelphia
does that sound correct it does and then for 1710 fairmount and 116 west mead were those just build
you you just did you were there zoning permits for the work that you did or were those interior
renovations that you did that involved just a building permit both both were i think there
was some zoning stuff before i came on board at uh at fairmount but it didn't involve me um and
then the the the other even the interior permits were pulled by um i think it was studio c on both
of those studio c architecture on both of those projects okay all right um i have no further
there um i have no further questions all right mr knockamson your witness i i'm done with this
witness i i i know but i'm saying you oh my god yeah you're with yeah yeah um okay why don't we
find a place for him to sit yeah i'm gonna bring up a chair with between uh that's fine we're gonna
kick we're gonna kick one now all right i need to be promoted as a host because i may be sharing
my screen okay so while we're waiting could you please state your name and spell for the
stenography try to get into that right there there you go good morning my name is jordan abrams i am
the managing member for the project uh my address is uh my name why don't you spell your name for
it's uh jordan abrams j-o-r-d-a-n-a-b-r-a-m-s you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do okay just knock on something you want it uh yeah let's do it okay
i'm just going to share my screen so we get this sure that started uh for record keeping purposes
we submitted this uh exhibit list is your mic one oh it's still hi uh all right uh we we submitted
THESE PRESENTATION MATERIALS, WHICH INCLUDE 12 EXHIBITS. WE'LL BE GOING OVER SOME OF THEM.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF OUR PRESENTATION, WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT THESE EXHIBITS BE ADMITTED INTO
EVIDENCE AS WELL. MR. ABRAMS, WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT 6930 ARDLEY STREET?
That was July 20, 24th.
What's that?
It's a duo here.
I'm sorry, what was the date?
It was July 20, 24th.
And why did you purchase that prop?
I purchased it because the zoning changed to arm one.
I'm going to show you two exhibits.
First, which is our exhibit two in our packet of materials.
I'm going to object. I don't know how it's. I'm sorry. I thought you were flashing the ordinance. Sorry.
So the July 3rd, 2024 indenture, that's the deed that's transferring the property, the With Thought and Care LLC, correct?
Correct.
And by the way, you are the member of With Thought and Care LLC.
Correct. I'm the managing member.
Correct. I'm the managing member.
And you have authority to testify on its behalf.
And you have authority to testify on its behalf.
Correct.
Correct.
Now I'm going to show you the exhibit one, which is designated as bill number 24-240159.
Is that your understanding where the zoning changed from RTA1 to RM1 before you purchased the property?
I believe it was RSA to RM1.
I'm just going to object. I don't know how this has to do with notice to my client.
Why don't we just let him go a little further down like I have with you, and we'll see what's going on.
So at the time that you purchased the property, you understood that the property can be developed as a multifamily structure?
Correct.
After purchasing the property, what did you do? What steps did you take to move the project forward?
Yeah, so I hired an architect and an engineer.
And did they ultimately file, to your understanding, a zoning permit application for this proposed multifamily use?
Yes, that's correct.
I'm going to go to Exhibit 3, which is the Eclipse permit filing for the zoning permit application.
Is your understanding that this is the application for the proposed use of this multifamily structure?
Yes, that's correct.
All right. And did you ultimately receive a zoning permit for the property?
Yeah, we received a zoning permit September 15th of 2025.
All right. And then I'm showing you Exhibit 4, zoning permit ZP-2025-007104. Is that the zoning permit for this use of the property?
I believe so, yes.
To allow it to be used for 13 dwelling units, correct?
Correct.
And what's the date of the zoning permit?
believe it's uh september 15th 2025. all right and did you post is there any permit at the property
i did i posted in the window on the ardley street side of the building do you remember the date you
did so i don't remember the exact date but i have proof of posting from the 25th of september
now did you ever speak to the neighbors about the project yes so on september 24th and 25th
i spoke with my direct next door neighbor um i also spoke with the councilman on september 25th
and november 5th and the local rco president christine foster on uh october 31st and october
or november 3rd of 2025. and at the time you had communications with them they knew that you
obtained a zoning permit for this use of the property that's correct and um did you ever do
any construction activities uh with regards to the property after you obtained the zoning permit
yes so on october 22nd we received a non-structural demo permit and we did work between then and
uh october 31st and you mentioned you received a non-structural demo permit is that general permit
minor gm-2025-010056 i believe so yes uh and that is and i'm showing the board exhibit six
of our presentation packet which shows that um and what work did you do and and and how long
were you at the property yeah so as i mentioned we were there between the 22nd and 31st it was
non-structural demos that's removing kitchens bathrooms drywall interior non-structural walls
etc and then can you just give the board a general sense of like how many people were there what was
visible uh um during that that 10-day period from the street public street yeah sure so we had a
crew of about 15 workers on site uh we had dump trucks dumpsters um we had a porta potty installed
um and then um were there any issues during that 10 day time period with the general public with
regard to that construction work yes so we got a construction uh complaint on october 30th we had
a visit from lni on the 31st of october uh and on november 4th we received a violation showing the
board what has been marked as Exhibit 7 violation notice in order to correct, which is CF-2025-119760.
Is this the violation notice that you received in early November?
Now, after you obtained your zoning permit and began any work, did City Council take any action or attempted action regarding your project?
uh yes uh city count uh councilman bass introduced a resolution uh november 20th
um against the project let's see if that is i think i missed that one let's see it's back here
I think I missed that one. Let's see. It's back here somewhere.
somewhere
Actually, I don't believe I forgot to include that in my exhibit packet.
I would like to supplement my exhibit packet after today's hearing.
with what what is it it's it's the resolution where uh remember bass attempted to obtain
the landing to to contest a duly issued zoning permit and she she passed it or at least introduced
that resolution on november 20th i mean i don't know what it has to do with notice to my client
but well it deals with it's whether your client knew or should have known it goes to constructive
notice everyone else knew and for some reason your client didn't know well everybody else
even though your client's husband is in the business in the practice so we're going to do
is we'll allow that to move i didn't ask my clients that question so uh
all right i have no further question okay all right is uh so that's all the test money relative
to can i ask him some questions you are sure go ahead yeah sure um jordan um who who submitted
the zoning permit jack to the former question i i don't know what you mean who submitted the
zoning permit filed the zoning permit with the department of license the zoning permit
application with the department of licenses and inspections i believe that was toner architecture
okay and how did you become aware that the zoning permit had been issued eclipse through eclipse
and did you ever have like did you actually post the property yourself you said it was posted on
ardley yes okay um you did not post the property and you posted in the window correct correct and
how far would you estimate the window on the ardley street property side of the property is
from the sidewalk i'm not sure okay all right so i mean i've already i'm going to show i've shown
photos with the posting out at the edge of the property but i'm going to share my screen right
now and i just want to confirm give me one minute
so that's the picture i have right now is the property correct
correct question with the arrow and the street to the left that extends away the only thing i
object to is, you know, for record keeping purposes, I would just ask that Mr. Ripponini's
identify which exhibit he's pointing to. Sure. So this is tab I, sub tab I1, I1A.
So this photograph, again, is the photo with the arrows pointing to 6930 Ardely, correct?
Correct. Okay. And the street extends to the right is which street?
cedric street and the street that extends to the left or extends away towards the left
side of the picture is what street that is ardly okay and you don't know what that distance is
from the building is set back let me rephrase that the building is set back considerably from
ardly street correct to the form of the question all right
how can you take a look at that picture and estimate how far the building is located
from the sidewalk on Ardley?
And how about from the sidewalk on Sedgwick or Sedgwick?
I'm also not sure.
And this is the posting of the zoning permits in the window.
Again, for record-keeping purposes,
I would ask that Mr. Orphanetes identify the actual exhibit he's referencing.
They're in I-1A.
Thank you.
I'll let you know when I change off of I-1A.
How about that?
all right so is that the zoning permits that you posted in the orderly street window
I believe so okay you're not sure it's it's a very small okay and does that look like the
location of the posting of the zoning permits in the orderly street window yes okay and did you
post you didn't post a zoning permit on the sedley street window of the property correct correct
Correct. Okay. Is this a permit that's posted in that window on Sedgley Street? Did you post that?
It's Sedgwick Street. I keep calling it Sedgwick Street. Sedgwick. Yes. Okay.
And there's two, does it look like that's another permit you posted on the Sedgwick side?
Correct. But you did not post the zoning permit on the Sedgwick side, in the window on the Sedgwick side of the building, correct?
but you did not post the zoning permit on the sedgwick side in the window on the sedgwick side
of the building correct correct but you would agree that the building is set back from the
sidewalk um of both from both sedgley sedgwick and ardley street correct correct okay and
i'm going to now go to tab i1b i know here we go tab i1c
and these pictures were taken in april 1 2026 and does that look to show the how the property
existed at that time if you know i'm going to object because i don't think these photographs
were authenticated by either witness of his all right here's photograph here's photographs that
i did show to my client from april 2nd so we notice here that people are gathered around
So you found a board that's located at the corner of the property.
Is that you in the picture?
Did you create that posting?
I did at the post.
Okay. And what did you put on that board?
That was the construction permit and the zoning permit.
Okay. And is that the only location at the corner of the property?
I don't understand the question.
Where you posted the permits other than in the window?
Other than the window, yes.
And are you aware that the zoning code requires at tab 143036F that a permit holder shall post a true copy of the permit on the subject property along each street frontage, unless impractical, in a place and manner conspicuous to the public for no less than 30 days?
I'm going to object to that question as requesting a legal conclusion.
Sorry.
Are you aware? Have you ever seen that? Well, let him answer that. It's not a legal conclusion. Have you ever seen that? Ever? Yes. Yeah. Okay. And is there any reason why you didn't post the zoning permit at each street frontage? Yes. At the time, I wasn't aware of this requirement. No property had done prior has ever been on a corner. It's always been posted at the frontage.
And then when you did post some time in, when did you put that posting up at the corner? Is that accurate that it was in April?
I'll object to the question as irrelevant. Again, the standard here is whether his client knew or reasonably should have known within 30 days from the date of the December 29th filing.
All of Mr. Orphanini's questions deal with time periods that are beyond that time frame, which the board, with this evidence, would not be relevant to their determination of whether or not their client filed in a timely fashion.
Until he finishes.
So the zoning code requires a posting, and that's what's supposed to provide notice to the public.
And what I'm making crystal clear in establishing, unless there's a stipulation, is that Mr.
Notkinson's client never posted the property, has never posted the property properly with
the zoning permit, and at best has posted it in April.
Now, that's in terms of actual notes.
I want to make clear that that's the first time the permit was posted, so it's conspicuous
from the sidewalk.
So I believe we stipulated at the beginning, Ms. Emerson, I believe we stipulated that
We're not contesting the fact that my client did not post the property appropriately.
The inquiry here that the board must consider is when his client knew of the zoning permit, or when should they have reasonably known of the zoning permit.
That's the inquiry this board has to come to a conclusion on.
I listened to the recording.
I don't recall that stipulation.
I may be mistaken, but if that's what we're going to stipulate, I needed to get that basic thing done.
and I'll move off it because I think I've established my so it's my I know we focus my
is my understanding um that the um that Mr. Nockmson and his client stipulated that the
property property um was not posted according to the code however it was not clear whether
that had to do with timeliness whether it had to do with having a posting on each frontage but just
that it was not posted it was not posted properly that was my understanding because that actually
has come up in in reviewing notes for this we weren't clear when it was it was contested that
the property was posted just that it wasn't posted properly but what that meant we weren't clear okay
all right let's move on okay thank you um jordan you s you were here for the last hearing
yes okay and all you saw on the screen you saw uh my client christine christine correct
And you saw on the screen, you saw my client, Christine Christou, correct?
Last hearing.
And you've seen on the screen Richard Kramer.
Well, she's on the screen now again.
And you see Richard Kramer.
You saw him testify today, correct?
Correct.
Have you ever met either of those two people or seen, well, have you ever seen them prior to today?
To my knowledge, no.
Or prior to the last hearing.
Outside of the Zoom hearings, I don't believe I have.
And you've never had direct communication with them, correct?
I don't believe so. Do you know if anybody any anybody affiliated with you or the project has had any communication with them? I can't speak to anyone else. Okay. All right. I have no further questions. Okay. Um, Leonard, do you have anything?
Uh, I have no questions. Well, do you have anything you want to offer?
Uh, so he has no witnesses, but I assume we're going to do closing.
um could we do brief closings sure yeah all well you you you why don't you go first sure all right
um and i'm talking five minutes i won't even need that okay so she's catching me on a good day today
yeah yeah so so so essentially so what you have here is you you have um somebody who
pulled a zoning permit didn't post it as they were required to post it which is what you're
supposed to do to provide proper notice which puts us in this gray area of constructive notice
there was activity at the site after the zoning permit was actually pulled but my there was
activity before that and years of activity before that my clients did not see or notice necessarily
anything different about the activity before the permit was pulled versus the activity of the
after the permit was pulled that would give them any indication that anything different was happening
that a zoning permit had actually been pulled.
My clients made it clear that,
and they testified under oath,
that neither one of them knew about,
they knew about a proposal that something was happening,
there was gonna be additional units there,
but they did not know a zoning permit
had been issued until 1215.
When they learned that the permit had been issued in 1215,
as you heard Richard State, they did research,
they tried to figure out what had happened,
and as soon as they figured out what had happened
and confirmed it and figured out what they needed to do, they filed an appeal within 30 days of that.
My clients have acted diligently and properly throughout this process, leading up to the filing of the appeal.
And since then, on the other hand, you have the developer who has not posted and still has not posted the property.
And nobody can stay for certain that my clients knew that zoning permit had been issued before 1215.
And we don't believe that anybody has established that they should have known that they should have known before 1215. That it would be reasonable for them to have known that a zoning permit was issued for the increased use and or the addition at the property.
First of all, thank you for your time, members of the Board.
I would say that the relevant provisions that the Board must consider is Section 14-30315A.3,
which talks about the appeal period that an appellant of this sort must file within.
And it's, you know, when it's not a proper posting, they have 30 days of constructive notice of the L&I decision. I would also point the board's direction to Strubel v. Phila, Sony Board of Adjustment, which is, where's the citation, 2014 Phila CT Common, Please Lexus 179, where the board considered a similar type of situation.
AND THEY DEFINED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, SUCH AS IN THE FOOTNOTE 4, EXAMPLES OF WHAT MIGHT
PROVIDE ACTUAL NOTICE OF A PERMIT ISSUANCE INCLUDES WHEN A LAND OWNER ENGAGES IN CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED USE OF THE PROPERTY
AND ARE VISIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
That footnote cites in ray mount development 17 a 3d at 442. In addition to the construction
activities which we outlined in the testimony of Mr. Abrams which took place between October 22nd
and October 31st of 2025 which included a port-a-potty outside being installed 15 workers
at the site, multiple construction vehicles at the site, complaints by nearby neighbors, which
ultimately led to a violation notice, even though there was a permit of public record
in October. We also showed instances in September, October, and November where they should have been
on record everyone else knew and in september and i'm going to outline it in september on
And I'm going to outline it. When we obtained our zoning permit on September 15th, 10 days later, Councilmember Bass introduced legislation on September 25th, changing the zoning or her attempt to change the zoning back to RTA 1.
when we re obtained our zoning
obviously as the board knows the the zoning applies to when the zoning permit application
was submitted we obtained a zoning permit application so no matter what council member
best has tried to do to change the zoning today this is an rm1 property for purposes of the zoning
application my client had multiple conversations with the council member about a zoning permit
that testimony was stated today by jordan abrams which was not refuted my client testified today
talking to the next door neighbor about a zoning permit in october and i believe september and
october of 2025 my client testified that he talked to the the ward leader for this area of philadelphia
about a zoning permit.
The testimony also showed that the appellant relied primarily
and almost exclusively on her husband, who was a former practicing attorney
and who also is in the business of construction and development.
The testimony also showed by them is that he has an Eclipse account.
He's well-versed in this area of development.
that they, you know, in addition to the projects that he's done since, I apologize, I said 2021,
2018 in the city of Philadelphia, they did their own house in 2021 where they had to get a zoning
permit, presumably had to post the property with a zoning permit before anything, and then had to
post all other permits. So knows that as a professional. That was testimony that was
introduced by them what was also introduced by them is that they knew as as early as november
9th because they both testified to that fact that they they both saw a petition and uh the
appellant signed a petition so the the idea that they didn't have constructive notice where everyone
else had actual notice of what was going on i mr orphanetes please don't interrupt me i'm giving
closing argument I'm not I'm not introducing any facts that work that this board hasn't heard you
are you saying everybody please let him finish yeah it's not accurate so the fact that so many
individuals knew of this that was a public record with LNI on Atlas in Legistar where you know there
was legislation passed not once but twice regarding this project September 25th it was passed to try
to change the zoning which doesn't matter for the purposes of here and then on November 20th the
council member tried to give herself standing to appeal the same decision that this appellant
appealed over five weeks later so i do think that there are grounds here that the that the
appellant did not file her appeal on a timely basis and you know if this board decides to hear
the merits of the case, they'll find that that is as meritalist as the actual non-proton petition
that this board has heard. Thank you. Leonard? Hi. Thanks, Leonard Greuter, for the City of
Philadelphia. Again, just to follow up on a couple points that have been made. First of all, again,
just to reiterate, the City has no knowledge or belief respecting whether the appellant or Mr.
creamer uh had any actual notice uh of the posting of the permit um what we're the city's main
interest here is in uh the board not reaching a decision that would leave uh the time for taking
an appeal open-ended uh for just anybody you know being able to uh file an appeal because they
themselves weren't aware of a particular zoning permit the code says pretty clearly and again i
I think we've got an admission or stipulation now that the permit was not properly posted,
which I assume is because it was not, they have admitted that it was not posted on the Sedgwick Street side.
Sedgwick or Sedgwick?
Sedgwick.
The Sedgwick Street side.
And again, as Mr. Nockamson's pointed out, the code says, I mean, the mere failure to post properly does not itself leave the time for taking an appeal open-ended.
what the code says in 14303 sub 15 sub a sub point three any appeal of an lni decision must
be filed with the zoning board within 30 days of the date of lni's decision which in this case would
be the issuance of the permit where the applicant that's this guy fails to post the permit in
fails to post the permit in compliance with 14303-6-F, posting of permits, that's the part where you're supposed to post it in the street side,
compliance with 14303 sub 6 sub f
any person other than the applicant must file an appeal within 30 days of constructive notice of the L&I decision.
So, I would disagree with Mr. Orphanides. Constructive notice isn't a gray area.
It's a pretty well-established legal principle of constructive notice is when you knew or should have known.
So, what we've heard is that there was texts that were sent or a petition, still not clear in my mind which came first, but I think somebody was circulating a petition.
There was text sent about the petition back November 9th, and then there was notice that there was going to be a meeting of the RCO at some point.
After that, I think that wound up taking place in December.
Anyway, the point being is that what we haven't heard from anybody is I went up to the property and looked at the property and did not see any permits.
What we have not heard is anybody from the RCO testifying, yes, the L&I failed to provide the required notice to the RCO because under 14303 sub 6 sub F sub 0.3, all by right permits, L&I is required to notify RCOs of all by right permits.
in fact fun fact you can go online and you can see all by right permits online not you don't have
to go to eclipse you can see those on atlas but or through the city's website i'm not actually
sure it's with atlas so again nobody has testified from the rco saying yeah we didn't know anything
about this permit ellen i never gave us any notice we haven't heard anybody say that um
Um, what we haven't heard is, is again, like you had a, you had a petition that was being circulated. You have text messages, then you have an RCO meeting. You have apparently conversations at some point, uh, with the, the council member.
nobody looked online to see if a permit had been issued. I mean, they're talking about
like having some kind of action, some kind of response to this project, which understandably
they would be very, very concerned about. They're talking with RCOs and nobody said,
oh, let's look and see what the application says. I mean, how did they even know there was a project
uh that would that prompted the uh the petition that was being circulated like did they get like
a secret message was it a crystal ball reading no they somebody saw an application for a zoning
permit or by that point had seen the actual permit being issued so again we will leave it to
the discretion of the board but it seems kind of incredulous that you know all of these meetings
took place all of this discussion was taking place about a project that had a significant
an impact on these people, and nobody checked to see what the permits were that were issued.
They were just saying, well, they're clipping the weeds, they're doing these other things
that's been going on for years. It doesn't really make a lot of sense in the city's opinion.
One other thing I wanted to address, because it's come up, is discussion about the zoning
had been a mistake. I'm not sure where that comes from. The ordinance that changed the
zoning of these properties from RSA 3 to RM1 was only passed in April of 2024. We have had issues
where there have been a zoning change and the mapping change, and there was a mistake in the
actual final map, where literally, no, this was mistakenly zoned from one thing to another. The
map is in error. The ordinance is fine. The map was in error. That's not what happened here. There's
no just no dispute here that the entire this block of ardley street from sedgwick to vernon
was changed to rm1 deliberately there was no mistake it was that was the intention of the
ordinance that was literally one of the three things that that ordinance did that was passed
in april of 2024 now people can change their mind the council member decided to change her mind she's
now passed an ordinance now this is all rta one uh twins basically which is what they are for the
most part so i just want to be clarified that if we were talking about a mapping error that would
be a completely different type of discussion this is not a mapping error just that it may have been
a mistake as in it was a bad idea to redo this the map the the map but there was no mistake so
i just want to be clear about that but with respect to the outcome of the case the city will defer to
Okay. All right. I want to thank all three of you. We're going to schedule a hearing on 1826 at 930 AM. We will address the merits of the original appeal.
address the merits of the original appeal right so just to clarify mr chair the board
is finding that the appeal in this matter was timely filed yes all right thank you
no it's not a final decision of the board there's no there's no vote on the timeliness
It would only be a vote if we were dismissing for timeliness.
So that would be a final decision.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
have a good day
Thank you.