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