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