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