we shifted everything down creating a gap using that same curb cut or a curb cut that shifted
further to the north i'm sorry having a drive aisle to the north of us creating so now the
neighbor to the north has their own yard or lot as separation and then the drive aisle
we push the buildings to the south and then have still have the building that wraps around
creates a little more space between the back of the property of 1326
and then where the structure is going to be at what is now 1326R.
The advantage now is that we can, by consolidating these lots,
what you can't do when they're separate,
the city won't let you do it,
to run utilities over a property that you don't own.
And now we're able to run all the utilities through the drive aisle.
Sorry about that.
And get them out to Burke Street,
which you'll hear from both the appraiser and from my client makes this project viable and
also the minimum variance that's required to make this project and the development of this project
viable um here are some renderings the original rendering of the plan where the project was
pushed to the north that was originally presented to the community group and then the revised
project with it pushed to the south providing that space with the abutting property to the north that
we heard so much from. This is the existing structure that presently exists at 1328 and 1330.
You can see there's an existing curb cut there now. Our curb cut will probably be a little
smaller than that so it technically provides a little more space for on-street parking.
And then this is the back. This is the view from Welp Street.
some additional images again this is the property to the north of us of our neighbor to the north
here's the view of the rear of our property
and here's from Burke Street you can see series of developments existing structures two and three
stories this is the one structure to the north of us on Burke's that I mentioned that has the
that was granted variances as has the multiple structures structures that extend all the way to
East Wilk Street. That was existing. A newer development down at the corner at Belgrade.
Corner of Belgrade and then coming back East Burke Street. Again, a mix of two and three family
dwellings. You have the institutional or educational facility down at the end of the
block at Thompson. And just to get a straight search of Wilk Street, this is the access from
From Belgrade, where you would access Will Street, you can see it's around where they access.
And coming back, here are the homes.
That's the back of the project.
That's to the north of us with the multiple structures that had their refusals.
Also, from Will Street, the properties, the abutting property to the north of us, our property, properties to the south.
And then you can see the dead end of the Wilts Street Alley, other properties using it for parking, and then swinging back around.
And that's the parking of the project on Montgomery Avenue that I referenced that was also granted the same variances that we're looking to have here, have granted here.
One of the things that we have at tab 18, we do have the zoning archive for that project on Montgomery.
And again, you can see the layout that I discussed with the common drive and then five single, a number of single family homes, five of them, just like we're proposing here, went to the zoning board in 18.
And again, the variance is rear yard depth, oops, rear yard depth, and then having five dwelling units.
And then this is the project down the street, the one that I indicated had multiple structures, some of which backed up to Wilk Street.
Mr. Orpides, could you bring your appraiser on? Sure. Caitlin, can you please jump on for a second? And please raise your hand.
Ms. Caitlin, you're allowed to speak. Hi, hi. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, sir. It's Caitlin, K-A-T-E-L-Y-N, Drosnok, D-R-O-S-N-O-C-K.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Counsel, proceed.
Caitlin, David Orfinides here.
Who were you retained by to prepare the appraisal report that I have up on the screen right now?
1330 East Berks, LLC, who is under agreement to purchase the site.
And it's a pretty extensive review and analysis, both of the subject.
And it's a pretty extensive review and analysis, both of the subject property and of the neighborhood surrounding it,
comparables regarding RSA-5 properties to be developed for single-family homes.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
And without going through the whole report, because I know that the hour is getting late, the morning session has gone on for a while.
Now, as it's present, well, was the price that our clients,
respective clients, paid for this property a fair and reasonable price
based upon your analysis?
What they're under contract for?
Yes, yes, yes.
Assuming that the development that they are looking to do, yes.
But if the, you know, if this doesn't get permitted, or this isn't, you know, proposed, it doesn't really make any sense. I don't I don't believe anybody would would purchase this property without requiring additional variances for development just due to the configuration. So I mean, I bet I don't know if that's a complicated answer, but not without additional variance or, you know, relief.
okay so for the for the for the you know you've heard me speak about and we've discussed the fact
that you know but for the issue with um the irregular shape of 1326 are it the fact that
it doesn't have street frontage but most importantly on on a city street but most importantly the fact
that it doesn't have access to utilities directly in front of it um that utilities have to be
access all the way down the street from belgrade um if it weren't for those those those conditions
uh it would be viable to develop this property as as as it's presently structured as three single
family homes correct correct yeah okay and that because of those conditions it's not viable to
develop it as it presently exists as three separate lots with 1326r fronting on um fronting on uh
east uh east wall street correct correct and that with the five the five units um that the price
that they paid they didn't overpay for the for the property correct correct and in fact they
probably you know got a little bit of a of a good deal actually is that not correct uh yeah i i think
so given the given the complexity of the assignment you know the project yeah so we're not here for
variance because they paid too much for the property, correct? Correct. Oh, no, no, no.
Okay. And again, the five unit, based upon your research of nearby development,
nearby properties, the five unit development is a viable development at this location, correct?
Absolutely. Yep. All right. Thank you. I'm just going to do, I know we're running short on time.
There's two things to tie into that. I'd like to have Tom Famoletti speak because he's with 1330 East Burke Street, and he's the one that now takes their information, runs construction costs, and outsales and looks at the viability of both.
Okay, let's bring him on.
And then also I want to have the architect come on, talk about shadow studies and some of the other issues.
Okay, all right.
Bring him on, please.
Tom, if you can raise your hand.
I'm on.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Tom Familedi, T-O-M-F-A-M-I-L-E-T-T-I.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Tom, you heard Caitlin's statements, and you've read a report, correct?
Correct.
And with your group, you handle kind of the financial side of things and do the pro formas and figure out the commercial viability of the projects, correct?
Correct. And were you actually involved with the project that I referenced behind this property
on East Montgomery? We were in the capacity of the builder. Okay. And you've done a considerable
number of other projects in the community, correct? In the city of Philadelphia, correct?
That is correct. Okay. So you've heard me talk about 1326R. First of all, regarding its shape,
that two foot, five inch strip that goes out to East Burke Street, can that be utilized to
access utilities, the existing utilities off of East Burke Street? It cannot. Okay. And was it
correct in what I stated that it's the only way to access utilities based upon, and I can have
Derek Spencer also come on and verify this as the architect, the only way to get utilities to
1326R is by, is through down East Wilt Street, correct? That is correct. Okay. Which is an alley.
It's not a city street because there are no utilities in East Wilt Street. They have to
be pulled from belgrade correct that is correct okay and and you approximated them in your
That is correct.
Okay. And you approximated in your research with your team and other engineers, what did you approximate the cost to bring utilities down East Wall Street to 1326R?
We approximated minimally the $500,000, but could easily be upwards of a million dollars just for the utility work.
Okay. And that's more than what you're under contract to pay for the property, correct?
That is correct.
Does that make, and you've run the numbers, does that, you've taken Caitlin's information, that unique physical characteristic of 1326R, as well as the issue with the utilities, does it make developing this property as it presently exists, single family on 1330, single family on 1328, and a single family on 1328R, does it make that commercially infeasible?
It does.
Okay. Now, you also ran the numbers on what you're proposing, which is five units on a
consolidated parcel, correct? That is correct. And was I correct when I stated that now allows
you to run utilities throughout the property, including the structures that are located back
towards East Will Street, back out to East Burke Street, correct? That is correct. Okay. And when
When you ran your pro forma for the five units, what was the result?
Was it based upon your numbers?
And obviously, we're no kind of volatile economy right now in terms of interest rates, supply chains, cost of construction, labor.
Was it a viable project?
It is. It is right now with everything going on.
It's a minimally viable project, but it is a viable project that we would pursue.
It's not so risky that you wouldn't pursue it.
the percentage was enough that you would still work pursue it, correct?
That is correct.
And what was that percentage that you came to?
Right now, it is at a 14% profit margin.
And I believe I'm being light on construction costs, but we'll call 14% now.
We typically target a minimum of 20%, 15% to 20%.
And isn't it correct?
I mean, we had a conversation with Caitlin that she said that the market, kind of the
the general rule of thumb is 28%, correct? And I can come back on to adopt that statement,
if you will. So right now, the percentage, the profit that you're looking at is barely enough
to undertake this venture as it stands right now. It could easily, if things turn worse in terms of
interest rates, supply chain's cost of construction could actually dip down below where it's no longer
viable. That is correct. So as such, would it be your position that this five units, asking for
five, knowing that three is inviolable, but asking for five is the minimum number of units
on the properties, on the subject premises that's required, the variance that's required
for five is a minimum variance required to make this development of this property viable?
That is correct. Okay.
Counselor, I think you've made your point.
Okay, yeah, I was ready to move on.
How about the architect?
Yep, Derek, if you could please identify yourself.
Derek Spencer.
Mr. Spencer, you're allowed to speak?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Derek Spencer, D-E-R-E-K, S-P-E-N-C-E-R, from Nome Architects.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Derek, you heard my statements earlier today,
earlier during the proceeding
regarding the change in the design, correct?
Yes, I did.
And I'm pulling up the letter of August 12th.
Oh, let me back up.
You and your team at Nome Architecture
did the drawings for this project, correct?
Correct.
Yes, we did.
You did the original design.
You did the rise design.
You did the renderings, the floor plans.
And we're going to talk in a minute to shadow studies.
Correct.
And just in terms of the comments that came out of FNA, would it be fair to say that almost most of the objections came from the immediate neighbor to the north of us?
Yes, most of the concerns were with disturbing the soil in her side yard there, as well as concerns of privacy.
And that would be disturbing if you would be building right up to the common property line between 1330 and 1332, correct?
Correct. That was our main reasoning for flipping the entire design onto the south side of the site
rather than the north was to minimize any disturbance that might happen to her property.
Okay. But if you were to build, let's say if it was viable for us to build a single family home
on 1330, that structure, because the lot's 18 feet wide, would be built right on that
common property line with 1332, correct? Correct. A by right building would be up
Correct. A by right building would be up against the property line, extending upwards of 100 feet back from Burke Street.
against the property line, extending.
Okay. And so the change in the design addressed that concern, correct, by creating the drive aisle along that common property line, correct?
That's correct.
And the by-right building would be right up against her property line. And so decks and roof decks would be right up at her property line, would not have to be set back and could be looking over into her property, correct?
Correct.
And now we have a space where our buildings are set back. How far are they set back from her property line with that drive aisle?
I believe 13 feet to our furthest projection.
Okay. All right. So now we've addressed that. There was a concern regarding emergency vehicles getting back into the development. Did you reach out to the City of Philadelphia Fire Department to delve into that and see what the issue, if any, were there with that?
Yes, I reached out to Julian Sellers at the fire department and we had a conversation about the project and he also reviewed the plans and he sent an email directly to Mr. Dugan of F&A expressing his review of the plans that they did not cause any problem with the fire code.
All right. So there were three comments here in their letter. I think that, you know, regarding the density, Tom has addressed the first one. And then we've addressed the other two there with your testimony.
Shadow study. One of the criteria for the granting of a variance is the impact of air and light of neighboring or budding conforming properties.
You did a, you guys, you guys, you guys, you know more architecture prepared shadow study for this project?
Yes, we did.
And you compared a buy-write design, our original design, and then the revised design, correct?
Correct.
Yes, we compared all three here.