Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this meeting of the Philadelphia Zoning Board
of Adjustment.
With me is our Board Vice Chair, Tenetta Graham.
Tenetta Graham.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Secretary, Sheila L. Gaston.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Michael Johns.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Ty O'Wynn.
She should be on any minute.
And our board member, Ryan McAdams.
President, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our board attorney, Hillary Emerson,
our zoning board executive director, Ian Haggerty,
and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
A recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
This is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in-person, if you're called to testify, you must state and spell your name and then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter an appearance.
You can identify the case property address on your Zoom webinar.
You can see a staff member or you can call the ZBA appearance line by the close of business tomorrow.
call 267-270-5548. Leave a message that includes your email address.
270-5548 leave a message that includes your email address and the address for the property of the
appeal case the following guidance is for remote attendees when directed you must raise your
virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak if you're called to testify you'll be prompted
to join as a panelist please accept the request and turn on your camera the webinar q a is for
questions about the hearing do not comment on cases in the q a and if you're participating
by phone press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute for in-person attendees
please refrain from talking eating or drinking during the hearings verbal and physical aggression
will not be tolerated restrooms are across from the elevators a water fountain is just outside
the room to the right restrooms are across from the elevators a water fountain is just outside
the room to the right when speaking on the record you must speak directly into the microphone in
order to be heard by all attendees in the court reporter in the event of an emergency please
follow the directions given over the public address system or by the staff the main exit is
through the double doors at the rear of the room the nearest stairwell is to the left outside the
doors in case of an evacuation at rally point is love park directly across from archery please
remain there so we can account for you let's look at our schedule for today
number two
number two mi 2025 001 462 2245 north 17th street that case is continued until june 9th 2026
at 9 30 a.m. number three MI 2025 004 101 59 44 Cala Hill Street that case is
continued until June 9th 2026 at 9 30 a.m. number six
number six mi 2025 006 729 4255 main street that case is continued to 9 30 20 26 at 9 30 a.m
And number eight, MI-2026-001-452-114 North Beachwood Street.
That case is continued until June 9th, 2026 at 9.30 a.m.
Any other requests for continuance?
We're going to start with number five.
Chair, I'm sorry, we have one hand raised from Vern Anastasio.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good morning, Vern.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
I certainly do.
And could you spell your name for the stenographer?
It's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, on behalf of Mr. Rudy Tafani.
Okay, sure.
That's number two.
I already continued that.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I didn't hear it.
No, that's good.
I knew that you wanted to continue, so I continue that until June 9, 2026 at 9.30 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Have a good day.
All right.
Any other requests for continuance?
No hands at the sign, Chair.
Number five, MI2025-005-345-6040 Edmond Street, Savivian Rodriguez is the owner applicant.
This is a resumptive hearing.
could that person please raise their hand
no hands at this time chair
Wait a minute, our council just gave me a...
So, Mr. Chair, Mr. Rodriguez is trying, is having problems getting on the Zoom, so we're working.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Rodriguez is trying, is having problems getting on the Zoom, so we're working
with him on that. You could call the next case and we'll come back to him. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay.
Number, number seven, MI 2026-000-483-6302 Gerrard Avenue. Joseph Consol is the attorney.
they're being promoted to panels he's here good morning
mr counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yeah it's uh joseph console j-o-s-e-p-h last name console c-o-n-s-o-l-e do you swear or firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client
their relationship to the property yes it's uh donald votopecia and he is the owner of the
property and sitting right next to me and um uh we have a recommendation of support from h
hmc squared rco our vice chair has a few questions sure good morning have you submitted
your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the read
another refusal to stipulate to its accuracy okay thank you you can show your screen proceed with
your case we're up uh 6203 west gerard avenue i've got the owner of the property mr donald
votapia with me um in the room and um we're here because this property is located in rsa
5 residential district we're seeking approval to permit uh a multi-family three residential
unit use in this space. This is a fairly straightforward revitalization project.
This property, as far as my client knows and as far as the RCO knows, has been vacant and
dilapidated for over a decade. And my client's goal is to rehabilitate the property into three
units. Now, that's not to say that it previously was not a multifamily property. The previous
approvals for the property going back to the 1960s were two families, a two-family dwelling
on the second floor and a large plumbing office storage of equipment space on the first floor.
No one at the RCO really knew exactly what all went on there, but the use registration,
that's that's what it states uh the two-unit rental license that existed on the property
became an active in december 22nd of 2012 and that's kind of when we peg uh the property for
having gone um derelict proof of mailing
uh just a message from my client give you some photos so the first floor
you'll see is the old plumbing space. The property takes up both the, you know, sort of building
you're looking at here, but also the one on the left on the screen too. So it's a double wide
property, which I'll show you the full scope in a minute. These are just my posters.
So that kind of gives you the full scope of what the property looks like. It's both of those,
You know, for lack of a better term buildings on the right is the entrance to what would get you upstairs to the two units.
There's an entrance to the first floor there.
There's also an entrance around the side through what is kind of like a drive aisle underneath the bump out on lookers left where that gate is now.
it probably looks like on the side
the other side of the building if you're looking um from the inside to where that gate is
uh you can see that there is an entrance to the units on the left there uh the one of the units
above bumps out above and you know as far as we can tell that was a way for them to deliver things
at one point during its career as a plumbing whatever it was meters in the basement
showing what the interior of the property looks like now
plan I'll get to the plans in a second as mentioned we went in front of the RCO last week
they were very receptive to rehabilitating this property uh this part of west gerard avenue is
sort of uh mismatched there's a little bit of this uh a little bit of that it's not by any means
um i don't think there's any single family homes anywhere nearby it's a lot of different uses
uses, multifamily, automotive, things like that. In addition to the support of the RCO, my client
multifamily, automotive, things like that.
has gotten the support by going door to door and meeting a lot of the local neighbors,
property owners, business owners, and has provided petitions of support for the rehab of this
property here's our plans start with the first floor it's going to be three one-bedroom units
so there's one on the first floor as mentioned and then on the right you can see the
second floor which mimics the previously approved units sorry i can't get a great shot
uh and incidentally it's my client's goal to um live in this property along with a member
of his family and then a third renter as well I'm sorry yes can we make this a little bigger
yeah thank you tell me where you want it my zoom was kind of like put me all over the place
that works okay
We can go slowly go down.
That's sort of the bulk of my presentation.
We believe rehabilitating the space into a space that was three units, albeit one of them commercial, makes sense. And my client is going to live there and make the property nice.
Could you bring your client on, please?
Yes. With that, I'll call Donald Vodepia to adopt my testimony.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning. My name is Don Vodopilla, full name spelled D-O-N-A-L-D, last name V-O-D-O-P-I-J-H.
Is fair or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Counsel?
Good morning, Don. Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your property at 6203 West
Gerard Avenue?
Do you agree with what I said, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, everything is true.
Questions from the board.
Yeah, I have a couple questions.
So what's what's the use for of the what was, I guess, the vehicular access out aisle.
So so so it's going to be a garage in the back.
Yes, the plan is to just keep it as a garage.
We don't have permitting for parking at the current moment.
We explained to the RCO that we plan to have our trash there as well to avoid it from being on the street side and, you know, overflowing with trash.
So as of now, we'll just use it as a space, use the garage and have the trash and everything on the side of the aisle.
OK, so so will the will the garage be used for the tenants or is that just for your use or how does that work?
It's my uncle's going to be living there. I plan to live there as well.
So probably just storage for myself. And if a tenant wants to store something there.
Is that first floor unit still going to retain some access to that side from the unit or no?
Oh, yes, sir.
So right there you'll see is a back door.
You can both go in.
You have access and egress for the first floor as well as the second floor from that back door exit there.
Okay, because I'm looking at the plan, but the plan, I see it on the picture, but I don't see it on your floor plan.
where is that door on your floor plan so if you look on the left hand side you see where the
the stairs yeah uh there leads to that door to go out isn't that the first floor though yes
there's no door there i mean it's not on your plan or is that the door is that the access to
the basement that yeah so that's the access to the basement my mistake my mistake i'm
looking at it the wrong way. Is there a side entrance through? The side entrance goes up
and then there's a door that can lead you in. So there's a two-way door when you go through
that side there. Yeah, I think the plan is just off because- Yeah, the plan may be off a little
bit. Yeah, because your second floor plan shows that where it says unit three, it shows a stairwell
that I'm assuming is going down to that door.
that i'm assuming is going down to that door correct it's just something something's just
Correct.
It's just something.
off okay so so the first floor will have access to that side correct that is correct all right
and okay all right there's two means of egress yeah egress and access so from the first floor
you can get in through the front entrance and then you can also get through that back door so that
back door has a two-way door one to go up and then one to go to the side i think the architect might
have missed that. Something something's a little off because there's a bedroom there and then it's
a bathroom. So, so, okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? So the tenants will have
all tenants that have access to the trash receptacles and stuff like you said you're
going to put it all in the back. Yes, right there on that side path through we're going to have our
trash lined up there to avoid being on the street because that's one of the complaints we got from
the community um the overloading of trash and stuff like that in the air thank you
questions from our attorney hillary emerson um just one note mr consul the the zoning history
that you showed i didn't see that submitted anywhere so if you could just um submit that
if you'd like it included for the record oh bye tomorrow the atlas history the yes the atlas
history that the um the permit application that you showed with the plumbing office and the two
um the the permit for two units yes the rental license yes thank you
questions or comments from the audience or the virtual audience no hands at this time
planning commission
mason matera planning commission staff m-a-d-i-s-o-n-m-a-t-e-r-a do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at this location this
property has a documented history as a two-family dwelling with the commercial space converting the
vacant commercial space into a third unit brings the property into closer conformance with its
residential zoning the city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed variance
for three dwelling units thank you mi2026 000 483 6203 western rod avenue i vote yes
michael johns my vote is yes charles gaston my vote is yes tennetta graham my vote is yes
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Kyle Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Thank you, board.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Go back to number five.
MI 2025-005-345-6040 Edmond Street.
Sevian Rodriguez is the owner.
they're being promoted to panelists here okay
how you doing everybody good morning could you please state your name and
spell for this stenographer my name is sabian rodriguez um my name um the way how you spell
is s-e-i-v-i-a-n rodriguez is r-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-z you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes okay so this is a resumptive hearing and what we're scheduled to do
you're going to present supplemental information that um came out in the last hearing there'll be
questions on the board it'll be public testimony and the planning commission will make a recommendation
so why don't you start your presentation if you want you can give us a quick overview of what
you're trying to do and what the supplemental information is okay okay um so my my apartment
building it has two units on the top um it has a basement that's on in the front of the house that
has a separate entrance um so i'm creating it as a unit uh for me and my wife to live
we're college students so i was like you know you know what's better than you know
having a place you know running out your own place you know what i'm saying you living in
your own place so i don't have to pay monthly rent um because you know times is hard so you
know, I was like, you know, make it to our own. So, you know, we decided to put it as a unit to
try to make it as an apartment, that basement. And then, you know, we got stopped.
make it as an apartment that basement and then you know we got stopped uh because of the you
know permits and all of that that we you know and because of the zoning so why don't why don't you
show photos again so we can oh so let me see right here and pull up the photos this is in a way
let's see so these are the this is the photos of the property this is the front of the property
this is the front of the property right here you see where the door is open that's the unit that
we're trying to make um for us to live in uh this is the side of the property right here
this is where you put the trash on the side of the property
this is where this is unit one this is unit two this one goes upstairs to one unit
this one this um second unit is in the bottom
and this is the back of the house and um this is photos of potentially unit three
uh this is the living room slash um kitchen uh this is the laundry room
um this is the hallway
um this is living rooms this is the other angle of the living room slash dining room
slash kitchen uh this is the bathroom uh do you have do you have plans for this to show yes
yes i have plans why don't you show us the plans okay the plans this was a basement before
with two apartments above yes pull up the plans plans a lot of plans right here so this is the
plans so this is this is the potential unit right here this is the entryway entrance this is where
the kitchen is going to be at this is where the living and dining room it's going to be at
the restroom this is the laundry room and then this is going to be a bedroom and it's the closet
and this is where you get to the water the heat the water gas uh and this is the
this is the second unit this is the first unit this is the one that you go upstairs
and there's the living dining room bathroom and this is the third unit right right here
third unit so you currently have two units there yeah i currently have two units you're trying to
convert the basement into another unit? Yes. And this is the supplemental information is the
drawings? Yeah, this is the drawings. This is there anything else that you want to supplement
this with? I have more photos of the basement. So I think we saw the photos. Yeah, yeah. Okay.
questions from the board
let me ask you this what's the rest of the block how many units are on the rest of the block
there are duplexes all along there yeah there's a duplex all along beside me is this the first
basement that's being converted to a third i'm not entirely sure um i know there's properties
in the area that also was a rsa3 just like me and got converted to arm one okay questions from the
board so you're um the mechanical for the upper units is in your unit is in the basement yes
so you're going to keep the mechanical and the hot water for the units above in the uh
in in that unit in that third unit yes okay i believe your your your basement is below grade
and the back so you would need egress wells out of there yes this is uh right here in my drawings
um this is the potential egress window this is where it's currently um planning to go to
it's really more room yeah you may have an issue with the ceiling height of your ceiling height is
only seven feet yeah so but that's all i have all right i mean i'll i'll just say that your living
space still for the two units that you plan to rent out is still very small for the bedroom to
public space ratio so that is something i know i mentioned it last time that's still the case but
But I do think that the, the plans are a lot easier to read. So thank you for.
Doing that questions for attorney.
Briefly, Mr. Rodriguez, there's no excuse me. There's no parking at the property. Is that correct?
Yeah, there's no parking. It's public parking.
Yeah, there's no parking public parking. Okay. All right. I just wanted to check that because it is zoned.
Okay. All right. I just wanted to check that because it is zoned RSA 3, which requires parking, and that was not noted on the refusal.
Nothing you need to do. I'm just noting that for the record. So, thank you.
Questions or comments from the audience or the virtual audience?
No hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Cymaterra Planning Commission staff comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 3 residential
single-family zoning at this location there's a documented history of two dwelling units via a
two-unit rental license for this property it appears the appellant did work to convert the
basement into a dwelling unit without the benefit of permits the appellant has not demonstrated
that three units is the least minimum the Planning Commission recommends the board deny the variance
for three dwelling units mi2025-005-345-6040 edmond street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams my vote is yes
thank you sir you have your votes thank you so much appreciate it um so what do i do for um
What is the next? You can give the office a call. They'll take care of you. OK. OK. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you to all. All right. Number four. MI 2025 004706184 Cotton Street. William O'Brien is the attorney.
Mr. O'Brien, we'll wait for this other attorney to come in.
so uh Mr O'Brien could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes good afternoon william o'brien w-i-l-l-i-a-m o'brien o-b-r-i-e-n
all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
richard vanderslice for the neighbor fran pillar v is victor a-n-d-e-r-s-l-i-c-e
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
This is a resumptive hearing.
And what we have here is the applicants will finish his presentation.
Protestant will have his presentation.
I do see a note here that the protestant's attorney may wish to cross-examine the property owner, but I think what we're going to do is start with Mr. O'Brien to finish your presentation, and then we'll go from there, okay?
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just to remind the board, at the last hearing, February 24th, I didn't get a chance to enter anything.
Okay. So do your presentation. Thank you.
I'm just rejoining now.
Oh, yes. Mr. O'Brien, so you know, we have several complicated cases today, including I'm
going to call yours a complicated case. Maybe you will not call it a complicated case, but
you have 30 minutes and then we're going to have to have a resumptive here. I'm telling the both
of you, okay? So if we can, we'd like to see you get this in in 30 minutes. In respect for the
board's time, there's still an outstanding LNI appeal that affects this matter, which is why
Mr. Pillar is contesting the matter. It affects the retaining wall that
um um our position is it it doesn't their plans do not uh address the issue that's the portion of
that appeal yeah i'm not i'm not sure that we're that's what we're here to hear am i correct hillary
it it was the we're going to address that okay you're going to okay yeah i was going to say i
believe i believe there was already some information submitted about the retaining wall
discussed previously and i'm and it's not on the subject property i'm correct okay it's an orphan
It's an orphan parcel between Mr. Piller's property.
parcel between mr pillar sure yeah all right so i want to use
So why don't you start?
This is the refusal.
There are two, the property zone at RSA 5, the proposed use, single-family attached homes, is consistent with the neighborhood.
The two refusals, one is for not having a shared driveway for the parking, and the second is for disturbance of some steep slopes.
Because of the topography, it's literally impossible to have a shared driveway, and you'll see that in a moment.
and um the uh the steep slopes is actually uh the result of this failed retaining wall and
how we're going to address it um the uh applicant met with the rco many up neighborhood council uh
it was their position is non-opposition their report which you have in front of you now it's
a lot there are 55 persons present but only 34 votes were recorded so i i really can't explain
that but the position is non-apposition um this is an area this is an atlas map uh here you see
uh the location of the parcel it's at the corner of cotton street and boone street
and as i said with the exception of across the street which is a former
dining hall which was converted to apartments rm1 the rest of it is older rsa5
um get some just photographs just have to change the
size okay so that is the existing attached single-family home at 184
cotton street you see to the right there's some green space that extends uh approximately 60 feet
to Boone Street and it behind that post on the porch you can see a stone wall that's the failed
retaining wall. This is the view from Boone Street and this is a view from the top of that wall at
Boone Street looking down. The structure you see behind those saplings, those trees, is the 184
Cotton Street. That's the structure. And the change in grade is approximately 20 feet
from Boone Street down to that house.
This is another image, a bit of a closer image, showing the failed retaining wall.
this was cited by the city in 2008 as being imminently dangerous
um its condition hasn't changed since then um i'll come back to more of that in a second
uh this is the subdivision plan
here you see the existing condition here is the three-story house and then to the right
going east is open area and then boone street here at the right and the proposal is to subdivide
it into three lots uh rebuilding a new home or the where the existing house is on cotton street
and introducing two new homes on Boone Street, premises C and premises D.
Above premises D, where I'm moving the cursor, you can see the wall and the note dilapidated stone retaining wall section.
As you can see, it's not on the lot.
It turns out that the wall is on an orphan parcel.
the properties to the south excuse me to the north are 43 34 and 43 34 and a half boon street
their legal descriptions come down and there's about a three foot gap and that's where this
wall sits so we uh attempted to file a development plan and we were told no you can't we don't accept
development plans when there's an unsafe condition we should know we know the house is unsafe and
we're filing an application to demolish it no no no there's a wall we time out the wall is not on
our property well there's nothing we can do licenses and inspections cited your property
and the neighbor's property and you're gonna have to live with it so we filed an appeal to the board
building standards and the board suggested that because of the proximity of this parcel d
and the failed retaining wall it was suggested that we incorporate our foundation and the failed
It was suggested that we incorporate our foundation and the failed retaining wall to correct the problem.
We agreed to do that.
The board said, okay, we'll file an application to demolish, file an application with your structural plans showing that you're going to incorporate this failed retaining wall into the foundation.
And then you'll be able to submit your zoning application, your development plan.
So this, that was the recommendation.
Here's the notice of decision.
we have an applicant has 120 days from today's date to apply for a make safe permit for the
retaining wall demolition purse for the house and a zoning permit for the new construction we did
get an extension to that ultimately we submitted a complete set of structural plans this is page
s3 zero I think the whole set is about 30 pages long but you can see this detail
I'll make it as large as I can.
This detail, it shows the retaining wall on the left, the failed retaining wall, and then
the new stone foundation.
this was reviewed by L&I and approved and part of that application included an affidavit from
the structural engineer this is to certify that we have evaluated the condition of the existing
retaining wall between the property at 184 cotton street and 43 34 and 43 34 and a half noon street
and it is our professional opinion that this wall can be and will be incorporated as part of the
structural design foundation wall system for the proposed three-story building on 184 cotton street
let me show you what is proposed for this site
So this, there is a one-page proviso plan.
We met with the Civic Group's zoning committee, there were some suggestions made which were
incorporated into the design you see.
Originally, we had the parking next to each other with one large curb cut.
The RCO observed that if we separated the parking garages, that it would provide an on-street parking space.
So we made that change.
And then additionally, you'll see in subsequent renderings, the original pilot houses for the roof decks were at the far ends of each house.
We moved them to the middle so that there was less visual water from those that live to the east.
This is an image showing, so this is the proposed new house on Cotton Street.
And these are the two houses proposed for Boone Street, showing the rear of the Boone houses and the front of the 184 Cotton Street.
they all have roof decks they're all height compliant
this is a side view showing so Cotton Street is on the city plan it is not open as you can see
it's a sidewalk with stairs to Boone Street that will be retained and and landscaped
According to the driveways, this block
of Boone Street has
approximately 13 driveways
curb cuts.
Some of them are
new construction.
Thank you.
I can move to the elevation plans and the floor plans.
and the floor plans how am i doing on time okay all right i'm watching our accounts over there
How am I doing on time?
she says she's she's watching the time okay okay there we go so um you can see the houses on boone
street are in the center uh you have a garage uh it is the second level there's a basement
then the garage and then two floors above the garage level and then the house on cotton
or street same thing there's a basement with three levels above the basement
So this is the first floor of the Boone Street properties. You see the garage and covered
entry. There's space in the garage to store trash, guest suite, bathroom.
room. Second floor. This is the basement rather. It shows the rear yard. That's right. That's
the first floor. The basement was the first floor. So this is the garage first floor plan.
this is the basement plan showing the staircase down from the entrance a media room staircase
to a rear yard second floor kitchen dining covered deck
primary bedroom two second bedrooms total of two baths laundry walk-in closets on that floor
and then a roof deck and as I said the staircases are moved to the center
so that there's less obstruction for those that have houses to the east of this
um i think that's the substance of my presentation be happy to answer questions
why don't you bring your client on sure adopt your test uh steve ashefsky could raise his hand
no hands raised at the sign chair okay so your officer of the court will take your test money
Council, you want to start your presentation?
I'm sorry, Chair.
A hand just went up.
They're being promoted to panelists.
Thank you very much.
Steve, are you muted and you unmute yourself.
Do we see him.
they're currently a panelist at the sound chair okay Mr. Ashefsky
he must be having a hard time with his can you can you unmute Mr. Ashefsky
Chair, we have another hand raised from Andrew Molson.
Is Mr. Molson part of the, Mr. Molson, can he testify to this?
Mr. Molson?
They're being promoted to panel.
Thank you.
Mr. Molson?
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, you can.
yes it can mr molson okay great could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Mr. Molson, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
andrew molson and d re w m u l s o n mr molson could you turn your video on uh yes all right
do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do well thank you counsel thank you mr molson are you a managing member of cotton street partners
the owner of 184 cotton street i am uh and were you present during my the testimony i offered
to the zoning board i was uh was i truthful and complete yes do you adopt my testimony as your own
i do thank you thank you please stay on mr molson uh the attorney for
the neighbor may have some questions i will would you start your presentation
sorry do you have questions for for the owner at this time or okay all right thank you good
yeah just if you could maybe get a little closer here you go
there you go perfect please thank you um mr pillar uh owns uh four um 43 i'm sorry 43 34 and 43
34 and one half boone street which are directly um adjacent to the proposed project right his
concerns are twofold both dealing with the steep slope component of where the
boon street partners want to erect uh two additional premises in addition to the existing
premises first is he has not heard a hardship that would overcome the steep slope regulations
further the application to satisfy the pending or the what was an outstanding lni violation
for the collapsed wall that addressed the property at 4334 boone street
it did not address the portion of the wall at 4334 and one half boone street
Based upon that, and what was referred to in the main presentation as a deed gap, Mr. Piller has appealed the determination of the Department of License and Inspections of that curing of the violation.
Basically, his position is the application to cure the violation was based on an inaccurate
survey that contravened decades of decisions by the Department of License and Inspection
as well as surveys commissioned by the survey district.
i uploaded a december 3rd 2025 letter uh to mr o'brien that outlines this in detail and would
ask that that be made a part of the record i do have copies for the panel if you can you can bring
that up on um are you yeah i had trouble logging in i don't know did you include my response to
that letter i did not why not i have a copy i can hit it up okay so we stuff needs to be submitted
electronically so and then if you if you don't have it if it hasn't already been submitted to
the board by close of business tomorrow it needs to be submitted to be included in the record i
i uploaded it prior to come uploaded both documents i'm going to discuss um additionally there's there's
an outstanding appeal with the department of license and inspection regarding this issue
basically mr pillar the next door neighbor who is one of the parties that should be responsible
for maintaining the wall in addition to the owner of 80 184 cotton street as has been determined by
debt over decades by the department um the way it is proposed and the way that it is being submitted
to this panel it removes the responsibility of maintaining the retaining wall and providing
support for one or 4334 and 4334 and one half Boone Street and takes it off of the Boone
Street partners and whoever purchases the property puts it on Mr. Pillar. So based upon
the outstanding appeal and the discrepancy in the lot lines Mr. Pillar objects and lack
And lack of demonstration of hardship. Mr. pillar objects to, um, a variance based on the steep slope requirement. Okay, so your presentation. Yes, if I may, just briefly, um, at pages 62 and 63 of the materials, uh, this is not.
of demonstration of hardship Mr. Pillar objects to a
But my response to Mr. Vanderslice's December 3rd, 25 letter, but it's a summary of it. I can certainly supplement the record just so that there's a response to go along with Mr. Vanderslice's record, and I will do that.
But this is a summary of the two issues. One, the failed retaining wall, and secondly, the unsafe violation. And then the derivation, the reason why we're certain that this retaining wall is not on Mr. Piller's property, and it's not on my client's property, is a 1948 plan, which I'm showing here. It's on page 63 of the materials.
You can see the stone retaining wall is in limbo.
It's between 184 Cotton Street and between 44, 43, and 44, 43, 34 and a half Cotton Street.
There's a gap in the legal descriptions, and that's where this retaining wall stands.
The benefit to Mr. Pillar is that the original violation notice suggested he had to correct this.
My client's bearing this.
We're going to correct it.
And the reason that there's a steep slope disturbance is because we're correcting this failed retaining wall.
This is a win for the neighborhood.
This is a win for Mr. Pillar.
His objection, frankly, is confusing.
Thank you.
do you want to be responding under here uh sure on uh
april 14 2008 uh the department of license inspections issued an inner office memo
which is attached to my december 3rd letter which uh based upon the survey that is also
part of that letter and determined that the boundary line goes down the middle of the wall
and the and based upon that it is Mr. Piller's position that the application to correct the
violation issued by the Department of License and Inspection was based on an inaccurate survey
which this proposed subdivision is also based upon um there should be no deed gap it was
rectified by the work of the city a couple almost two decades ago and Mr. Piller would ask that any
plans at the very least take into account what has been determined by the city and
And it is unclear why he didn't get notice of this application to correct and move a boundary line in effect.
All right.
Hillary, how are we doing on time?
We're doing fairly well, Mr. Chair.
We have 10 or so minutes left.
I won't belabor it.
Just for the record, if I can supplement my response to Mr. Vanderslice, that letter.
there. And then also Mr. Pillar did appeal to violations. He then those appeals were then
dismissed for non-appearance, and I can upload those as well. There's much ado about nothing
at this point. Thank you. Questions from the board? Yes. Could you just help me out as
a visual learner? Could you go back to the picture that you showed of the two, well,
the units that uh are going to be built and the relationship uh to um the bone street properties
i think it was the renderings okay yeah and i just would like for you if you could to point out
uh the property line that we're talking about
okay so this is the subdivision plan this might be easier to talk this was the photos it was the
I'm sorry? It was the photos, the rendering photos. Yeah, the rendering. Here? That go up a little bit. There it is, right there. Okay. Right. If you can blow that up, you can just show me where. Where is the wall? Yeah.
The wall is behind the building on the left. So let me go back to this image. So the building on the right, which is the northern most building, the retaining wall.
which is the the northern most building the retaining wall is next to this foundation
um and it's below grade it's because of the change in grade from boone you can't see it
uh but i can bring the detail up again the city reviewed the plans the structural plans
uh and and was satisfied that this will address this so so that the the foundation would be the
the wall will be built in the foundation of that unit right okay all right thank you so so so to
just piggybacking on that because i'm still a little confused so there was a it sounded from
what from one attorney that there was a um what do we call not even a relocation of lot lines
i'll say right about about a decade ago he said that made the center line of this
current retaining wall the center line between the two properties did i hear that correctly
no so what happened our first uh existing conditions plan from the lane survey district
three years ago has taken a while to get here uh had a roughly two and a half foot wide strip
where the retaining wall was in and there was a note the 2008 notation that john parkinson that
opposing counsel just mentioned when he made this report uh he opined that the property owners on
both sides had to share the responsibility um when we got that retaining one we saw this strip i said
wait a minute every deed for 184 cotton street going back 150 years has the depth along boone
Street, 48 feet. It doesn't go beyond 48 feet. So doing some research, we came up, Dan Burke,
the surveyor of the nice survey district, found this plan from 1948, which confirmed
that 184 Cotton Street is south of this retaining wall. It's not on this lot. He then went in and
looked at the legal descriptions of all three lots and said aha it's an orphan parcel
the retaining wall is not on mr pillar's property and it's not on 184 cotton street it's an orphan
parcel so so so so so that's you're contending that but the opposing attorney is contending
that that's not true right is that what am i hearing that correctly no i'm relying on the
my survey district and their analysis that this wall is on an orphan orphan parcel it's not on
Mr. Piller's property yeah I understand I understand your point I'm just I want to hear
from the other attorney is that am I right that that's what you're saying the other I believe you
you summarized Mr. Piller's position correctly the later determination by the department and
the survey district was that the property line ran down the middle and if called to testify
mr pillar would state that there are actually pins in the middle of the stone wall um that i
don't think a picture has been shown up but what is the current condition um that indicate where
that property line should be um i'm unclear as to why the the newer survey did not use those
okay so so so okay so i just want to make sure that i heard both correctly now the other attorney
and i'm sorry i don't can't remember your name um you're saying that under your plan you are
rectifying the condition of this retaining wall are you then but but you're rectifying the are
you repairing the retaining wall and you're building a new retaining wall on your property
line to address the steep slopes or are you moving your wall to the the retaining wall location and
repairing the retaining wall we are incorporating uh the failed retaining wall uh within um as part
of the foundation wall for the proposed single family home on parcel d so you're extending so
so you're so so are you extending your property line to that existing retaining wall location to
be able to do that i think it's probably fair that we're going to encroach again the ninth
survey district reviewed mr parkinson who's a former regulator and surveyor the ninth survey
dan burke the current uh surveyor reviewed his uh 2008 memo reviewed the 1948 plan and concluded
that Mr. Parkinson was incorrect, that this wall is not 1184. It's not one of the Boone
it's not one of the boone street properties it's gotcha gotcha gotcha gotcha got that so but in
Street properties. Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, got that. So, but in order.
order but but so but in order to recta but but your but your attempt you're going to rectify the
issue of the failed retaining wall by encroaching upon the area of the this two foot area in order
to do that am i correct i don't believe it's actually going to encroach um it is you just say
i think it's so close let me show you this is the detail from the structure you said your lot didn't
touch that this was an orphan that it's a three foot wide orphan property so for you to build a
foundation up against the wall your foundation wall is now on the orphan property it's going to
be next to it yes it's going to it's going to carry the load that the failed retaining wall
was carrying before it failed so is the retaining wall sitting on the demising wall between your
property and the orphan property is that the argument that i don't know what argument the
pillar is making i'm asking your argument because you're saying there's a three foot wide orphan
property we is the retaining wall standards because we couldn't submit an application i
understand what you did i'm asking a very practical question about location can you help us solve this
I hear you. I got what the board asked. I'm just asking a very simple question. There's an orphan property. There's your property. Is the retaining wall on the demising wall between the ghost property and your property?
The failed retaining wall is not on 184 Cotton Street. It's right next to it.
So where is this repair? Where is this repair?
how is how are you repairing it if you are sistering your foundation to it and you're not
building on it i'm just a lawyer i yeah
my definition has to have money money show what it looked like yeah no i saw what it looked like
that's why i know that i'm correct i'm asking for clarity because your detail shows that you are
literally attaching your foundation wall to the or to the to the remaining wall it's like the same
way you would sister a joint or a beam you are literally tying them together by steel which
means that they have to be on the same property so i'm asking is your foundation on the orphan
property or is the retaining wall the dividing line between your property and the orphan property
and that is the issue show that detail our foundation wall will go on our property
and tie into the foundation wall so it is on the demising law so the answer to my question is yes
yes we're going to tie into that and it's not what ellen i told you to do that's what the
board of building standards asked us to do right we submitted okay structural plans right yeah
were adopted and again yeah right okay any other questions questions from our attorney
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
or the chair we have a hand up from andrew molson yeah we just had him yes okay mr molson
yes i just want to clarify uh mr o'brien's statement um we will be within our property
and not encroaching onto the orphan parcel the detail f7 shows that the foundation wall will
go right up along where the property line is it will not encroach into the area once it is completed
any any retaining wall that's encroaching onto our property line will be where it is pinned
and tied together but the wall itself when finalized will only be within our 48 foot frontage
it will not extend beyond our 48 foot frontage
okay for clarity right anyone else in the audience
no hands that's assigned here planning commission madison matera planning commission staff the
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 residential single family zoning at this location at its May 15, 2025 meeting the city planning commission voted in favor of the plat adjustment that created the three parcels from one existing parcel to support this project.
mi 2025 004 706 184 cotton street
if i may i there's a the refusal is a revised refusal i i give me a chance i'm i'm i didn't get
to that point yet, please. Okay. I vote yes with proviso per refusal dated 12-3-25 revised plans.
Per refusal dated 12-3-25, revised plans, one-page, stamped by TBA on April 7, 2026.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tyra Wynn, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you both of you.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Take care.
Okay, so now number one.
um mi 2021 004 541 251 ripka street david orphanages he's the attorney i think he went outside
mr orphan 80s
mr grimes
uh 45 minutes is that am i right this is the 45 am i correct
just discussing that i was just weird if you saw when i said 45 minutes i mean are you i don't yeah
i don't know about that okay all right you know fine with me
okay i thought you were going to save us for the grant
Mr. Orphanides, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides.
My name is David Orphanides.
The last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Grimes, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Joshua Grimes, G-R-I-M-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do okay so
this is a resumptive hearing I was just trying to listen to the recording out in the hallway
to remember where we left off okay all right so where we are is it says the applicant David you
will finish your presentation then uh the attorney the protestant attorney will finish his
presentation i think you had one witness am i correct i i had uh yes uh one or two all right
okay all right and then there'll be questions from the board public testimony and then also
planning commission recommendation so mr orphanetes why don't you start and um try to finish your
presentation certainly okay i'm going to share my screen
i know okay i had one of my good friends
there we go okay all right am i not sharing yet or is it up on there's nothing up yet here
there we go all right so i believe when um we were here um last um i was having lx dollar who's
the architect he was going through the project and he was talking about um really what we have
here is we have an applicate real just real quickly in summary it's lot subdivision buy right
lot sizes two single family homes um there are uh there's a steep slopes refusal there's a front
setback refusal that was not included in the first refusal which i figured out and also i think mr
hunter from mnc also mentioned we had the refusal corrected for that and then because both of the
structures are attached they run the full width at least at the front full width of the lots there's a
uh refusal for parking from the front and through the course of um the uh the meetings with mnc
um feedback from the neighbors that mr grimes represents um there was a question as to whether
or not well originally the first refusal included a height refusal we made the adjustment and
eliminated the height refusal um with the changing of the location of the two houses
uh really i think what it comes down to right now is that we've moved it from further back in
the lot the two houses where the steep slopes aren't as bad a little closer to the front but
it's not all the way to the front and it seems that what we're receiving feedback from is to move
the houses all the way to the front of the lot and there are issues um for us to do that we're
not trying to be difficult i know there's some concerns regarding blocking the views of the
i know there's some concerns regarding blocking the views of the houses at 263 hermitage
houses at 260.
and some other concerns that they may have that they voiced but there's a reason for why we're
staying where we are and that has largely to do with the steep slopes that are located at the
front of the property the grade not only heading back up the property but across the front of the
property as you'll recall and as you see in the photograph this portion of ripka street dead ends
and at dead ends it goes very steep um because you can't connect with the upper part um it's
much steeper actually than what our property is although there are you'll hear our engineer testify
um that at the front which i had shown in the last hearing um we had color coded the topog the
topographic survey and the purple was the darker was it darker color was the steeper slopes i had
mentioned that those slopes were 45 plus and the engineer and she'll testify is there actually some
slopes at the front of this property that are 75 to 80 percent and because of those things it not
only impacts the cost of construction which you're going to hear a little bit but it also impacts
what we're able to deliver because of the slopes you're going to hear that we're instead of having
two car parking at each of the houses when they're set back to where we want to have them again which
pulled further forward than what was originally proposed we got as close as we could to the front
um there would only be one car which is uh all the properties on the other side of the street
all our front-loaded parking were far up the hill from wild and that also creates an issue for us
in terms of marketability and um and just viability of the project so at this point um
i think alex dollar did a pretty good job the last time talking about why we had moved it and um i
I think I'd mentioned at the last hearing we had we have an analysis of a financial analysis report that was done by Rittenhouse appraisals and then there was a question regarding the sleep slope provisions of the the zoning code for the granting of variances.
And I would I'm going to address those right now and so I do have a report here that you can see right here that was prepared by Rachel.
and um excuse me if I butchered the last name but D Domenicis and um I believe she's on right
now and she can testify as to the steep slopes uh criteria in the zoning code for the granting
of a variance revolving steep slopes Rachel
they're being promoted to panelists here thank you
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
My name is Rachel DiDominicus.
That's R-A-C-H-E-L.
Last name D-I-D-O-M-E-N-I-C-I-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told the truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel?
um rachel um and for the board rachel's uh i don't know that she's appeared before this board
before i'd like to qualify her as an expert um can just take a couple minutes and run through
her cv or i mean she is a licensed engineer in the state of pennsylvania and some other
jurisdictions as well for the purpose of the testimony i don't have any objection okay
all right we can just get into it that's fine i'm just thank you just real quickly rachel
are you you're licensed uh as an engineer in the commonwealth of pennsylvania yes and that
is your seal that we see on the front of the report that's up on the screen right now yes
and are you licensed in any other jurisdictions any other states uh i'm also licensed in new
jersey maryland delaware and new york okay thank you and then um that you i have in front of me a
report dated april 2nd 2026 sites for um it says deep slope analysis report for 251 ripka street
did you prepare this report yes i did and did you prepare it for the owners of the property
uh bqn realty llc yes and i can flip through um it can be your vanna white flip through this as
you need um but if you could real quickly because i know we're a little bit on a tight schedule
today not really 45 minutes let's let's let's start with the you're aware that the zoning code
has certain criteria involving steep slopes and variances from the steep slopes requirements
uh in the zoning code correct yes that's correct and i flipped to page seven and i'm just going to
go right to the summary then we can back out to your reasoning for this but in in um in that
provisions of the zoning code um that deal with that and i have those right here it's 14
um that deal with that and I have those right here it's 14 303 8 uh Romanette or 8i and then
um 1.1.a b and c and those criteria say that any requested variance for the property will
not result in any of the following an increase in stormwater runoff the shifting of earth to
adjacent existing buildings and structures downslope or immediately upslope or an increase in
likelihood of loss of property and then there's also reference to an earth moving plan um described
that complies with 147042c earth moving plan real quickly in terms of uh 8i.2 uh romanette 1.2
you did your your report includes an earth moving plan that complies with 147042c correct yes that's
correct and then flipping back to your um back to your study back to your report
you um oops there we go um do 4.1 4.2 and 4.3 address those three criteria that i just read
from the zoning code regarding the granting of a variance uh involving uh steep slopes
yes that's correct and can you real just quickly summarize what you certified regarding each of
those criteria sure so for the increase in stormwater runoff i reviewed both the existing
conditions and the proposed design and based on my analysis the proposed design will include
capturing 100 of the runoff generated by the new impervious services so this will eliminate any
additional runoff um so basically the project produces no increase in runoff and actually
you end up with a net decrease in runoff off of the site and that's with the granting of the
requested variances correct correct and then the shifting of the earth so with through with regards
of the shifting of the earth all earth disturbance associated with the construction will be performed
using excavation support systems as outlined in a geotechnical report which is also included
as an appendix to my report to confirm that no neighboring properties will be affected by
construction and in addition we also have a erosion and sediment control plan prepared
which will ensure that no sediment leaves the site so with regards to the shifting of earth
the granting of the variance will not result in any shifting of earth to adjacent buildings
and structures. And then with regard to the likelihood of the loss of property,
the requested variance will not increase the likelihood of the loss of property
because under current conditions you have uncontrolled runoff on pretty extreme steep
slopes. Like you stated earlier, the slopes at the front of the property go up to 70 to 80 percent.
under current conditions those are at risk for erosion and other problems so
by reducing those front slopes we're actually putting the property into a
more stable condition sorry sorry what was that I don't think my volumes up
okay was that you all right so and then 4.4 reference to the earth moving plan
that's included as an exhibit at appendix c and that that complies with 147042c correct correct
and then just real quickly for the benefit of the board because this is a criteria for the granting
of a variance one of the hardships is the unique physical characteristics of the property we've
touched on it you know i touched it in my opening again today we touched on it the last hearing
pretty more than touched on it um but as the engineer here um can you speak to the unique
physical characteristics of this property and the difficulties in having the houses located at the
front of the property. If you are able to look at the topography plan which was provided which
you mentioned earlier which has the color-coded steep slopes the majority of the steepest slopes
are located directly at the front of the property. In the rear of the property where they're much
more gradual which is where the proposed buildings are being placed it allows for much safer
construction conditions um and if you can take a look some of these slopes are actually upwards of
almost 95 right at the front okay um i know there was some concern expressed and i think you already
addressed this but uh and just in general um with this the uh in referencing or addressing the
criteria for the granting of steep slope variances but uh there was some concern regarding uh 263 and
their retaining wall that is located to the—as you look at this topography to the right—again,
with the development of this property, do you foresee there being any issue regarding
with the granting of the variances to develop in the lesser of the steep slopes where we're
to develop in the lesser of the steep slopes where we where we're proposing to locate the houses that there's any risk to the soil or the support that's provided with the retaining walls for 263 based on the findings in the geotechnical report.
proposing to locate—
No. Okay. I have no further questions of Rachel at this time, but I've reserved a rebut.
have thank you mr chairman um just a few questions um rachel you just i believe offered testimony
um that um the steep slopes at the front of the property are more extreme those are my words not
yours right that's a sense of it um so it's better to to put the houses further back i believe you
offered testimony like that is that correct um yes okay so but there's a driveway a shared
driveway proposed here at the front of the property isn't there correct so aren't the
steep slopes at the front of the property going to be impacted under the application is submitted
yes okay um could the property could the houses be relocated at the property line with no setbacks
gonna object i mean i'm gonna object could they i mean it's just asking in general
change the wording yes would it be a given that there's already interference with the
steep slopes for the driveway, as you just testified. Would it be a dramatically larger
impact on the steep slopes if the property, if the houses were located at the property line with
no setback? Based on the design that's been looked to, moving the houses forward adds additional
requirements for retaining walls at the end of the street. I believe it was a cost factor that's
affecting that okay if there was no driveway at all um and the properties were right up against
the property line would the steep slope disturbance be less no they would not because
without a shared driveway the property is why would they not be less is the property not going
be as length as you know as long sorry i'm not understanding the question they still have to
disturb the steepest slopes which are at the front of the property i'm not asking that i
you're you're and i don't mean forgive me you probably didn't understand my question let me
if there was no driveway and the homes were right up against the property line um presumably
the homes would have less of a footprint on the property. So would that require less of a
disturbance of the steep slopes? No, because the steep slopes are located at the front of the
property. So it's your testimony that we're looking at a chart that shows some steep slope,
I believe, towards the middle of the property, if not towards the top, that that's not a steep slope?
those slopes are so the range there we have some 22 19 those all fall under the 25 steep slope
okay um and and we're discussing my last question we're discussing steep slopes as
being a unique hardship are you steep slopes and i mean are you familiar with maniunk
yeah are steep slopes unique to this property in maniunk
um i mean i can't really speak to to the whole of so is it your testimony that there are no
as far as you know are there other are there other steep slopes in manioc you're saying you
don't know the answer to that i think we can stipulate through steep slopes the question
is whether you're whether somebody's proposing to build in them or one one oh yeah yeah i mean
I can stipulate. The question is, can you, can your witness answer that question? I think she
said she couldn't answer the question, right? I mean, I was saying, I was stipulate that there's
steep slopes. The testimony was that steep slopes are unique to this property. I'm asking, are
steep slopes unique to this property? And we all know Manny Young. I'm asking if she has that
knowledge. I mean, everyone here, I believe there is none. Are you able to answer the question? If
not you can say you don't add uh no i don't have an answer to that okay thank you mr chairman
yeah for some follow-up um rachel i pulled up on the screen um the revised uh zoning drawings that
were submitted with the amended zoning permit application um in sheet z 1.2 that was prepared
by fusa design um you've seen you've seen this plan correct correct and uh to the to uh council's
question regarding the disturbance between the differences in disturbance and the steepest of
regarding the disturbance between the differences in disturbance and the steepest of slopes
this plan shows uh the driveway it shows the car going into the driveway
is all of the area in front of the houses to be with the proposed design to be disturbed
or only part of it sorry can you say that again so the area that's in front of the houses we can
see that there's a driveway right where the car turns into i can use my pointer here this area
here is that in a disturbed area or is that an undisturbed area undisturbed okay so with the
proposal and i presumably let me ask you a question the idea of these ordinances that deal with steep
slopes i mean the idea is that and and having more controls when they're steeper the idea is
you want to stay out of the steepest of slopes you want to stay out of them correct and disturb them
less is that not correct that's correct all right so between the design that we have that leaves
a large area besides the driveway undisturbed and the and the and the design that was
that is being suggested where it's pulled all the way to the front that you can see here
which one disturbs this more steep slopes the one with the houses pulled all the way to the
property line disturbs more steep slopes okay and uh thank you and then the question that
council asked regarding the general characteristics of manny young um and you i think you believe you
weren't that familiar uh with that but a property that has slopes up to 85 90 degrees 70 degrees
is that is that pretty unique excuse me i have just she testified she doesn't have knowledge
of no i'm just asking in general i'm asking in general not specific to mandy young
in general that is unique wait a minute wait a minute we'll allow her to answer the question okay
and then you can make your comments yeah right yeah so my question wasn't about manning because
in general is that a unique characteristic when a property has that steep of slopes
yes i believe your answer was yes all right i have no further questions of this many columns
no mr chairman it's just that we're discussing the unique attributes of this property that's
what they're asking for a variance for right and and i'm suggesting was only suggesting that the
condition that they're asking to remedy is a condition faced by many other properties and
many that's all i was trying to say thank you do you have your next chance that she didn't know
that answer um yes i have no further questions rachel thank you um carlo bats i'm going to have
carlo testify um regarding financial hardship they're being promoted to panel thank you
Carlos Carlos Carlos Carlos yeah good morning how are y'all today good morning could you please
state your name and spell for the stenographer yes carlo l bat c-a-r-l-o-b-a-t-t-s do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir council uh and
sure if i may and i've fixed you mr chairman i just like to point out this is a new report that
i have not been presented with and i don't believe was part of the record the last time i checked and
people in the audience are shaking their head no to hillary this was submitted for today's hearing
so it is a supplemental exhibit okay i i have not had an opportunity submitted last week it
dated march 30th i was not aware of it okay all right please proceed um so um mr bats has been
qualified as an expert before this board i believe but um in the past he's appeared before this board
why don't we ask counsel are you okay with that yeah okay please although i'm not sure what he's
testifying about since i haven't seen the report well we'll we'll see okay i mean so he did so mr
mr bats did prepare a summary that was presented um at the last hearing we didn't get to it
and then this is just the the report that backs that up okay um so mr bats um you were
What is your position with Rittenhouse Appraisals?
Yes, good morning.
I am the principal of Rittenhouse Appraisals.
of written house appraisals i'm a mai designated uh real estate appraiser certified in pennsylvania
I'm a MAI-designated real estate appraiser.
okay and were you hired by the owners of this property to uh becan realty llc to prepare a
feasibility analysis comparing the um the report or the proposed development to the
development that pulls both of the houses to the front of the property
Yes, sir.
And I'm just going to start with the conclusion just to get to that,
and then we can work our way backwards to what supports that.
Between the two, can you please give your conclusions,
and if you need me to turn to those pages,
regarding the financial viability of the two projects?
First, we'll start without the setback,
which is really the uh the issue at contention here is that it'll actually the development costs
uh going through the the rock that's there and and installing utilities will represent a
about a 460 000 loss to the uh to the developer or a 20 lost over fees and what were some of the
the things and I mean I'm assuming we're looking at this I think it's page uh let's see it's right
at the bottom yeah unfortunately I have this thing here uh uh here we go so you have the
overall development cost here of building uh the structures upon the site uh which includes the
additional cost of uh site construction being at the street which is elevated based upon
the elevation and the uh rock this rocks and stuff the stones that's there at the front of the site
which increases the cost and getting utilities through all that i understand and uh and were
there also other hardscaping or retaining aspects uh higher costs that you were provided as well
Yes. You have to put in the retaining walls, anchoring, getting your utilities hooked up, blasting. All these things are added trenching and excavation, hauling.
And then, Mr. Batson, did you also take into consideration the product that would be delivered as a result of bringing the houses to the front of the property as far as what they would offer to a prospective homebuyer specifically regarding the impact in either eliminating all or all but one of the parking spaces that's proposed with the current proposal?
yes by moving it towards the front you lose uh your back end sale price also diminishes and
your marketability diminishes because you're offering an inferior product to the marketplace
and based upon and that was based upon the information that was provided by the architect
alex duller correct who already testified i think at our last one he did testify the last hearing
and i believe he testified as to that i can bring him back on if we need um and and what we're and
And you can see it in the drawings that, you know, we have that have been provided already.
But so the result of pulling the properties to the front does what to the parking?
How does that impact that?
What does, how many spaces is it, is eliminated, are eliminated?
Because four are included, two for each house with what's being presently proposed.
I believe it's going to eliminate, I think, three spaces or whatever.
where two or three spaces are going to get eliminated, which also decreases the marketability
of the diminishing of off-street parking for each of the houses.
Okay. All right. And then what was your conclusion regarding the proposed development project
with the houses setback further? Well, moving the development back off the street
allows to include on-site parking, but then also what happens is it moves the project,
lowers the cost because you don't have to do as much site development.
You can kind of work around the bedrock that's in place or some of it.
So then the project becomes profitable, a profitable development.
And what did you have as the profit when you ran the numbers with the setback?
uh about 65 000 of profit or three percent profit and you took into account the increased
um soft costs that have occurred through this entitlement process correct exactly legal fees
and all the experts that have been hired correct yes understood all right um i have i have no
all right um i have i have no further questions of mr council thank you uh mr chairman um
further questions of mr council
mr batch so bear with me since i haven't looked at your analysis but your feasibility analysis
is really just dealing with financial feasibility correct not whether the project could be done
i'm not sure i understand your question there did you address does your feasibility
and now feasibility could be taken as is is it feasible to build this project given the conditions
you're just were you just restricted to a financial uh analysis well i think feasibility
is based upon is it probably if we're going to earn a profit or not i mean that's kind of the
overall thing so this under the with the setbacks and building not at the front of the site it's a
profitable project uh building at the front of the site it's not a profitable project so feasibility
in the terms of your report your testimony is just financial feasibility in terms of turning
a profit on this project is that correct uh the feasibility to make it feasible is whether it'll
turn a profit yes you make money thank you um you reported i believe if you um that um if the
property was built to the property line there would be a 460 000 loss to the developer was
that correct yes sir and you said that was a amounted to a 20 increase in cost
as opposed to a increasing the cost 80 was it 20 cost would be increased
there are substantial increases having to deal with the bedrock at the front of the site which
elevates the site construction costs. Did you offer a percentage? I thought it was 20%.
I didn't hear 20%. I heard 19.
Again, I thought you said 20%. You said 460. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
I don't think I said a percentage of 20%. I didn't say a percentage. I just said numbers.
but you did say that it would be a four hundred thousand dollar when you say lost to the developer
do you just mean that the cost would be increased to this project lost to the developer being it
is not a feasible project to undertake it you would not make money so your developer couldn't
just charge more no because the market is capped by the end sale price of the homes okay um you
You also suggested that the cost, I believe, that the cost of the utilities would be more expensive if the property is built to the property line with no setback?
I did say that, yes, sir.
If the property is built with the 35 or 36-foot setback, wouldn't the utilities have to be extended further onto the property?
And there's no cost to that?
the cost would be different i'm not a site and i'm not the site engineer i'm the appraiser
did you examine what the cost would be if the utilities were
had built with a if the property was built with a 36 foot setback
yeah the cost is diminished because you can work around the bedroom do you have about a number in
mind give me a second i'm looking i'm working with multiples if you don't have it that's
okay i don't i don't want to belabor the point if you don't know it okay you can just say that
the overall cost is diminished moving it back off the site across the board because you don't have
to deal with the bedrock that's at the front of the site that is the challenge so that reduces the
the hardship is reduced of developing the site by moving it back off the site
i have no further questions thank you david how many more witnesses i just have a quick rebuttal
just three questions how many more witnesses do you have um where you're starting to run out a
little time yeah okay i mean i might because there's been people waiting here no i i understand
i understand i mean i'm happy to have them go the only thing i was going to bring is alex
dollar back to address a few comments that have been raised because i reserved a right to bring
them back but i mean i'm more than happy to hold that till later and here so that people don't have
to come down again but a real uh three quick things for mr batts so all right go ahead so
So, Mr. Batts, the question that came up was about the feasibility.
This report shows the financial hardship to the developer because of the unique physical characteristics to place the houses at the front of the property versus putting the houses where they're proposed, correct?
Right.
okay and council was talking about charging more or charging less and it's yours and i
And it's yours. And I believe the report states and you were stating that not only is there additional cost in pulling the houses to the front and construction, but pulling them to the front, there's less value at the end.
believe the report states and you were stating that
If for nothing else, at least the three of the parkings, at least three of the parking spaces and not all the parking spaces go away.
And that makes the product less marketable or has less value, should I say. It could be both. Correct.
right you're selling you're essentially moving the you have to sell to a different market without
that okay and and in mani yunk i mean you're familiar with mani yunk on street parking is
pretty tough correct yes it's it's a challenge in many right so a house with off street parking
versus a house without off street parking the house with off with off street parking would be
much more valuable and more marketable, correct? Yes. Okay. And then regarding utilities, I know
counsel didn't ask you to take the time to look through your report, but the cost of utilities
between the two options is addressed in your report, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I have
no further questions. Right. How many more witnesses do you have? So I was going to bring
Alex Dollar just back in to talk real quickly about the data that was provided and my client
to provide real quickly. The only thing is to dot my statements and provide... We only have about
nine minutes left and i want to use it the best i i don't i don't want to bring the people in
the audience and we have to cut it so why don't we just can you finish in nine minutes yeah i think
so all right why don't you finish in nine minutes then we'll start fresh sure because i do want to
have alex adopt him so alex dollar please to come in they're being promoted to panel
good morning good morning sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
my name is alex stuller a-l-e-x d as in david u-l-l-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do well alex you you've heard the statements that
i've made to the board both of that you were on for the last hearing and you heard those statements
and you heard the statements i made today correct yes and are they true and correct to the best of
your knowledge yes would you adopt them as your own yes okay and then real quickly you prepared
all the drawings your shot you are in your shop or to produce the drawings that are included in
the exhibit book that we have been using throughout the proceedings in this matter correct yes okay
and did you provide data to both sarah for the engineering report and for the steve slope report
and to carlo bats for the um financial feasibility study to rachel for the steep slope and to carlo
yes we provided them similar similar information and cad information whatever they needed to be
able to complete their analysis okay all right um and then i just want to be clear because i'm
not sure i was listening to the recording um from the last last proceeding but we have just talked
with mr batts um about this if the buildings are pulled to the front can you please for the board
tell them why the parking the off-street parking is impacted well we would right now we are
proposing two uh stacked parking spaces which each home if we move the parking to the front
The only way to get parking would be to excavate bedrock
So that that was limiting us to it one parking space per home
But we are unsure we would actually for the deeper home be able to get a parking space at all
Because the road of Ripka Street stops halfway across our site
And we, in our years of research trying to find out information from the streets department about how we would go about extending this street due to that extreme steep slope, we have not gotten any progress towards answers for that.
So we almost have to assume that we would not be able to extend the street based on the fact that we've spent three years trying to find out how we would do it, and we haven't been able to.
And then if you were to extend the street, I think you mentioned that would go into this hill at the end of Ripka Street.
And what would that necessarily require?
Other than, aside from the city saying you can extend the street past your property, what else would need to be done other than physically extending the street?
Well, we would have to physically install a 15 to 20-foot high retaining wall, and a retaining wall of that height is difficult to do structurally.
It's difficult to do structurally. It may need to be stepped back. There's significant design that goes into a retaining wall of that height. Ultimately, we would probably need a structural engineer to talk more about that. I just know a very surface level understanding of the difficulty of it.
It may need to be stepped back.
And then on retaining walls, there are more retaining wall or higher retaining walls are required with the buildings pulled to the front of the property than with the buildings set back from the property. Correct? Yes. I have no further questions. Any questions? Yeah, just briefly. Mr. Dollar, you just gave some discussion of some difficulties and challenges of this project and dealing with two parking spaces rather than one.
um did you investigate doing this property with no parking spaces wouldn't that make it easier
no it would not make it easier um ultimately it makes it financially infeasible i didn't ask
financially i asked about building the property because you didn't discuss finances just now
uh we we spent very limited time looking into that because ultimately the owner said
it is financially infeasible to do this exercise is and and what is your professional quality
designation he's an engineer architect sorry it's no architect oh you're an architect
is there a reason as an architect that this project couldn't be done without parking
because it's financially infeasible just finance is that just the financial reason
well that i mean trying we excavating of the bedrock creating new retaining walls extending
the street all all of it forgive me for cutting out why do you have could you do this project
with no parking as an architect i i suppose there is always the design question thank you
I'm going to ask one follow-up question. I'm sorry. I'm just asking one question. Alex,
when you pull the property to the front versus having it set back where it is,
what happens to the first two levels as far as being under grade or above grade,
when you pull it to the front versus having to leave it where it is?
So the houses get deeper into the hill. So the rear of the properties,
um in when we pull it up in our section the entire garage level is underground um and then
the second story of the house is actually partially underground when it is pulled to the
front um whereas when we build it kind of up on top of the hill the living level is completely
under or above grade and we have less excavation for the parking level and the parking level
is ultimately more open so you have more parking level with the you know or a ground for level
could be a cellar right it doesn't have to be parking you have more cellar with it set back
than you do with it pulled in the front then plus the primary common living area is underground
with the when it's pulled to the front at least partially underground where it's not with a
setback option correct yes thank you okay um council any other questions all right your time's
out okay we're gonna have to give this a resumptive hearing and tell me now how many client how many
people do you have that i'm just gonna have my client come on to first adopt my status next time
right next time and then only is he just regarding the information he provided to these and how long
do you think that'll take? It literally could take five or 10 minutes. Okay, good. I'm going
to have to continue this to June 9th, 2026 at 9 30 a.m. And I want to apologize to people in
the audience. We tried to get more done and we just didn't do it. Not in an open audience. No,
no, not now. Oh, you know, you can get a hold of the, yeah, here you go. Here you go. There you go.
All right. Obviously it's not to my client's benefit that I keep this dragging on because
he's paying money on this property all right june 9 2026 at 9 38. okay this is not thank you both
we're not benefiting from dragging this hand david state thanks yes thanks i need to change my seat
i think thanks again yes thank you good job yeah yeah yeah yeah well no i figured everybody was
here so i needed to come show up i didn't we're gonna we're gonna have to get i realized that i'm
always i'm always looking for all right should i stay here do i need to move over there it doesn't
matter. Okay. All right. Um, am I 2026 00145
MI 2026-001-455, Leonard Reuter, Alan Nockamson, and David Orphanides.
yeah now my understanding today that this is strictly timing am i correct that is correct
mr share you understand david strictly time just timeliness yeah all right so
So, Mr. Orphanides, just state your name for the record.
Certainly.
My name is David Orphanides.
The last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
You already have sworn.
Mr. Nockamson, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, 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?
And Mr. Reuter, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Thank you.
May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
All right.
Thank you.
So there'll be a presentation of the appellant on timeliness.
There will be, the city will go next after that.
And also, Mr. Nockamson will make a presentation by the permit.
Okay. All right. So just real quick housekeeping. Are we getting into actual notice as well as constructive or are we just getting into constructive notice?
So, I read Mr. Orfanini's email after business hours last night. This is my position. We admit that we did not properly post the property, not intentionally, but ultimately it's your client's burden to show when they knew about the zoning permit and their burden is to show then they filed the notice of appeal within that 30-day period.
We will also present evidence to challenge that actual notice, but also we'll present evidence when they should have known.
That's the constructive notice portion of the analysis.
And I understand, Leonard, you'll take a position.
Yes, thank you.
The city isn't taking a position.
Well, at this point, we don't have to take any position on posting because they're admitting that it wasn't posted.
With respect to constructive notice, the city will reserve the right to ask questions to examine or cross-examine,
but that's it right right now now listen yeah 45 minutes and i'm going to cut it we have l and i
review coming in here and and we got to get this done certainly and when i say 45 minutes david i
don't mean you take 45 minutes no no i understand i mean well that's what happened the last time
you know you know so i got through two why don't we go please okay thanks all right um i'm going
to start with my uh with christina chris do what's that i can start right i'm just i'm just going to
get into it i'm gonna call my client i called my call my one of my clients christina i'm calling
christina christie okay would she be under richard kramer a creamer they're probably together yeah
okay all right we live together which again all right so we'll promote he had he had raised his
hand so we'll promote him
good morning good morning could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes christina last name christy spelled c-h-r-i-s-t-i-n-a last name is christy spelled c-h-r-i-s-t-o-u
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes. Please proceed, counsel, Kim. Christina, you filed the appeal in this instant matter,
correct? Yes. Okay. And did you file it with anybody's assistance? Yes. Whose assistance
did you file? My husband, Richard. Okay. And Richard lives with you? Yes. And you both live
at what address? 7015 Ardley Street, Philadelphia. Okay. And how long have you lived at that
property about 16 years okay and do you own the property together yes we do okay all right and
have you owned the property together that whole time yes okay and i pulled up on the screen um
an aerial photograph that uh does that depict the um the proximity of your property 715
ardley street to uh the property at 69 30 ardley yes okay and um do you
yes okay and um do you do you pass by 6930 ardley street um on a regular basis yes i do
all right and uh how do you do that how do you pass by on foot in the car mostly by car but also
on foot okay and how often do you would you say from september of 2025 through to the present
did you do you pass through the property i would say by not through the property by the property
sorry yeah i mean depending on the time of year um but definitely from september to december at
least once a week um i would pass by um by car and um probably by foot i would say a few times
a week and then after like december time probably you know like once every other day by car okay
and then do you pass by on the sedgwick street and the ardley street side one or the other both
both both about the same amount on both or it differs yep okay about the same all right so
So just real quickly, and I wasn't sure if it was what Mr. Nackamson was fully saying
what I'm going to ask, but have you ever seen a zoning permit posted at this property?
No, until last week on Thursday, April 2nd.
And what happened last Thursday?
um coincidentally i was driving down the street and i saw a notice being erected on the corner
of the property now i have a photo up on my screen right now this is exhibit g1d um is that what
you're talking about that is yes okay and was it and so some permits or some pieces of paper
were on the board in this pictures is that what you're referencing on that board that the gentleman
with the maroon shirt standing behind yes and was there more than one of those or just one of those
just one just one okay and is it located on which side of the property is it located on
well it's on the corner so it it's like on the corner of ardley and sedgwick okay and at that
so you what did you last week did you go over and take a look i took a peek yeah okay and what and
what's on the board um i mean it's just zoning notice building just i i didn't fully read it i
was um just just kind of skimmed through it but yeah it was like a zoning notice okay now
Now, so my next question is, I'm going to cut to the chase.
When was the first time that you learned that a zoning permit,
so if you didn't see it at the property until something maybe last week,
when did you learn about a zoning permit that you then filed an appeal
at the end of December regarding?
When did you learn about that zoning permit?
I first learned about the zoning permit back in December of 2025.
and and when do you know the date and what was the occasion how you came to learn about it
december 15th and both me and richard were on a call with the iman which is a east mount airy
community meeting and that was a meeting that um was discussing a initially what we thought a
proposal for the the planning but we came to find out about an actual zoning permit had been issued
so so just to be clear so you you attended this meet why did you how did you find out about this
meeting um we found out about this meeting through one of the neighbors because a neighbor had
brought up that there was a proposal being a proposal for the duplex to be transformed into
multiple units okay and that's why you then attended this meeting yes we wanted to find
out more about the proposal and the plans and and what you using the word proposal so the person
that told you about the meeting didn't say anything that a zoning permit was issued correct
that's correct all right and so you attended the meeting i'm sorry do you tend to meeting
in person or remotely it was remote okay it was all remote yes okay and you attend who was
who was with you with you was richard was with me okay now um did you have um
now um did you have um do you have any reason to believe did you have any reason to believe
before december 15th at the iman meeting when you learned that a zoning permit had been issued
that a zoning permit had been approved and had been issued by the department of licenses
inspections any reason before december 15th to believe that to be the case no okay um
can you how how did it come up at the meeting that it was that a zoning permit do you recall
um there was a lot of chatter about the um the actual proposal and the proposed there was some
drawings that were like displayed and then it just came about on the call that there they had been
issued a permit zoning permit so like i said we were really surprised that it had got to this
level because initially when we joined the call we thought thought we were going to be on the call
with the developer as well just to kind of talk through the actual proposal so there was a lot
of chatter about the the the actual proposal and then uh the plans and then the the zoning
came up on that call.
Were there other people on the meeting
that were also surprised to learn
that it wasn't just a proposal
that the permit had already been issued?
Yes, it was.
Okay, that's fine.
And after the December 15th meeting,
when you learned that a permit
had actually been issued,
what action did you take
and when did you take it
regarding the filing of the appeal?
Well, me and Richard discussed
um the the the the issue with um the zoning and not being aware of the the zoning so um
me and michael sat down and we we we filed the appeal okay and there was nothing in there and
you filed that appeal before the end of december correct that's correct yep and um you use the
you use the language in in your appeal of nunc pro-tunc that's a pretty technical term where did
where did you come to to use that phrase because that has a pretty specific meaning yeah richard
um richard primarily like put put the language together i'm not an attorney um and i'm i'm i'm
not fully um literate in in this kind of um field but yeah i had support from my husband
Okay. And when you would, there were communications between you and the zoning board's executive director, I have the email up, in reference to it being a non-pro-tunk appeal, being late. When you say the appeal was late, why did you use that phrase?
um in the
i'm not i'm not really clear where because it was late because oh we because we had heard
that the permits were initially um were initially made uh back in september okay so we knew we were
we were late in filing so you you took it as it was more than 30 days after the permit yes yes
okay yeah that's correct and that and what richard told you correct is why you use the non-protect
yes okay yeah um and there was no other activity at the property you didn't see any posting was
there any other unusual activity at the property between september and december 15th that might
have led you to believe that there was a zoning permit uh that was issued for this property
there was definitely some activity going on at the property and it was sporadic but the property
has had activity going on over the last few years so it was it just kind of seemed normal nothing
sort of like like something new was happening it just kind of seemed like yeah the the building was
in a state it had some um some like scaffolding attached to it some wooden scaffolding so it was
just kind of there was stuff going on like sporadically like i said so it it didn't seem
like anything major was was happening i have no further questions i just reserve the right to
rebut counsel uh yes uh good morning uh miss uh cristo uh yeah never been at this table it's a
little different um all right they did that on purpose they did this seat is higher right this
um all right they did that on purpose they did this seat is higher right this the chair is higher
taller than me so i need to sit on some books or something but i'm shrinking so uh miss cristo um
are you stating that the first time you learned of this development project uh was in early december
of 2025. no the first time i heard of the project was back in november um
Richard had heard about it and he had told me about a proposal going on a proposed project
and when he told me about it I was like wanting to know more because because of the nature of
the proposal and it just kind of seemed off so anyway he had told me about the project and sent
me a a a link to a petition regarding the property uh regarding the proposal where i kind of you
know also learned a lot more about the actual proposed plans um so i learned about it back
in november 9th just as the proposal um may i share my screen yeah
uh i need to be promoted to a panelist please yep someone please promote mr knockamson
he's being promoted to panel thank you very much
while i'm being promoted as a panelist i thought and maybe i misheard i thought the first time
you heard about this project in any way was in early december of 2025 and then the first time
you heard about the project particularly was at a meeting of the east mount areas neighbors
association which was in mid-december of 2025 maybe maybe i'm wrong that's not the question
i i was very specific with my question my question was when did you first learn that
the zoning permit had been issued. I didn't use project or proposal or general. It was very
specific. That's what just now was November. November 9th. What she learned about like the
project. The project. I used the word zoning permit. Yeah. Yeah. That's why I think I just
wanted to help along here. So I'm sharing my screen and these are materials that our office
submitted to the ZVA. We did a resubmission because I found another piece of legislation
that Sidney Bass proposed and was, you know, passed city council in November of 2020. But if
you look at this, is this the petition that you were stating that was created in November 9th of
2025? Opposed increase the apartments at 6930 Ardley Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania?
That is what I signed on the 9th of November. I don't know when it was created.
yeah well it's i circled it this was not this is just a printout that we our office
got off the internet that circle did not exist at the time our office
about embellished that piece of paper just so the board can see it but it does say post created on
november 9 2025 right yes okay um and did the petition include any additional information about
the project um it included like the a drawing a rendering of what was proposed
the units and then just like a just a a a summary of of of what was going to
what was how the dwelling was going to be attached to to the neighboring
um have you ever done development on your on any property you have ever owned
yes okay uh when when and how um we've done development here at the house that we live in
okay and did you get permits when you did that yes okay and did you hire an architect when you
did that my husband mainly takes care of it he that's his forte okay so your husband um and
maybe we'll have to ask him his forte, what his forte is, but what's your understanding what his
forte is and his experience level? Well, when you, my understanding is that in order to make
adjustments to your property, you have to get a building permit and you have to get a license or
if you're changing a dwelling, you have to, you have to get authorization in terms of changing
the zoning.
Gotcha.
And again, I think I asked this question, when you did development on your property,
um which is nearby to this property you did obtain the requisite permits and approvals from
which is nearby to this property, you did obtain the requisite permits.
Thank you.
the city of philadelphia yes okay um were you involved in in making sure that the permits were
actually obtained yes i mean they were here and they were displayed when we when we when we got
the term it's they're quite prominent okay did you confirm it online in any way that the permits were
obtained um my husband would have taken care of that i personally would not have done that okay
all right so as early as november 9th of 2025 you knew the existence of this development project
that's correct okay um i'm gonna go to
which is our Exhibit 11, your Petition None Protonq, which is the cover page.
Here you state in the last paragraph, appellant and supporting neighbors upon learning of the
zoning changes that yielded this miscarriage of approval have begun interviewing counsel
to represent them in this matter. This filing will be updated to reflect retained counsel
upon selection and as such is filed with leave to amend.
So you discussed this matter with some neighbors of yours.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
So the neighbors, there was a multiple neighbors that we discussed regarding our filing this appeal.
When did those conversations with your neighbors start?
They probably started, well, for the appeal in December when we found out about the zoning, about the permits.
so in terms of just generally about the project when did you start generally it would have been
in november and would that be november 9th um probably a little bit before just because the
well i mean probably wasn't i i maybe a day or two i'm not 100 sure exactly of when but it would
have been in november all right and then by the way how did you find that petition of change.org
um richard texted it to me
okay um and then so in november which neighbors were you communicating with about the development
project um a next door neighbor kevin and um another neighbor maxine well let's go one at a
time next door neighbor kevin what's kevin's full name what's kevin i don't know his full name
so so what what what's his address where does he live he lives next door so we are 1715
17 ardley street he would be 17 17 70 17 70 ardley street i can't do that
what i think somebody might have chimed in yeah i think uh her husband helped that's fine
richard you can't speak yeah yeah um i know you want to help yeah all right so kevin so let's
start with kevin what how did you and kevin communicate verbally uh or in writing i did
not communicate with kevin verbally richard communicated with him
and then told me of the conversation that he had and vice versa when he had a conversation with
maxine he told me about the conversation that he had with maxine regarding the the property
all right so what did your husband uh tell you about his conversation with kevin
um well there was going to be a meeting an email meeting on december 15th and
that we should join the meeting this was a meeting that was scheduled as early as early november of
2025 um it's a monthly meeting
so and and they have set dates so um i i'm not 100 sure the the dates like i said when
richard had a discussion with with kevin but um i knew that the neighbors were were chattering
amongst them regarding the the project so there was a meeting that was ultimately scheduled
with the neighborhood organization do you have a copy of of a notice that was sent
in writing in some capacity um no i probably there was probably a link send an email
um no i probably there was probably a link sent an email or a text message
but most likely um an email it was not sent to me it was sent to richard and we both joined from his
computer okay um what about maxine like did you you're saying that richard your husband
had communications with Maxine as well is that correct yep all right and where does Maxine live
she lives adjacent to our property um so she lives on like Mount Pleasant so she lives adjacent we
see her from time to time when she takes her dog out for a walk and we'll see her and and just
chit chat so that's that's most likely where we we found out about the project
um and do you know maxine's last name no i do not
were there any other neighbors you spoke to in november of 2025 regarding this project no not
that i recall okay and what other communications with richard in in november of 2025 did you have
regarding this project just chatter and just the text message that i got from from him regarding
signing the the petition the link to the petition so mr chair i i know that our office sent a
subpoena request for certain documents. I do believe that we should receive at least those
text messages between the appellant and her husband, Mr. Kramer, to see what was in those
text messages and the extent of what was explained to her at the time. And I would respectfully
request that. We're going to take that on the consideration, okay? Yeah, I mean, Mr.
where vanities could give it to voluntarily but i would ask that you know the board strongly
consider that especially we're talking about the fact that if the application was filed in december
december 29th of 2025 then she had until the end of november of 2025 to file this appeal
and so i i do think these text messages in november are very relevant to the percentage
mr finnese wants to respond so i would say they're completely irrelevant and the reason
they weren't included is is that they they talk about i understand what mr knockinson's doing
he's using the language repeatedly the the project the development project and that's
very different thinking that there's something come something coming down the pike or somebody
might be doing something and that's not knowing that there's a permit so i believe that and so
real quickly this is just you're you're going to answer the question about whether or not it should
be i believe that or you should voluntarily give it the petition is completely irrelevant
and because their own they provided in february 19th a copy of the petition right which i can
flash up on the screen because they've already provided it but it's okay it's not in their
latest exhibit book because it doesn't say a darn thing about a zoning permit so the petition is
otherwise i would have put it in because i think it's completely irrelevant i think leonard has a
comment here thank you i i have no position on supplying text messages or anything like that
uh i do have maybe a couple questions sure witness sure you don't know i'm not no no no i will say
this i will stipulate that my clients texted between each other on november 9th with the link
to the to the okay to the petition that's okay and i have that's fine but again i think it's
irrelevant because it doesn't talk about zoning permit yeah miss Christo you know I did I apologize
I didn't ask what what do you do for a living I'm a designer you're a designer okay and in
in what way uh graphic design gotcha all right uh and what does Mr. Kramer uh Kramer do
he has a design and build firm a design and build firm in terms of real estate
uh property operating yeah okay all right i would definitely think that mr kramer would be a witness
i would like to ask um hi so i believe he's a party so yeah he's not he is not he is as a
husband well well i disagree but okay let's go ahead alan and finish it all right um are there
Besides Kevin and Maxine, and your husband, were there any other individuals who you talked to about the project in November of 2020?
who uh you talked to about the project in november of 2025.
uh no all right um was one of the supporting uh neighbors that you spoke with
uh the owner or occupant of 6928 ardley street
what can you repeat that you you referenced supporting neighbors yes
Your petition was one of the neighbors that you referenced, generally, the owner and or occupant of 6928 Ardley Street.
I'm just trying to reference like, like who lives at 6928 Ardley Street.
I have a list of a roster of individuals.
Let me take over.
uh tracy nickens
tracy nickens no i don't know who that is okay hi um
have you been in contact with council member bass regarding this project
me personally yes no right is it is it your understanding whether or not your husband has
been in contact with council member bass yes so he has been in contact with council member bass
i believe from what i believe i don't know directly with her but definitely with um someone
on her team all right so but you don't know who on her team i don't know off the top of my head
who on on the team all right so i'm just going to go over a time or the timeline that we understand
it regarding this matter so you're stating you have no knowledge prior to
early or mid-december about the zoning permit um allowing for you know you have no knowledge
that the zoning permit was issued in September 15th of 2025.
You have no knowledge before mid-December about that.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And you also indicated that you do acknowledge
that there was activity at the property
in November-ish and October-ish of 2025.
Is that correct?
okay she didn't say that but okay all right um and
did you see a port-a-potty installed at the at the property in october of 2025 i don't recall
and you didn't see the zoning permit that was posted on the window of the property
facing an early street side beginning on in september 2020 september 25th of 2025 i did not no
uh did you have any conversations with uh
and you didn't see the the demolition work that was taking place at the property
um from october 22nd 2025 to october 31st of 2025 at the property
i didn't see any demolition work i yeah i don't know whether that like if that was going on inside
i wouldn't have been able to have seen it and you didn't see the crew of 15 individuals uh doing
that work over the course of of that time period he's testifying well well i think she can answer
that if she knows if she knows i don't recall sure and you had no knowledge that uh council member
FAST introduced legislation in September of 2025, changing the zoning from RM1 to RTA1?
And you had no knowledge regarding the violation notices that were issued on November 4th of
2025 regarding the property?
and you have no knowledge that in on november 12th of 2025 that legislation to change the zoning for
and you have
rm1 to rta one was was signed by the mayor on november 12th of 2025 you have no knowledge of
that no and you have no knowledge that council member bass then introduced legislation to city
council on november 20th of 2025 authorizing her to appeal the lni decision granting uh the zoning
permit which is the subject of your appeal no um i have no further questions honor
short just a couple quick uh questions from the city uh just so we're clear on the chronology
um miss Christo is are you a are you a member of uh East Mount Airy Neighbours um not a full-time
member but I I became a member um a couple of well I've joined the zooms meetings a couple of times
okay including before uh December 15th not before December 15th no uh is Mr Creamer a member of
east mount airy neighbors um he's he has participated in a number of the calls
including before december 15th no okay so so but you did say that when you joined uh i guess what
when you say you were at a iman meeting uh on about december 15th was that in person or or on zoom
that was remotely that was the first meeting that we attended okay and that was remotely
and you said at that time there was although there was although 69 30 hardly wasn't on their
agenda there was some discussion about uh what was happening at 69 30 that's correct okay and
you say that it was on december 15th that you learned that a zoning permit had been issued is
that what your testimony was? That's correct, yes. And that's because somebody else at the meeting
had said that the zoning permit had been issued? That's correct, yes. Okay, so somebody else in
Iman had learned that a zoning permit had been issued presumably before that time? Yes. Okay,
now you also say that, and actually, I think Mr. Noxman has already asked this, but I just want
to confirm you had said that uh you had walked by the property many times and that you had seen
activity in october and november is that correct i don't know if it was november if if anything
it may have been earlier because it they go okay yeah yeah because as the weather gets colder i'm
less walking around the neighborhood so no thank you for that um so now you did say though that
you didn't notice in particular that there was any demolition work or that you didn't notice
whether there were i don't know whatever alan said 15 people going in and out or that there
was a porta potty installed so what if you recall if you can recall if you don't remember that's
fine but if you can recall what activity did you see taking place in october i saw i i believe i
saw the grass around the property being being cut because the grass had overgrown and it was about
three feet tall and then on one of the days i noticed that the grass had all been cut so
that was like the that that was what i really noticed because it was on the outside of the
property and it's pretty evident okay i don't have any other questions david you have uh six minutes
okay fine um christina to be clear um again the mr notkinson has used the word um development
project um repeatedly uh between november and december did you did you think that a zoning
permit had been issued or what did and if not what did you think was happening regarding 6930
no i didn't didn't know that there was a zoning permit issued i thought that there was a proposed
plan of changes to to the property and again like i said on december 15th that's why we joined the
meeting so we could understand more about the proposed plan okay and so did you think it was
more like the variance process like somebody wants to do something and they're going to come
to the community and they're going to present and there's going to be discussion and maybe
and they're going to present and there's going to be discussion and maybe some give and take and
some give and take and did you think it was
did you think it was going to be more like that yes absolutely we thought we because we were
concerned about parking um so we were we were curious in terms of how they were going to
resolve parking um that was one of our concerns okay and i i have a so real quickly that that
proposal of the proposal the petition and this was provided by council previously i think on like i
said february 19th uh alex had provided it via email does that look like the petition i'm going
to flip through it and again this is what they provided does that look like the the materials
the rendering and the floor plans you mentioned yes okay so when i say i downloaded you know i
also can still download this to this day you wouldn't be surprised that it's not the same
petition okay but this is the petition provided by council for the property owner i i've highlighted
in pink um two places where it uses the word proposal does that does that sound like does
that look like the petition that you looked at yes okay and did you see anywhere in that petition
reference to zoning permit already being issued no okay and then i have um mr mr knockamson had
asked you whether you had ever seen a permit posted in the window on ardley street this
photograph that i have right up right now it's a picture i took um that's the property there with
the arrow pointing in it correct yes and ardley street it's the sidewalk to the on the left side
correct yes correct all right so and there's a hill there next to the sidewalk correct correct
and the house is set back pretty pretty far substantially from that sidewall correct yes
pretty hard to see that window wouldn't you yes i mean i'm struggling to look at the screen right
now well yeah that's that's computer so all right um and you're not aware of what the actual posting
requirements are for a permit as far as where they're to be located on the property do you know
anything about that i mean i know that they should be fairly visible because we've had them
in our property and they they need to be brightly colored so they're visible
and that they need to be like located close close to the sidewalks yes um
did the activity that that was going on in the fall this is my last question
did you said that that seemed like activity you had seen at the property
over the several years beforehand correct yes it was it didn't give you any idea that anything
different was happening correct that's correct and in the for the past activity were you aware
that based upon that activity any zoning permits had been issued that you could relate that
activity to a zoning permit being issued no okay i have no further questions okay sure real quick
This will be very quick. Again, I just wanted to clarify because I'm a little confused, Ms. Christo. You said that you went to December 15th meeting of Iman because you wanted to learn more about the project or proposal at 6930 Ardley. Is that right?
That's right.
How did you know that Iman was going to be discussing 6930 Ardley?
um i believe that we would well we didn't 100 well i believe we were told that they
would be discussing it on that particular meeting okay so again there were other persons that were
either members or associated with iman that you believe did know about what was happening at 6930
hardly is that right yes okay um and did anybody at this december 15th meeting of iman say anything
to the effect that they were were other people to the best of your ability to tell were other people
at well scratch the question i don't think i think it's already been asked to answer that's
all right i don't have anything and then just one one question no okay no we're done okay we're done
so um uh we i thought we were going to be a little further on so we're going to have to do this as a
resumptive hearing it'll be june 9th 2026 at 9 30 a.m and before we get back to that uh hillary
will look at your requests for subpoenas and we'll get back to you let you know where we stand with
that and and i would also ask mr chair that mr uh creamer be uh in attendance because we would
like to ask him questions and the councils agreed did i i mean because i said i don't think he's a
party but he's going to testify anyway i think he's relevant again the city's not taking a
again the city's not taking a position because we don't know what was in people's heads at the time
position because we don't know what was in people's heads
but i'm not sure why we need any further testimony at all because the issue is not
whether ms christo herself had any specific knowledge of the issuance of a zoning permit
but whether there was sufficient notice because otherwise then there would be an infinite amount
of time for somebody to say well i didn't know this permit had been issued right
because they as an individual didn't know no that's exactly that's that's that's a loss no
no no actually david that's not all right all right we're going to come back listen
me we're going to come back that's not if you post the corner come back on june 9th
that's not correct 9 30 a.m you know and what we want to do is that particular day we're going to
end the timeliness issue and where we stand that's going to be done that day and um you know we're
going to give it a limited time and we're going to try to we're going to get this done okay thank
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All three. Is there anyone in the audience? Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called from this morning?
Yeah, this is Ian Hegarty, executive director. I just wanted to just make an announcement for the folks who are watching this hearing.
This is an appeal against L&I, so there won't be any public testimony.
If you have your hand used to offer testimony on this matter, please lower your hand.
There is no public testimony on this matter. Thank you.
Wow, I'm very patient.
Thank you.