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