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.