So how about unusual topography?
Is this site occasioned by unusual topography?
It is.
It drops off pretty drastically.
The zone in the red color is over 25% slope.
and the green color is less than 15%
and the yellow being between 15% and 25% slope.
So it does drop off pretty drastically for development.
There's also another photograph, I believe, on the next page
that shows you a visual image of the site itself on Silverwood Street.
So explain to the board, in your opinion, as an architect,
does the unusual slope present a challenge as far as developing a single-family home on the property?
Objection, Your Honor.
What's the basis of the objection?
The objection is he's an architect. This goes into engineering.
He's not an engineer. He hasn't been qualified as an engineer.
He's not an engineer. He hasn't been qualified as an engineer.
You know, Mr. Chairman,
So, so, so, so Mr. Toner, I understand your point,
but as an architect, let him answer as an architect, not as an engineer.
And we'll weigh that testimony, sir.
You can answer. Go ahead, Mr. Brunette.
Typically with a site that has a large or a severe topography,
much like this site,
And what would need to be done is on the east side of the property, the one of the property that is opposite the street, where it fronts the adjacent lot, there would actually be a drop off.
If you carve out that land, there's a drastic drop-off in land there.
So a retaining wall would need to be designed by a structural engineer to hold that retainage back on the adjacent property so that the carving of that land can be done and a building or whatever would be put into that space.
And in your opinion, Mr. Brutiniti, is the placement of the home placed in such a manner so as to minimalize, to have the most minimal impact on the steep slope on this property?
Yes. As you can see again from the drawing, the color drawing, that we have a mix of the yellow, the green, which is the least offensive slope on that box of where the house is proposed to go.
So if you go toward the north side of the property, which is closer toward the point of the lot, it is almost all 25 percent, over 25 percent drop in that lot.
And that also has another problem with it, too, is that that area of the lot is really not developable because it's just too narrow.
If you go to the right side, the far right side of the property, that dimension is only 29 foot 6 inches, which in itself is not very deep.
so that having the the building or the the one family dwelling closest to the the south side
the right side of the lot is the most advantageous uh because of the land and also the depth of
taking advantage of the the most depth of the property you can get from is it possible mr
to develop a home on this property without a steep slope variance in your opinion no not at
First of all, this property, when I started looking at it, actually, I was a little bit surprised that it was actually an RSA-5.
It's a bit of a sliver.
Actually, it's a very difficult property to develop.
You have the steep grade, a very narrow site in its largest dimension, and the trapezoid shape is just difficult to deal with.
Now, on top of that, then you have zoning variances that are for required setbacks and things like that that make it even more impossible to develop a building on this site.
Actually, if this wasn't zoned RSA 5, it really should just be a green space, quite honestly, because it's not a very good site to develop a property.
But it is zoned RSA 5, and we're allowed for a single-family dwelling.
So the owner has a right to do that.
Is it possible to develop this property without incurring a rear yard variance or a front yard variance?
No, we need those variances.
The property is only 29 and a half feet deep.
And the rear yard setback, I believe, was a little over 10 feet.
And the front yard, or maybe I'm getting backwards, the front yard, I believe, was a little over 10 feet.
The back was 7 feet.
and taking that away from the only 29 feet, 6 inches,
you're left with barely any building space.
And as far as we have a porch variance as well,
is it possible to locate a porch on this structure
without incurring a porch variance?
No, same thing.
Because of that porch variance,
we would need the setback to design the one family dwelling.
And again, that eats into the very narrow depth of this property.
It would be very difficult.
I also did notice that when I was at the site that the adjacent properties to the south of this lot on the right side, there is one dwelling next to it.
And then the rest are a lot of vacant spaces and some new development, none of which have the porch as required by the zoning code.
i believe the one the one property to the right which is the um um the one dwelling
is does have a force but that's really the only one on the entire block that has one
uh and does this uh property require um what uh water department uh stormwater management review
water department stormwater management review?
Yes, it would.
It would.
Because of the terrain and the steep slope of it,
during the construction phase,
it would require those type of reviews.
Can a deck be designed on this property
without incurring a variance as well, Mr. Ferdiniti?
um the depth of the property is is is again very narrow um so having a deck on the back side of
the property now what i'm saying is when i say the back side i'm i'm using silverwood as the
as the what they have proposed as the front of the dwelling um so putting the deck on the rear
side of that um again eats into the the back of the house and is just very not a very good spot
They designed the deck to the left side of the house, which would make it to the side of the side yard as opposed to the rear yard, per se.
I think that is a better place for it.
You can see it in the elevation drawing there and also the plan where the cursor is at now.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, I put the site, the revised site on the screen.
And I'm circling the proposed deck.
Yeah. All right. So that is that is a better spot for the deck because of the shallowness of the property.
Exactly. OK. All right. Let me go back to the final conclusions.
Oh, and by the way, you did make some conclusions in your report about the parking.
But have I you are are you aware of what the revised plan was done in this matter?
Yes. My understanding is that the parking various has been removed.
Right. Mr. Chairman, we are no longer seeking. We have a revised drawing. We did not pursue the variance for the parking after objections from the neighbors.
I'm going to scroll to the final page of your report, Mr. Brutnitti, and ask you to summarize your opinion. Explain to the board whether, in your opinion, as an architect, having done this on thousands, really hundreds of occasions, does this property suffer from an unnecessary hardship from an architectural perspective?
Objection. This calls for legal conclusion.
i'm asking him as an architect not as a lawyer he was able to testify about facts but now let's
let's let's let me hear let me hear his let me hear his answer okay um this is a very difficult
site um to uh from a architectural point of view as a designer uh we've designed many many different
types of uh dwellings in philadelphia with many different types of shapes and properties we all
know that most row house
properties in Philadelphia are not the same shape and character, and each one
is a unique circumstance. This one is a very unique circumstance.
This is a trapezoid shape, pretty much like a slice
of a pie, and it has a very steep landscape.
Those two items in itself
are difficult, let alone having a very narrow depth of the
the lot itself, and then impacting with the zoning variances that would make it as of right,
it's really not a developable site. Everything gets eaten up with the setbacks and all the
requirements for zoning that you really have no building footprint left. So to make this a
single-family dwelling as an RSA 5 property, you really need the variances for the setbacks
to give relief for this very hardship-type property. If this was really a classic example
of a hardship in a zoning class, this would be it. It's really a very difficult site that requires
There's the help and it has hardships with the site as it's configured that are not inflicted.
The property is shaped that way.
The property has a steep landscape that way.
These are things that were given to the site itself.
And you had mentioned earlier about the retaining wall.
Is that something that's an unusual cost, an additional cost that's involved with the development of the property?
Yes, it is.
I think that's it, Mr. Chairman.
Give me one moment.
no further questions thank you Mr. Brutnini oh one other question Mr. Brutnini were you paid
for today's testimony yes but did that impact the opinion that you have that you um um conclude
in your conclusions, has that impacted your conclusions in any way today?
in your conclusions has that impacted your conclusions in any way today
Not at all. This is my professional opinion.
Thank you. Enough further questions. Mr. Toner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brunetti, I represent the Ridge Park Civic Association.
Are you familiar with this group? No, not really, no.
Are you familiar with the RCO set up in Philadelphia?
Absolutely. I'm the zoning chairman for the RCO in South Broad Street.
Okay. So you generally know what's going on here today in terms of the zoning review process?
So I want to ask you some questions about 301 Delmar. First of all, what is the current use of 301 Delmar?
RSA 5.
So that's the zoning designation, Mr. Brutinetti.
Correct.
My question was actually, what is the current use of 301 Delmar?
It's a vacant land.
Okay. So it is included with trees and natural vegetation?
Correct.
Natural steep slope that has been altered from its natural form?
Correct.
And how long has 301 Delmar existed in its current condition?
I have no knowledge of that.
Did you look into any of the prior uses of 301 Delmar?
I looked at the Atlas site to give me some information about history, but to my knowledge, it's just been a vacant site.
And are you aware that there are a number of violations that were issued by L&I against the owner of this property?
Objection.
Objection.
Why is it not related to his testimony?
anyway it's not relevant well well so so i think he's asking the question because he's trying to
i guess give us a better definition of the site so i'm going to allow that testimony
are you aware of the pending violations issued against 301 delmar by the city of philadelphia
department of licenses and inspection i know that there are violations but i don't know the
specifics of them are you aware if the owner has been cited for removing a heritage trade
from the subject property at 301 Delmar?
Jackson, I just answered that.
Can you identify any structure
that's ever been constructed at 301 Delmar?
Have you looked into whether there was ever
a structure constructed at 301 Delmar?
Not from the Atlas site.
That was the furthest I dug into the site.
Besides reviewing the Atlas site,
did you make any other investigations
into the legal status and use history
of 301 Delmar? No.
And your testimony was this property should be green space, right?
Objection. That's not his testimony at all.
Come on. Well, he's asked him what was his testimony.
If he's going to answer that, let him answer. That was your
testimony that this property should be green space, right? My testimony
If it cannot be as designated as an RSA 5 to be developed as such, then the other alternative is really if we can't get variances for this to make it a one family, like an RSA 5 property that it is, then the only other option really would be a green space because it's just not developable.
Are you familiar with the role of the City of Philadelphia Survey District in reviewing and approving subdivisions?
Okay. Have you made any investigations with the City of Philadelphia Survey District that's responsible for 301 Delmar Avenue?
No, I have not.
In your review of the Atlas system, have you seen any permits that allow 301 Del Mar to exist as a separate building line?
No, I have not.
In your review of the Atlas program, did you see any other prior approvals, acknowledgments of any nature from the city of Philadelphia that allow 301 Del Mar to be to exist as a separate building?
No, I have not.
And have you looked at the deed that was issued, the sheriff's deed that was issued to the current owner of the property, Mr. Adva Epstein?
I did not look at the deed specifically, but I do have a site drawing that gives me all the property lines and dimensions of the building, of the site rather, I'm sorry.
And you're aware that, but you're aware that Mr. Epstein is the current owner of the property, right?
And you're aware that, but you're aware that Mr. Epstein is the current owner.
Yes, Ms. Epstein.
And you're aware that Ms. Epstein acquired the property by Sheriff's deed dated April 23rd, 2018. Is that correct?
Yes. Yes.
Who was the owner of 301 Del Mar before Ms. Epstein acquired it from the Sheriff of the City of Philadelphia?
Objection.
no no okay have you seen a deed from 1870 for the subject property no objection
he answered already mr demarco
gotta keep the record straight mr chairman okay i understand
so just to to review your testimony your opinions
You have no idea when 301 Del Mar was created as a separate building lot or if it was created as a separate building lot.
Isn't that correct? Objection. That's correct. I have no idea.
And as someone with a lot of experience in building in the city of Philadelphia, it's important to know if the lot in question exists as a separate building lot, right?
Objection. Go ahead.
That's an important fact to know, isn't it?
Let him answer that.
Yeah. Are you asking me about if the property was, if it pertains with subdivision?