the session. Thank you.
Chair, we have 41 attendees and we are ready to begin.
Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning's ZBA hearings. With me,
It's Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Also with me is Hillary Emerson, our attorney for the zoning board, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised these proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at philip .gov.
For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
If you want to enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email address and also the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sanger.
Let's look at continued cases this morning.
Number three, MI 2022 003 457 623 to 39 North 39th Street. That case is continued. Number four, MI 2022 007 282 4100 Orchard Street. That case is continued.
you. Number six, MI 2022. Hold on.
Be with you in one minute. MI 2022 004555 1711 to 17 Rittenhouse Square. That case is continued.
Number seven, MI -2022 -003 -368 -4701 -15 King Sesson Avenue.
That case is continued.
And number 10, MI -2021 -005 -236 -776 Martin Street.
That case is continued.
Is there anyone in the audience who has comments relative to the continued cases?
Good morning, Chair. This is Doreen Blakey, and I will co -host this morning, and I see no hands.
Thank you. Is there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands.
Thank you. And I also have case number five, MI -2022 -002 -379 -4890 Somerdale Avenue, Lot 2.
That case has been withdrawn. So we're going to start our regular list today
with number nine. MI 2021 -005 -076 -5217 Amara Street. Sean Ward is the attorney.
Hold on one second, Mr. Ward.
Sure. We have a letter of opposition in this case from the 12th Ward RCO, but they do support the variance for parking.
And we also have a second letter of opposition from Solo Germantown.
Mr. Ward has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
good morning Mr. Ward good morning Mr. Chairman how are you today thank you for
Good morning, Mr. Ward.
getting me in early I do have a code enforcement trial scheduled for this morning okay and I hope
to be brief okay so could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
certainly Sean S -H -A -W -N Ward W -A -R -D attorney for the owner applicant of the subject premises
All right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Could you identify that client, please?
Yes. My client is V &V Holdings LLC, represented by Vargas Oganesian. That's V -A -R -D -G -A -S.
It's Oganesian, capital O -G -A -N -I -S -E -A -N.
And the property is 5217 Marstreet.
And Mr. Holleman has just a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor.
Good morning, Mr. Holleman.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as far as five days in advance to the hearing?
Did you meet with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
The documents were submitted less than five days,
pursuant to my discussion with Hillary, as I was away last week,
and I was traveling this weekend.
But they were submitted prior to the hearing, and she did receive them.
Thank you.
And yes, and yes, and yes to the other questions. We did meet with the RCO. There is a letter. I will address that in due time.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you.
Okay, let me switch my earpiece here.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. This is Hillary. It looks like we were just joined by Board Member Shahid.
Just wanted to confirm.
I'm here.
Good morning, Ish.
Good morning.
All right, Mr. Chair, can we confirm that my screen is shared correctly?
Your screen is up, sir.
Awesome.
I've submitted my typical exhibit application, which is on behalf of Vargas Oganesian, doing business as V &V Holdings, LLC, for 5217 Morris Street.
Pardon me.
A1 is the zoning refusal. This was an application for a permit for the erection of a new single family dwelling, resulted in two refusals. One is for a side yard setback.
uh this property now being mapped as rsa -3 an eight foot side yard is required whereas a four
foot is proposed and under rsa -3 uh parking regulations once off street parking space is
required whereas zero is proposed accordingly we need variances for both of those
um very quickly though a2 is the zba application of appeal a3 project information form a4 proof
of ownership a5 proof of tax clearance a6 is the zoning site floor and elevation plan
a7 is the zoning location map a8 are photographs of the subject property including posting aerial
photos street views i did attach at a9 the rco letter from the 12th ward as you said mr
Chair. It's a quasi, you know, partially in support, partially in opposition, as I read it.
A10, if submitted, would be district council's letter. A11, as far as relevant zoning history,
there was a permit on file from 1986 for renovations or repairs to a single family dwelling.
Then again, in 2001, there was an application for a legalization of a six -foot high fence
as part of an existing vacant lot.
A -12 is a zoning map and A -13 is an aerial photograph as usual.
So very quickly, this is the refusal.
It discusses the aforementioned two refusals,
one for minimum side yard and one for required parking
in the residential district.
This is the application of appeal.
It was filed by Cluck Consultants, LLC,
the design professional for the owner and applicant it included the PIF you know project
information form I also attach a copy of the deed V &V acquiring this property March 22nd of 2021
Also attached as proof of ownership, I know there's been something raised by Solo Germantown, one of the RCOs involved, regarding 5217 and 5219 Marsh Street.
also attached as proof of ownership
They were redevelopment authority properties.
However, simultaneous with the purchase by V &V or near simultaneous, there was a release, removal and termination of any reversionary interest by the city with regard to the development of that property.
And therefore, we submit that this is a freestanding lot and it is not part of nor parcel to 5219, as may be suggested.
um again the tax clearance as you can see any taxes due are for this year and they're not due
till the end of march however they are clear through 2022 uh very quickly with regard to the
plans uh this is the cover sheet for the zoning sheet zoning plans this is a a survey of the
existing conditions. As you can see, 5219 is an existing single -family home, three stories in
height. 5217 is an existing vacant lot, which is attached to an existing alleyway, which is
separating 5215 from 5217. The proposed footprint of the structure is pretty much equal to
that which exists as 5 ,219.
We are proposing a four -foot setback
from the property line
in addition to the existing three -foot alleyway.
I direct your attention
to the opposite side of 5 ,219.
You'll see that the four -foot setback
appears to exist at 5 ,219 as well.
With regard to the floor plans,
not proposing anything out of the ordinary.
Yeah, there would be a basement level for mechanical storage and whatnot. The first floor is predominantly the living area, a front living room, center kitchen and dining area with access to a rear deck, two bedrooms on the second floor, and then what would be the master suite is on the third floor of the structure.
It does have access to a roof deck. The roof deck is set back in accordance with zoning requirements. And basically, the roof deck is predominantly going to be used, my understanding is, for the air conditioning and mechanical, but it will have access for residential purposes, which is obviously permitted in the district.
When we talk about the zoning elevation plans, you know, when we submit to L &I, you know, we are submitting that the house will not exceed a certain height, which in this case is, you know, a three -story single -family home.
I would point out that we did make representations to the RCO that we would do our best to match.
uh you know here here's a photograph of the existing property as renovated by
uh vmv prior to the sale to the current owner uh we did represent that a community we would
match to the best of our ability uh the front facade of the structure so that it in fact looks
like a twin home uh you know you know identical in appearances so uh so you know again it resulted
in two refusals. One is the side yard setback, and the other is the fact that we are supposed to
provide off -street parking. If we were to provide off -street parking, despite the fact that there's
an existing curb cut, it would have resulted in another refusal for parking in the front yard
setback. To provide parking on the side of the building, we would result in even a thinner house
than proposed. If we were to comply with the eight -foot wide setback, we would have roughly
a 12 -foot dimension exterior dimension of the home, which would result in an approximately
11 -foot interior dimension of the home. And when you start adding non -bearing partition walls and
stairwells and whatnot, it really hampers the ability to provide reasonable living space
in a structure. Accordingly, we were looking to match the four -foot -wide side yard setback,
which is common on this block at various locations. This block is unique,
and I think photographs will probably
And I think photographs will probably do us justice here because, as you'll see, it's a mixed block of what appears to be attached structures, semi -detached structures, unattached structures or detached structures, all in the same block.
One thing you will notice, Mr. Chair and members of the board, is that other than two other
properties on the block, there is no off -street parking.
And in order to accommodate SANE, it just creates problems unique to this property,
given the size, dimensions, and the zoning classification to install parking off -street.
There is no access from the rear.
there is no common driveways and therefore that's why we seek that variance in addition to the side
yard setback so um you know a site location map uh this this is in the uh you know lower germantown
area i would submit it's near the germantown cricket club located on marsh street in between
west queen lane and whoops i lost that one sorry all right uh moving on uh these are uh this is the
subject front of the property as you as you can see there is a curb cut but it's not used there
is a masonry or stone wall uh you know obscuring or blocking any access for parking purposes
This is 5219 here, as indicated by my cursor, the fenced in area, you know, as I mentioned earlier, was a zoning permit to legalize that fence to close off this lot.
Between us and the 5215 property, there is a three foot wide alley for access to the rear.
Again, this is the Google angle view showing that, you know, there are no off street parking spaces for the most part.
You have one here and then there's one on the other side of the street. I do have photos
indicating those. So there's a picture of our posting.
At the request of the 12th Ward RCO, they asked that we post a copy of the RCO meeting notice
on the fence as well, which we did in advance of the meeting. This is I believe 5230 Mars Street.
they do have a curb cut and they do have access to a driveway which takes them to to the rear of
the property and again across the street from that uh i believe uh 52 it would have to be an
odd number but it's it's basically directly across the street uh there is another curb cut uh as you
can see with with access to the rear it does not appear to be used as off -street parking uh however
I cannot verify that fact. So with regard to the 12th Ward's letter,
we've loaded it up so we can read it.
They did take a position overall to oppose the grant of the variances.
There were 11 people in attendance.
They provided a letter of explanation.
um and and mostly they spoke of the you know you know the fact that we did not provide renderings
of what the home would actually look like um you know when when we were not seeking any variances
for relief from the height of the structure however we did indicate that we would build a
structure that uh matched to the best of our ability that which was next door so they did
uh indicate in their letter of uh explanation that they support the variance for the parking
however because we did not provide renderings um they're in opposition to the side yard variance
request which you know i find disingenuous uh disingenuous in given the fact that
in order to do so uh you would have an 11 foot wide home interior dimensions and uh in order to
enable reasonable use of the property the side yard setback is relief is requested again this
is the zoning permit from 1986 as back then it was a single family dwelling nothing new or
different than we're proposing today and then in 2001 there was an application filed for the
legalization of the fence as part of an existing vacant lot.
Again, the property is zoned RSA 3.
It's on a mixed structure block consisting of attached homes, semi -detached homes, single
homes, and to comply with the side yard setback renders a unique hardship upon this property.
you know, renders a unique hardship upon this property.
And again, you know, looking at the, whoop, didn't mean to do that, hold on.
Looking at the aerial photo, you know, we're looking to mimic basically the footprint of 5 ,219.
And to the best of our ability, we will mimic the front facade mirror image,
you know, to be consistent with the character and nature of the blocker.
So that is all I have, Mr. Chair, if we can elevate Varghese Oganesian.
If he could raise his hand, he can verify and adopt.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Varghese, you need to unmute yourself.
There you go.
Yeah, I did.
State your name and spell it, please.
Hi, gentlemen.
My name is Vargas Oganisian, V -A -R -G -G -A -S, and Oganisian, O -G -A -N -I -S -E -A -N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, to hold truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Sean, you're muted.
Vargas, you heard my representations to the board today?
Correct, yes.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?
Yes. And you adopt them as your own testimony.
Correct. And Mr. Chair, I do have
Adam Dens, who is our design professional, available for any
questions, should the board have any. Okay. So questions from the
board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Good morning, Chair. Ian Hegarty for
the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Ian Hegarty, I -A -N -H -E -G -A -R -T -Y. Right. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Proceed. Thank
you. Good morning, everyone. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA3
single family zoning at this location however the proposed dimensions are extremely similar to those
of the adjoining attached building consistent with the surrounding neighborhood we further
believe that the variance for parking is the minimum necessary to enable viable economic
use of the property and is also consistent with development patterns on this and surrounding
blocks city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance thank you
mr ward talk to hillary beforehand we're going to close the record on this
except for a follow -up letter from the RCO
and we're going to give it 30 days.
Is that right?
Yeah, I discussed this with Hillary via email
suggesting that maybe we could be given time
to provide them the rendering that they so requested
and that we have no objection to that request.
Okay. All right, Hillary?
Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Case number eight.
MI -2022 -003 -547 -2321 North Ford Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Mr. Anastasio has been promoted.
Thank you.
Good morning, sir.
Could you spell your name, please?
state your name and spelled for the court reporter. Sure, it's Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. So let me read this into the record. All testimony and evidence from the October 14,
2020 hearing before the ZBA on this matter is incorporated into the record for this hearing.
This hearing is limited to the presentation of testimony from the project architect as per
December 22, 2021, remand order from the Court of Comma, please. No public testimony will be
taken. Do we have your architects here? I do. Can I please have Mr. Logan Dry be promoted as panelist?
Do we see his hand?
Yes, I see him. I'm promoting him now.
Okay, thank you.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. First name's Logan, L -O -G -A -N. Last name's Dry, D -R -Y.
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
i do proceed counsel thank you mr dry are you the designer for the current set of plans that
we are submitting today yes and please tell the board how they slightly differ original set of
plans uh we basically looked at the uh previous refusal which i believe was for a five foot
side yard setback and the previous iteration only had a three foot side yard so we basically
took the existing building envelopes we you know kept them exactly the same as what was previously
proposed we reduced the number of residential units inside them and then we just slid one of
the buildings over you know towards the center of the property two feet so that we have you know
the required five -foot setback for the side yard in a CMX 2 .5 zoning. Everything else in terms of
site design, building height, you know, etc. remained exactly the same. We just
rearranged the insides to get, you know, a lower number of units and slid one of the buildings over
to be in compliance with the side yard requirement. Okay, so just to be clear, we were before the
Zoning Board for two reasons. There was a referral for having two mid -sized buildings on the same
lot, which required a special exception, and there was a refusal for the side yard needing
of variance. Based on what you've just testified, is it correct that the need for a variance has
now been completely eliminated? Correct, because the only variance we were seeking was for that
side yard that was formerly not in compliance but with the redesign is within compliance of five
feet. Okay and I just want to walk through the four points on the proviso plan. Also as you said
the side yard has changed making it removing the zoning refusal. Also there is a reduction in lot
coverage reduced from 49 .1 to 45 percent. Is that correct? Correct. And also a proposed increase in
open area from 50 .9 to 55 percent. Is that correct? Correct. And finally, a proposed reduction further
in the number of units from 48 units to 36 units now. Is that correct? Correct. And that was
basically just to make the units that were inside the building a little bit larger, a little bit
more livable than what was previously proposed. Very good. Now, having obviated the need for
dimensional variance. Architecturally, is this no different than what one would expect on such
a property of this size, in your opinion? In my opinion, it's probably underdeveloped,
but I would say the reason for the particular massing and the multiple buildings on the lot
has a lot to do with the existing building that sits towards the back of the lot. So,
So, you know, because it's historic, you know, we have to work around that and do something that, you know, sort of allowed for development while still featuring and not blocking the existing building on the site.
You know, compared to what CMX 2 .5, you know, ordinarily permits, you know, we could build at least 10 to 15 feet higher, much more dense with units.
But again, you know, based on the site constraints, you know, we have to be a little bit more respectful based upon the existing building on site and, you know, doing something that didn't cover up, you know, sort of the existing courtyard and existing historic building that's on site.
So your testimony is that this proposed development actually has less impact than a similarly situated property would be expected to have. Is that right?
Absolutely.
Okay. I have nothing further.
Does does anyone on the board have a question for the architect?
No, Chair. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, should I have my client adopt my presentation?
You can have your client adopt the architectural testimony.
Thank you. It should be in the audience if you could raise his hand.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, good morning. My name is Itai Argaman. E -T -A -I. My last name is A -R -G -A -M -A -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Argaman, did you hear what was presented before the board this morning?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, having redesigned the project, eliminating the need to seek a variance, we
Mr. Chair having redesigned the project eliminating the need to seek a variance
we are left with just a special exception the elements for which we have met both today and
prior testimony and for which demonstrable opposition is just not part of the record
and it is that record of the previous hearing that is being folded into this record and I
thank you for that and therefore I ask that this special exception be granted.
planning commission
thank you chair
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission
board members the
proposed use would have no more of an impact
than would be expected at this location and therefore
meets the requirements for the granting
of a special exception city planning recommends
that the board grant the special exception
thank you counsel the vote
on this matter is being held for the
preparation of supplemental
findings of fact and conclusions
of law that will be incorporated through proviso into the board decision.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Case number one, MI -2022 -001 -308, 8330 Millman Street, call Promovero and Paul Boney, please.
Mr. Primavera has been promoted.
Good morning, Mr. Primavera.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Carl Primavera, P -R -I -M -A -B -E -R -A, with my colleague Melanie Lacey, L -A -C -E -Y.
we're here for the applicant David Lockhart. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Good morning, Mr. Bonney.
Could you please spell for the court reporter? Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Paul Bonney,
B -O -N -I, and I represent Joan and Brooke Lau, L -A -U. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. So where we are, direct examination
of Joe Lau, right? And then it'll be crossed by Mr. Primavera, and then redirect Mr. Bonius.
Am I correct? That's correct, Mr. Chair. We have five new exhibits, and if I could,
I can breeze through them in one minute. Sure. Less than one minute. And then I would
um present my sole witness uh whose test whose direct testimony will take less than 10 minutes
okay thank you and then uh i uh the only other part of our case is closing argument which we
hope we can deliver orally today uh but if the board chooses we could submit it in writing
I, I, unless I'm, I, you know, we'll, we'll talk to you about that, but I think Mr. Primavera has already said his statement, his closing statement. Am I right, Mr. Primavera?
That's correct.
Okay. And so Mr. Boney, if, Bonnie, if you want to send your statement in the same way, it's, it's, it's okay. Or if you want to take a few minutes and, and deliver it, that's also okay. Okay.
Okay. Let, let's cross that bridge when we get to it.
if you don't mind. Okay. All right. Okay. Let's see how quickly we can be. We've
really prepared a lot to try and make this go quickly. Okay. Good. Thank you. I'm going to
share my screen. Okay. These are our new exhibits and very quickly, exhibit BB is a collage of
photographs. Exhibit CC and DD are two more sources of information about the Venturi house,
which include quotes from Robert Venturi himself stating that the house was designed for his
mother, quote, as an elderly widow with her bedroom on the ground floor, and also, quote,
for a maidservant and the possibility of a nurse. As you probably recall, this adds to our previous
information about all the people that lived in the house. And moving on, we have our last two
exhibits, which are excerpts from the city's comprehensive plan. First, the 2011 citywide
vision contained in exhibit EE. And second, the 2018 Upper Northwest District Plan contained in
exhibit FF. And with that, I would like to call Ms. Lal to the witness stand.
Ms. Lau, to the witness stand.
If she could be activated.
Ms. Lau, you're allowed to speak?
Good morning, Ms. Lau.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hi, can you hear me?
We can.
Great.
My name is Joan Lau, J -O -A -N -L -A -U.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Good morning, Ms. Lau, and please introduce yourself to the board very quickly.
Yes, good morning, and good morning to the members of the board.
I'm Joan Lau, and I'm the CEO of a gene therapy company located in West Philadelphia.
and along with my wife Brooke and our daughter our family has lived at 8336 Millman for over
six years. Thank you. Ms. Lau, explain very briefly why you moved to your current house.
Sure. Years ago we lived around the corner on Gravers Lane. We had a daughter and we wanted
a bigger house. So we found it here on Millman Street. Thank you. You've heard everything I said
in my opening statements, and you've seen the exhibits we've submitted, some of which you and
I both collected at the library. And of course, Exhibit R, which contains a statement that you
wrote. And so I ask you, do you adopt all of that as your own and as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Among the exhibits that we've shown in the past, you'll remember, and I think the board will remember this too,
we showed numerous photos of the beautiful interior of the applicant's house, including the marble floor, the beautiful living room, etc.
And I'd like to ask you, have you ever been inside that house?
uh yes and when uh mr lockhart uh hosted two of the rco meetings inside his house
um and as you say it's beautiful inside it's it's very open with a great floor plan and lots of
windows it feels it feels spacious um such that for one of those rco meetings one of the two
there were 12 people in attendance all sitting quite comfortably and we were spread out because
of COVID. Ms. Lau from living next door to Mr. Lockhart for several years it's fair to say that
you observed him living there? Yes he seems to love it he has people over it's a great functional
house. Let's talk about the two parcels yours and his I'm going to show you an aerial view of the
parcels. Mr. Chairman, all of these exhibits are already submitted for the board. You've seen
all of them. I've just pulled out a few for this direct examination. So this first slide that
we're showing is from the applicant's exhibits, and it shows the two properties, Millman Street
on the bottom left and a diagonal, and then the applicant's property shaded in blue. You can see
off of Millman the applicant has a pretty long driveway leading back to his existing house and
in the corner of his property he has a small shed right where my cursor is. My client's house is my
client's property is bound is next door and is bounded on two sides of the applicant's property
you can see their house and also they have a little shed in the back also so these two little
sheds back up to each other, and the property line is in between those two sheds. Is that
all correct, Ms. Lau? Yes, it is. Okay. I'm now going to show the board
the photos that we have in Exhibit B of our package earlier submitted.
Two photos of the front of your house, two photos of the back of your house. Here's the first one
of the rear of your house showing a very large rear deck and also a lot of windows on the rear
of your house. Turning slightly to the left, it shows a second rear deck that you have off the
back of your house. I think I counted on the back of your house 17 windows altogether. Turning
Turning around, looking back at the applicant's property, we see your little shed and his little shed.
And of course, as the board knows, the property line is in between those two sheds.
property line is in between those two sheds. Finally, we have a collage of views of three
Finally, we have a collection.
views looking out the back. They're similar and it's in a similar direction. You can see
the sheds in each of the pictures. And of course, the applicant shed would be removed
and the ADU, the proposed ADU, or the proposed new house would be sort of in its place much
wider, but in its place, this large tree would be taken down. Is all of that correct, Ms. Lau?
Thank you. Ms. Lau, is it correct that Mr. Lockhart has described
how he intends to use the proposed new building?
Yes, yes.
Yes. His exhibits in meetings and also his exhibits list eight activities that he would
use for the new house. And so I'm going to read them off, all eight of them. They're listed in
the applicant's statement, which is his exhibit four at pages three and four, and also at a later
part of his materials. And I'm just going to read off for the board the eight uses that he would
put this property to. One, a place for his mother, a New Hampshire resident, to stay during the
winters. Two, a place for his brother, an Arizona resident, to stay during the summers. Three, a
place for his girlfriend to play concert grand piano. Four, a place to stay for his girlfriend's
two daughters' families, one of which is a family of four who live in Manhattan. Five, a place for
his girlfriend to give piano lessons to her grandchildren. In other words, a place big enough
for two pianos. Six, a place for his own grandchildren to stay. Seven, if COVID or another
variant arrives, he wants it for more bedrooms. And eight, a place for a home office for his law
practice. So there's the first two. Here's the three through seven is on the next page. And then
in a later part of his materials here at number three, he mentions a home office space for his
law practice. Ms. Lau, with all this as background, I'll give you the floor for one minute to tell
the board why you were opposed to this project? Yes, I'm opposed for several reasons. First,
with all due respect, I believe it's unreasonable and inappropriate to build a new house at this
location. We live on Millman in a beautiful home with, as you showed, lots of rear windows and a
large rear deck in a quiet and peaceful setting. We spend a lot of time on our rear deck enjoying
that peace and quiet. And when we're there, we see a lot of greenery and we hear almost nothing.
It's into this setting that Mr. Lockhart wants to build a brand new house and have numerous
members of his extended family stay there in various times of the year. Well, you can imagine
our dismay first hearing and then reading that this new house would be for his mother,
his brother, his girlfriend practicing piano and giving piano lessons, a place to stay for his
girlfriend's two daughters' families for his own grandchildren, additional bedrooms,
there's another variant, and a home office. We would not just see this structure. We would hear
the activity, including the move -ins and the move -outs, the deliveries, the trash removal,
the maintenance, the repairs, and all the other things mentioned in Mr. Lockhart's materials.
and adding insult to injury the front door is on our side. Let me show the board just to remind
the board that here is the front door to this new house this new ADU and that would be facing
my client's property. Ms. Lau do you have a closing thought for the board? Yes members of the board
this new house in this location, we would not have the same level of peace and quiet that we
have now. And it would harm the enjoyment of our home and property. I appreciate very much your
time. Thank you, Ms. Lau. That's all the questions Carl has.
Thank you, Ms. Lau. That's all the questions. If Carl has cross -examination or any questions.
Thank you. Ms. Lau, I'm going to show you our Exhibit 28.
Let me stop my share here.
And are you familiar with that depiction that was prepared by our architect showing my client's property with the existing 1 ,800 -square -foot inventory house, as well as the roughly 800 -square -foot ADU, Accessory Dwelling Unit?
um i saw it okay and and the um second lot is your lot with your existing house
and uh your little storage space in the rear
uh sure i don't have the specific numbers but sure and uh do you know that your house was built
in the 1800s? I wasn't around, but yes, I think so. And it's not indicated as historic, is it?
No. And how many additions have been added to the original farmhouse that you live in?
I don't know. We moved in after all that. The listing said there was a jaw -dropping
timber family room. Does that sound familiar, as we're showing you our next exhibit, which is 29?
Do you have a timber family room? We have a timber family room. And is it jaw -dropping?
We like it. And it must be fairly large? It's a family room. All right. And you have a variety of
living spaces, your listing agreement says, I believe, that the house has five bedrooms
and two and a half baths. Is that correct? It has five bedrooms and two and a half baths.
And it's a 3 ,712 square foot home compared to the existing Venturi house of 1 ,800 square feet.
um i'll have to i don't know the specifics but you would agree that your home is much
larger than the venturi home on a much smaller lot we we bought this house yes as is now you
love the deck and in your letter you say that you spend a lot of time in the deck and it's
an enjoyable feature yes do you know that that deck was approved by a variance by the zoning board
no back in 2007 no and i'm going to show you that as our exhibit
44 uh and as we read it a variance was granted albeit to your former predecessor and title
for the erection of a sun deck with roof and stairs to grade located in the front
side and rear yards, along with two off -street parking slots in the rear yard. Now, do you have
two off -street parking spaces in the rear yard close to the rear property line between you and
Mr. Lockhart? Yes. And you'll see in the exhibit, you actually have a two -parking space lot
encroaching in the rear yard minimum depth because the required was 25 feet
and what was proposed was 15 feet.
Well, Mr. Premier, I object when you say encroaching.
You're showing approvals that apparently were granted years before my client bought the house.
She bought it as is.
So you're talking about, you know, somewhat, you're talking about the history of approvals of her house before she bought it.
And I'm going to sum up briefly.
This is zoning runs with the land.
And we'll just look at the photos on 44.
I'm sorry, on 34.
I just want to make sure that we understand that the deck runs along with the parking pad to the rear.
of the Lau house. And in effect, it's even though there's still a very generous setback
between the rear deck and the rear property line. This house is a much larger house on
a smaller lot. It's not historic, even though it was built in the 1800s. And I'm just asking
Mrs. Lau, or Miss Lau, if she's familiar with these conditions, and if this is a fair
if she's familiar with these conditions, and if this is a fair representation of her property.
I represent.
This photo was in the, I've seen this photo.
And you're aware of the many meetings with the Chestnut Hill Community Association
and their vote of support for this proposed variance?
I attended the RCO meetings.
And the Chestnut Hill Conservancy also supports it?
And you're aware that Councilwoman Bass submitted a letter of support?
And the Planning Commission also supports it? Are you aware of those things?
Yes. And are you also aware that part of this process includes generous landscaping between your property and Mr. Lockhart's property, also a deed restriction, so that this ADU, Accessory Dwelling Unit, will only be limited to members of the household of the principal house, whoever's living in the Venturi house?
You're aware that a deed restriction will be filed and that landscaping will be provided?
you're asking if she's aware that a deed restriction will be filed because
yes we're not aware that anything has been put in writing yet i'm just making sure she's aware
of the protections that the community association uh provided uh with regard to this application
well she's aware i would suggest i think the only thing we're aware of is what's in that letter
And that letter says that letter says what it says, and I don't think it's as as you've read it with all due respect.
And Miss Lau, have you read or seen the exhibits, including the comments and minutes from the Historic Commission regarding the Venturi House?
you're going to have to point them out were they were they in I don't know
well they were in the exhibit submitted did you review our exhibits that were submitted with this
hearing or have you ever seen the minutes of the historic commission I saw the minutes when they
were submitted, but I didn't look at them carefully. All right. Well, did you happen to
see the provision, and that's in our Exhibit 6, of Mr. McCubrey, who interestingly enough is both
on the commission and a former member of the Venturi architectural firm, said that this ADU
is appropriate as the house is very small and the ADU will allow a larger family to reside on the
property and for guests to be accommodated. Do you remember that when they approved the
uh ADU at the Historic Commission? I wasn't at the Historic Commission.
But do you remember reading the minutes? No. No. But you're aware through this hearing process
and through our exhibits and through what we're talking about that the Historic Commission has
approved along with the community this ADU in its current configuration and location.
But, Mr. Premier, I think with all due respect, the minutes speak for themselves.
I believe Mr. McCubrey also said that the issue of zoning is not before them and that that would be another matter.
So I'm just asking if Ms. Lau is familiar with what was said.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Premier, I think she said that she's not familiar with this.
That's fine. I won't believe her point. I have nothing further.
uh i already have redirect no i don't have any redirect i think we're fine um so my my closing
if you'd like to hear it is about nine and a half minutes fine why don't we do your closing
okay thank you i'll do it right now um mr chair vice chair and members of the zoning board
um there is no hardship this is a case about preference and convenience we don't fault the
applicant for wanting more space for his family members, his many family members, to stay when
they visit from Texas, from Arizona, from Manhattan, from New Hampshire, or room for two concert grand
pianos in a new freestanding house on his property. He wants a fourth and fifth bedroom, but their
absence is not a zoning hardship. The subject property contains a viable use, operating by right
under the zoning code. It's more than just viable. It has three bedrooms and two baths,
living room, fireplace, dining area, modern kitchen, a long driveway,
space for parking several cars, a beautiful lawn, and gardens. We've presented a lot of evidence
space for parking several cars, a beautiful lawn, and gardens. We've presented a lot.
about how this house was lived in by so many people. You've seen books from authors and other
architects and quotes from Mr. Venturi himself and from his wife and architectural partner,
all saying that the house was designed specifically for a person or a couple to age in place with a
live -in maid servant, a home health aide, or nurse. An esteemed professor of American art with a focus
on modern architecture, explained in her book that, quote, the house was designed to be lived
in comfortably by more than one person, and at various times, Vanna, the architect's mother,
shared it with her caretakers, with her son until his marriage, with her son and daughter -in -law for
a period after their marriage, with an architecture student, and finally at the very end with a live -in
nurse. You've seen numerous photographs of the beautiful interior of the house. You've seen
materials that contain interviews and descriptions about living in the house. It has served three
households continuously over the past 58 years. It was used by the Venturis for nine years,
by the Hughes for 43 years, and then by the applicant for six years and counting.
In total, it has been used in compliance with the zoning code for 58 years. It was built by right.
There are no violations on the property. The applicant loves living there. When he became an
empty nester in his previous house, which required him to use stairs, he looked around for a house
that was just right for him. As you'll recall from the evidence, he looked at a house that was smaller
than the Venturi house, but he wanted something bigger. And so in 2016, he bought 8330 Millman
Street, a house that he always admired. Soon after, when it was proposed for historic designation,
he stated to the city that he agreed with the proposed historic designation, and he has
enjoyed living there. He entertains there. He holds meetings there. He owns it outright with
no mortgage. He said repeatedly and continuously that he intends to stay there until his final
days. Let's discuss the law for a moment. The applicant is asking permission to introduce a use
that is prohibited everywhere in the city of Philadelphia. He's proposing a new construction
ADU. And that, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, is not allowed under the zoning code
anywhere in Philadelphia. And that's not for lack of debate. Advocates of density, people in academia,
journalism even some in the planning commission have pushed for the city to be more liberal
with adus but city council decided otherwise i'll note that we we don't that the we look at
the comprehensive plan and we've attached excerpts in our exhibits there may be i don't we don't
actually see it a recommendation for adus and low density neighborhoods but if there is it was just
a recommendation and it was not agreed to by the by city council there's no absolute right to have
an adu and city council decided in the zoning code just three years ago that an adu can only
go inside certain buildings in some parts of the city or inside any garage that already existed
as of 2012. But the law is clear that new construction ADUs are not allowed anywhere.
It's not a question of where on the property you want to put it. The use is not allowed in
Philadelphia. It's not listed in the code. It's not a recognized use. And with all due respect,
we do not believe it would be for the zoning board to reverse what city council recently enacted
into law just three years ago in 2020. The applicant is seeking a use variance which requires
the highest amount of proof under the law including a clear demonstration of hardship
and under our zoning code to demonstrate a hardship the zoning board has to make certain
findings including that there is quote -unquote no possibility that the property as it presently
exists can be used in compliance with the zoning code. With all due respect, we don't think that
finding can be made on the evidence in this record. But it's not just our zoning codes. There are tons
of case law on this point, and I'm going to mention one of them. In 1996, our state Supreme Court
settled the precise question before you in the Larson case, and I quote two sentences from the
court's opinion. Quote, the mere desire to provide more room for a family member's enjoyment
fails to constitute the type of unnecessary hardship required by the law of this commonwealth.
The court also said variances are meant to avoid unnecessary hardships.
variances are meant to avoid unnecessary hardships. The granting of relief cannot be done
simply to accommodate the changing needs of a growing family. Again, the court said a variance
cannot be granted simply to accommodate the changing needs of a growing family.
Members of the board, the principle that a variance should not be granted when the applicant
can already make a viable use of the property as zoned is a bedrock principle of Pennsylvania
zoning law. It's been applied in case after case, including cases in Philadelphia. The law says that
the hardship can't be about the person, and that's what we have here. The claimed hardship is
impermissibly about the person. Here, the applicant now wants his property to be the focal point
of his extended family, the place where everyone comes to stay, a family compound. That's not a
zoning hardship. Indeed, to propose the construction of an ADU with two bedrooms and two baths and an
interior courtyard is not the least minimum variance. The applicant here seizes on its
assertion that a bathroom in the Venturi house is not ADA compliant. Assuming that is true,
it's not legally relevant. The ADA does not apply to this private house or to any private house.
Whose house complies fully with the ADA? Surely not everyone's house has ramps.
The applicant's expert witness on cross -examination admitted that having an ADA -compliant bathroom
is a mere preference and not a requirement. Our state Supreme Court rejected the same type of
argument in a zoning case just last year specifically in a case called knee bone
the court rejected the argument that the desired improvements quote would serve to update the house
to 21st century standards the court continued that may be a laudable goal but it does not imply
the kind of hardship which justifies relief from the zoning code members of the board you've heard
evidence that this new house is going to be practically the most active house in Philadelphia.
The applicant intends to use the new house for his mother to visit part of the year,
his brother to visit another part of the year, grandchildren to visit, the families of his
girlfriend's two adult daughters to visit, practicing a concert grand piano and giving
piano lessons for more bedrooms if COVID persists and as a place for a home office,
all with the front door facing the protestant's house. Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
there's no hardship, there's no least minimum variance, excuse me, there's no least minimum
variance, and it is much too much to put in this location. We ask you to please vote now,
and I thank you for your time. For your comments. Mr. Primavera, we have your
your closing statement? Yes. Could I still have two minutes just to sum up?
You can. All right. Thank you.
So this ADU accessory dwelling unit is part of a single family dwelling instead of being attached,
which would be zoning compliant. And I'll just go back to our exhibit
28. It's detached because the Historic Commission said there is no way that they would approve
any attachment. So that's real hardship. We have this 37 ,000 square foot lot
and an 1 ,800 square foot tiny building. It's a museum. It was built by the architect as a
a representation of his new urbanism. And we want it to be a single family dwelling.
So people have guests, they have families. They don't all show up at the same time, not in this
small square foot building, even with the ADU. So it's the same use, single family dwelling.
This isn't for students to be rental. This isn't, this is part of the use as a single family dwelling. I think that if you look at the context of the neighborhood, the big lots, a garage would be as big, perhaps, if we put a garage there.
So the fact that there's a separate structure is not out of context.
It's just that this structure can't be attached because of the Historic Commission restrictions.
So we believe that use of this extra space, which is going to be part of the single family dwelling, they're not all going to be there at the same time.
It's just having guests and family members, which we all do in our homes, allows this house to be a house instead of a museum.
allows this house to be a house instead of a museum, and we have the best of both worlds
and we have the best
because the house can remain a museum, which it really is, but it also can function as a house
where you can have family members, you can have improvements necessary to age in place,
and that's why the ADU concept is a concept whose time has come, and that's why we have so much
support on this. Yes, it's not permitted as of right, but that's why the zoning board is here,
to look at the context, to look at the justifications, and to see if this is a reasonable
use of the property, especially when you look at the adjoining property, who's the only
complainant, really. And they have a much larger house built with additions over time, and
even a variance that pushed the deck and the parking closer to our rear property line.
So that's life in the city. And all we're asking for is a very small
relief consistent with the single -family use of this property. Thank you.
Thank both of you. As you know, we've had hearings over numerous days for this case.
Hillary, I'd like to take this to an executive session next Wednesday and vote on it maybe
Wednesday at 2 p .m. Does that sound right, Hillary? I guess that would be fine, Mr. Chair.
Okay. And I want to thank both of you for all your work. Okay. Next Wednesday at 2 p .m. we're
going to vote. Mr. Chair, could I have your permission to just submit my closing statement?
You will certainly can, sir. I won't change your work. Thank you. Right. I'm fine. That's fine.
Please. Please submit it. Thank you very much. Thank both of you. Fine. Okay. Case number two,
MI 2022
500 -08
North 2nd Street
Stephen Pollack
and Leonard Reuter
is the attorneys involved
this is a resumptive hearing
Mr. Pollack
and Mr. Reuter
have been promoted
okay thank you
you're welcome. Hi, Mr. Pollock, could you state your name?
I had to unmute myself and put my video on, sorry.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure, Mr. Chairman. Stephen Pollock, Stephen with a P -H, and Pollock, P -O -L -L -O -C -K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Leonard?
could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter
leonard you're muted we're not hearing you oh i'm sorry um hi thank you may please the board
leonard freuder reuter senior attorney for the city of philadelphia right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. So my records indicate
that Mr. Pollock will finish his presentation of his witnesses. We can have crossed by Mr.
Roeder. And also then Leonard will have a chance to make a presentation. We'll have public
testimony, then we'll do planning, and then we'll do closing statements. Okay.
All right. Mr. Chairman, I believe that at the time we were, when we concluded back on September
20th right that um leonard was cross -examining my uh expert witness michael tantella that we had
pretty much finished with his testimony and leonard had a double duty as uh going over to
the oni review board and that sort of cut our time off you do you need more more across um i don't i
don't believe so i i think that we got most um previously with with the main witness not so much
with Mr. Tantella,
and I don't have a problem
if Mr. Pollack wants to have
Mr. Tantella wrap up anything
or redirect or anything like that.
Yeah, we were going to just
do a little redirect, Mr. Chairman,
and then I have Jeff Jones,
and that would be our last witness.
Okay, why don't we bring your witness back on?
So if we can bring Michael Tantella back on,
that would be great.
i know he's here somewhere okay good morning sarah could you state your name and spell please
for the court reporter mr chantella can you raise your hand please there he is
mr tantella you have permission to speak i could you state your name please and spell for the court
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Reporter.
There he is. Good.
My name is Michael W. Tantella, T -A -N -T -A -L -A.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, sir.
All right. Proceed, Mr. Powell.
Mr. Tantella, you've previously been sworn, as you were sworn again today.
Your curriculum vitae was submitted at A13 as part of our exhibits that were presented at the original hearing back on June 15th, 2022.
And just briefly, again, you've been involved as you performed and drew up the site map and did the study of locations of other non -accessory signs in and around this neighborhood at 500 to 08 North 2nd Street.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
Okay. And this is, again, just for the boards, just to bring it back, this is an application by the Transportation Workers Union Local 234 to convert their existing accessory digital sign and modernize it to make it just a slightly, increase the dimension slightly, but in the same location on its roof into a hybrid, as we call it, a hybrid sign of where it'll still service the riding
public who gets off at Front and Spring Garden at that station, and also will have some non -accessory
components to it too, but it's already an existing digital. Is that correct, Michael?
Yes, sir. That's correct.
Okay. Now, I believe Mr. Chairman, members of the board, and Michael, if you could go to our
A83B diagram, overhead aerial. I believe that when Mr., before Leonard had to leave to go
to the L &I Review Board, he was questioning about signs on the property directly across 95
from the location of the subject property, which is housing. One of the tenants is Delilah's Den,
the gentleman's club that's been there for years. But there was an allegation or an assertion that
counted our claims that there were existing outdoor advertising signs, that the only signs
on that property were accessory signs. And so, Mr. Tantella, our A83B shows, can you locate for
us with your arrow where the shopping center is, where Delilah's is, that's known as 100 to 30
Spring Garden Street, correct? That's correct. And that would be as indicated here in the upper
right -hand side of this exhibit. Okay, so at the, there appear to be two structures on that
property, or maybe at least one on the property right at Spring Garden Street, is that correct?
Yes, sir. And that, and is there a sign below that that's a little bit lower underneath it?
Yes, sir, you can see it right below, and so there's a taller structure here, a sign,
double -faced sign, and a lower sign. And then below that is, I guess it's really headed south
on 95 towards the Ben Franklin Bridge. There appears to be another tall structure that looks
like it's a billboard face. Is that correct? This is along the northbound direction.
It's this structure here, which is another non -accessory sign.
And from our research, has it come out that that appears to be not 100 to 130 Spring Garden Street,
but on another property known as 412 North Front Street. Is that correct?
Yes, sir. That's correct. Now, can you show us on our A83B where our subject property is and where the existing rooftop sign is?
Yes, sir. This is the subject property along here. And as indicated in pen, this is the existing digital sign, subject sign for today.
Okay. So intervening between or intervening and acting as a man -made buffer are all the ramps and thoroughfare of I -95, the SEPTA L station at Front and Spring Garden. Is that correct?
Yes, sir. And that's what I'm indicating on the exhibit along here.
Well, now, do you have do you have anything that will show us exactly what are the and so we're sort of in the middle.
If you were to draw like a triangle, we're sort of like the apex of the triangle using those two billboards across the way as a base.
Isn't that sort of correct? Yeah, it's a little stretched here.
This is an oblique aerial view. But if I were to draw a line from the sign to the property, we'd be almost equidistant between these two non accessory signs.
we'd be almost equidistant between these two non -accessory signs.
Okay. Now, can we go to the pictures that will show us the signs up towards Spring Garden Street?
Okay, now.
Yes, sir. So this is along North Spring Garden. You can see that taller non -accessory sign.
These are 20 by 60 back -to -back faces. And as was shown on the previous exhibit,
below that are, is an accessory sign and along here, some other accessory signs for this.
I believe that Mr. Reuter suggested that there was an enterprise sign on the property and that
enterprise was another tenant in that shopping center. And there is a, an accessory sign for
enterprise and you're pointing to that lower sort of tenant identification sign that says
the plaza at Spring Garden, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And there is an existing
accessory sign that actually looks like a billboard for Delilah's that's on the bay.
It's a separate structure from even the towering structure above. Is that correct?
That's correct. So these are not attached. I have another photo that shows it from a different view.
can you show the next photo that will show a different view that there you go so that shows
the delilah sign and uh the freestanding sign it's by lamar is that correct that's another
um yes sir the lamar is the taller 20 by 60 1200 square feet double face now all the all the way
in the distance it's sort of like uh of this existing photo um and i guess i'm i think we
finished off at A17, Mr. Chairman, was our last one, which was revisions to Michael
Tantella's photo sheet. So we'll call this one, the first one that we showed, since will be our
A18, we'll call this one A19. And Michael, that shows three signs, because all the way in the
rear, there appears to be a tall structure that looks like a billboard. Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
And was that the other sign that was shown on our A3B as a potential billboard that was facing northbound, but closer to Ben Franklin Bridge?
Yes, sir. So that's further south from this location. It's also a 20 by 60 double face sign. It's also Lamar sign.
Okay. Go to your next photo. And that's just another view of what Delilah's accessory sign. Is that correct?
Yes, sir. You can see I -95 northbound in the distance behind them.
Now, with regard to the sign, do you have any close -ups of the sign that's what we're identifying as 412 North Front Street?
Yes, sir.
Okay. And this is the one sign that you said was in the distance. Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
In our eight, you just identified in A19.
So this here's one side shows it's making a Duncan run.
And this photo was taken how long ago?
Last week.
And then do you have, and that crane, where is that crane?
You see that construction crane?
That's on the other side of 95, correct?
It's on the other side of 95, and it's the construction work that's going near the subject sign.
Okay. Can you give us another view of that same thing?
Okay, and that's the flip side of the Dunkin' Donuts sign. Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
Okay, but that appears to be on 412 North Front Street, and we'll get to that in a minute.
But and those bollards appear to be, it looks like at the boundary line of 100 to 30 Spring Garden where Delilah's is.
And in fact, there appears to be a vehicle right along those bollards that actually says Delilah's.
Is that correct? That's correct. OK, then let's go to your next picture.
That's just another close up of the check cashing, correct? And that'll be a.
that's the opposite face yes sir
okay go to the next one that again
now references this is taken
412 north front looking
northward along
95 towards
the Delilah's
shopping center is that correct
yes sir
okay and that's
the second billboard that we see
with the white sort of white face that's the one
right at Spring Garden Street
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
And then there's, I guess it looks like almost like a third one, but that's not on Delilah's Den's property, correct?
And then there's, I guess it looks like almost like a third one, but that's not on.
That is correct.
It is not on Delilah's Den property.
Go to, you have that, what do you have next?
We'll go to the next one that you have in your sequence.
You've done a location map.
I don't know if we can blow it up just a little bit or if the board can see it.
so um our location is clearly up marked as this location correct that is correct it's on the left
hand side i'm indicating left hand side and that's about you've pinpointed where this our roofs our
existing roof sign is and where the uh proposed modernization sign will be correct yes sir okay
How did you, what does this show? It shows you have a 06, go back up, go back up. You have a 060405, I -95, MM -22, Lamar reading, two faces back to back, HAGL -70. Can you tell us where that's located and what those different terms mean?
This exhibit shows, the blue dots show permitted PennDOT non -accessory permit numbers and locations.
So the first line, 06 -0405, is a PennDOT non -accessory permit number.
06 is PennDOT District 6, which Philadelphia is within.
The next line is an approximate location to where the sign advertises to.
So this is along I -95, mile marker 22. The third line is the owner, Lamar. The fourth line is just the general configuration, how many faces, and these signs in question are back -to -back, so they're double -faced.
I mentioned previously they're 20 by 60 each face. That's 1 ,200 square feet back to back. And the HAGLE stands for height above grade line. So from the grade to the bottom edge of their faces is 70 feet in each case. So they're approximately the same height relative to their respective grades.
Okay, and so from what your markings mean, and you're saying that this is intended to be principally visible to the I -95 cartway, is that correct?
That's correct, and by virtue of being double -faced, they advertise to northbound and southbound.
Okay, now the one below that is marked as 06 -0396. Is that the one that had the Dunkin' Donuts and the check cashing on the two sides?
Yes, sir. That's correct.
Okay. And I guess just for purposes, it's a Lamar sign.
It's back -to -back has been shown, and it is also about 70 feet above grade at that point.
To the bottom of face, yes, sir.
To the bottom of face.
And then there appears to be another one down below that we haven't shown as being in the vicinity of Delilah's.
But as I said, we were we were countering the issues that was raised, that it didn't appear like that there were non -accessory signs across the way at 100 to 30 Spring Garden Street.
So but across the way, so across the way you have a red X demo is has there been a removal of an existing billboard sign by Clear Channel?
Yes, that's a clear channel sign. It was a rooftop sign. Approximately 720 feet south of our location. And that was its permit number. It was a single face that just advertised the southbound traffic on I -95.
Okay. Can you go to your next slide, which I believe would be the zoning application for 412 North Front?
Yes, second.
Now that I believe we've marking is a 22 this map of showing the locations of different signs in the area a 23 will call zoning application for one two oh four four four four 12 North Front Street, and this shows, I guess it's hard and may be hard to read unless we can blow it up a little bit.
But the description of the work was that there was a previously approved billboard sign at permit number, you had it for a second, there you go, 225356, and that is that billboard that we've seen, that is the Dunkin' Donuts and check cashing billboard, correct?
Michael?
Hello, Michael?
Michael, you're muted.
Michael, you're muted.
Michael, you're muted or I can't hear you.
Michael, you're muted or can't hear you.
Oh, you're muted.
Mute now.
Okay, now.
Can you talk?
Oh, we can't hear him.
Michael, we can't hear you.
Somehow we can't hear you.
We lost you.
Can you hear us?
Michael, can you hear us?
We had him.
Okay, so I think what he has to do
is go out and come back in
and see if that works.
Maybe go back and come back in, Michael.
We were just going to.
OK, so, Mr. Powell, it seems to me that you pretty much know his testimony pretty well.
So would you want to finish?
Well, in a way, Mr. Chairman, we were going to get into with Michael and just roll through again that our refusals are for the bottom edge.
of the you know we were going to get into that we're visible really the targeted area is coming
off the ramp of cattle hill right not the main cartway of i -95 and so therefore i don't know if
michael's trying to get back in and therefore um one of the refusals was that we're at 28 feet above
the roadway to be intended and it was interpreted that the roadway to be visible from was uh second
street whereas we're saying is from the pictures that michael's put on we would have gone through
the pictures to show you the off ramp that's right alongside where our building is um that
we believe that we're well within the 25 feet that's allowed and that the hardship would be if
we had to comply we'd have to tear down part of our building since it's sitting right at the rooftop
um to even comply with the 28 feet uh michael's already testified to where we showed where the
different residential districts and commercial districts are um or the residential districts
are on like second and brown up up the way and how the limitation of visibility also we presented
the last hearing we're just going to have michael go through it again that right at spring garden
street is 200 spring garden street right at front in spring garden a new high rise has been built
but, and they're sort of creating a cove effect for us that blocks even more
the visibility of the sign.
I think we had a lot of testimony the last time relative to that.
So, so that, you know, that would, that would be it.
The only other thing I was going to get into with Michael.
Michael, can you hear?
Michael, can you testify?
Michael?
It has to be something with his audio, I believe.
I agree.
I'm texting him right now because that's worked.
Let's see how fast that goes.
So the biggest thing that we were, one of the things we were just going to go through is, you know, Mr. Reuters here.
He's been for the city.
And we'll just lay it out with regard to the fact that we want to suggest that the city could be looking at this in the way of a business competitor.
The city has the ability of 1490515 of the zoning code to have on municipal properties, billboards, digital signs on municipal properties, regardless of any restrictions.
So it's at 1590515. And in fact, any revenue that the city of Philadelphia gets, it is allowed, the director of finance, 1490515G, is authorized to create a special separate fund held by the city of Philadelphia to deposit in such fund any revenue collected by the city with respect to advertising signs erected on municipal property
erected on municipal property and to provide for the disposition of such funds to the school
and to provide for the disposition of such funds.
district of philadelphia very laudable goal but it does put the city potentially in the business
of advertising outdoor advertising without the same restrictions that were being imposed on us
and i was just going to ask michael i have to right behind us
let's let's try it let's try to get like i think right behind us is the fire administration i know
But listen to me. Listen to me. I think that issue you raised, maybe you could talk about that because we have a point here where you're going to have a chance for closing statements.
Yeah. OK. I guess the question is, are you comfortable?
What Michael Michael's testimony or are you are you solid?
The only other thing was about modernization, that this is a sign that is limited in terms of lumens and everything like that, that was going to comply with all the digital requirements and lumens and nits that was allowed under the code, and it would be less of a distraction to anybody, and as I said, since its principal viewing point would be the off -ramps, that we don't feel would be detrimental health, safety, and welfare.
So that would have been what we would have tried to get out of him.
So, Leonard, are you comfortable not crossing with him?
Yeah, I mean, we'll accept that as an offer of proof.
Michael may be back.
Michael, can you?
Yep, I'm here.
He's back.
Sorry about that.
What, Mr. Popp, do me a favor.
Try to move.
I mean, just don't repeat again everything we said.
Why don't we see if we can move him along a little bit?
Yeah, yeah.
Yes, no problem, Mr. Chairman.
So, Michael, I think we got cut off just on that. We want to just make the point with the 412 North Front Street that that was in the application, but there was the permit refusal that was issued and written by Gene Klinger, who was one of the more knowledgeable examiners back in the day.
right here clearly acknowledged that it's on the if you look at it it says it's clearly on the lot
with an existing non -accessory outdoor advertising sign so just to prove that that sign is there
legally on it 412 north front street unfortunately mr chairman we were michael it's true but you
weren't when looking at the file at least it's online in city atlas for 100 to north to 30th
spring garden we couldn't find anything about signage or the advertising outdoor advertising
signs for that property correct that's correct okay so michael real quick because while you
were going i tried to summarize what where we were headed with you um we were talking about
one uh the modernization of the sign and the intended viewing point that it's the ramps and
what the modernization impact will have on that? Yes. So just summarize, you know, where we would
go with that. So, you know, this sign is a modernization of an existing sign. The face is
set to be replaced. It's a, with the modernization, it's still going to be the same
sign orientation, same location and plan. It's intended to advertise strictly to primarily first
the I -95 Spring Garden pedestrians that wait along there, but also to the lower speed
Callahill Street exit ramp, two -lane exit ramp along there. And with this modernization,
There are a number of advantages that come with this, better control of brightness, improved clarity, and at the same time, with the increase in size, it'll provide better readability from that Cal Hill Street exit ramp,
and also better readability to the nearest point and to the pedestrians along Spring Garden
SEPTA station. So a little bit increase in size provides better read along the ramp
and better read from the distance in Spring Garden. It's a single face, it's in the shadow
of a party wall. It's directly oriented towards those areas to see. It's relatively low and small
compared to other non -accessory signs along the area. And as an engineer, in my professional
opinion, it's appropriate to ask for the size of the sign for the speeds on the ramp and the
distance to Spring Garden Street Station. So Michael, real quick, what you said about the
So, Michael, real quick, what you said about the other signs directly across the street, they're 70 feet high.
other signs directly across the street, there's
They're all 20 by 60s.
We're not asking for anything like that at this location, correct?
That's correct.
In fact, we're not asking for even a 14 by 48, which is even another standard size, correct, of a billboard?
That's correct.
So we're asking for 12 .33 by 31 is the minimum variance to allow us to be able to modernize this sign.
Is that correct?
In my opinion, yes, sir.
Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple quick follow -up questions.
Mr. Tintala, would you agree that none of the other non -accessory signs that you were just talking about are digital?
Yes, sir. That is correct.
Those two Lamar across the way are conventional, albeit larger and taller.
They're vinyl signs.
And with respect to the proposed sign here.
I would add that the existing sign is digital.
just clarifying the one we're talking about sure but the you would agree that the existing digital
sign um is is for lack of a better way of putting it sort of a um a very old -fashioned type of
lighted sign it's it's kind of like a glorified light right set right i mean it has the little
it's it's not like it's not like a i mean the proposed digital sign is more like a like almost
It's a giant flat screen monitor type sign, right?
I mean, to be clear, both this technology doesn't just display text.
The existing sign can display photos and images and has the newer face that they would propose would have a tighter pixel spacing.
But it's not text only imagery.
they can have photos on there just like the bigger signs across the way.
And how often, if you know, and you might not be privy to this,
how often would the images on the proposed sign change?
We call that dwell time.
It's proposed to have an eight -second dwell time.
That's consistent with city requirements and also PennDOT requirements,
which PennDOT actually permits a little bit less five -second dwell time, this would be in excess of that.
Now, you are in the course and scope of your engineering research, but in particular with respect to digital signage.
Have you worked on other digital sign applications or proposals in the past?
Yes, I have many in my career in many municipalities, in many states.
You've also alluded to, I've done research concerning traffic safety throughout the country, and I've testified throughout the country as well, specific to signage and digital signage.
Okay. All right. And I think if I see if I have anything else further.
And I prepared this subject site plan.
which is Exhibit A6. Okay, thank you. I have, oh, well, just, and again, this isn't really so
much of a question, but to, just to clarify the record, to the best of my understanding,
and this is pretty typical of a lot of properties as you get closer to the river,
there's multiple addresses for 100. It's 100 Spring Garden, 100 to, I think, 138 Spring Garden,
and 412 North Front Street are all the same property, but there's different sets of zoning
files under different addresses, which again happens quite frequently. So that was part of
our confusion in determining who had what signs, but to the best of our knowledge, the entire
parcel or the entire piece of land where the Delilahs and the Enterprise are and where
apparently two signs are is is one property it has multiple addresses depending on the time when
people submitted things uh and uh it looks like they were originally multiple parcels through
two or three or four maybe parcels so just so the records clarified we're with respect to those
properties there it's all this as far as we're concerned i think those are all actually the
same properties that things just happen uh under different addresses i mean i've seen properties
along Delaware Avenue that have as many as seven different sets of records under different
addresses.
So it's not that unusual.
So I have no further questions, though, for Mr. Tintala.
Okay. And just clearly, though, no matter, although I think our research shows that 412 North Front Street is a different ownership on a different property.
And just clearly, though, no matter, although I think our rat...
There's a section that's, but we don't need to get into that.
We don't need to get into that, but from the pictures, I think the board is clear, Mr. Tantella, that no matter what the property addresses are, that there are non -accessory signs in that vicinity directly to the cross where you had been previously asked by Mr. Rudder, the suggestion had been made that there were only non -accessory signs on that location.
Isn't that correct?
Yes, I was previously asked that, and I believe we've clarified that there are non -accessory locations, as shown by my prior exhibits.
And Mr. Polk, your next witness?
I call Mr. Jeffrey Jones.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michael.
Thank you. Thank you for your time.
And this will be my last witness, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Jeffrey there?
I know he. Mr. Jones has been allowed to speak. Hi. Hi. Mr. Jones, could you state your name,
please, and spell for the court reporter? Jeff, you're muted.
We see. Mr. Jones, can you unmute, please?
can you hear me now yes we can could you just take the volume up a little bit you're a little
low okay jeff are you in a spot yep i'm here are you in a spot where we can have
have your video image certainly okay great
there you go there you go could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
jeffrey jones j -e -f -f -r -e -y -j -o -n -e -s right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel okay uh mr jones thank you for being here
you are, tell the board what you do these days. I am the real estate manager for Outfront Media
here in Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And how long have you been involved
in outdoor, the outdoor advertising industry? I've been in the industry for a little more than
18 years, almost 19 years, and with Outfront for the last three and a half years.
And before that, were you with Clear Channel?
I was.
You've attended faithfully all these hearings, the one back on June 15th and then September 20th of 2022.
And I believe you were present when Mr. Cochio testified at those two hearings.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And you heard and have looked at the correspondence and interaction that the TWU had with Joanne Parkins of PennDOT.
I did.
And from your years in the outdoor advertising industry, what is PennDOT's role in Philadelphia these days with regard to outdoor advertising?
Since 2015, PennDOT has assumed the role of applying their regulations under the Highway Beautification Act to Philadelphia's, the city of Philadelphia.
So prior to that, did they allow Philadelphia to control everything as to its, as to outdoor advertising structures?
That is correct.
And what is the significant impact of PennDOT now overlooking Philadelphia with regard to outdoor advertising structures?
They apply their layer of regulation on top of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, and they oversee that all the regulations under the Highway Beautification Act and the Federal Highway Administration is adhered to in the city of Philadelphia.
So you could, correct me if I'm wrong, could you get approval if you were able to succeed and get a variance from the city of Philadelphia, PennDOT could still apply some regulations and deny you a license?
That is correct.
Okay. So what do you find significant from your read and the testimony Mr. Koccio gave us with regard to the correspondence he had with Joanne Parkins of PennDOT?
that only local approval would be necessary that it meets.
That only local approval would be necessary that it meets, this location meets all the current regulations of PennDOT and the FHWA to allow for a billboard to be operated there.
Okay. Now, with regard to this particular location, TWU is not in the business of being an outdoor advertising sign company.
correct? No, they're not. And what is your understanding? Do you have any kind of an
agreement with TWU to do anything for them at this point? Not at this time, no. At your company.
Have you been contacted with regards to developing a potential management agreement with them?
Yes. And as part of that management agreement, would you help them obtain advertisers?
on the sign? Yes, we would. Okay. And as part of that agreement, however,
our understanding as you move forward with nothing being formal, no contract or written
agreement or anything's been put in paper, down the paper, is that correct? That is correct.
What would, given the nature of the desire of the local to have, it is a, we call it a hybrid sign
that they still need to be able to convey their message to the ridership of SEPTA
and to the people that get off at the front in Spring Garden Station.
What do you foresee as something of the role of the sign down there as proposed?
Well, to use your term, it would be a hybrid, right?
We would definitely integrate their message and guarantee a flip or two of space to that messaging and then use the remaining messaging or the remaining available space for advertising purposes.
Okay. And Mr. Reuter asked Michael Tantella, our previous expert witness, and you were there to hear that just today, with regard to how this sign, if it's allowed to be modernized, what impact would it have in terms of the way you could get your message across and its impact on surrounding neighborhood structures?
the modernization would allow for the for the illumination to be controlled better um our
contact would be uh via an internet connection um so that would that would just be faster um the
readability would be better the uh clarity of messaging would be better uh but it is no they're
both LEDs, right? So they're both light emitting diodes. So the basic functionality is the same,
just be an improvement of sensors and things like that. Okay. So with regard to the area that
we're intended to be visible, the road surface would be intended to be visible.
or principally viewed, I guess, is the term used in the ordinance.
What is that? Michael has testified it's essentially the ramp.
Obviously, there'll be some viewing by people walking along 2nd Street, but...
I would concur with that. Yes, the ramp and pedestrian traffic,
riders coming off the L, things like that.
Okay. Now, what kind of messaging, has there been any, in the industry, what do you usually limit in terms of the messaging that you do?
So we self -regulate. We don't allow for adult entertainment. We adhere to the city's codes of limiting alcohol in proximity to playground schools and things like that.
And in fact, TWU, I believe, given that their membership is given the quintessential gift of safety or responsibility of safety for its ridership, I guess they probably don't want to have anything that would advertise something that might impair the ability of anybody to drive a car, drive a train, or a bus. Is that correct?
That is correct. And if they have any restrictions they'd like to impose, we would definitely work with them on that.
And what kind of public service messaging has been able to be done by the industry over the years?
has been able to be done by the industry over the years?
We are a good partner, right?
So we engage with the Bethesda Project.
We engage with Caring for Friends.
These are all nonprofit organizations that do good things in the city.
We partner with them.
I mean, Mr. Coccio testified that there are at least about 170 ,000 people that come and go at the Spring Garden train station and that there also are.
I know I count myself as one person who over the years is known to always look and see what time it is or what the temperature is when I've been driving and getting off of Calla Hill.
None of that will change, correct? The message will still be there if something gets, even with the increase in the size.
Yes, it would still be there.
Okay. And so given your work in the industry of over 18 years and your understanding of the operation of PennDOT,
um do you and you you let's strike that you've looked at the neighborhood and you've heard mr
tantella describe the neighborhood as something where uh there are other signs in the area are
there out there advertising signs in this area there are yes okay and this is an existing digital
sign isn't that correct that is correct and it's not going to be 12 it's not going to be a 14 by
48 or 20 by 60. Is that correct? That is correct. So in the general market of
outdoor advertising signs, it seems to be, what is the standard size usually that's being
put up for digital size? Isn't it the 14 by 48 or the 20 by 60s?
Yes. Yes. That is fairly standard. Yes. Okay. So this is at 12 .33 by 31.
this is a unique size sign, isn't it? It is. It is. Okay. And therefore, they're not asking for
the maximum to create something that would compete with across the street where we've shown
there's a 70 -foot sign that's 20 by 60, correct? That is correct. So would you consider this to be
a minimal minimum request to modernize the sign so that you can make it from its existing size
to just to increase it to the 12 .33 by 31? Yes, I would agree with that. Okay. Do you feel given
that you've driven this neighborhood, I'm sure many times and driven down Second Street, I'm
sure many times. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. And you've seen the new building going
up next door or a little bit away because there is a unit in between the TWU location
and the corner at 200 Spring Garden.
But do you agree that there's sort of like a limited range of visibility because of some
of the physical characteristics of that neighborhood with this new building and some of the trees
that are along 2nd Street and some of the growth along the off ramp of 95 at that location?
Yes, I would agree with that.
Okay. And do you feel, do you have an opinion as to whether allowing the sign, existing digital sign to modernize and just get a little bigger at 12 .33 by 31, will that have a detrimental impact on what's going on in this neighborhood?
No, no. I think that it would not impact the residential neighborhood down the road.
Okay. And again, I just wanted to – you're in the industry, so I know being in the industry, I know I'm going to make the argument, but again, I just wanted to – you are aware in the industry that under 1490515 and the outdoor non -accessory advertising section of the zoning code,
that a municipality like the city of philadelphia although maybe they haven't taken advantage of it
yet but does have the right to put up digital signs objection to the relevance this has nothing
to do with the case yes it does you're here is for the city representing the city you you literally
just admitted that the city mr pop i i agree i agree with that okay i agree let's let's let's
move on from there all right so that uh that that would be it then i have nothing further than okay
uh just to cross yeah very briefly um mr jones and again um you had you testified regarding uh
the correspondence between uh um mr coche am i pronouncing that correctly coche coche and um
uh representative of pendot is that right you you did review that correspondence i did
uh representative of pendot is that right you you did review that correspondence i did yes okay
and you've uh testified that it's your opinion uh or your understanding from those from that
correspondence that pendot would approve uh this sign just based on that correspondence
yes okay uh but isn't it true that the correspondence dealt with whether or not
um so the correspondence was triggered initially because the existing sign was being used uh for
non -accessory purposes isn't that right that is what the the email i believe said yes okay and
then that's proposed right and then the pond hockey sign was removed and then mr coach who
asked whether or not um if they got the variance uh whether or not uh pendot uh would approve
um the sign for oad permitting purposes isn't that right yes okay so but isn't it true that
the only thing that miss perkins said was that the variance for zoning wouldn't be required
uh for oad purposes so long as they had the proper zoning isn't that right
um objection why don't we read what what we sure why don't we look at uh and again it's i think
their exhibit a7 uh number one steve if you already had that up um i don't nico can you
get that up i can i have can i have my associate nico realbuto um elevated to panelists so you
could share share the screen we can i'd be happy to share it i i do uh but um forgive me uh in
advance if it crashes because i'm on the city network so uh just give me a sec there
you're going to try and bring it up yourself yeah yeah that'll be it'll just take me a sec
this is it great can you all see that it's coming up now it's coming up okay great um here we are
sure um this will make it a little easier to see all right so um mr jones then i'm just going to
real quickly run through this because i just i just wanted to be clear what is actually in this
correspondence. So, if I go down, whoops. So, again, this is in response. So, again, the email
of May 10th, 2021, Mr. Coccio is indicating that the pond, that's the pond, the hockey ad was
removed. Blah, blah, blah. Then she responds. He follows up and says, then again, she said
there's no longer a need to get the off -premises advertising permit from PennDOT. Right. And
And then on, I think, let me just see, unfortunately, yeah, he's saying, asking, unfortunately, it's at the top here, but it says checking in about, there it is, it is their intention to get an off -premises permit, but they would need a variance.
and he's questioning whether PennDOT would approve
if it was obtained by variants.
She responds and says,
it depends on what the variants was issued for.
We don't accept a variants for zoning purposes.
Otherwise, it may be perfectly fine.
And he said, this would be for the zoning district.
Blah, blah, blah.
Again, he's just explaining to her
that they need a variants because it's CMX3.
And he asked specifically, if we get a variants,
will you still issue an off -premises state permit thanks her response is
you do not need a variance for zoning for oad permitting purposes as long as the zoning is of
commercial industrial nature that's acceptable i'm not sure what other issue you're having but
it should not affect the permitting process that it and he says thanks he says you're welcome
What is it in that statement that indicates in any way, shape, or form that PennDOT is actually going to prove the sign?
PennDOT's regulations require that the property where the sign is located be commercial or industrial in use.
The regulation goes on further.
There's spacing requirements and things of that nature.
I'm not asking what PennDOT's regs are.
I'm asking, what is it that Ms. Parkins writes there that indicates that PennDOT is going to issue the permit?
Perkins, Parkins writes there that indicates that PennDOT is going to issue the permit.
Isn't she just saying that whether they need a variance or not does not affect their permitting
process? And that's all she says. I read this as long as the zoning of the property is commercial
or industrial in nature, they would issue the permit because all other requirements apply here.
well okay i i think i think i don't want to keep belaboring this i think i think the email speaks
for itself you would agree that there is nothing in that email that addresses whether other
requirements of the oad permitting objection he's asked and answered that already no that's fine
you said it speaks for itself yeah so i don't have any further questions thank you thank you
uh mr park you're done with your witnesses we are mr chairman okay we are we would rest and
we would move for the admission into the record or our exhibits a one through a 23 i believe or
24 that's great excuse me sorry excuse me mr chair this is hillary i'm mr pollack i didn't
receive any supplemental exhibits for today so to the extent that exhibits weren't already others
already otherwise submitted can you please have them to the board by close of business today
yeah we will but the reason i didn't do that was like you know it was it was really a
on cross -examination um and if we had been at the hearing we you know uh so we'll get them to you
definitely uh we would move mr chairman that any members who didn't make all the three hearings
have can you know we have no objection to them reading the transcript to be able to render a
decision so that you would have a full five -member board on this thank you all right uh leonard do
you want to make a presentation? Sure, just briefly, and I don't have witnesses to present
per se, but just so it's the records clear about why I'm even here. And again, first of all, I think
it goes without saying that the city of Philadelphia, the administration, the city, city
planning, in this case, has every right to oppose a variance as much as any other entity in the
city's right to participate as a as a either a party or as just a participant in in any matter
including zoning matters is pretty well established so there's no conflict there's no issue with the
city being present here and in typical cases the position of the city is that which is provided
through the planning commission's recommendations and the planning commission's recommendations as
you know are required by the zoning code you don't have to follow those recommendations but
you are required to uh to allow them and to make those part of the record uh and in you know the
last 20 30 years or so planning commission actually is present at the zoning board and
puts those on the record i think maybe in past years uh decades and decades ago they just submitted
a letter but anyway so that's the practice so the issue comes up occasionally well what if planning
uh is so opposed to something that if it were granted uh the one that they would you know
perhaps ask the law department to appeal the grant of the variance and there have been a couple
instances in the past several years where we where we've done that where variance was granted and
again i'm not i'm not saying this by way of threat i'm saying why part of the reason what well it's
I'm making arguments so there's no objections, but so the issue is that the reason why we're here, the reason why law department is present in this case is to develop a record and to assure that if the board were to, you know, consider this and grant this variance, we would want the record to be complete.
we would want to make sure that all of the requirements of the code were met uh and again
in particular in this case um uh that you know again the requirements for variance were met that
uh it's that there is evidence in the record of there being a hardship of the property
uh and that uh again if and if planning i don't think they made the recommendation they're going
they're going to make their recommendation when i'm done talking here um and then whatever the
planning commission recommends that the board considers that and gives that weight so that's
really why i'm here i'm not and again this is a variance case so i'm not per se a party the city's
automatically a party uh to to any zoning matter so that's that's all we're saying here and and
again with respect to the um the ultimate position of the city in this case that's going
to be expressed by the planning commission's representative um so again my role here is to
simply make sure that there's a complete record and to make it clear uh that what's been put into
uh that what's been put into the record is is fair and accurate about what's actually going on
the record is is fair and accurate about what's up
and i think and again i'll just do this by way of a closing um it it it seems to to to us that
um no hardship of the property has been established there's perhaps
hardship of the existing sign but that's not a standard i mean if they can't if they can't
monetize the existing sign, that's not a hardship of the property. We haven't seen anything that
indicates why the property itself needs this sign in order to be viable. I think there was some
stuff put into the record about, you know, during pandemic, TWU has had, you know, some difficulties
and, you know, that's unfortunate. But again, that's not the standard. The standard is whether
there's a hardship of the property we've seen a lot of stuff about other non -accessory signs in
the area and again uh many of those they were either granted by variants or some of them were
grandfathered in um and again none of those are digital signs so i want to be clear the primary
objection um that the city has to this particular sign is the fact that it's a digital sign and uh
While I'm sure the applicants and the applicants' representatives and engineers have indicated that, you know, they will make this sign as safe as possible, we do believe that digital signage on limited access highways is, generally speaking, a bad idea.
It's very distracting for drivers, and that's the city's main concern.
um the other business about the city being a competitor uh you know this is not this is not
a validity challenge uh if mr pollack wants to make that argument he's essentially arguing
against any zoning restrictions on non -accessory signs merely because the city there is a provision
that essentially exempts uh there's a provision that essentially exempts the city from those
restrictions but this is not a validity challenge this is he's simply seeking a variance and they
need to establish there's a hardship of the property so i'm not going to keep going on and
on it was our goal just to make sure that there's a complete record here and with that um i think
you can just hear what the planning commission's uh ultimate recommendation is and that's that's
i don't have anything else to to put on yeah go ahead what were you going to say no i was going
to i was going to say maybe i would wait to hear what the city planning commission says but what
why don't we do this why don't and then respond listen to me I still want to have the board
step in and also public testimony right so is there any questions from the board
no Mr. Chairman no Mr. Chairman
all right questions or comments from the virtual audience yes chair I have Mr. Larry Friedman
with his hand raised good morning Mr. Friedman could you state your name and spell please for
the court reporter good morning how you doing we're okay uh i would i would object to mr
friedman testifying at this point only in the sense that he's already testified uh previously
his testimony was taken he's unrepresented by an attorney and so we're we're going to let him
testify okay thanks thank you spell your name please for the court yes l -a -r -r -y -f -r -e -e -d -m -a -n
right i'm zoning chair northern liberty 700 north third street right do you swear or affirm
the total truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed sir yes i had testified and sent
a letter in whenever that last hearing was and i was going to skip this because i it's hard to
hang around for hours on end uh which i had to do last time but i i escaped and i joined in here and
So, again, we oppose this. There's a variance required and there's no hardship for this.
It's currently a whatever the size of that sign is and it's accessory, it would expand to a larger sign and become non -accessory.
My first question would be, I don't understand what hybrid means, because nobody's committing to anything in terms of, you know, a percentage here, a percentage there.
It could be a full -blown advertising sign 100 % of the time, and there's no rule that's going to stop that.
Nobody's agreeing to anything.
I don't understand the concept of modernized, really.
That's like a word that, what does that mean?
By the way, we're not opposed to billboards. It's this digital sign. We have to think also in the future, what precedents, you know, people come in the next time.
how thing, what precedents, you know, people come in the next time, well, you approve that thing,
they approve that thing, you should approve ours. And as I stated last time, we don't want to become
the digital sign capital of the city. It's as simple as that. I listened to everybody's
testimony. I'm not sure what the point of it really was. It's not allowed and there's no
hardship. It's a way to make more money. I understand that. We all like to make money,
but that's not a zoning hardship. Thanks. Mr. Powell, do you have any comments?
Not, I'll save it for, if there's any more public comment. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience want to have a comment? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Dean Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
board members this property was remapped to cmx3 in support of the comprehensive plan in 2015
digital advertising billboards as you know are expressly prohibited in cmx3 throughout the city
not just at this location this proposal is a for a substantial increase in the degree
of non -conformity of the sign relative to the existing previously approved sign for which the
City Planning Commission recommended denial. In this case, we find it plain that the appellant
has not met the statutory requirements for demonstrating hardship. There's nothing unique
to the site that prevents the property from being used without a digital advertising billboard.
We think it's self -evident that the property has been in productive use with a variety of uses for
decades. The code asks the board to find that there is no possibility that the property can
be used in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning code and the authorization of a
variance is necessary to enable viable economic use of the property. We recognize that having a
digital advertising sign is useful to the appellant, including for financial reasons and for
communicating to its members. However, we don't believe that the appellant has met the code
standard for hardship. The ability to generate income from the sign is not sufficient, in our
opinion, to establish hardship. And so consequently, the City Planning Commission recommends that the
board deny these variances. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I know it's unusual and Mr. Pollack
with your indulgence I would just like to follow up and ask Mr. Hegarty just or just ask state make
a statement to the board. I'm going to object either you're representing the planning commission
because the planning commission is part of the city of Philadelphia or the city solicitor who's
come here and i've been doing this for about 46 years i know all the time you the city solicitors
there when it's an appeal against lni there were days when the city would come in and and fight
something uh way back when and appear at a pal but this is an extraordinary extraordinary thing
to have you be able to say procedurally that you are in a due process way that you're here just to
keep a record going uh and make a record but you're not representing the city planning commission
But now you're going to act like you're independent of the city.
So, I believe that that's fine.
Paul, Mr.
Park, I hear what you're saying, but Leonard proceed.
And again, we're just making a statement that one of the dangers of the application is that if the board grants a variance for a digital billboard, whether it's this one or any other one.
And depending on what restrictions are put or provisors are put in for that variance, we have, in this instance, no guarantees as to how that billboard would be operated.
So a blanket variance for a digital billboard could allow them to put moving images, which would otherwise be strictly prohibited for a digital billboard.
It would allow them to change the advertising for less than eight seconds.
We do not get the removal of other billboards, which would normally be required for a digital billboard. So again, we would prefer that this be denied, but if it were to be granted, we would want all of the restrictions that are currently imposed on digital billboards to be added to any variance.
Again, our strong preference would be to deny the variance for the grounds that Mr. Haggerty had stated, but we can't have a blanket variance for a digital billboard.
That would be a huge and dangerous precedent for the city.
And I believe we've testified, Mr. Co -Chair, testified.
Mr. Pollack, listen to me.
Here's your closing argument.
Could you give me your closing argument?
Our closing argument is that we would agree that if the board feels that we have proven a case that there is a hardship to the property and a hardship to the that requires a modernization of the sign and that we would agree to all the digital restrictions about, you know, that are in the code.
That we would agree to all the digital restrictions about, you know, that are in the code with regard to the one per eight and the lumens and the nits and all those requirements that are subject in the code.
And so, therefore, we are saying that this is a situation where there is an existing digital sign.
It's not that we're trying to reinvent the wheel and plunk down even committing or changing a 20 by 60 and making it digital.
This is a digital sign that I'm sure all of you, if you've driven from the, you know, on 95, especially only southbound on 95, have for years looked at this sign.
Mr. Coccio testified and he says, you know, he gets he gets calls from people when the sign is two minutes late or two minutes early because people have come to realize, you know, that this is a sign that's there.
And all we're trying to do here is do something that we can't do because we cannot take down more than any digital signs or any other signs because we're not in the sign business.
We're an individual labor union that owns a property that is central, as Mr. Coccio testified to, for a hub of the whole system for suburban and urban riders, as well as his membership, and that this has served as a focal point and a source of information.
We're trying to keep that source of information viable for not just for ridership purposes, and we are looking toward making a validity challenge, although the validity challenge really is that there's an unconstitutional provision that says the only way you can even have a digital sign is if you were to take down two other digital signs.
We're just not in that business. And we're in a situation where, given our location, you're not going to create an open Pandora's box, as has been suggested by Mr. Rutter and by the City Planning Commission here.
Because one of the other things that happens is the city of Philadelphia says quite clearly there's more restrictive that you can't have another outdoor advertising sign within 500 feet of another outdoor advertising sign, regardless of the side of the highway.
So there isn't another one within 500 feet of this location as shown by Mr. Tantella's map, as shown by the fact we weren't refused on that basis.
And therefore, I don't think we're opening Pandora's box. And I think, you know, I don't want to get into a point by point description of all the criteria for variance. But I believe in this case, we have met the criteria that would allow this board to grant a variance with certain, and if you want to put the, you know, and we will, every restriction that has to be abided by for digital signs that set forth in the code, we could, you know, we could get that provision for you.
Even though, as I said, I'm not saying, when I say about that the city has a right to do things, all I'm saying is that there is a potential for a reason why they're here.
If it was another drugstore going after another drugstore or something like that, that's a business competitor.
So I was just saying it adds to your weight of the determination of the credibility of where the city's coming from to even do this kind of an extraordinary thing, like having the solicitor act as if he's separate from the city planning commission.
With that, I rest.
Leonard, would you want to have a short closing statement?
well yeah again i think the with respect to the you know again the provision that
with respect to the provision that um you know the city uh is essentially well let me let me put it
this way the city's actually not exempt from the rest of the zoning code when it comes to signage
there were a number of provisions that were put into that uh ordinance that were kept as place
holders such as size restrictions, other types of restrictions, those were never filled out. I can
say, at least in my understanding, and I could be wrong, but the city's never actually, with the
exception, I think, of some billboards that have been placed in lots that are controlled by the
parking authority. I think the parking authority was given permission by public property to get
a couple of billboards on some city -owned municipal lots. I'm certainly not aware of any
digital billboards the city has placed anywhere years ago there was an attempt to put a digital
sign actually on top of this building the one parkway building that was defeated by art
commission the art commission would have to approve any other kind of signage that's a charter
uh provision so it's it's not fair to say that the city is exempt from all the restrictions
So it's not fair to say that the city is exempt from all the restrictions. You have to get art commission approval. And again, I'm not except for, I think, a couple of billboards, which I don't even know if they ever went up on city parking lots.
you have to get art
I'm not aware that the city's ever taken advantage of that provision. And I could be wrong about that, but I've not been involved in any of that.
So, yeah, again, we just think we think the record speaks for itself. So I don't really have anything else to add other than to just respond to on that point. Thank you very much.
Thank you. We've taken several days, a lot of testimony.
Mr. Pollock, I will follow up on your issue.
We're going to make sure everybody has access to all the hearings.
We'll go over it.
We'll meet next Wednesday in executive session and look to vote on this at 2 p .m.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board for allowing us to have.
And thank the both of you for your time and the patience to present the case.
Sincere condolences, Mr. Chairman.
good thank you um all right bye bye is there anyone in the uh virtual audience whose case has not been
called i see no hands chair okay thanks everyone appreciate it thanks chair thanks chair
take care thank you