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