and dimensional perspective as a fence you concur mr ministers um miss templeton does that does
that statement by opposing counsel change your opinion at all? I guess I would ask to look at
the section in the code that says that. You're not aware of that? I would if I could read the
section. Okay. Mr. Chair, maybe if I could just suggest that we reserve this particular issue
for cross-examination yeah thank you all right so noted okay we're gonna go to uh the um so
can you describe ms templeton how you arrived at your opinion that the plans violate the site
design requirements of section 14-703 5a.1 that section requires that each principal building
shall have one or more entry doors facing invisible from an adjacent public street
and the entry doors of the proposed multi-family buildings are not visible to a public street.
I'm showing you a drawing that a rendering that appears on page 92 of the developer's exhibit
binder and what are we looking at in this rendering? It looks we're looking at the fronts
of the residential buildings the entry doors appears to be facing the parking lot and driveway
the back building is facing station drive which again is not a public street this building you're
saying is facing station drive where where my cursor is moving and then these two side buildings
where where are they facing the parking lot and the driveway the access drive and in this in this
rendering where is wayne avenue uh behind the uh larger apartment building in the back of the
property so it's not it's not visible and it's all the way on the other side of this large building
yes and under this code provision of 14-7035 8.1 where are these doors supposed to be facing
they're supposed to be facing to a public street
which would be wayne avenue would be wayne avenue yes in this case
okay thank you you also issued an opinion that the private access road
was not designed to accommodate the higher intensity of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
that would be generated by this development. Mr. Chair, may I state my objection?
In the letter, it is not clear how really anything beyond what we've just heard relates to any
refusals. Whereas the prior arguments that Ms. Templeton has provided, there were code citations,
there are not for the remainder of the letter. So I would like Mr. Masters to really bear the
uh you know really bear the burden of pointing out what code sections the remainder of the
burden of pointing out what code sections.
arguments including this one relate to because if they don't relate to proposed refusals
this is not the appropriate venue to talk about these things
thank you
um whoops whoa let's get back to hang on a second um yes i i think that part of our expert report
is more applicable to the second um hearing that we'd be having um where we would be opposing
the um that the appeal of mosaic but there is one more section um of the report that i believe
does apply to an error by L&I. Ms. Templeton, in your opinion, did Mosaic Development Partners
correctly complete the Complete Streets Checklist that was submitted as part of their application
to L&I? So I did not see a Complete Streets Checklist for the change in access to Station
drive from Wayne Avenue. I real quickly object again, Mr. Masters, could you just provide the
the potential code section that that would have led to a refusal needing to be issued under?
Because it's very hard to kind of think through where you're going otherwise.
This isn't the argument here, Mr. Saverin, is that the L&I plans examiner would have needed to
either put a hold on the permit for approval by the streets department or would have had to note
in the file that the streets department had approved the correct complete streets
checklist. And in this case, the complete streets checklist that your client submitted
was the prior iteration of this plan with the flag lot and a lot consolidation. And most of the
provisions that are applicable to this version of the plan were completely missing and not filled
out in the checklist. Therefore, L&I should have put a hold on this application for proper streets
department review of a new revised complete streets checklist. That was not done. And we
argue that that's a basis, an independent basis for returning it to L&I. That happens normally
with a project where L&I will allow for something to happen, not having any information from streets
department until such time that they get the good the green light to move forward with the project
i mean that's that's typical i don't know if i'm explaining it right but it's not on i mean that's
the way i since i've been here you don't necessarily need streets apartment approval
until you get the the uh approval from the zoning board to move forward if i could uh mr chair i
again i i now i'll make the objection thank you i'll make the objection that mr masters was making
that it's it's we're kind of getting into factual testimony here uh and with respect to the and
again i think this is something that perhaps we could address through cross-examination of mr
master's witness um but uh in terms of you know right in terms of like what exactly is the complete
streets uh policy and what does what is required to be done at what stage i think we can just get
into that through cross-examination rather than having uh the attorneys uh argue about what's
essentially a factual issue.
A lot of it is, yeah, a lot of it probably goes
to the variance, which the city doesn't have a position on.
But yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Masters.
At this point, I would rest in my direct,
but I would ask for leave to have rebuttal testimony
after cross-examination.
Ms. Pritzker or Mr. Severan?
Brandon go ahead yeah so um I think uh if the board will allow it we'd like to call um
I'm gonna have you swear in Mr. Chair a couple um witnesses and and we may use one we may use both
um their names are um David Horner and Nando McHale oh I'm sorry um a third as well Sarah
a poindexter okay with the three folks who uh mr uh savran just named raise your hand and we will
individually take your names for the record and swear you in i i have an objection mr chair um i
don't believe that all of these individuals were named as witnesses um in their submissions to the
board they were i don't have a copy of that well you sent up we we didn't have a copy until
i don't have a copy of that well you sent up we we didn't have a copy until 10 whatever and they
were included in our lni or sorry our dba appeal that was submitted back in i guess august you'll
forward them over to mr masters please sure here we have david horner to go first mr horner please
spell your name and i'll swear you in my name is david horner h-o-r-n-e-r you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you next witness
nando mccale now please spell your phone name sure um n-a-n-d-o-m-i-c-a-l-e and do you swear
or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and miss poindexter i believe
Ms. Poindexter, can you unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Poindexter, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Chair, her hand has disappeared.
She's got this muted now.
Ms. Poindexter?
I can.
I think she unmuted.
Sarah, are you there?
What I can do, Mr. Chair, is proceed with cross, and when I'm finished with that, we can see.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, please.
Spell your full name, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This is Sarah Poindexter, S-A-R-A-P-O-I-N-D-E-X-P-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Saffron.
okay um so before getting to those witnesses i'm i'm going to cross-examine miss templeton
also would um ask if mr reuter wishes to do the same um does the board have a preference
between my going first or mr reuter going first for cross you can go first mr reuter yeah okay
Thank you. Okay. Um, Ms. Templeton, are you available? Yes. Do you have, um, the site plan
that was presented, um, at the last hearing in front of you? I can share. I do not. Okay. Give
Give me one moment.
Let's see.
Bear with me, this is get to page 73 of this packet.
While that's loading, I'll actually start with a different issue.
going to share my screen to share a portion of the code which would be here okay um miss templeton
can you see my screen at the moment it's uh okay thank you so um i am here uh for the board's
benefit in uh title 14 chapter 7016 of the philadelphia excuse me council excuse me council
can you blow it up some yes sure mr holland let me try my best there um okay well that was a little
too much let's see here mr holliman i'm going to be referring to this table i'm scrolling through
can you see that at all? Yes. Okay, thank you. Ms. Templeton, so this is, as I mentioned,
we're in 147016, and in that section, there's also a table called 147016. The table is called,
well, I'll ask you actually, can you read the title of the table in the gray bar there?
Exceptions to height limits.
Can you also, I'm sorry, read, that's the subtitle, the broader title above that.
The subtitle, permitted encroachment.
No, I'm sorry, above.
It means the top, where it says table, 14-.
Right here.
Exceptions to dimensional standards, yes.
Thank you.
And would you mind reading the third box that's currently on the screen?
that has the most yellow highlights.
Would you read the contents of that?
I can read it.
I can acknowledge that that's, okay.
Retaining walls are subject to the restriction
of fence heights to the extent that those walls protrude
above the actual ground level at the highest point of wall,
but shall not apply to any retaining wall required
by the provisions of any section
of the Philadelphia Coda related regulations.
okay um so would you agree um that retaining walls based on that section are um not subject
Okay, so would you agree that retention
to any restrictions that do not apply to fences under the philadelphia code regarding dimensional
requirements objection there's no basis for that that's not what this table says it is limited to
height limits. It has nothing to do with all other requirements. I'm going to object to you
testifying, Steve. It's okay. I can resolve that. So Mr. Masters, that's a fair point. That's a
function of the formatting of the table. And I apologize. And I'll walk everyone through that
real quickly. So the title to the table is exceptions to dimensional standards. Then the
table is broken down into subsections. The first one is exceptions to height limits. There's a
defect in the coding, if you will, of the table, that if you scroll through the table, that does
not go away, even when you're looking at sections that do not have to do with height. The actual
subtitle, I think we can all agree, to this part of the table is exceptions to yard setback and
open area requirements. Now, I would pose that Ms. Templeton testified to a setback requirement,
the 20-foot setback requirement. And the section I just had her read does stand as an exception to
setback requirements. So Mr. Masters, now that I've pointed that out, do you want to withdraw
your objection or do you stand by that? No, I stand by my objection, Mr. Saverin,
because the actual portion that you had Ms. Templeton read is limited to fence heights.
It has nothing to do with setbacks or any other kinds of encroachments. If you can find a section
section that deals with setbacks, then that's a different story. But we're talking about a
section that you had her read that is limited to restrictions on fence heights. So if she could
read, this is Rachel Pritzker, if she could read the section right above it, Brandon, which is what
I think you meant to have her read. Sure, sure. That would be appreciated. And I think that that
would address Mr. Master's concern. Ms. Templeton, do you mind reading that box above the one you
already read? No, fine. Fences are permitted in the required rear yard area and in any portion
of the required side yard area behind the front wall of the principal structure, but may not be
more than six feet tall. The standard shall also apply to any side of a corner lot that does not
face the street. Thank you, Ms. Templeton. Okay, I think that's sufficient. My objection stands
because that section does not relate to retaining walls and does not state that retaining walls
are subject to the same restrictions as fences in that section above. It says it below about
heights, but it doesn't say that retaining walls and fences are the same. And our testimony
that you're uncrossed on was specifically about why retaining walls are distinct and different
from fences because they're engineered, they're structures, and LNI treats them in a completely
different manner under the building code than a fence. Is there anything in the code, in this
area of the code, that addresses what Mr. Maester's concern is? Well, I think Cross may not be the,
Mr. Chair, we have our own planner, we have our own engineer. Why don't we bring them on to give
their interpretation in a minute? I think that will be helpful, thank you. Okay.
um let me uh miss templeton you spoke um is it is it correct that you spoke about um under
mr master's questioning comparing some prior version of the plan to the latest version of
the development plan or a prior application to a more recent application is that fair to say
uh it was mentioned that there were two versions of the plan yes um so taking the um outer boundary
of the property and and and we also heard you testify or or receive questions as to the fact
that there are sort of two parcels which comprise the totality of the development site but taking
the outer boundary of both of them combined, was there a change? Was there a difference in the
outer boundary of the premises compared to those two applications? Or did it remain the same
across those two applications? I'm going to object to that it calls for speculation. If you want to
show her the two plans and ask her to evaluate the actual drawings, that would be a fair question.
But asking her to speculate without showing her what you're talking about would be-
Mr. Masters, this is a follow-up to you reference two different plans.
I'd ask you to show them.
Ms. Templeton, are you able to answer that without having to see?
without having to see I can without seeing the two plans thank you please
I think I can without seeing the two plans.
Thank you.
Please proceed then.
proceed then thank you
okay I think that's all for cross thank you I have no no redirect I just had
just a couple quick questions for Ms. Templeton very briefly.