Mr. Rorder, please.
Ms. Templeton, you made reference, or I think more your counsel for the objectors made reference
to the complete streets policy of the streets department.
Can you point to the code section that requires approval by the streets department under the
complete streets policy as a prerequisite to obtaining a zoning permit?
i i cannot point to a code reference okay thank you and um would you agree that the complete
streets policy uh provision in the code is a provision that um directs the streets department
to develop a policy and ultimately to create the complete streets handbook i'm gonna object that
that's cause for legal a legal opinion that she doesn't have but i was the author of ms templeton
And are you, do you feel comfortable responding?
I don't, I don't think I can answer that.
Well, let me ask you, are you familiar with the Complete Streets Policy Ordinance?
And is there anything in that ordinance that requires approval by the streets department with respect to conformity with the Complete Streets Policy as a prerequisite to obtaining a variance, I mean, to obtaining a zoning permit?
i can't recall okay thank you um now just with getting back to the issue of retaining walls
versus fence walls uh council has suggested that uh the streets i mean that the department
licenses and inspections makes uh distinctions between retaining walls and fence walls for
building code purposes. And you would agree with that, right?
Yes, I would.
Right. But with respect to zoning and with respect to the, any distinctions between fence walls and retaining walls for zoning purposes, are you, is,
Can you point to any section of the code where retaining walls and fence walls are treated differently with respect to, you know, for planning purposes?
I have to say I can't find in the code where it explicitly treats them the same or different.
It's not clear to me.
Now, again, leaving aside engineering questions that Mr. Masters correctly points out are at issue when it comes to retaining walls.
Well, let me back up. You would agree that engineering concerns typically are building code compliance questions, not zoning code compliance questions from a planning perspective.
Would you agree with that?
Yes, I would agree. Yes.
Okay. So would you agree then that from a planning perspective, there isn't any obvious or per se reason why retaining walls would be treated separately from fence walls? I mean, a wall is a wall, right?
Well, no. I mean, I have to look at definitions. You know, I'm looking at a definition that a retaining wall is a structure that retains, holds back any material, usually earth, and prevents from sliding or eroding away.
You know, a fence is not capable of doing that.
I don't believe it's...
No, I think we're in agreement with that.
My interpretation is that a retaining wall is a structure, a permanent structure,
and a fence is not a permanent structure. It's not something that has to be engineered.
understood all right i have no further and the definition of rare yard is
between the property line and uh any structure a structure
except for those that are accepted yes but it still wasn't very it's not really clearly
explicit in the code that they are accepted again i'm referring to what mr master said about it
pertaining to treating them differently pertaining to height now what just just
Since you brought it up, with respect to the extent, let's say for the sake of argument, we agree, or somebody might agree that there's an ambiguity here.
since you since you brought it up um with respect to the to the extent
What does the zoning code say about resolving ambiguities in the code with respect to an application?
I'm going to object that she did not testify that she believes it's an ambiguity.
You're inserting your own opinion that that's an ambiguity.
she said it was clearly that it was clear that the retaining wall is defined as a structure
and a fence is not defined as a structure that's not an ambiguity that that's not i think she just
said it wasn't clear uh how the exception applied but but that's fine we'll leave it at that we'll
we'll address that in argument thank you i have no further questions yeah no redirect redirect
have we have we completed this portion i'm we have completed um the rco's um portion of the
testimony but it appears that um mosaic um development partners has their own witnesses
for rebuttal and that would be a second portion i believe just so it's clear in the record steve
you you don't have any other further witnesses on the appeal against l and i is that right
that's what i'm asking yeah that's correct okay okay thanks so it's up to the where it's correct
me if i'm wrong sharon it's up to the board now to make a decision on the appeal against l and i
i think the city and the developer have to uh present their case on the appeal against l and i
I'm sorry. All right. Mr. Savron or Rachel, do you want to bring on the developer or Mr. Roy, do you want to go first?
Well, just so it's clear, the city's, I think everybody, you know, leaving aside the fact that obviously Mr. Masters and his clients have their objections and their challenges to the validity of the permit that was issued.
I think we all agree materials were submitted, those materials were submitted to L&I, they were reviewed by L&I, and as a result, the permit was issued.
They can disagree whether the permit should have been issued, but there's no real factual dispute about what was submitted to L&I and what the actions taken by L&I were.
No subpoenas have been requested, so we're simply going to just make an offer of proof that were L&I to testify, they would simply say that, that we received these application materials, we received these plans, there was a refusal issued, there was another amended plan submitted, there was amended refusal, et cetera, et cetera, and that's it.
that's basically our case i think everybody can agree to it so we're not presenting any witnesses
we think the uh the facts that have been submitted by all the parties speak for themselves in terms
of what l and i's actions were uh our our um response to the appeal against l and i will
address primarily through uh closing argument since it's a legal question thank you mr master
any objection to what mr reuter just laid out could we well no i i uh he's he's entitled to
to reserve his argument for closing argument and to not call any witnesses um that's all
that's all his prerogative but we'll have we'll have our argument he will have the city's argument
and i believe that the developer will have an argument also um i just haven't i i don't object
uh to mr reuter's testimony there um i i just would ask mr reuter he said the word permit a
few times or i think he intended to say refusal that a yes okay yeah i'm at the permit application
materials and that uh the a a refer uh a refusal was was uh issued on the basically just on the
heritage tree thing i think is the only uh was the only outstanding issue okay that being the
case i i have no objection to that yeah sorry that was just my mistake okay so so noted thank you um
hold on before we go any further
it is 1135
before we move on
is the court reporter would you like to have a break
chair this is the court reporter I would appreciate
a very brief break if you don't mind
see you back here in about five minutes
and Tanya we have a hard number
what time we have to complete this
chair if you wish
we can stop at 1215
thank you thank you all right see everybody back in five minutes
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
all right mr kelly have you returned chair yes i have thank you very much you're ready to go okay
All right, Mr. Kelly, have you returned?
yes i am all right everyone uh mr reuter miss pritzker mr sovereign we're all ready
mr masters yes chair yes uh we left off i believe with
mr masters uh mr uh no reuter and like who's up next so i think if uh unless either of my
uh counterparts disagree that mr reuter uh basically um closed until a closing argument
there so we just have one witness we'd like to bring on and then i think we can proceed the
closing argument okay let's move forward thank you okay that would be sarah poindexter
this point dexter uh just identify yourself you're still on the roof
uh yes this is sarah hi sarah could you spell your name for the board please and state your
address she's already done that she's oh you're right i'm so sorry thank you no worries no worries
Okay. Sarah, I am scrolling through our exhibit packet to get your resume up, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Are you the engineer who designed the site plan for all the iterations of this project that have been submitted to L&I?
yes i'm the engineer of record for the project and oversell the preparation of the zoning site
plan for the different iterations okay thank you and um i will try to try and just to find your
resume so i can uh but while i'm doing that would you just um i'm gonna mr saverin i i'm i'm prepared
to stipulate um i know miss poindexter personally um i've worked with her um in in other contexts
I believe she is a person of great skill and experience, and I have no trouble stipulating that she is an expert for the purposes of testimony today.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Masters. I appreciate it.
So with that being said, Sarah, I'm going to ask you a few questions comparing the last plan that we submitted to L&I, which generated this most recent refusal.
I believe that plan was dated June 2nd versus the prior plan that generated the prior refusal.
Do you happen to have a digital copy of the plan that generated the first refusal that you could share with the board?
Or if not, if you just give me the revision date, I'll share it.
So are you asking for the originally submitted zoning plan or the zoning plan, so the original
submitted zoning plan was submitted November 23rd, 2020?
That's the one.
That's what I'd like to start with.
And do you want me to share my screen?
If you're able to, that'd be helpful.
where is that button sorry no that's okay i've seen that option for me oh um well if you're a
panelist it would be in the bottom center of green button that says share screen she's not a panel
is it possible to promote her no she's on the phone oh okay brandon i did email that plan
just now. Okay. I'm going to pull it up then. Thanks, Sarah.
Okay. Thank you for your patience, everybody.
Okay. Here's this.
Share screen.
Okay. Okay. And I will make this bigger.
so this is for everybody's benefit, the entire zoning site plan sheet. I'm going to zoom in on
the site plan diagram. So Ms. Poindexter, you were the engineer that designed this site plan. Is that
correct? That's correct. And is it the case that in this submission, there are two parcels
that we proposed in this particular application for consolidation and that
particular application for consolidation and that as a consolidated parcel the parcel reaches Wayne
Avenue via a flag if it were on the call it the north side of the lot is that correct
connecting to Wayne Avenue correct okay is it also correct that
the plan did not depict a paved driveway connecting from the buildings through that flag,
but actually made use of a SEPTA-owned driveway for vehicular access to the site that ran
parallel to the flag to Wayne Avenue. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you.
I'm just going to pull up the more recent plan now that was submitted for the more recent refusal.
So bear with me for that.
This one I actually have at my fingertips, I promise.
Here we go.
Okay, Sarah, so now I have on my screen the plan that was submitted that generated the
amended refusal that we received in June.
And you were also the engineer who was responsible for this site plan, correct?
That's correct.
So, under this plan, is it correct that we no longer propose to consolidate the lots,
but instead proposed to leave them that are two parcels as two distinct lots and proposed that
they be treated for zoning purposes as one lot under the unity of use program which means that
we recorded a restrictive covenant of stating that they were you know bound together for zoning
purposes. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Now, looking at the sort of outer boundary of
these two parcels together under the unity of use program versus the outer boundaries of the two
parcels in the prior plan, which were proposed to be consolidated, there is no difference in
the outer boundary of the site or the shape of the site. Is that correct?
That's correct. And is that because essentially the development site still consists of the same
areas? It's just that in plan one, we proposed joining them through consolidation and in plan
two, we proposed treating them for zoning as one through unity of use, but not consolidating them.
Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And for the last time though,
in both plans, we're talking about the same exact lands. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And in the second plan, which I still have on my screen, is it still the case that the manner of vehicular access did not change from plan one?
So while we have this flag piece that goes to Wayne Avenue, and I'll zoom in on that for the board's benefit, we were not planning to have cars drive over that necessarily.
We were going to rely on the adjacent SEPTA driveway for access to Wayne Avenue.
So was that still the case under Plan 2 as it was in Plan 1?
That's correct, for access to the proposed development.
And that access in both plans through the SEPTA driveway, that access would serve all of the buildings on the site, regardless of which current parcel they sat on.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
I just have a few more.
So, Sarah, do you, in your line of work, you know, assist your clients, including your
client on this project, in interpreting the zoning code and attempting to determine how
to design the site to, you know, meet certain code sections or avoid triggering certain
refusals?
Is that common for your work?
Yes, it is.
So, in your experience, I'm sorry, with regard to this proposal, given that you've established
that the outer boundaries of the project site did not change between the first iteration and
the second iteration, and that, again, we're not really changing the lands that comprise the site.
Is it fair to say that the reason, in your opinion,
Is it fair to say that the reason, in your opinion, that we did not receive a refusal
for insufficient street frontage on the Wayne Avenue side is because we are not changing
the shape or size of the site.
And as such, it is legal non-conforming with regard to dimensional code requirements.