I'm going to object.
It calls for a legal opinion and it calls for speculation on the part of what the considerations were for the plans examiner when they made a decision, and both of those would nullify that testimony.
So I'd just like to briefly respond.
Oh, sure. Do you want Mr. Masters to repeat his objection?
No, no, you, Mr. Severn.
Oh, sure.
Essentially, I'm asking Sarah to render an engineering opinion.
Interpreting the zoning code is an engineering matter. The examiners employed by L&I in the zoning group are engineers, at least most of them to my knowledge. And I'm asking Sarah to opine on why she believes we did not obtain one of the refusals that Mr. Masters has argued we should have obtained.
I'm not asking her to try and read the mind of our L&I examiner.
I'm asking her for her own opinion only.
Well, I still would reiterate my objection, Mr. Chair, because that isn't your question, Mr. Saverin, wasn't related to what Ms. Templeton testified to.
you were asking her a different question which is not something that um that uh it's it's relate
it doesn't relate to um you asked her whether the street frontage was was inadequate or sufficient
mr masters maybe could you are you could you pull up miss templeton's letter again so you can just
show us the first of her enumerated additional refusals that's the one i'm attempting to speak
to here i'm not attempting to introduce new matter
or read it or read it
okay uh now that i've read it uh yes you are correct that that's 1470128 does
relate to minimum street frontage. But my objection is that you haven't established
from your witness which street frontage she believes the property is using as its street
frontage. And until you do that, you can't really ask a question as to the code because the question
is is it wayne avenue or is it station drive that is your street frontage mr sovereign could you
clear that up sure yeah i mean there's only one public street frontage here it's it's wayne avenue
i don't i don't think there's any that's my answer the public street frontage for the site is wayne
avenue boy your building doesn't face the front the the public street frontage mr masters that's
I mean, I think I answered your question, so I'd like the chair to have a chance to.
All right, I'll withdraw my objection to Ms. Poindexter's testimony on that.
Thank you.
Okay, so Sarah, I'm just going to reissue my question to you here.
So my question was, in your opinion, is it the case that because in both iterations of the plan, that is it the case that because we are not changing the boundaries of either development parcel, is that why we did not receive a refusal?
or is that why you believe we may not have received a refusal for the code section that
Mr. Masters just read regarding length of street frontage? That's correct. Because we did not
change the parcel limit, it was accepted as non-conforming lot with the limited street
printage that it has as a flag lot. But let me actually just clarify my question a bit. So
is it the case that in our first original refusal under what I called plan one, we did receive a
refusal for that issue when we had proposed consolidating the sites? We did receive a
We did receive a refusal and then we revised the plan to use the unity of use and no longer
refusal, and then we revised the plan.
subdivide the property, or excuse me, consolidate the property.
So is it therefore fair to say that when we were here talking about the second plan and
you could call it the second or amended refusal, is it the case that that refusal from L&I did not
include a line item, a refusal about inadequate street frontage?
that's correct the comment was addressed with the second plan and and is it fair to say that
the reason we no longer have that refusal is because we we moved from proposing consolidation
to proposing to use unity of use and the use of unity of use meant that we are no longer proposing
to change the boundaries of either parcel from the way they currently sit is that correct
that's correct okay so can in summary is it fair to say that um we get the um
the benefit of and i know you're you're not this is not a legal question i'm going to phrase this
in engineering terms the best i can because we're not changing the boundaries of either parcel
um you you would you advised your client here that you get whatever benefits or avoidance of
refusals come from not changing the boundaries of the parcels. Is that correct? That's correct.
Okay. Let me just briefly look through my notes here. Brandon, this is Rachel. I just wanted,
Sarah, I just want to ask you one question as well. Is it true that the address for the property
has an R after it, emphasizing that it's a rear property.
It is not a property that doesn't have an R after it.
I just wanted to see if you would agree
that the address of the property is 6134-46R,
Wayne Avenue, emphasizing again that it's a rear property.
That's correct.
Thank you.
Okay, Sarah.
So I just had one other issue I wanted to discuss, and that was the retaining wall.
I believe that Mr. Masters' witness had proposed that our retaining wall on what I'll call the top of the site plan here may be within a required setback area.
um in your experience working with the zoning code as an engineer um do you have and and i'll
say there was some dispute amongst the attorneys earlier but do you wish to offer your own um
opinion professional opinion on whether or not a retaining wall of the height that we have proposed
is subject to that 20 foot uh front setback rule
I was unable to find anything in the zoning code that restricted retaining walls from
being included in a setback. This retaining wall in particular is more of a landscape
element. It could have been more clearly shown as being a pretty short retaining wall, but
it's my opinion that there aren't any restrictions for hard scapes or retaining walls within a
setback. And please be honest with me, but do you happen to know maybe the maximum and minimum
height of that retaining wall as you move along it laterally? Within the setback area, it's less
than 30 inches. So the maximum height of the retaining wall as it exists within the setback
area is 30 inches or less. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I have no further questions
for our witness. The ministers? Yes, I have some questions. How are you, Ms. Boyndexter?
Good. Hi, Steve. Good. Hi. So the direct examination questions were a bit confusing,
um but it seems that you're that the attorney um ultimately um had you talk about the difference
between the first refusal and the second refusal dealing with the um the front general street
frontage um minimum street frontage requirement um so it's true right that in the first plan
with the flag lot and the lot consolidation that that it did generate a refusal for
for minimum street frontage.
for minimum street frontage is that is that true is that true
Is that true?
It generated a comment.
We did not have a refusal letter issued,
but it did generate a comment,
which we addressed with the second plan.
Do you have a copy of that refusal?
It was a comment letter.
It was not a refusal.
No, no, there was a refusal issued for the first plan.
i i can see if it's available i i don't mind sharing it if i have it but yeah that would be
helpful sure um i am sorry my memory might not be right mr masters sake of transparency i am
gonna have to stop sharing the site plan in order to grab it is that all right yeah that's okay um
mr chair if i might uh i i believe that there was initially a refusal that was issued on that
which is what led to the initial appeals that never involved L&I, an appeal against L&I in
the first place, because the appeal against L&I, what we're hearing today, was triggered by the
amended refusal. So I think we can just stipulate to that. There was a refusal issued for the
street frontage because, and again, maybe Ms. Poindester can address this, because
uh by consolidating the lots it was now becoming a new lot and therefore it would have to conform
with the code whereas as separate uh parcels um it's considered non-conforming
apologies that was that was my mistake i i didn't remember the refusal letter being
and i can i think we can stipulate to what mr thank you thank you um mr saverett can you
can you scroll it up so i can see the bottom of the that refusal oh sure yeah uh that's it right
there i just want to just object what's the relevance of this refusal if we amended it and
the appeal was taken on the current refusal i don't see the purpose of discussing a prior refusal
that's not even the subject of this appeal uh well the the relevance is um in the direct testimony
there was arguments that were made that because the unity of use is basically essentially the
same as the lot consolidation, that's why there wasn't refusals either time for the items that
our expert had identified. But in this case, we have one use refusal and two zoning refusals.
And I'm Mr. Masters. I just and I become a moot point if we move forward.
Yeah. And I just want to say and I understand the issues are nuanced here and I may have not done the most perfect job walking through them.
But I did not, I actually was attempting to distinguish the fact that whereas we went with the consolidation method in the first application, which generated this refusal, we abandoned the consolidation tactic and it got our refusal amended by using the unity of use program instead of consolidation.
So I really, I was not saying that there was no difference between plan A and plan B beyond the outer boundaries of the site, which did not change.
But there's actually a significant difference between proceeding with consolidation or proceeding with unity of use.
And it's actually that difference I proposed there that is the reason the lot with refusal was eliminated.
So I just don't want my own questioning or testimony to be mischaracterized.
And while we have this up, Chairman, to the question of access parking needed to be recorded prior to building permit issuance, that's on this refusal, that's on the other refusal, as is the streets department approval required prior to permit, as a civic designer view.
oath. So this does help make that clear. This is on the updated refusal, but there's no relevance
to discussing this refusal as it stands, given we have an amended one, which is the subject of
Steve's appeal. Well, I would disagree because here we have the refusal for the 17-foot three-inch
proposed lot with is basically the flagpole portion of the 6134R-46 property. Would that
be correct, Ms. Poindexter? For the plan where we proposed consolidation, that's correct.
Yes. So you had consolidation, you had two properties, you were consolidating them,
and one of them has this flagpole 17 feet 3 inches across and the code examiner said
that you were required to have 50 feet for the lot width, right?
that you were required to have 50 feet for the lot width right so we withdrew we were we were
required to have 50 feet for any new parcel that's my understanding we were creating a
new parcel by consolidating so we would be required to show the 50 foot width
it does it say new parcel on the refusal in the code does it say it on the refusal
it doesn't need to say it on the refusal um you're being argumentative um isn't it understood
it says lot lot adjustment and that that's really the way the lni examiner they use that
as a synonym for consolidation but that that's where it's featured in the refusal
i'm gonna object to using the old refusal it's not relevant anymore well you're arguing that
our that our experts testimony about 147012a is invalid based on the first refusal and the
second refusal so it's totally completely relevant because we're we're asserting that 147012 should
have been a refusal the second time around and showing it on the first time is relevant to why
it applies on both times mr masters i'm gonna disagree with you just because as you know
from doing this we can address this on reader that's that's really better for your argument
yeah well i i think i lost the script uh here um where where are we right now are we now doing
cross-examination yeah i was trying to do cross-examination yes oh okay because i didn't
i didn't even think brandon mr saverin was done with his direct if he's completed i'd had a couple
questions that i'd like to ask uh i thought mr saverin i thought you were done and i was and i
had begun my cross-examination that's that's that's correct and uh you were you were asking
to i shared this refusal at your request you that's right mr masters all right um let me move
on um excuse me steve before you go mr reuter are you well i mean i mean mr masters can just
finish his cross i would just then i'll just treat my as redirect that's fine okay thank you
mr masters um on um the retaining wall um uh miss point dexter do you do you agree that a
retaining wall is an engineered structure under the under the philadelphia code
I do agree that it's an engineered structure.
And do you agree that structures within 20 feet of a setback are not allowed under the code?
I would have to see the definition again.
so you want to take a look at table 147012 is that what you're asking
related to the question you just asked
Sure, bring up that table.
Mr. Masters, can you share the code provision for her benefit?
Yes, I am trying to get her right now.
I don't think that the one you cited there was not related to your retaining wall argument or her retaining wall comments.
I think that was one of the other sections.
Oh, so you think we have a typo in the expert report?
Or no, I think you just read a different paragraph than the one you intended to read.
Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. That may not be true. Okay. Okay. That's the general
dimensional rules table. I got it. Right. Yeah. Are you able to share that or do you need me to
do that? I'm coming up with it. Here we go. Okay. So this is the table that shows the setback
requirement. Right. I'm asking for the section of the code which dictates what can be included in
that setback. I don't have that site in front of me.
I don't have that site in front of me.
It's my understanding that the setback is measured from the building to the property line,
so that the building structure cannot be within the setback. But I haven't heard that any
engineered structures can't be within a setback. Well, would you agree to this point, Dexter,
that in your in your plan and your site plan you showed the 20-foot setback and you showed
the retaining wall inside that 20-foot setback the the retaining wall is shown within the 20-foot
building setback yeah you agree um i have no further questions uh mr chair i just had a
couple of questions. Thank you. Ms. Poindexter, I guess I'll just follow up with the most recent
question that was asked with respect to retaining walls versus fence walls. You had, had you been
watching the previous portion of this hearing where that issue was raised with Ms. Templeton?
Yes. Okay. So are you familiar with the, I mean, we can pull it up if we have to,
but are you familiar with the section of code
that provides various exemptions
from the setback requirements?
And you would agree that the exemption
allows for fences to be within setbacks
with certain restrictions on height.
Would you agree with that?
So I'm going to very briefly try to show my screen.
If I crash, nice seeing all of you today.
um okay
this should be it
can you see that yes okay uh i would just stay for the board this is the section of the code
zoning code section 201 this is subsection uh 118 this is the definition section could you just read
section 118 can you enlarge that a little bit leonard uh it's not
let me see i don't want to lose you so if you can't leave it alone i'll see what i can do
but in the can are you able to read it in the meantime